Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Review article

Unlocking the circular ecosystem concept: Evolution, current research,

and future directions
Adriana Hofmann Trevisan a,∗, Camila Gonçalves Castro a,c, L.A.V. Gomes b, J. Mascarenhas a,∗
a
São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo, Department of Production Engineering, Av. Trabalhador São Carlense, 400, 13566-590,
São Carlos, SP, Brazil
b
Business Administration Department, School of Economics, Business Administration and Accounting, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto,
908, 05508-010 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
c
Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Minas Gerais – Campus Congonhas, Av. Michael Pereira de Souza, 3007, 36415-000, Congonhas,
MG, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Circular ecosystem is a fast-growing phenomenon in which a set of autonomous but interdependent ac-
Received 14 August 2021 tors jointly create and deliver a coherent circular value proposition to the customer. Although the circular
Revised 22 October 2021
ecosystem represents a promising initial bridge between the circular economy literature and the business
Accepted 25 October 2021
ecosystem literature, studies remain largely descriptive with a conflictive and imprecise theoretical un-
Available online 29 October 2021
derstanding of what a circular ecosystem is and its unique features. Consequently, the literature on cir-
Editor: Prof. Konstantinos Tsagarakis cular ecosystems may tend to diverge due to a proliferation of definitions, rendering the accumulation of
knowledge more difficult. To address this gap, we investigate how circular ecosystems are organized and
Keywords:
Business ecosystem the essential elements incorporated into this type of collaborative structure. Through a systematic liter-
Circular economy ature review, we present the evolution of research over time and provide a framework that synthesizes
Innovation ecosystem the five main and unique elements of a circular ecosystem (1. Value, 2. Actors, 3. Data, Materials and
Orchestration flows, 4. Circular activities and strategies, and 5. Governance). In particular, the results show that a value
proposition that allows multiple cycles of value (e.g. activities that ensure materials continually return-
ing to the industrial system) is a critical aspect of the ecosystem. Also, the actors within this structure
should be balanced to ensure that the circular activities are being successfully performed. The proposed
framework serves to characterize a circular ecosystem and to provide unique features that distinguish it
from non-circular ecosystems. In addition, this conceptual and strategic tool helps researchers to under-
stand how this type of structure creates and captures value and allows companies to identify ecosystem
partners and enhance their circular initiatives. Finally, we summarize the opportunities for future studies.
© 2021 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction defined the term as “an industrial system that is restorative or

Circular economy (CE) is seen as a development strategy that
minimizes tensions related to environmental and economic issues
(Heshmati, 2015). It seeks to disassociate the consumption of goods
and services from the extraction of raw materials (Sauvé et al.,
2016), thus making it possible to reduce the generation of waste
and the depletion of natural resources (Lieder and Rashid, 2016).
The concept of CE is often perceived as a way to foster sus-
tainable development (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Velenturf and Pur-
nell, 2021). The most popular definition of CE was reported by
the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017), which
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: adrianatrevisan@usp.br (A.H.
jana.mascarenhas@usp.br (J. Mascarenhas).
regenerative by intention and design” (Ellen Macarthur Founda-
tion, 2013, p. 7), with a focus on the Rs principle of reduction,
recovering, reuse, and recycling of materials, energy, and waste
(Heshmati, 2015; Kirchherr et al., 2017). In the development of CE,
a multidisciplinary perspective was required to transition from a
linear economy, like ecology, design, economy, and business man-
agement. This allowed that eco-innovations become eco-centric
rather than anthropocentric (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018). Consid-
ering the state, Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018, p. 610) identify four
components to the concept of CE: “1) the recirculation of resources
(…); 2) a multilevel approach, 3) its importance to sustainable de-
velopment, and 4) its close relationship with (…) the society”. In
agreement with, Al-Thani and Al-Ansari (2021, p. 1746) affirm that
“the notion of circularity is fundamental to CE”, and the papers
Trevisan), that study the CE and define it have in common the circularity of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.020
2352-5509/© 2021 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
materials flows, energy and nutrients, showing the amplitude of
applications and importance of CE (Guo, 2018).
The CE address new business opportunities and the per-
formance of innovative solutions for sustainable development
(Veleva and Bodkin, 2018). For instance, companies can struc-
ture business models that satisfy customer needs through prod-
uct functionality rather than the production and sale of artifacts
(Tukker, 2015). Thus, reducing material costs and increasing the
gain in resource efficiency (Tukker, 2015). However, Jäger and Pis-
cicelli (2021) suggests that to implement an effective CE, organi-
zations need to establish multiple partnerships. These partnerships
can be created by companies to support waste collection for recy-
cling (Hsieh et al., 2017), to carry out the transportation, sorting,
and dismantling of used materials (Tate et al., 2019), and to reduce
risks and costs (Veleva and Bodkin, 2018).
Recently, scholars have begun to examine the link between
CE and business ecosystems (BE). For example, Konietzko et al.,
(2020) discussed innovation principles (e.g. collaboration) in circu-
lar ecosystems. And Hsieh et al. (2017) and Parida et al. (2019) ad-
dressed the role of a focal company within an ecosystem to coordi-
nate and orchestrate activities to enhance CE. In essence, scholars
agree that a CE requires a systemic approach rather than looking
at individual companies (Tate et al., 2019) by adopting an ecosys-
tem perspective (Trevisan et al., 2021a). In this vein, recent studies
examined the Carlsberg brewery group, which has initiated global
partnerships with numerous companies to form a circular com-
munity (Stewart et al., 2018). In this ecosystem, Carlsberg main-
tains a collaboration with packaging suppliers that develop prod-
ucts with quality and value, potentially recyclable and reusable
(Niero et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2018). In this regard, the involve-
ment of different stakeholders for circularity enables the integra-
tion of CE and BE literature (Hsieh et al., 2017). While early busi-
ness ecosystem conceptualizations refer to an analogy with natural
ecosystems (Kuusisto, 2017) or as a metaphor for observing the in-
terdependence between actors in joint value creation (Adner and
Kapoor, 2010), recently scholars have proposed the ecosystem as a
structure (Adner, 2017; Ganco et al., 2020). These studies consider
that ecosystems are a set of connected firms with complementary
relations (Gomes et al., 2018; Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020)
that interact with each other in order to materialize a value propo-
sition (Adner, 2017). Prieto-Sandoval et al. (2018) also point that
the interconnections capacity (cooperation), geographical proxim-
ity and alignment of goals is closely associated with the develop-
ment of sustainable value in a CE.
Although growing research suggests the critical role of circular
ecosystems to increase the circularity of resources (Aminoff et al.,
2017; Hsieh et al., 2017; Parida and Wincent, 2019), the current
scholarship offers a limited understanding of two fundamental as-
pects: what a circular ecosystem is and what makes it unique. Re-
cently, studies attempting to bridge CE with BE have failed to pro-
pose a clear definition of a circular ecosystem. The definitions in-
troduced by Aminoff et al. (2017) and Wurster et al. (2020), de-
spite recognizing circular ecosystems as a set of actors that con-
stantly evolve and jointly contribute with a CE, they do not link
the ecosystem output with the circular value proposition. More-
over, using the term ‘ecosystem’ without discussing the elements
that make circular ecosystem unique offers little guidance about
how academics and practitioners can analyze this type of struc-
ture. For example, academics can compare different phenomena
and treat them as a circular ecosystem. While some scholars em-
ployed the concept to address a community of actors (Langen et al.,
2020), others used to examine the digital platforms in the context
of new mobility solutions (Konietzko et al., 2020a). In this sense,
we argue that this term has been used ambiguously, lacking more
rigor. Without a robust definition, this emergent field may fail in
providing theoretical and empirical guidance.
287
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
To address this, we propose the following research question:
What is circular ecosystem?; and what are its main characteris-
tics? This study investigates how circular ecosystems are defined
and identifies the essential elements incorporated into this type
of collaborative structure. Considering that a CE calls for a sys-
temic solution and the circular ecosystem could be promising for
this, we initially review the definitions of circular ecosystems, an-
alyze real published cases, and then propose a suitable defini-
tion. In contrast to previous studies that link theoretical domains
vaguely and superficially (e.g. Antikainen and Valkokari, 2016;
Narayan and Tidström, 2020), this review presents the main char-
acteristics that make ecosystems circular. The development of well-
defined ecosystem characteristics might be a stepstone to unleash
the potential of CE (Sehnem et al., 2019). While several articles re-
viewed the CE and business ecosystem research fields separately
(see Gomes et al., 2018; Heshmati, 2015), this study is the first that
carried out a systematic literature review combining both topics.
Thus, the present study contributes to the literature by proposing
a framework that integrates the two research areas (i.e., circular
economy and business ecosystem) and serves as a theoretical tool
for scholars and practitioners to examine the unique and complex
nature of circular ecosystems. The proposed framework synthesizes
the five main elements of this type of structure (1. Value, 2. Actors,
3. Data, Materials, and flows, 4. Circular activities and strategies,
and 5. Governance). The elements identified in this study reinforce
that circular ecosystem are distinct from other types of ecosystems.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 presents the research methodology procedure.
Section 3 discusses the results, illustrates our theoretical frame-
work, and shows the future research directions with the main
interest topics for further studies. Finally, Section 4 describes the
conclusion and limitations of this work.
2. Methods
In order to report the state of the art of research that integrates
the fields of circular economy and business ecosystems, a system-
atic literature review (SLR) approach was adopted. We applied this
method for three main reasons. First, this scientific technique al-
lows collecting data from the literature and helps refine and syn-
thesize information (Mulrow, 1994). Second, the SLR encourages
constructing a solid knowledge base through greater methodolog-
ical rigor (Tranfield et al., 2003). Third, the review of articles al-
lows identifying research gaps that have not yet been explored
and support the direction of future studies (Paul and Criado, 2020).
The systematic review was carried out following the four steps of
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-
Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009). The review pro-
cess is illustrated in Fig. 1.
2.1. Identification
In this stage, we define the scope of the study and the key-
words that were used in the databases. In order to identify the
records, the search string combined keywords from the circular
economy and business ecosystem fields. For the field of circu-
lar economy, terms adopted in previous works were used, as in
Fernandes et al. (2020) and Nobre and Tavares (2020). Such terms
include “circular economy”, “circulatory economy”, “circular sup-
ply chain”, “circular ecology”, “circle economy”, “circularity”, “cir-
cle”, “circular” and “closed loops”. For the business ecosystem field,
the keywords used were “business ecosystem,” “innovation ecosys-
tem,” and “business network.” According to Gomes et al. (2018),
“business ecosystems” and “innovation ecosystems” are often un-
derstood as synonyms by the literature. In addition, both theoret-
ical lenses have been used in research focusing on circular econ-
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
Fig. 1. Systematic review steps according to the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009).
omy (e.g., Konietzko et al., 2020). The term “business ecosystem”
is often used to describe business networks (Mäntymäki et al.,
2018). Previous reviews suggest that these keywords are often used
by scholars (Scaringella and Radziwon, 2018). Finally, we empha-
size that we decided not to just adopt the word “ecosystem” be-
cause it is used without clear criteria and as a buzzword in the
management field (Pidun et al., 2019), without an exact definition.
Therefore, the search string used was ("Business Ecosystem∗ " OR
"Innovation Ecosystem∗ " OR "Business Network∗ ") AND ("Circular
Econom∗ " OR "Circulatory Economy" OR "Circular Supply Chain"
OR "Circular Ecology" OR "Circle Economy" OR "Circularity" OR
“Circle” OR "Circular" OR "Closed Loops").
The Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, EBSCO and Pro-
Quest databases were used to select the papers. These databases
are widely known and contain a large part of the available scien-
tific literature. The searches were conducted in February 2021 con-
sidering articles published in peer-reviewed journals and at confer-
ences. We did not restrict the search regarding the time-frame and
all articles published until February 2021 were considered. Also,
only articles available in the English language were evaluated. The
defined search field was title, abstract and keywords. In total, 242
articles were returned after duplicate elimination.
2.2. Screening
The first filter used to assess the papers’ relevance was the
complete reading of each abstract. Studies that focused exclusively
on the level of business models without addressing the ecosys-
288
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
tems’ perspective were excluded. We also checked whether the
documents included the circular economy and business ecosystem
topics, considered one of our inclusion criteria. In this step we re-
moved 168 papers that do not fulfill our criteria, resulting in 74
articles to be assessed.
2.3. Eligibility and inclusion
After reading the abstracts, the second filter was the complete
reading of the documents. Articles that had their roots and the-
oretical foundations not tied to the concept of business ecosys-
tems (see Scaringella and Radziwon, 2018) were not included in
the sample (e.g., works on industrial ecology, eco-industrial parks,
open innovation). This last step resulted in the removal of 50 ar-
ticles. Thus, the final set of items evaluated was 24 publications,
and the first article that integrates the BE with CE literature was
published in 2016 (Antikainen and Valkokari, 2016).
2.4. Literature analysis
To assist the data analysis process, we use the Maxqda® profes-
sional software. This tool enabled the coding and categorization of
textual segments in each article. Then, all codes generated were re-
viewed by more than one author to ensure greater methodological
rigor. The documents were analyzed through a qualitative process
of content analysis (see supplementary material). Based on Elo and
Kyngäs (2008), the inductive content analysis approach was cho-
sen because the circular ecosystem phenomenon is relatively re-
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
Fig. 2. Example of data-structure tree regarding the “value” element.
cent, the body of knowledge is still fragmented, and, there is not
a general framework of what a circular ecosystem is. Thus, we
decided to avoid confirmation bias by coding segments into pre-
established categories. The main questions that guided the coding
process were: (i) How is a circular business ecosystem defined? (ii)
How does circular ecosystem research evolve? (iii) What are the
main theoretical elements of a circular ecosystem?
The coding process followed two steps as recommended by
Miles et al. (2014). In the first cycle we assessed the definitions,
examples of ecosystems case and characteristics pointed out by
the literature. The codes were created through a descriptive cod-
ing that synthesizes an idea contained in a paragraph or sentence
(Miles et al., 2014). The first coding cycle extracted 101 textual seg-
ments that were grouped into 29 different codes. These codes were
revised, merged, and modified during the coding process. For ex-
ample, the code “orchestrator” generated 9 subcodes. At the end
of this first cycle, 19 codes representing the characteristics of cir-
cular ecosystems were defined. Fig. 2 shows part of the code tree
(data structure), resulting from the coding process. In the second
cycle, we reviewed the 19 generated codes searching for patterns
and used Maxqda’s visual tool to create the five categories that
best represented the data. This process was carried out through
discussions between the first and fourth authors of this study.
Also, to provide the research avenues and future trends
(Section 3.3), we critically examined the main gaps, and research
opportunities reported by the papers of our sample. To sum up,
the dimensions analyzed were general information from the pub-
lication, focus of the study, examples of ecosystems, definitions of
a circular ecosystem, characteristics of the ecosystems, gaps, and
future studies.
3. Results and discussion
In this section, we present the main results of our system-
atic literature review. First, we provide a descriptive analysis and
overview of the current scholarship (including the used method-
ology, countries, year, and source of publications) (Section 3.1).
Second, we report the evolution of studies that began to bridge
the circular economy literature with business ecosystem literature
289
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
Table 1
Methodologies used in the selected paper.
Used methodologies N° of papers
Literature review 4
(Multiple) Case study 11
Survey 2
Mixed methods 7
(Section 3.2.1). These results are especially important for novice re-
searchers to gain an overview of the academic field. Following that
(Section 3.2.2), we discuss the definitions of a circular ecosystem
presented by the previous literature. Drawing upon on this discus-
sion, we propose an improved conceptualization of circular ecosys-
tem. Fourth, we highlight the main elements of a circular ecosys-
tem that make this type of ecosystem unique (Section 3.2.3). Fi-
nally, we outline some future research directions for moving the
circular ecosystem field forward (Section 3.3).
3.1. Descriptive analysis of selected papers
This section provides a descriptive analysis of the 24 selected
articles. The data were analyzed according to:
• Research method used;
• Distribution of papers by source of publication and journals;
• Distribution of papers over time; and
• Distribution of papers by the main author’s country of origin.
As shown in Table 1, most studies used the case study method
or multiple case studies (11 papers). This suggests that the pre-
dominance of research in this area is qualitative. Qualitative re-
search often applies interviews and case studies, while quantita-
tive studies focus on conducting surveys (De Giacomo and Bleis-
chwitz, 2020). Only 2 papers performed quantitative analysis, 4 pa-
pers used literature review, and 7 articles applied mixed methods,
including case studies with literature reviews or conducting work-
shops.
There are various papers distributed across journals and pub-
lishing sources, totaling 17 divided between journals and con-
ferences (Fig. 3). Most articles were published in the Journal of
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
Fig. 3. Paper distribution across journals and publishing sources.
Fig. 4. Paper distribution across year of publication.
Cleaner Production (5 in total), followed by the Sustainability jour-
nal with 4 publications. Only 2 conferences presented papers inte-
grating both themes (CE and BE): the procedia CIRP and proceed-
ings of the International Conference on Business Excellence.
In terms of paper distribution over time (Fig. 4), from 2016,
studies started integrating the ecosystem perspective with CE (see
Section 3.2.1). In 2018 there was an expressive number of publica-
tions compared to previous years (six papers). 2020 was the most
considerable year, containing nine publications in total. In 2021, we
identified only one publication due to the period selected for this
review (until February 2021). However, it is expected that there
will be more publications on the topic, as there are signs of aca-
demic attention focused on the field.
The analysis of papers by country is presented in Fig. 5 Eu-
rope is the continent with the most significant number of publi-
cations (Finland, Denmark, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom,
290
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
Fig. 5. Paper distribution across countries of publication.
Germany, Sweden, Romania, and Italy), totaling more than half of
the selected items (20 papers). Finland is the country with the
most prominent academic contribution (5 in total), followed by
Denmark, France, and Netherlands with three publications each. In
North America, the United States and Canada published 1 article
each. In Asia, only Taiwan participated in the selected items (1 pa-
per). Latin America has one publication from Brazil.
Therefore, research on the intersection of circular economy and
business ecosystems began to be developed in 2016. The predomi-
nance of studies is typically qualitative and, to date, most of them
have been published in the Journal of Cleaner Production. Despite
showing a growth trend, this theme cannot yet be considered a
global interest since most of research is concentrated in Europe.
This result can be explained in part because the concept of CE has
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
Fig. 6. Research evolution of the integrated fields of CE and ecosystem from 2016 to 2021.
its origins in European, as pointed out by Geissdoerfer et al. (2017),
and also because the European Union directs great efforts towards
circular policies (Calisto Friant et al., 2021).
3.2. Content analysis
While the descriptive analysis provided an overview of how the
emergent research on circular ecosystem is structured (e.g. main
journals), in the following section, we present the content anal-
ysis. We begin by showing how the research has evolved. Later,
we present the different conceptualizations of circular ecosystem.
Building on these definitions, we present a refined definition to
move the field forward. Finally, we discuss the main elements of
the circular ecosystem concept.
3.2.1. Evolution of research that integrate business ecosystem and
circular economy fields
After Moore (1993) introduced the term business ecosystem in
1993, several studies using the concept began to be developed
in business, management, economics, and computer science ar-
eas (Scaringella and Radziwon, 2018). Regarding the term Circu-
lar Economy, since 2012 there has been a significant increase in
studies in the area. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation played a cru-
cial role in spreading the topic between industry and academia
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). However, only after the year 2016, both
terms (BE and CE) began to be used together in the same study.
Fig. 6 shows the evolution of research integrating the two themes.
Antikainen and Valkokari (2016) were among the first authors
who introduced business ecosystems’ perspective in a framework
to innovate in circular business models. Unlike other research that
focuses only on the level of individual companies’ business mod-
els, Antikainen and Valkokari (2016) added the ecosystem view.
Although insightful, this work did not provide a definition of what
circular ecosystem is and the main elements that distinguish this
type of ecosystem. Yet, Hsieh et al. (2017) published the first case
of a circular ecosystem. In this study, the authors discussed how
a glass recycling ecosystem has developed over time and how it is
291
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
orchestrated. Aminoff et al. (2017) proposed a framework for trans-
forming linear industrial systems into circular ecosystems. Later,
studies began to investigate the biological cycle of CE through
an ecosystem perspective (e.g. Pigford et al., 2018). Coherent with
prior work (EMF, 2015), we mean the biological cycle as the flow
of renewable materials, while the technical cycle corresponds to
the finite materials that are reinserted in the productive systems
after recovery. These pioneers studies discussed how innovation
ecosystems support sustainable circular agriculture (Pigford et al.,
2018) and the central role of innovation ecosystems in develop-
ing a restorative bioeconomy (Stadler and Chauvet, 2018). Still in
2018, the ecosystems panorama was applied to a real case of CE
(Stewart et al., 2018) and in the implementation of national circu-
lar action plans (Whicher et al., 2018). In that respective year, a
study was published on creating value through the use of the in-
ternet of things in business ecosystems (Hakanen and Rajala, 2018).
This study was one of the first to shed light on how digitalization
plays a decisive role in an CE ecosystem, especially for tracking and
sharing material life cycle information among stakeholders.
In 2019, one of the main studies was published. The spe-
cific study was carried out by Tate et al. (2019), who made an
analogy between natural and business ecosystems based on the
principles of biomimetics. The authors argued the need to have
an appropriate balance of actors for a successful transformation
from linear businesses to circular ecosystems. Later, further stud-
ies examined other aspects related to business ecosystems and
circular economy. For example, Staicu (2019) discussed social en-
trepreneurship as a key factor in clothing reuse ecosystems. And
Türkeli et al. (2019) examined cell phone repair ecosystems in
three different countries, addressing motivations, relationships, and
threats. Furthermore, some researchers investigated the role of
ecosystem orchestrators. Parida et al. (2019) explored how focal
companies govern, structure, and manage a set of actors towards
a CE. Press et al. (2019) discussed the construction of legitimacy of
focal companies as an essential mechanism for orchestration and
business development.
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
More recently, in 2020, scholars addressed the biological cycle
and the links with business issues (Donner et al., 2020; Näyhä,
2020). As with previous studies, Donner et al. (2020) and Näyhä
(2020) used the ecosystem perspective when discussing business
models that enhance CE in the agricultural and forestry sector, re-
spectively. Another study proposed a framework that integrates the
ecosystem vision in the innovation of business models, consider-
ing the influence of value creation, delivery, and capture by a focal
company and in the ecosystem as a whole (Madsen, 2020).
CE academic research, while including ecosystem theory, still
focuses on the theme of business models. There is a gap in the lit-
erature regarding different circular businesses in the same commu-
nity of actors. Konietzko et al. (2020a; 2020b) verified the need for
a systemic approach to CE, and then they proposed principles for
circular ecosystem innovation and a tool to maximize the circular
potential of ecosystems. Finally, Bertassini et al. (2021) proposed a
tool to map stakeholders and identify possible values captured by
them within the ecosystem.
The evolution of research leads us to summarize that studies
integrating the concepts of circular economy and business ecosys-
tems is a relatively recent trend and has several focuses, includ-
ing technical and biological cycles. Although there are studies that
have developed tools and frameworks that support the transition
to circular ecosystems, most of them still focus on the level of the
individual business model of a single company. There is a concep-
tual need to establish the innovation as the ecosystem core, since
the locus of an ecosystem is not the firms, but the focal value
proposition (Shipilov and Gawer, 2020). In this vein, the adoption
of circularity in the ecosystem as a whole and each member’s in-
dividual influence to materialize a focal circular solution remains
unexplored by scholars.
3.2.2. Definition of a circular ecosystem
Before discussing the current definitions of a circular ecosys-
tem, its strengths and limitation, and, further, to develop an en-
hanced definition of a circular ecosystem, we discuss the main
characteristics of business ecosystems. To this end, we use the ap-
praisal of business ecosystem literature. Although authors in our
sample provide some clues on the key features of BE, we built
on BE literature to improve the understanding of what a circular
ecosystem is. This is an important step to understand how BE can
be bridged with CE. Later, we focused our content analysis in our
sample to discuss the conceptualizations of a circular ecosystem.
A business ecosystem is composed of interconnected actors (or-
ganizations and individuals) (Iansiti and Levien, 2004), who estab-
lish relations of cooperation and competition (Moore, 1993), and
that collectively work to deliver a value solution to the customer
(Adner, 2006; Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Moore, 1993). More re-
cently studies have proposed new ecosystem characteristics, such
as multilateral interdependence structure (Adner, 2017; Adner and
Kapoor, 2010) and complementarity (Jacobides et al., 2018). The
interdependence structure means that the actors are connected
within the ecosystem by exchanging components and materials
(Ganco et al., 2020; Thomas and Autio, 2020). Multilateral implies
that actors establish relationships beyond A and B (bilateral rela-
tions) (Adner, 2017). And complementarity specifies the relation-
ships between the actors, which are unique or supermodular (see
Jacobides et al., 2018).
The employ of a business ecosystem in a CE setting is not auto-
matic and requires some theoretical bridges. For example, circular
economy researchers argue that to be considered circular, a system
needs to be restorative and regenerative (Ellen Macarthur Foun-
dation, 2013), to close the material cycle (Kirchherr et al., 2017),
adopting a win-win approach (Homrich et al., 2017), which mini-
mizes the waste of energy and resources through different activi-
ties such as recycling, repair, remanufacturing, reuse, among others
292
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Consequently, these aspects require re-
thinking and elaborating on which main characteristics of BE are
pertinent to CE and which characteristics are unique to circular
ecosystems.
In our reviewed sample, only two definitions of circular ecosys-
tem have been identified (Aminoff et al., 2017; Wurster et al.,
2020). Aminoff et al., 2017, p. 530) define CE ecosystem as
“co-evolving, dynamic and potentially self-organizing configurations
(Vargo and Lusch, 2011), in which actors integrate resources and
co-create circular value flows in interaction with each other”.
Wurster et al., 2020) integrate the concept of CE and innovation
ecosystem and conceptualize as “the evolving set(s) of actors, ac-
tivities, and artefacts, and the institutions and relations that are im-
portant for the innovative performance within a circular economy.”
These definitions address important aspects such as the need to
co-create value and the non-static characteristic of an ecosystem.
However, they do not consider characteristics such as interdepen-
dence between the actors (a major feature of ecosystems) and het-
erogeneity. Indeed, these definitions have not considered impor-
tant features of ecosystems in CE settings. A circular ecosystem
represents more than the junction between business ecosystem
and circular economy: it is a unique phenomenon. According to
Konietzko et al., 2020), “an ecosystem perspective on a circular econ-
omy is both needed and useful for firms to capture circularity as a
systemic property.”
Scholars have used the theoretical lens of the business ecosys-
tem (Adner, 2006; Moore, 1993) when addressing circular ecosys-
tems. For example, Tate et al. (2019) propose principles to trans-
form existing ecosystems into circular ecosystems (Tate et al.,
2019), while Konietzko et al. (2020a) identify a set of principles for
innovating in circular-based ecosystems (Konietzko et al., 2020a).
These works showed the business ecosystem is a promising theo-
retical lens to examine the CE phenomenon. However, these stud-
ies also indicate the need of further development on the inte-
gration between business ecosystem and CE aspects. Addition-
ally, the proliferation of the circular ecosystem terms, without a
conceptualization, does not contribute to the development of ro-
bust literature. For example, while some studies use “CE ecosys-
tem” (Narayan and Tidström, 2020), “circular ecosystem innova-
tion” (Konietzko et al., 2020a, 2020b), others employ “circular busi-
ness ecosystem” (Bertassini et al., 2021). The proliferation of ter-
minologies can contribute to divergence and fragmentation. Thus,
there is a need to examine circular ecosystems closely (Hsieh et al.,
2017).
Some studies refer to a circular ecosystem without defining
or characterizing the unit of analysis (Konietzko et al., 2020a;
Whicher et al., 2018). Other studies define it (Aminoff et al., 2017;
Wurster et al., 2020), but they miss several essential elements of
the ecosystem theory. For example, the articles do not mention
the presence of heterogeneous actors’ interdependence with mul-
tilateral relationships, and consequently, their definitions are sim-
ilar to other theoretical constructs such as supply chain. Second,
current concepts do not highlight that actors play different roles
to make the circular value proposition tangible. Third, the papers
place the ecosystem locus on actors or orchestrators instead of the
value proposition or innovation. Without a clear definition, the re-
search field may face difficulties in terms of identifying the circu-
lar ecosystem phenomenon. Second, academics may compare dis-
tinct phenomena, rendering the accumulation of knowledge more
difficult, and, consequently, hindering the growth of a more inte-
grated field of research. Therefore, based on our understanding and
the previous discussions, we define a circular ecosystem as: a sys-
tem of interdependent and heterogeneous actors that go beyond in-
dustrial boundaries and direct the collective efforts towards a circular
value proposition, providing opportunities for economic and environ-
mental sustainability. In this definition, we recognize the concept of
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
Fig. 7. Circular ecosystem conceptual framework.
(Moore, 1993) which argues the interactions of a community of ac-
tors towards a marketable solution. We highlight the value propo-
sition and the ecosystem output emphasized by Adner (2017) and
Thomas and Autio (2020). We do not draw geographic limits for
the ecosystem since all the essential actors to make the value
proposition tangible (Adner, 2017) will be part of the ecosystem
regardless of its location. And we emphasize the main interests be-
hind a circular economy (financial and environmental advantages)
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). This definition is an essential step to-
wards understand previous and subsequent research and propose
a common language. However, although necessary, this definition
fails to cover the distinctive features of circular ecosystem. We also
addressed which elements make a circular ecosystem unique. In-
creasing the understanding of these elements is key to differentiate
circular ecosystems from other ones.
3.2.3. Elements of a circular ecosystem
So far, we have presented the evolution of studies that inte-
grated CE and BE concepts and provided an appropriate definition.
In this section, we synthesized the elements of a circular ecosys-
tem identified in the literature and provided a framework for cre-
ating a unified vision among scholars (Fig. 7). The five elements
identified were: 1. Value, 2. Actors, 3. Data, Materials and flows,
4. Circular activities and strategies, and 5. Governance. Below, we
describe each one.
Value. Among all the elements of a circular ecosystem, value
is the most critical concept. This element encompasses (1) a cir-
cular value proposition, (2) value co-creation, (3) collective value
capture, and (4) multiple circles of value. Through a circular value
proposition, materialized collectively, the various actors align and
perform activities structuring an ecosystem. Although scholars in-
dicate that focal value proposition is a central feature of business
ecosystem, a distinguishing feature of value proposition in a cir-
cular ecosystem is the circularity. Our review shows that environ-
mental sustainability can be achieved if the actors establish sys-
temic goals (Konietzko et al., 2020a) and co-create collaborative
value (Aminoff et al., 2017). However, it is the continuous and col-
lective value capture that will keep the ecosystem healthy. For ex-
ample, the Spring Pool Glass recycling ecosystem transforms recy-
cled glass into various products that are commercialized within its
ecosystem and to external markets (Hsieh et al., 2017). The collec-
tive and fair value capture is important to ensure that ecosystem
members remain committed and engaged (Konietzko et al., 2020a;
Stewart et al., 2018). This engagement results in multiple circles
of value that require more structured collaborative configurations
than a single circle industrial system (Aminoff et al., 2017).
293
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
Actors. In a circular ecosystem, a set of actors is con-
nected to develop and commercialize a marketable innovation
(Konietzko et al., 2020a). It is not possible to provide a circu-
lar solution if there is no joint effort towards a circular purpose.
Our study reveals six main aspects that must be carefully ana-
lyzed when addressing circular ecosystems. The first is heterogene-
ity and interdependence. The heterogeneity of partners facilitates
resolving problems within the ecosystem due to the presence of
diverse complementary capabilities (Tate et al., 2019).These com-
plementarities need to be managed. Yest, Parida et al. (2019) ar-
gue that a structure of interdependence among the actors can
help the reduction of conflicts. The second aspect is the align-
ment of interests. Both individual and collective interests need to
be aligned in an ecosystem that wants to achieve circular goals
(Konietzko et al., 2020a). Third, the definition of the role and re-
sponsibilities of each actor. This aspect supports the assessment
of ecosystem members (Parida et al., 2019). Tate et al. (2019) ar-
gues that in a business ecosystem the actors are divided accord-
ing to four main roles, namely producer, consumer, scavenger and
decomposer. Fourth, reliability among business partners. Lack of
trust can become a barrier to the entry of new actors and in-
formation sharing (Hakanen and Rajala, 2018). Fifth, an appropri-
ate balance because, beyond heterogeneity, the ecosystem needs
to ensure sufficient actors to carry out the circularity of resources
(Tate et al., 2019). And finally, circular ecosystems require an or-
chestrator. In our selected sample, the orchestrator is often a pri-
vate company (e.g. Hakanen and Rajala, 2018; Parida et al., 2019)
or a public institution (e.g. Langen et al., 2020) responsible for co-
ordinating and supporting the activities performed by the other
players (Press et al., 2019; Hsieh et al., 2017). Our analysis revealed
that this keystone actor is essential in circular ecosystems to pro-
vide infrastructure (Langen et al., 2020), protect smaller compa-
nies (Hsieh et al., 2017), and ensure that circular principles are
implemented (Parida et al., 2019). In a circular ecosystem, the or-
chestrator might need to restructure its business model. For ex-
ample, in a fascinating study, Langen et al. (2020) examined the
port of Amsterdam port development company, which had steered
its business model towards a more service-oriented perspective
(Langen et al., 2020). Also, this key-actor should create legitimacy
associated with circular initiatives (Press et al., 2019). The legiti-
macy of an orchestrator company strengthens relations with stake-
holders (Hsieh et al., 2017) and enhances establishing collabora-
tion, project development, and corporate sustainability (Press et al.,
2019). Moreover, we suggest that the orchestrator needs to assess
the ecosystem. This assessment can occur in two main moments:
1) ecosystem creation and 2) and when the ecosystem has already
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
structured towards a CE. Konietzko et al. (2020a) argue that test-
ing a minimum viable ecosystem can provide insights into possible
risks and dependencies among actors. The assessment of the exist-
ing ecosystem helps the orchestrator analyze the roles and respon-
sibilities of players and visualize potential opportunities for the
entry of new actors (Parida et al., 2019). Overall, although every
business ecosystem is also composed of actors, in circular ecosys-
tems, these actors play unique roles regarding the circularity of re-
sources.
Data, materials, and flows. Our review showed that four main
aspects are associated with the data and material flows in circu-
lar ecosystem. First, there is a need to reframe and rethink how
resources are used (Konietzko et al., 2020a), including data. The
ecosystem must look at existing resources and search for alter-
natives that maximize the circulation of materials. The data gen-
erated can serve as inputs for the development and application
of more circular strategies (Hakanen and Rajala, 2018). There is
a trend towards applying digital technologies in a world that is
becoming even more “smart.” Second, data from different sources
must be integrated in order to have an ecosystem overview. The
search for synergies in the exchange of materials and data should
be continuous. Third, resource sharing is an aspect that ecosys-
tem participants must reinforce. This sharing can be of tangi-
ble (e.g., products) or intangible resources (intellectual property).
Tate et al. (2019) and Narayan and Tidström (2020) suggest that
ecosystems may adopt blockchain technology to store and share in-
formation about the composition of materials included in products
in a decentralized and transparent way, for instance. Finally, it is
necessary to manage the information and materials flows. Carefully
managed data can support decision-making and increase value co-
creation (Konietzko et al., 2020a). The data, material, and flows are
also associated with communication within the ecosystem. In some
cases, communication and data exchange can be facilitated through
a platform that connects actors (Konietzko et al., 2020a). However,
it is important to highlight that security and the sharing of sen-
sitive information must be ethically respected, allowing to build
trust between the ecosystem members. Overall, while flows are a
central feature of both business and circular ecosystems, in circular
ecosystems, as our review showed, data and material flows have a
prominent role.
Circular activities and strategies. This element reinforces that
in addition to the ecosystem having a circular value proposition,
the other activities performed by actors must be environmentally
oriented towards sustainability. In other words, our results suggest
that ecosystem members can adopt circular strategies (e.g. recy-
cling) and the activities required to implement such strategies go
beyond those essential to materialize the value proposition. In this
regard, three relevant aspects are incorporated into this element.
First, multiple activities can be performed in different domains.
For example, Hakanen and Rajala (2018) examined the MaterialCo
ecosystem. In this particular ecosystem there are activities to op-
timizes manufacturing processes (focus on processes), enhances
steel recycling (focus on product), and facilitates the provision of
data to other network participants (focus on service) (Hakanen and
Rajala, 2018). Second, when considering the network of actors, it
is essential to focus on those strategies that have collective pur-
poses. Establishing a common vision through goals to be achieved
jointly is one of the principles for innovating in circular ecosystems
(Konietzko et al., 2020a). Third, these strategies should provide eco-
nomic and environmental gains. In the ecosystem, there must be a
financial return for it to remain healthy. If environmental impacts
were integrated into operating costs, the actors would be more en-
gaged in improving the network as a whole (Stewart et al., 2018).
Consequently, there would be a greater perception of the environ-
mental and financial return arising from the implementation of cir-
cular strategies.
294
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
Governance. Finally, the last element is governance. Governance
supports coordination and the sharing of value between the ac-
tors (Aminoff et al., 2017), which is one of the determining factors
for the success of BE. However, our review identified that gover-
nance has unique nuances in circular ecosystems. Our results sug-
gest that governance should be non-hierarchical and collaborative.
Participants in the circular ecosystem described by Konietzko et al.
(2020a) reinforce the importance of being treated equally with-
out a hierarchical division of power. Unlike supply-chains, circu-
lar ecosystem is characterized by greater independence and hierar-
chical flexibility among actors, which imply that these actors have
relative autonomy in their decision-making (Langen et al., 2020).
However, in order to guarantee coordination between the essen-
tial activities that make the value proposal tangible, the business
ecosystem scholars (Jacobides et al., 2018) suggests that a set of
rules and standards must be followed by the members. These rules
can be established by government agencies (e.g., legislation im-
posed on waste recycling) (Hsieh et al., 2017) or by the ecosys-
tem orchestrator who negotiate individually with the other play-
ers (Parida et al., 2019). Especially in circular ecosystems, the gov-
ernment plays an important role in establishing environmental
laws.
Fig. 7 illustrates the elements of a circular ecosystem explained
above. Furthermore, based on the elements identified in the liter-
ature, we proposed a set of guiding questions to be explored by
ecosystem members (Appendix). These questions were presented
in order to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of each
element. For example, the questions allow ecosystem actors to
reflect on the value proposition and on which actors and their
roles are essential to making the solution tangible. According to
Adner (2017), actors can have different and conflicting views of the
value proposition. Questions also allow members of the circular
ecosystem to ponder the structure needed to keep an ecosystem
functioning.
To sum up, a circular ecosystem has five main elements: 1.
Value, 2. Actors, 3. Data, Materials and flows, 4. Circular activities
and strategies, and 5. Governance. We highlight the main aspects
corresponding to each element. Such aspects and elements serve
as a model to characterize the ecosystem, provide an overview of
how it is self-organized and how it creates and captures value. The
framework assists in identifying the core actors, circular strategies
employed, and under which conditions and governance rules the
constellation of actors is structured. Moreover, we provide theoret-
ical and practical guidance to differentiate circular ecosystem from
other types of inter-organizational networks.
3.3. Circular ecosystem: Future research directions
In this review, we also found some research gaps related to the
theme. The need for empirical studies is latent, being highlighted
by seven authors, and six others affirm there is a need to expand
studies in CE. There are still many research questions that need to
be answered in-depth to support the practice. The main research
avenues and possible research questions are illustrated in Table 2.
They are located at the interface between the elements of the cir-
cular BE presented in this paper.
The first research stream is related to the transition from tra-
ditional ecosystems and business models to circular ecosystems, as
suggested by Parida et al. (2019). Langen et al. (2020) also indi-
cated that future research should be carried out to compare efforts
to nurture CE and its impact on the transition of businesses, in
their case, ports. Ma et al. (2018) suggest researching how startups
trade within the ecosystem, how they combine short and long-
term strategies, and profit-seeking in the transformation to the
circular economy. This stream has relevance within the theme of
value creation, in understanding how the relationship between the
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298

Table 2
Research avenues and opportunities for further studies.

Research Avenues Description Possible Research Questions Keywords Main Authors

Transition to Conducting further empirical studies How do companies negotiate sustainable Circular transition (Langen et al.,
circular ecosystem comparing ecosystems in transition to the value creation and engage in long-term 2020; Ma et al.,
CE, what strategies are involved, strategies? 2018)
relationships, and the needs of the circular
transition.
Understanding how the transition to the What role does governance play in Circular transition; (Langen et al.,
circular economy of ecosystems occurs supporting the transition and development Socio-technical 2020;
within a socio-technical context. of circular ecosystems? systems Pigford et al.,
2018)
Understanding whether transformations and What are the changes in business practices Scale up; circular (Langen et al.,
new business models within the circular when scaling a circular initiative? What are business models 2020; Staicu, 2019)
ecosystem are scalable. the best efforts to nurture a circular
ecosystem?
Circular ecosystem Analyzing how the evolution and growth of Do ecosystem regulation mechanisms affect Legitimacy; (Ma et al., 2018;
structure the ecosystem and the mechanisms of an the legitimacy of the circular ecosystem? regulation Press et al., 2019)
organization affect legitimacy. What is the best way to deal with ecosystem
regulation?
Investigating the mechanisms of How does the relationship and engagement Engagement; (Aminoff et al.,
self-organization and coevolution, between actors in the ecosystem affect its relationships 2017; Parida et al.,
broadening the engagement analysis of the structure? 2019)
actors of the ecosystem.
Innovation Increasing knowledge about innovation What are the best innovation practices Capabilities; (Madsen, 2020;
mechanisms practices within a circular ecosystem, within a circular ecosystem? Do practices innovation Press et al., 2019)
identifying when they happen, and what vary according to the type of circular
types of innovation are most likely to occur. ecosystem or relationship involved?
Understanding how the best practices/forms How do the processes of innovation and Data integration; (Narayan and
of integration between the actors of the value capture use the data generated by the Ecosystems Tidström, 2020;
circular ecosystem are and how they integration between the ecosystem actors? Whicher et al.,
promote better results of collaboration and 2018)
innovation.
Impacts of Develop a theory on how digitalization How are the dynamics of a circular BE that Ecosystems (Del Vecchio et al.,
digitalization on affects the creation of value and uses digital technologies to create value? dynamics 2020;
circular ecosystem consequently the dynamics of Hakanen and
competitiveness, work organization, and Rajala, 2018;
sustainability. Narayan and
Tidström, 2020)
What is the impact of digitization on the Digitalization (Ma et al., 2018)
development of the ecosystem and the impacts; value
creation of startups? co-creation
Investigating digitalization and its influence How is the value and performance of a Innovation (Del Vecchio et al.,
on exploitation strategies given the large circular ecosystem affected by digitization? 2020)
volume of knowledge available and how it
changes competition between ecosystems.
Understanding the risks involved in using How sensitive is the data within the Risks; data (Hakanen and
digital technologies within the ecosystem. ecosystem, and what risks are involved from sensibility Rajala, 2018)
it?

actors of the BE interferes in the development of their strategies in
the short and long term, understanding their evolution and trans-
formations over time.
With the evolution of circular ecosystem, in the second re-
search stream we emphasize the need for more research on the
structure of the circular ecosystem as the actors organize them-
selves and co-evolve. Aminoff et al. (2017) suggests that when
we understand the different relationships within the BE, we will
have additional knowledge about its management and expand the
knowledge about the orchestration and engagement of the ac-
tors. Tate et al. (2019) points out that understanding the emer-
gence of the BE is also a research opportunity. An identified point
is the need to know how this structure affects the legitimacy of
the ecosystem and the circular value proposition and how govern-
ment regulations influence it in the sectors in which it operates
(Press et al., 2019).
The third research stream should focus on innovation mecha-
nisms developed within the circular ecosystem and require col-
laboration between different actors. Konietzko et al. (2020a) un-
derstand that innovation will not happen in the usual way, and
Press et al. (2019) point out that it will be necessary to under-
stand the best integration practices among the actors, and which
types of innovation are more likely to happen. We strongly recom-
mend studies on which actions within the circular ecosystem have
the best results for innovation. Wurster et al. (2020) affirm that, in
addition to value chains, if the actors adopt the concept of ecosys-
tem and engage stakeholders in the value proposition, they will be
able to capture the full potential of innovation for the CE.
Finally, the fourth research stream is on the Impacts of dig-
italization on circular ecosystem, which is related to all previous
streams, considered as an important aspect within BE. It is nec-
essary to understand how data is shared and affects the circular
value co-creation within the BE and, as suggested by Hakanen and
Rajala (2018), how the actors identify which data can be shared
that is not as sensitive to business, reducing risks, but which is
still valuable for innovation. Hakanen and Rajala (2018) also sug-
gest that the dynamics of the BE change with the insertion of dig-
ital technologies in the actors’ business model. Narayan and Tid-
ström (2020) recommend investigating the dependence of busi-
ness models and society on data and how different technolo-
gies complement each other for innovation and to improve value
co-creation. More recent studies on the theme of circular econ-
omy and industry 4.0 demonstrate the sustainable potential of
digital technologies (Dantas et al., 2021; Massaro et al., 2021;
Trevisan et al., 2021b). For example, Blockchain can enhance pro-
cess efficiency, reduce risks (Kouhizadeh et al., 2020), and also

295
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
support material tracking (Nandi et al., 2021). Internet of Things,
Big Data and Analytics facilitate technical assistance (e.g. field
maintenance) through information collected during product use
(Bressanelli et al., 2018). Artificial intelligence can be adopted to
optimize systems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). Therefore,
we recommend that studies investigate the adoption of these tech-
nologies beyond a company’s individual level and instead consider
a systemic perspective.
In addition to the research avenues identified in the literature,
we highlight the need to investigate two other themes on the cir-
cular ecosystem. Studies have not paid attention to the social as-
pects of a circular ecosystem. In this review, we only glimpse ref-
erences of the topic. For example, Staicu (2019) raises the need
to pay attention to social entrepreneurs and what strategies could
be used to scale up the business and increase its visibility. There
are a few studies about the social sphere in the field of the CE, as
stated by Parida et al. (2019), it is necessary to understand the so-
cial benefits of the CE, as well as the environmental and economic
ones. Therefore, we believe that the theme would be beneficial for
developing the literature on BE and the CE. Mainly because the
ecosystem involves several actors who seek resources and have op-
erations in different locations, as well as the positive and negative
impacts they can cause on the community. The social side should
not be left in the shadows when studying CE-oriented ecosystems.
Another topic that merits attention is activities synchronization
in the circular ecosystem. Different aspects of a circular ecosystem
should be coherently aligned, such as objectives, outcomes, value
creation, and productive activities. Moreover, further studies can
explore how circular activities improve material flows and how the
uncertainty regarding consumer behavior can affect such flows. Fu-
ture studies can examine if the product life spams are expected to
be greater in a circular ecosystem than in a linear ecosystem. Al-
though scholarship suggests that firms can employ different circu-
lar strategies, there is still limited knowledge on such strategies af-
fect the circular ecosystem performance. Additionally, a topic that
requires more research is how the network effects shape circular
ecosystem development and performance. Scholars also can inves-
tigate in more detail the occurrence of rebound effects within cir-
cular ecosystem.
4. Conclusions
This study reviewed published articles that integrate the con-
cepts of CE with BE. First of all, we discussed how the studies
evolved over time. Although studies began to build a bridge be-
tween these two bodies of knowledge, our work reveals the defi-
nition of a circular ecosystem remains largely underdeveloped. To
move the field forward, we provided an improved concept for the
circular ecosystem. We defined circular ecosystem as a system of
interdependent and heterogeneous actors that go beyond industrial
boundaries and direct the collective efforts towards a circular value
proposition, providing opportunities for economic and environmental
sustainability. This definition is based on theoretical domains from
both areas of interest. Also, we identified the main elements that
compose a circular ecosystem, such as 1. Value, 2. Actors, 3. Data,
Materials and flows, 4. Circular activities and strategies, and 5.
Governance. Although business and circular ecosystem share some
of these elements (e.g. actors, value, governance), our review elab-
orate and highlight the unique nuances of these elements in cir-
cular ecosystems. First, our contribution shows that the nature of
the value proposition involves multiple sustainable value cycles.
Second, a circular ecosystem is composed of different actors that
play distinct roles and perform specific activities for the circularity
of resources. The lack of key actors in a particular ecosystem can
make CE difficult or even unfeasible (e.g. lack of waste processors).
Third, successful circular strategies are essential for creating legit-
296
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
imacy and attracting new actors in this type of ecosystem com-
pared to others. And fourth, a circular ecosystem is characterized
by flows of data and materials, which are central for understanding
which inputs and outputs impact the environment.
From a theoretical point of view, the results of our research
advance the understanding the circular ecosystem phenomenon.
Currently, most articles focus on circular business models, includ-
ing a superficial view of ecosystems, lacking a deeper discussion
about the adoption of CE in an ecosystem as a whole. This find-
ing suggests that the body of knowledge in this area is still in
its early stages. In that regard, the five main elements of circu-
lar ecosystems identified in this article shed light on the field of
study that consolidates the two research areas. We strongly recom-
mend empirical studies to prove the presence of the elements in
practice. Also, we are aware that as new research is developed, the
framework can be changed to better represent real circular ecosys-
tems. In this vein, although this study offers a grammar for circular
ecosystems, further studies can identify new elements and theoret-
ical relationships among these elements.
Regarding the practical implications, this paper can be used by
orchestrators and ecosystem members to support the restructur-
ing of their businesses towards circular initiatives. It allows play-
ers to gain an overview of the ecosystem in which they take part.
To be more specific, the developed framework can serve as a con-
ceptual and strategic tool to help companies in practice to iden-
tify their partners, to reorganize their circular initiatives, to under-
stand the dynamics and structure of the constellation of actors, and
to identify collaborative opportunities to boost environmental and
economic sustainability.
Finally, similar to all research, this study has limitations. An im-
portant limitation refers to the authors bias in analyzing qualita-
tive data. To minimize this, the codes were revised by more than
one author. A second limitation is that our sample only included
articles published in journals and conferences. And the keywords
used to set the sample only retrieved articles that discussed the
theme of circular economy and business and innovation ecosystem
together. Our study did not examined other types of ecosystems
such as “entrepreneurial ecosystem” and “knowledge ecosystem”.
Therefore, we recommend that future studies expand the research
scope, address different configurations of circular ecosystems, and
carry out case studies investigating circular ecosystems in practical
contexts.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the São Paulo Research
Foundation (FAPESP) – under the process 2019/23655-9 – for sup-
porting this research. The opinions, hypotheses, conclusions, and
recommendations expressed in this material are the responsibility
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAPESP.
We also extend our thanks to the Federal Institute of Education,
Science, and Technology of Minas Gerais – Campus Congonhas.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.020.
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
Table A1
Questions of circular ecosystem elements.
Value
What is the circular value proposition of the ecosystem in which I take part?
How does the distribution of value occur through the members of the ecosystem?
Is value capture sufficiently fair and collective?
How to enhance several value circles and capture all the benefits of a CE as an ecosystem property?
Actors
What are the fundamental actors for materializing the circular value proposition?
Are the interests of all actors aligned?
What is the role of each actor?
What types of actors does the ecosystem need and how attract new members?
What kind of relationship is established between members of the ecosystem?
What activities need to be done by the orchestrator to maximize legitimacy?
How does the orchestrator encourage their partners to expand circular initiatives?
Data, Materials, and flows
What type of data and materials are shared?
How can the ecosystem use the data to enable the CE?
How can the ecosystem increase efficiency of the materials used?
How to share data more securely?
Which mechanisms are being used to facilitate data exchange and ecosystem management?
Circular activities and strategies
What are the collective and individual circular strategies?
Where are these strategies applied?
What needs to be done to enhance the circularity of the whole ecosystem?
Governance
What is the set of rules imposed on the ecosystem for circularity?
Which member of the ecosystem enforces those rules?
Which members have contractual and non-contractual relationships?
Appendix
Table A1 presents a set of questions that can guide circular
ecosystem actors to reflect on the value proposition, and the es-
sential actors to perform the required activities to increase the cir-
cularity of resources. In addition, the questions help to clarify the
main flows of materials and data within the circular ecosystem, the
circular strategies adopted, and the governance rules faced by
the constellation of actors.
References
Adner, R., 2017. Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. J. Man-
age. 43, 39–58. doi:10.1177/0149206316678451.
Adner, R., 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem.
Havard Bus. Rev. 84 (98). doi:10.4337/9780857939913.0 0 0 07.
Adner, R., Kapoor, R., 2010. Value Creation in innovation ecosystems: how the struc-
ture of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technol-
ogy generations. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 306–333. doi:10.1002/smj.821.
Al-Thani, N.A., Al-Ansari, T., 2021. Comparing the convergence and divergence
within industrial ecology, circular economy, and the energy-water-food nexus
based on resource management objectives. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27, 1743–
1761. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.008.
Aminoff, A., Valkokari, K., Antikainen, M., Kettunen, O., 2017. Exploring disruptive
business model innovation for the circular economy. Smart Innov. Syst. Technol.
68, 525–536. doi:10.1007/978- 3- 319- 57078- 5_50.
Antikainen, M., Valkokari, K., 2016. A Framework for Sustainable Circular Business
Model Innovation. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 6, 5–12. doi:10.22215/timreview/
10 0 0.
Bertassini, A.C., Zanon, L.G., Azarias, J.G., Gerolamo, M.C., Ometto, A.R., 2021. Circu-
lar Business Ecosystem Innovation: a guide for mapping stakeholders, captur-
ing values, and finding new opportunities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27, 436–448.
doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.004.
Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Perona, M., Saccani, N., 2018. Exploring How Usage-
Focused Business Models Enable Circular Economy through Digital Technologies.
SUSTAINABILITY 10. doi:10.3390/su10030639.
Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W.J.V, Salomone, R., 2021. Analysing European Union
circular economy policies : words versus actions. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27,
337–353. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.001.
Dantas, T.E.T., de-Souza, E.D., Destro, I.R., Hammes, G., Rodriguez, C.M.T., Soares, S.R.,
2021. How the combination of Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 can contribute
towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Prod. Consum.
26, 213–227. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.005.
De Giacomo, M.R., Bleischwitz, R., 2020. Business models for environmental sustain-
ability: contemporary shortcomings and some perspectives. Bus. Strateg. Envi-
ron. 29, 3352–3369. doi:10.1002/bse.2576.
Del Vecchio, P., Passiante, G., Barberio, G., Innella, C., 2020. Digital Innovation
Ecosystems for Circular Economy: the Case of ICESP, the Italian Circular Econ-
297
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
omy Stakeholder Platform. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 18, 1–20. doi:10.1142/
S0219877020500534.
Donner, M., Gohier, R., de Vries, H., 2020. A new circular business model typology
for creating value from agro-waste. Sci. Total Environ. 716, 137065. doi:10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.137065.
MacArthur Foundation, Ellen, 2019. Artificial intelligence and the circular economy:
Ai as a tool to accelerate. Report 39.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation, E., 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: economic and
business rationale for an accelerated transition, Ellen Macarthur Foundation.
doi:10.1162/108819806775545321.
Elo, S., Kyngäs, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62,
107–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Fernandes, S.C., Pigosso, D.C.A., Mcaloone, T.C., Rozenfeld, H., 2020. Towards
product-service system oriented to circular economy : a systematic review of
value proposition design approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 257. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2020.120507.
Ganco, M., Kapoor, R., Lee, G.K., 2020. From rugged landscapes to rugged ecosys-
tems: structure of interdependencies and firms’ innovative search. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 45, 646–674. doi:10.5465/AMR.2017.0549.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular econ-
omy – a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768. doi:10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Gomes, L.A.de V., Facin, A.L.F., Salerno, M.S., Ikenami, R.K., 2018. Unpacking
the Innovation Ecosystem Construct: Evolution, Gaps and Trends, Technolog-
ical Forecasting and Social Change. Elsevier Inc doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.
009.
Granstrand, O., Holgersson, M., 2020. Innovation ecosystems: a conceptual re-
view and a new definition. Technovation 90–91. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2019.
102098.
Guo, M., 2018. Multi-scale system modelling under circular bioecon-
omy, Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier Masson SAS.
doi:10.1016/B978- 0- 444- 64235- 6.50146- 7.
Hakanen, E., Rajala, R., 2018. Material intelligence as a driver for value creation in
IoT-enabled business ecosystems. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 33, 857–867. doi:10.1108/
JBIM- 11- 2015- 0217.
Heshmati, A., 2015. A Review of the Circular Economy and Its Implementation. IZA
Dicussion Pap.
Homrich, A.S., Galvão, G., Abadia, L.G., Carvalho, M.M., 2017. The circular economy
umbrella: trends and gaps on integrating pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 525–543.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064.
Hsieh, Y.C., Lin, K.Y., Lu, C., Rong, K., 2017. Governing a sustainable business ecosys-
tem in Taiwan’s circular economy: the story of spring pool glass. Sustainability
9. doi:10.3390/su9061068.
Iansiti, M., Levien, R., 2004. Strategy as Ecology. Harv. Bus. Rev. 82.
Jacobides, M.G., Cennamo, C., Gawer, A., 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems.
Strateg. Manag. J. 39, 2255–2276. doi:10.1002/smj.2904.
Jäger, J.K., Piscicelli, L., 2021. Collaborations for circular food packaging : the set-up
and partner selection process. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26, 733–740. doi:10.1016/
j.spc.2020.12.025.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2017.09.005.
A.H. Trevisan, C.G. Castro, L.A.V. Gomes et al.
Konietzko, J., Bocken, N., Hultink, E.J., 2020a. Circular ecosystem innovation: an
initial set of principles. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 119942. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
119942.
Konietzko, J., Bocken, N., Hultink, E.J., 2020b. A tool to analyze, ideate and develop
circular innovation ecosystems. Sustain 12, 14–17. doi:10.3390/SU12010417.
Kouhizadeh, M., Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2020. Blockchain and the circular economy: po-
tential tensions and critical reflections from practice. Prod. Plan. Control 31,
950–966. doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1695925.
Kuusisto, M., 2017. Organizational effects of digitalization: a literature review. Int. J.
Organ. Theory Behav. 20, 341–362.
Langen, P.W.de, Sornn-Friese, H., Hallworth, J., 2020. The role of port development
companies in transitioning the port business ecosystem; the case of port of Am-
sterdam’s circular activities. Sustain 12, 4397. doi:10.3390/su12114397.
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a compre-
hensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115, 36–51.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042.
Ma, Y., Rong, K., Mangalagiu, D., Thornton, T.F., Zhu, D., 2018. Co-evolution be-
tween urban sustainability and business ecosystem innovation: evidence from
the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 188, 942–953. doi:10.
1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.323.
Madsen, H.L., 2020. Business model innovation and the global ecosystem for sus-
tainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119102. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
119102.
Mäntymäki, M., Salmela, H., Turunen, M., 2018. Do business ecosystems differ from
other business networks? The case of an emerging business ecosystem for digi-
tal real-estate and facility services. In: in Book: Challenges and Opportunities in
the Digital Era, pp. 102–116. doi:10.1007/978- 3- 030- 02131- 3_11.
Massaro, M., Brescia, V., Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., Mas, F.D., 2021. Industry 4 . 0
and circular economy : an exploratory analysis of academic and practitioners.
Perspectives (Montclair) 1213–1231. doi:10.1002/bse.2680.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, M., Saldaña, J., 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: a Methods
Sourcebook, Third. Sage Publications ed.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339, 332–
336. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535.
Moore, J.F., 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev.
71, 75–86.
Mulrow, C.D., 1994. Rationale for systematic reviews. Bmj 309, 597–599. doi:10.
2323/jgam.35.151.
Nandi, S., Sarkis, J., Aghaei, A., Helms, M.M., 2021. Redesigning supply chains using
blockchain-enabled circular economy and COVID-19 experiences. Sustain. Prod.
Consum. 27, 10–22. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.019.
Narayan, R., Tidström, A., 2020. Tokenizing coopetition in a blockchain for a transi-
tion to circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 263. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121437.
Näyhä, A., 2020. Finnish forest-based companies in transition to the circular bioe-
conomy - drivers, organizational resources and innovations. For. Policy Econ 110,
101936. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.022.
Niero, M., Hauschild, M.Z., Hoffmeyer, S.B., Olsen, S.I., 2017. Combining Eco-
Efficiency and eco-effectiveness for continuous loop beverage packaging sys-
tems: lessons from the carlsberg circular community. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 742–753.
doi:10.1111/jiec.12554.
Nobre, G.C., Tavares, E., 2020. Assessing the role of big data and the internet of
things on the transition to circular economy: part II An extension of the Re-
SOLVE framework proposal through a literature review. Johnson Matthey Tech-
nol. Rev. 64, 32–41. doi:10.1595/205651319x15650189172931.
Parida, V., Burström, T., Visnjic, I., Wincent, J., 2019. Orchestrating industrial ecosys-
tem in circular economy: a two-stage transformation model for large manufac-
turing companies. J. Bus. Res. 101, 715–725. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.006.
Parida, V., Wincent, J., 2019. Why and how to compete through sustainability: a
review and outline of trends influencing firm and network-level transformation.
Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 15, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s11365- 019- 00558- 9.
Paul, J., Criado, A.R., 2020. The art of writing literature review: what do we know
and what do we need to know. Int. Bus. Rev. 29, 101717. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.
2020.101717.
298
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 286–298
Pidun, U., Reeves, M., Schüssler, M., 2019. Do You Need a Business Ecosystem?. BCG
Henderson Inst.
Pigford, A.A.E., Hickey, G.M., Klerkx, L., 2018. Exploring an agricultural innovation
ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transi-
tions. Agric. Syst. 164, 116–121. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007.
Press, M., Robert, I., Maillefert, M., 2019. The role of linked legitimacy in sustainable
business model development. Ind. Mark. Manag 0–1. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.
2019.05.009.
Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., Ormazabal, M., 2018. Towards a consensus on the cir-
cular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 605–615. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.224.
Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., Sloan, P., 2016. Environmental sciences, sustainable develop-
ment and circular economy: alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research.
Environ. Dev. 17, 48–56. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.002.
Scaringella, L., Radziwon, A., 2018. Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and
business ecosystems: old wine in new bottles? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
136, 59–87. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023.
Sehnem, S., Vazquez-Brust, D., Pereira, S.C.F., Campos, L.M.S., 2019. Circular econ-
omy: benefits, impacts and overlapping. Supply Chain Manag 24, 784–804.
doi:10.1108/SCM- 06- 2018- 0213.
Shipilov, A., Gawer, A., 2020. Integrating research on interorganizational networks
and ecosystems. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14, 92–121. doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0121.
Stadler, T., Chauvet, J.M., 2018. New innovative ecosystems in France to develop the
Bioeconomy. N. Biotechnol. 40, 113–118. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2017.07.009.
Staicu, D., 2019. Contributions of social entrepreneurship to textile waste preven-
tion in Romania. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Bus. Excell., 13, pp. 84–99. doi:10.2478/
picbe- 2019- 0 0 09.
Stewart, R., Niero, M., Murdock, K., Olsen, S.I., 2018. Exploring the implementation
of a circular economy strategy: the case of a closed-loop supply of aluminum
beverage cans. Procedia CIRP 69, 810–815. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.006.
Tate, W.L., Bals, L., Bals, C., Foerstl, K., 2019. Seeing the forest and not the trees:
learning from nature’s circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 115–129.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.023.
Thomas, L.D.W., Autio, E., 2020. Innovation ecosystems in management: an orga-
nizing typology, oxford research encyclopedia of business and management.
doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.203.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14, 207–222. doi:10.2307/249689.
Trevisan, A.H., Zacharias, I.S., Castro, C.G., Mascarenhas, J., 2021a. Circular economy
actions in business ecosystems driven by digital technologies. Procedia CIRP
100, 325–330. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2021.05.074.
Trevisan, A.H., Zacharias, I.S., Liu, Q., Yang, M., Mascarenhas, J., 2021b. Circular econ-
omy and digital technologies: a review of the current research streams. Proc.
Des. Soc. 1, 621–630. doi:10.1017/pds.2021.62.
Tukker, A., 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy - a
review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 76–91. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.049.
Türkeli, S., Huang, B., Stasik, A., Kemp, R., 2019. Circular economy as a glocal busi-
ness activity: mobile phone repair in the Netherlands. Poland and China. Ener-
gies 12. doi:10.3390/en12030498.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2011. It’s all B2B...and beyond: toward a systems perspective
of the market. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 181–187. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.
026.
Velenturf, A.P.M., Purnell, P., 2021. Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sus-
tain. Prod. Consum. 27, 1437–1457. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018.
Veleva, V., Bodkin, G., 2018. Corporate-entrepreneur collaborations to advance a cir-
cular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 188, 20–37. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.196.
Whicher, A., Harris, C., Beverley, K., Swiatek, P., 2018. Design for circular economy:
developing an action plan for Scotland. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3237–3248. doi:10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.009.
Wurster, S., Heß, P., Nauruschat, M., Jütting, M., 2020. Sustainable circular mobility:
user-integrated innovation and specifics of electric vehicle owners. Sustain 12.
doi:10.3390/SU12197900.