• No results found

Exploring the Road to Readiness for a Circular Economy Implementation : A Case Study within the Manufacturing Industry

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Exploring the Road to Readiness for a Circular Economy Implementation : A Case Study within the Manufacturing Industry"

Copied!
106
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Exploring the Road to

Readiness for a Circular

Economy Implementation

A Case Study within the Manufacturing Industry

MASTER OF SCIENCE

THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 30

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Global Management AUTHORS: Helena Fechner & Sophie Röttger JÖNKÖPING May 2020

(2)

Master Thesis in Business Administration

Title: Exploring the Road to Readiness for a Circular Economy Implementation

Authors: Helena Fechner and Sophie Röttger Tutor: Duncan Levinsohn

Date: 2020-05-18

Key terms: Circular economy, challenges, enablers, supply chain, overcoming challenges,

readiness, pre-implementation

Abstract

Background: The circular economy model is an essential theme in sustainable development

research and a promising chance for companies to combine environmental and economic benefits. Nevertheless, a CE implementation was not realised in most companies to date.

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to understand what hinders companies from becoming

more circular and what measures need to be taken to initiate a CE implementation.

Method: An embedded single case study methodology serves to explore the process of

initiating a CE implementation, based on a firm within the manufacturing industry.

Conclusion: Our research reveals the necessity of a pre-implementation phase before the CE

implementation. The readiness of a company can be evaluated through a scoresheet that assesses the status quo. This scoresheet helps to estimate a potential urgency to achieve CE readiness. A pre-implementation sheet provides insights for firms to understand measures that need to be taken to reach readiness.

(3)

Acknowledgements

We want to express our appreciation and gratitude to several people, without whom we would not have completed this piece of work as successfully.

First and foremost, we happily thank our supervisor Duncan Levinsohn for guiding us out of foggy moments, providing steady support and continuous feedback.

Secondly, we want to thank Miranda* from the Case Company for answering our never-ending questions without ever holding a grudge.

Thirdly, we thank every single interviewee from the Case Company and its supply chain, who took the time and interest to share their views and experiences with us. We truly had a great time getting to know every one of you. A special thanks to Marcus* and Michael* for having confidence in us and our research.

Fourthly, we like to thank our seminar group at Jönköping University for critically challenging the smallest detail of our thesis and the decisions we took. You brought us a big step closer to where we are now.

Last but not least, we want to thank our family, friends and partners for the emotional support and repeated feedback sessions during lunch breaks.

Sincerely,

Helena Fechner and Sophie Röttger

_______________ _______________

Helena Fechner Sophie Röttger

(4)

Table of Contents

Abstract ... II Acknowledgements ... III Abbreviations ... VII List of Figures ... VII List of Tables ... VII

1. Introduction ... 1

2. Research Problem ... 4

3. Purpose and Research Questions ... 5

4. Literature Review ... 6

4.1 Enablers of CE Implementation ... 6

4.2 Challenges of CE Implementation ... 7

4.2.1 Technological Challenges ... 8

4.2.2 Cultural and Knowledge Challenges ... 8

4.2.3 Economic Challenges ... 9

4.2.4 Regulatory Challenges ... 9

4.2.5 Market and Infrastructure Challenges ... 10

4.2.6 Additional Challenges ... 10

4.3 Process of Implementing CE ... 12

4.3.1 Preparation ... 13

4.3.2 Realisation of CE Measures ... 14

4.3.3 Follow-Up Measures ... 16

4.4 Status-Quo and Research Gap ... 16

5. Methodology ... 17 5.1 Research Design ... 17 5.1.1 Research Philosophy ... 17 5.1.2 Choice of Method ... 18 5.1.3 Selection of Case ... 21 5.2 Data Collection ... 23

5.2.1 Interviews as Medium for Data Collection ... 23

5.2.2 Interviewees ... 24

5.2.3 Interview Questionnaire ... 25

(5)

5.4 Quality Assurance ... 28

5.5 Ethical Considerations ... 29

5.6 Limitations ... 30

5.6.1 Limitations of Methodology ... 30

5.6.2 Limitations of Data Collection ... 31

5.6.3 Limitations of Data Analysis ... 31

6. Case Study Introduction ... 33

6.1 Case Description ... 33

6.2 The Case Company’s Supply Chain ... 34

6.3 Status Quo of CE at the Case Company ... 34

7. Findings ... 35

7.1 Knowledge of CEs ... 35

7.2 Involvement with Sustainability ... 36

7.3 Case Company’s Ranking of Sustainability and Current CE Efforts ... 38

7.4 Enablers ... 41 7.5 Challenges ... 43 7.6 Overcoming Challenges ... 46 7.7 Outlook on Future ... 49 8. Analysis ... 51 8.1 Relevance of Enablers ... 51 8.2 Relevance of Challenges ... 51 8.3 Root Problems ... 53

8.4 Development of the Scoresheet ... 56

8.5 Evaluation of Status Quo ... 57

8.5.1 Purpose of the Scoresheet ... 57

8.5.2 Structure of the Scoresheet ... 57

8.5.3 Reasoning for Scoresheet Levels... 58

8.6 Interpretation of the Scoresheet ... 59

8.7 Reaching Readiness ... 62

9. Discussion ... 66

9.1 Enablers ... 66

9.2 Challenges ... 66

(6)

9.4 Overcoming Challenges ... 68

9.5 Pre-Implementation ... 69

9.6 Contribution ... 70

10. Conclusion ... 71

11. Limitations & Recommendations for Future Research ... 72 Bibliography ... VIII Bibliography Case Company ...XX Appendices ... XXI Appendix 1: Overview Connection RQ to Theory and Data Collection ... XXI Appendix 2: Method for Literature Sourcing ... XXI Appendix 3: Review of Preparatory Measures ... XXII Appendix 4: Review of CE Measures ...XXIII Appendix 5: Overview of Interviewees ... XXVI Appendix 6: Interview Topics ... XXVII Appendix 7: Interview Questionnaire ... XXVII Appendix 8: Case Company’s DNA Strings ... XXIX Appendix 9: List of Interviews ... XXIX Appendix 10: Guiding Questions for Applying the Scoresheet ... XXX Appendix 11: Scoresheet Template ... XXXII Appendix 12: Instruction Manual for Interpreting the Scoresheet ... XXXIII

(7)

Abbreviations

CE Circular Economy EoL End-of-Life

EU European Union

FSC Forest Stewardship Council HPL High Pressure Laminate LCA Life Cycle Assessment PaaS Product-as-a-Service

PESTEL Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal

PL Poland

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SE Sweden

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

List of Figures

Figure 1: Value Chain Resource Flow ... 2

Figure 2: Five Phases of Data Analysis and their Interactions ... 28

Figure 3: Self-Rated Knowledge of CE by Countries ... 36

Figure 4: Problem Map ... 56

Figure 5: Scoresheet Legend ... 58

Figure 6: Scoresheet Applied to Case Company ... 59

List of Tables Table 1: Supply Chain Position and Sustainability Involvement ... 37

Table 2: Enablers for CE Implementation ... 41

Table 3: Connecting Challenges to Root Problems ... 52

(8)

1.

Introduction

This chapter is introducing the sustainable concept circular economy with its environmental and economic advantages. It is put into context by highlighting the urgency of such sustainable solutions. Further, it exemplifies its positive effect on a manufacturing company from an economic point of view.

During the last three decades, the flooring manufacturer Interface transformed its entire business model from a linear into a circular model, following practices such as their mission zero strategies, changes in material sourcing, and renewed recycling systems. Economically, Interface has not suffered from this change. Rather the opposite is true; turnover has increased by $400 million since 1996. At the same time, renewable energy usage has increased by almost 90 per cent in production plants (Sorasahi & Sinervo, 2019).

This case exemplifies the opportunity a transformation from a linear to a circular economy model can have for companies, not only from an environmental but also from an economic point of view. The circular economy (CE) model presents a way for companies to be profitable without using up the world’s resources (Esposito, Tse & Soufani, 2018). By applying this model, companies maintain the products’ economic and environmental values for as long as possible through mainly life cycle extension and effective use of all assets (Bianchini, Rossi & Pellegrini, 2019; Sehnem, Vazquez-Brust, Pereira & Campos, 2019). The concept of a circular economy can be defined as “an alternative to a traditional linear economy (make, use, dispose) in which we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life” (WRAP, 2013).

CE is based on the cradle-to-cradle approach, which stands for a closed system. Among other aspects, resources are not wasted but kept in the circular flow of resources, as opposed to the cradle-to-grave system (Stahel & Reday-Mulvey, 1981). As visualised in figure 1, the value chain is no longer linear with a final end-of-life stage but is managed with a circular approach. Therefore, the whole supply chain is involved, from the supplier through material sourcing,

(9)

over the manufacturer, to the customer (Kalmykova, Sadagopan & Rosado, 2018)1. This chain

frequently includes “reusing, refurbishing, and recycling [of] its products, and improves its maintenance commitments” (Frishammar & Parida, 2019: p. 6). In this concept, the product is ideally returned from the consumer back to the producer (Linder & Williander, 2017). Moreover, aspects such as energy savings and general waste reduction are part of the CE implementation process (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

Figure 1: Value Chain Resource Flow

Source: Kalmykova et al. (2018)

Reaching circularity is often understood as an implication of CE. Frishammar & Parida (2019), however, propose the term circularness instead of circularity. The authors suggest this term because a firm can never be entirely circular. To some extent, there will always remain a certain percentage of linearity. Therefore, we use the term circularness within this thesis.

Esposito et al. (2018) point out a threat to our planet and its existence caused by current linear economy models and society's comfort with producing disposable products. This outdated system is built on mass production and consumption, which depletes natural resources (Ghisellini, Cialani & Ulgiati, 2016). Indeed, scientific research on the environmental future of our planet provides a variety of warning signals that are caused by the over-usage of resources

1 The understanding of the CE cycle is based on the value chain resource flow of Kalmykova et al. (2018), which

includes the supply chain position but also considers the value contribution. Value chain thinking, therefore, describes best the bigger picture we want to grasp within our research. It is a “perspective in which a supply chain is seen as interconnected value chains which are created and delivered by a variety of players that make them valuable for the end customers“ (Simatupang, Piboonrungroj & Williams, 2017: p. 3). Consequently, the terms supply chain and value chain are both used within this research and are both connected to Kalmykova et al. (2018).

(10)

and the ignorance of the planet’s boundaries (Weetman, 2017: p. 126). While this is easily blamed on the system, individuals and companies play a critical role. For instance, the constant demand for new products has pushed global production systems in the explained direction (Hopkinson, Zils, Hawkins & Roper, 2018) and is worsened by the inefficient use of assets that results in waste (Weetman, 2017: p. 67).

To reach the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and develop a sustainable future, all stakeholders must get involved in implementing change and taking responsibility for their actions. Primarily corporations must act accordingly considering their significant potential impact (Horvath & Magda, 2017; United Nations, 2015; Veleva, Bodkin & Todorova, 2017). In order to foster long-term development, change requires an adaptation to ever-changing environments and must happen at the core of the business: the business model (Fogarassy et al., 2017). Despite widespread awareness and pressure on firms to become more sustainable (Huang, Tan & Ding, 2015), the majority has not implemented such changes towards CE yet (Frishammar & Parida, 2019). Hence, it is crucial to analyse which enablers are driving and which challenges are discouraging such transformation. By providing understanding and ways to overcome challenges, we will provide a way for companies to become more sustainable (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019).

Hanumante, Shastri & Hoadley (2019) argue that the switch to a CE cannot be seen as the perfect solution as it is merely postponing the expected breakdown of the planet’s ecosystem instead of preventing it. The majority of researchers have nevertheless outlined CE’s high potential for sustainable development (Esposito et al., 2018; Farooque, Zhang, Thürer, Qu & Huisingh, 2019; Ghisellini et al., 2016).

Although the long-term effects remain unclear due to limited long-term studies (Sehnem et al., 2019), up until today, it has been acknowledged as one of the most promising system changes for companies to engage in genuine sustainability improvements (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Farooque et al., 2019). Alternatives are, for instance, the blue economy model and closed-loop supply chains. Whereas these concepts have many overlaps with CE and influence each other, they mainly differ in insufficient approaches to address waste management and circularness within all life cycle stages (Geisendorf & Pietrulla, 2018). The amount of publications (Web of Science [May 13th, 2020]: Circular economy - 5,687; Blue economy -

(11)

979; Closed-loop supply chain - 1,969) further supports the notion that the CE concept is exceptionally relevant but requires further research to enable common implementation.

2.

Research Problem

The problem we identified is a rarely realised CE implementation, which we aim to address in the course of this thesis.

The identified research problem deals with lacking evidence of starting the CE implementation process, despite existing awareness and available theoretical models (Gusmerotti, Testa, Corsini, Pretner & Iraldo, 2019).

As briefly explained within the introduction, companies face an urgent need to contribute to a sustainable future and to take responsibility for their actions (Fogarassy et al., 2017). While the pressure on companies by society is increasing, barely any companies have transformed their business models towards more circularness although companies frequently express an ambition to conduct changes for more sustainability (Gusmerotti et al., 2019; Kirchherr et al., 2018).

The need to act affects players on a global scale, and today is more urgent than ever. These consequences of lacking system change impact society as a whole, consumers, companies and the environment. If it is not solved and no facilitation is provided to companies, the planet faces a global crisis due to the continuation of irresponsible production and consumption (United Nations, 2015; Valente & Atkinson, 2019).

The attempts so far to solve this problem consist in developing theoretical strategies to help with the implementation process. While some theoretical approaches exist throughout the literature (e.g. Bocken, de Paiw, Bakker & van der Grinten, 2016; Sehnem et al., 2019), the reality looks different. Successful practical implementation has rarely been realised by firms (Frishammar & Parida, 2019; Gusmerotti et al., 2019). However, to date, explanations are imprecise and diverging (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019). This leads to believe that firms face challenges to start the CE implementation process.

(12)

Thus, we explore why practical CE implementation differs from suggested measures in existing research. Besides, we examine ways to facilitate the road to CE transformation.

3.

Purpose and Research Questions

This section entails the purpose statement of this thesis, as well as five research questions, which lead us to explore the process of reaching readiness for a CE implementation. We aim to answer these questions within the following literature review and the subsequent empirical study.

The purpose of this research is to explore the real enablers and challenges as well as their underlying causes encountered by companies when aiming to implement a CE. This is followed by a development of practical measures to initiate the CE implementation process.

In order to accomplish the purpose of this thesis, the following research questions will be addressed by the literature review and the empirical research:

1. What enablers do firms encounter in the CE implementation process? 2. What challenges do firms face in the CE implementation process?

3. Which role do the parts of the supply chain play in the CE implementation process? 4. How can firms overcome the challenges?

(13)

4.

Literature Review

This chapter offers the theoretical background to our research purpose and provides an overview of the status quo of relevant literature about circular economy implementation in companies. CE implementation depends on a variety of enablers and challenges that arise before and during the transformation process. Existing measures on how to overcome the challenges are presented.

The methodology of how this review was created can be found in appendix 2.

As opposed to the concept of sustainability, CE prioritises environmental and economic benefits and only indirectly contributes to social gains. CE is seen as “one among several solutions for fostering a sustainable system” (Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken & Hultink, 2017: p. 766). CE covers some aspects of sustainability, but not all (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Therefore, we understand CE as a contribution to sustainability. As we focus our research on CE, we primarily investigate the environmental and economic dimensions.

4.1 Enablers of CE Implementation

As briefly presented within the introduction, there is an increased global demand for sustainable firms that take responsibility for their actions. Thus, the change of mindset within society is pressuring companies to become more sustainable, which is opening up opportunities for transformation and alternative business models (Lieder, Asif, Rashid, Mihelic & Kotnik, 2017; Tura et al., 2019). Indeed, societal aspects such as population growth and urbanisation call for alternative approaches that can meet the needs of increased global consumption (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018).

While a variety of authors outline the strong influence of social pressures (Frishammar & Parida, 2019; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018), it is a common notion that other pressures, such as economic and regulatory drivers are more relevant (De Jesus & Mendonça, 2018).

The environmental aspects of becoming more circular are frequently named as the main benefit of sustainable companies (Dev, Shankar & Qaiser, 2020; Kumar, Sezersan, Garza-Reyes, Gonzales & Al-Shboul, 2019). They are phrased as significant drivers for businesses (Bianchini et al., 2019; Gusmerotti et al., 2019; Tura et al., 2019).

(14)

Economic incentives have demonstrated to be very powerful when it comes to convincing companies to target a CE implementation (Gusmerotti et al., 2019). These incentives mainly signify an increase of output and cost savings for companies, and can involve price reductions due to factors such as resource efficiency or energy savings (Esposito et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019). The prospect for business growth presents another economic driver (Tura et al., 2019) as well as the ability to compete with low-cost goods (Jakhar, Mangla, Luthra & Kusi-Sarpong, 2019; Linder & Williander, 2017).

Indeed, regulatory drivers play a vital role when it comes to pushing companies towards a CE implementation, which is mentioned in almost every relevant paper. The regulations developed by the European Union (EU) have a significant influence on production, waste and remanufacturing standards. Examples for this are the EU ecolabel, which creates a competitive advantage for greener goods (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Gusmerotti et al., 2019), an eco-design framework for energy-consuming products (Ghisellini et al., 2016) or waste separation (Ranta, Aarikka-Stenroos, Ritala & Mäkinen, 2018; Tura et al., 2019). Restrictions such as landfill bans lead companies to find alternatives for waste processing (Tura et al., 2019). An action plan by the European Commission aims to support CE practices in the future (European Commission, 2020; Kalmykova et al., 2018). On a global level, the COP21 agreement from 2015 in Paris urges players in various countries to engage in climate action (Weetman, 2017).

Internally, the intrinsic motivation of a firm's management drives CE implementation (Frishammar & Parida, 2019). Bocken et al. (2016) underline that a clear vision facilitates the CE implementation process. Good collaboration among stakeholders enables companies to follow a shared vision and reach goals together with the whole industry (Bianchini et al., 2019; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018).

Moreover, the prospect to generate a positive image is acknowledged to motivate companies to engage in CE change (Linder & Williander, 2017; Tura et al., 2019).

4.2 Challenges of CE Implementation

Different challenges are identified, which are frequently referred to as barriers to CE implementation. Hereafter, the ones that are recognised as most relevant will be presented. The implementation challenges have often been divided into the following main categories: technological, cultural, economic, regulatory (Bianchini et al., 2019; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Masi, Kumar, Garza-Reyes & Godsell, 2018); which also serve as a structure to this part

(15)

of the review. The different categories may influence and depend on each other (Kirchherr et al., 2018).

4.2.1 Technological Challenges

Technological barriers frequently hinder CE implementation (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019). Throughout the literature, technological standards are identified as not being developed sufficiently, such as lacking know-how and competences (Bianchini et al., 2019; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). Deeply implanted technologies for linear systems that are not changed easily are presented as the root of the problem (Masi et al., 2018). Technologies are unlikely to be swapped for new and unknown systems, which is commonly due to comfort with “established structures, cultures and operational routines” (Korhonen, Honkasalo & Seppälä, 2018: p. 44). When it comes to durability and product quality, design obstacles arise (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018). In addition, limited planning of the end-of-life phase is stressed as a technological barrier (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Masi et al., 2018). Such challenges are problematic when adapting to the new technology, as the company’s mindset needs to be receptive to change (Esposito et al., 2018).

Although technological challenges are diverse, different relevance is appointed to these barriers (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018). There are more technological struggles related to the circularness of plastic materials than to other product groups (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018).

4.2.2 Cultural and Knowledge Challenges

Cultural challenges refer to hesitance and difficulties of behavioural changes. This is due to limited awareness, knowledge and interest among society but also within the company culture (e.g. Esposito et al., 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018). Govindan & Hasanagic (2018) go a step further and present “lacking enthusiasm” (p. 298) as an additional challenge for companies. The continuous aim to reduce costs restrains the creative potential of developing a circular strategy further (Salvador, Barros, Luz, Piekarski & de Francisco, 2020).

Lacking knowledge and skills are identified as major barriers to CE change. Tura et al. (2019) claim that companies often do not know how to become circular, what steps need to be taken and what expertise is required. The complete CE concept is not always grasped correctly, which obstructs effective change (Ghisellini et al., 2016).

(16)

Moreover, customers present an essential challenge, as their resistance may heavily influence CE transformation (Bianchini et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2019; Salvador et al., 2020). Negative connotations and a reserved motivation to purchase reused products have, therefore, been described as hindering (Esposito et al., 2018; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). Linder & Williander (2017) highlight that not all types of customers are the right target group for remanufactured products.

4.2.3 Economic Challenges

The economic barriers that companies face are mostly found to be related to risk and uncertainty (Frishammar & Parida, 2019; Werning & Spinler, 2020). These risks are, for instance, related to lower amounts of sales when the produced goods are more durable (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

The short-term view of many companies is identified as challenging, as CE implementation often requires long-term investments and only brings returns in the distant future (Bianchini et al., 2019; Tura et al., 2019). This is connected to capital being tied up when including rental models in the circular approach (Linder & Williander, 2017). Therefore, the high investment costs in advance intimidate companies from engaging in CE (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019). In general, change often involves money that is not available yet or has not been considered by the firm (Masi et al., 2018).

The long-term impact for firms remains widely unclear, which exposes them to financial uncertainty (Sehnem et al., 2019).

4.2.4 Regulatory Challenges

It is widely reported that current regulations are of insufficient support to circularness and are on top rather standing in the way of CE. For example, principles regarding product return (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018), stricter waste collection and disposal or recycling policies have been named as being insufficient or inexistent. They, therefore, hold back from a timely and successful implementation (Ranta et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019).

Lacking assistance and support of linear systems through institutions such as EU governance are emphasised to hinder a smooth implementation (Masi et al., 2018). Damaging taxation, lacking subsidies and ownership regulations decelerate or even prevent CE transformation (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Tura et al., 2019). Policies such as the ‘Circular Economy

(17)

Package’ developed by the EU were pointed out to be ambitious. However, they did not succeed to drive significant changes yet, as reported by several EU states (Kirchherr et al., 2018). Potential reasons for this are the lengthy process to drive change, its missing component in the industrial strategy of the EU and the missing efforts by individual member states to meet the goals (European Commission, 2020). Among the goals in this package are objectives to “make sustainable products the norms in the EU” and “make circularity work for people, regions and cities” (European Commission, 2020 p. 1). The government theoretically has the power to overcome current market barriers with policy changes and innovative measures, but currently adapts at a slow pace (Kirchherr et al., 2018).

Differing domestic regulations prevent consistency and general standards to be realised (Tura et al., 2019). In legal terms, waste is not considered a resource, which adds to the complexity. This imposes difficulties to treat waste as raw material and transport it across borders (Rizos et al., 2016; van Buren, Demmers, van der Heijden & Witlox, 2016).

4.2.5 Market and Infrastructure Challenges

Market challenges are often connected to industry and infrastructure challenges throughout the literature. An insufficient level of relationships with stakeholders along the supply chain is problematic for CE implementation, as such collaborations serve as a precondition to follow a shared vision (Bianchini et al., 2019; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Kumar et al., 2019). This lack of collaboration between businesses prevents the necessary change as the dialogue between needs and capabilities is missing (Hopkinson et al., 2018). On top of that, legislation restricts collaborative arrangements when there is a risk for cartel formation (Rizos et al., 2016). Insufficient industry standards impede circular practices, especially when it comes to ownership and refurbishment (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018). Consequently, Frishammar & Parida (2019) indicate that lacking cooperation and a narrow focus on oneself is problematic when aiming to be successful. The bigger picture, including potential collaboration with fellow stakeholders, must be considered to reach goals in the long-term.

4.2.6 Additional Challenges

In spring 2020, the world was facing a global crisis caused by the outbreak of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the corresponding disease COVID-19. Thousands of cases and deaths in more than 175 countries by the end of March 2020 affected global health and the economy. Restrictions were put into place in March by most governments in an attempt to get the

(18)

pandemic under control. This did not only impact societies and individuals but affected most businesses in their practices and decisions (Craven, Liu, Wilson & Mysore, 2020).

An increase in single-use-plastic items exemplifies the current situation. While environmental concerns and especially the elimination of single-use-plastics seemed to be high on the global agenda just a couple of months before, health safety reasons lead many individuals and businesses to act opposingly. In fact, the demand for single-use-plastics has much increased since the outbreak of the pandemic (Grodzińska-Jurczak et al., 2020). A variety of countries have restricted or wholly prohibited waste recycling, to reduce the risk of a potential threat through these activities (Zambrano-Monserrate, Ruano & Sanchez-Alcalde, 2020). Indeed, Grodzińska-Jurczak et al. (2020) therefore suggest that “given the increasing health concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental care loses its priority position in the value hierarchy“ (p. 60). Reprioritising values is outlined as a natural process during situations such as a global crisis.

Long-term effects and challenges during later stages of the crisis, as well as recovery, remain unclear as this research is being conducted in spring 2020, during a critical moment of worldwide infections (ECDC, 2020). Either way, long-term environmental impacts are expected to hit countries harder that deny environmental impact through COVID-19 (Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2020). Nevertheless, scholars raise hope for a sustainable transformation after the crisis and see the current challenges as an opportunity for an increase in responsible consumption and production (Cohen, 2020).

An additional challenge refers to missing management support and insufficient prioritisation within a company when it comes to CE implementation (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Tura et al., 2019). Indeed, Ghisellini et al. (2016) indicate that leaders are needed who evolve innovation and drive change through inspiring motivation. Apart from that, management’s abilities for structuring and coordinating a strategy across the organisation were found to be unsatisfactory (Bianchini et al., 2019).

The implementation of CE models has demonstrated to be complex concerning the change of processes (Bianchini et al., 2019), the complexity of products and materials as well as the footprint of the whole supply chain (Weetman, 2017; Werning & Spinler, 2020). Geographically spread out firms face additional challenges due to complex transportation logistics as well as cultural and legal differences. Processes and strategies are, therefore, complicated and make CE implementation difficult (Bianchini et al., 2019; Farooque et al.,

(19)

2019). Furthermore, CE is not implemented from one day to another but is part of a long-term change (Werning & Spinler, 2020).

Lastly, Sehnem et al. (2019) outline the difficulty of learning from one another due to the limited available data on successful CE cases.

4.3 Process of Implementing CE

While there are many different strategies and steps to guide the process of implementing a CE, which will be outlined in the following, Frishammar & Parida (2019), suggest companies adopt an overall discovery-driven, exploratory approach. Characteristics thereof are “iteration, experimentation, trial and error, learn-as-you-go, and rapid feedback loops” (Frishammar & Parida, 2019: p. 25). As the CE transition is considered as risky, this method allows a rapid learning process by either confirming efficient strategies or rejecting inefficient ones. Overall, this strategy bears an economic advantage due to the quick correction of wrong paths (Frishammar & Parida, 2019).

Throughout this thesis, we often refer to the study conducted by Frishammar & Parida (2019). Therefore, we find it necessary to outline the differences between their study and ours. The main difference is the outcome of the study. Frishammar & Parida (2019) propose a framework consisting of four steps on how to transform a linear into a circular business model, while the focus lies on the transformation process. The research assumes that companies lack knowledge about CE, which is based on evidence within the literature that there is no clear and common understanding of CE. In contrast, we are suggesting measures that firms can take to initiate the process of transforming a linear business model into a circular one. The fact that we focus on the stage before the transformation itself also differentiates our research from the study by Kalmykova et al. (2018).

While the structure for the preparation part is inspired by Frishammar & Parida (2019), we base the realisation and practical implementation of CE measures on Kalmykova et al.'s (2018) ‘Value Chain Resource Flow’ framework, which will be introduced later on in 4.3.2. The reason for this is that the former presents the clearest and most complete guidelines for preparation measures, and the latter provides the most precise and most complete implementation measures available.

(20)

4.3.1 Preparation

In preparation for the planned CE implementation, current literature offers a variety of measures that can be taken. An overview to which we present in appendix 3. According to Frishammar & Parida (2019), a company should first create an understanding of its customer base. Then, environmental, economic and social benefits should be considered for the next step of rethinking the value chain. Several scholars agree that it is an important measure to reinvent the key dimensions of the business model structure, according to CE (Frishammar & Parida, 2019). At this stage, Bianchini et al. (2019) recommend setting up a network of information and feedback information between businesses to make use of existing knowledge. Indeed, increasing information and awareness of CE among all stakeholders as well as the general market is supported by a considerable number of scholars (e.g. Bianchini et al., 2019; Garza-Reyes, Valls, Nadeem, Anosike & Kumar, 2019). Additionally, Farooque et al. (2019) point out that cultural differences play a role and should be taken into consideration at this stage. De Jesus & Mendonça (2018) goes one step further by advocating for full institutional change on top of simple awareness. In other words, a circular culture needs to be established within the company and its stakeholders, and ideally, all of society (Frishammar & Parida, 2019; Garza-Reyes et al., 2019; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018).

Another step of preparation for implementing a CE is concerned with auditing the current business by mapping challenges and opportunities (Frishammar & Parida, 2019). Other forms of audit can be a SWOT or PESTEL analysis, risk assessment, and highlighting the current knowledge of the firm (Linder & Williander, 2017; Weetman, 2017). After the audit is concluded, Werning & Spinler (2020) recommend prioritising the formerly identified barriers and challenges in an effort to structurally overcome them by, for instance, following a checklist (Weetman, 2017). A checklist helps to prioritise the steps by writing them down in the order of which they are supposed to be completed, to not overlook relevant measures. For instance “Asking what the biggest contributions are, along the supply chain, for both value added and footprint” or “How might you help customers, consumers or business partners to improve their resource efficiency” (Weetman, 2017: p. 368).

The last step of preparation is dedicated to developing strategies to increase a firm’s circularness as much as possible (Blomsma et al., 2019; Bocken et al., 2016; Winkler, 2011). Kumar et al. (2019) find that the process should start within the firm, that is at the micro-level and then continue to the macro level.

(21)

4.3.2 Realisation of CE Measures

The different measures to implement and increase CE within firms proposed by current literature will be divided into different parts of the value chain. The division we use is based on the one that Kalmykova et al. (2018) introduce, as it is the most exhaustive list in the relevant literature. To draw a link to the supply chain functions in organisations that affect the CE implementation, these parts of the value chain that we exhaust below are also supported by literature that deals with circular supply chain management. They may be presented in different orders, from article to article, but the meaning remains the same.

Appendix 4 shows a summary that outlines existing approaches towards increasing circularness in corporate settings.

The first part of the value chain is material sourcing. Several scholars agree that green procurement or green purchasing is an effective measure to become more circular. The method can be described as choosing suppliers based on environmental criteria. Hence, renewable materials and energy are used in production (Masi et al., 2018). Others suggest more precisely to buy and use recycled materials (e.g. Garza-Reyes et al., 2019). A useful tool at this stage can be the life cycle assessment (LCA) to find opportunities for circularness throughout the life of a product (Avila-Gutierrez, Martin-Gomez, Aguayo-Gonzales & Cordoba-Roldan, 2019). The second stage in the value chain is the design of products. The most prominent measure is to employ an eco-product design that aims at reusing and recovering materials (e.g. Garza-Reyes et al., 2019). Product design for durability is also a widely supported proposition (e.g. Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). Other options are designing for modularity (Kalmykova et al., 2018), designing out waste (e.g. Bianchini et al., 2019) and eco-labelling of products (Garza-Reyes et al., 2019). A suitable tool that is often named is Systems Thinking, also called Think in Systems (e.g. Rashid, Asif, Krajnik & Nicolescu, 2013). It suggests that the different stages of a product’s life should be untangled and individually adjusted to turn each stage more circular (Arnold & Wade, 2015).

The third stage is the manufacturing stage. Scholars offer a variety of possibilities on how to make manufacturing more circular. For once, the effective and efficient management of resources (e.g. Werning & Spinler, 2020) through, for example, a reduction of resource, material and energy consumption (e.g. Blomsma et al., 2019) or reusing energy and water (e.g. Garza-Reyes et al., 2019). But also through using by-products (e.g. Kalmykova et al., 2018)

(22)

and using renewable materials and energy in production (e.g. Garza-Reyes et al., 2019). In addition, firms can reduce pollutant emissions (e.g. Ghisellini et al., 2016) and waste (e.g. Farooque et al., 2019). Concerning the process of manufacturing, scholars encourage firms to train workers on environmental issues and circularness and to include environmental factors in the internal performance evaluation (e.g. Masi et al., 2018).

The fourth stage is the distribution and sales. Increased circularness measurements include green packaging by using more environmentally friendly packaging material (e.g. Kalmykova et al., 2018) and green logistics that includes environmental and social factors (Farooque et al., 2019). Redistributing and reselling products (e.g. Kalmykova et al., 2018), targeting specifically green market segments (e.g. Masi et al., 2018) and employing non-consumerist marketing and sales strategy (Bocken et al., 2016) are further suggested measures.

The fifth stage concerns consumption and use. Popular measures in this stage are the approach of adding a service that has not been there before (e.g. Lieder et al., 2017). Other terms for the same idea are Servitisation, the method of adding a service to a product (Doni, Corvino & Martini, 2019), Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) (Esposito et al., 2018), or Service-Based Marketing (Masi et al., 2018). More prominent measures are community involvement to increase the relationship between producer and customer to facilitate circularness, encouraging the reuse of products and generally designing for sustainable consumption and use (e.g. Kalmykova et al., 2018). Specific tools to achieve this are the Pay-Per-Use Model and the Leasing Model, whereas their names explain the concept (e.g. Lieder et al., 2017).

We summarise the last three stages, namely collection & disposal, recycling & recovery and remanufacturing into the sixth and last stage because all three stages regard the idea of extending the life of a product. Relevant strategies to accomplish the life extension of a product are for once the three Rs, to reduce, reuse and recycle materials, parts and/or products (e.g. Ghisellini et al., 2016), the refurbishment of products (e.g. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015) or the remanufacturing of products (e.g. Lieder et al., 2017). Others cover the cascade of materials and components to other sources of use (e.g. Elia, Gnoni & Tornese, 2017), the effort of taking back products at their End-of-Life (EoL) stage (e.g. Lieder et al., 2017) and a cooperation of firms to establish eco-industrial chains with the aim of establishing a network for sharing purposes (e.g. Bianchini et al., 2019). Less prominent measures to extend a product’s life involve repairing, upcycling, as in making a product/material reusable and of higher quality than the original (e.g. Kalmykova et al., 2018) and downcycling, as in making a

(23)

product/material reusable and of lower quality than the original (Kalmykova et al., 2018). A relevant model for this stage of the value chain is the ReSOLVE framework introducing the interplay of regenerate, share, optimise, loop, virtualise and exchange (Dev et al., 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015).

4.3.3 Follow-Up Measures

Once the implementation process has begun, and at least one CE measure has been implemented, relevant literature proposes follow-up measures that can be taken to keep firms on the right track of sustained circularness.

Firstly, Frishammar & Parida (2019) advise continuing to scale up circularness to as many business segments as possible, with the aim of eventually reaching maximum circularness that is feasible for each firm. Another important aspect is to update market strategy and communication, respectively (Garza-Reyes et al., 2019). Lastly, for increased transparency of the progress, some scholars recommend to set up monitoring of the progress and the achieved outcomes of implementation (Elia et al., 2017; Kalmykova et al., 2018).

4.4 Status-Quo and Research Gap

CE is an emerging research topic. Even though the concept was introduced in the 1980s, its newly perceived urgency becomes especially apparent when examining the dates of publication of articles treating CE and the effects thereof. Such articles, from our review, are to the most part from the past four years (Farooque et al., 2019; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Upadhyay, Akter, Adams, Kumar & Varma, 2019).

Regarding the practical implementation of a CE, prevailing literature proposes a variety of approaches, mostly in the form of models, that are aiming to guide firms in the process to increased circularness. These models have in common that they list the rough, modifiable supply chain functions and the relating CE measures that can be conducted within each function. It is described in more or less detail what to do as a firm to become more circular (Bianchini et al., 2019), but we were not able to find out how such firms are supposed to execute those suggestions. Even though Kalmykova et al. (2018) offer a more extensive to-do-list explaining to firms in more detail what to do and sometimes also how to do it, this is the only article that goes into such depth. It is undoubtedly a useful base for companies. However, it is not responsive to industry- or company-specific barriers or challenges that firms face in the preparation and implementation process.

(24)

The management literature has been found to be insufficient in discussing practice-oriented CE measures (Sehnem et al., 2019). Although academic literature is accessible to management, it was found that managers rarely have the time to study it in detail. The theoretical content interferes with the practice-oriented management approach and prevents practical takeaways (Stadler, 2015).

After studying the literature on CE implementation, it becomes clear that there is an apparent research gap between theory and practice. Indeed, Jakhar et al. (2019) acknowledge that “practicing managers are [also] finding it difficult to develop efficient CE based frameworks to support in transforming their linear business models or build new ones” (p. 3).

While scholars have presented theoretical models for CE implementation, only a meagre percentage of about 10% of businesses have picked up on them, and most firms are continuously hesitant (Gusmerotti et al., 2019). Thus, up until today, scholars have not directly solved the difficulties related to a practice-oriented CE implementation and the kick-off of such a process.

5.

Methodology

After a thorough review of prevailing literature and the identification of a research gap, the following chapter explains the choice of a qualitative research method within our thesis and the selection of an embedded single case study. This leads to the reasoning for semi-structured interviews as a means for data collection. The chosen methodology will then be the motor for analysing the collected data and consequently answering the research questions.

5.1 Research Design

5.1.1 Research Philosophy

Researchers can hold a variety of philosophical stances, which influence the way their research is conducted, but also how the research should be understood by the reader (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, Jackson & Jaspersen, 2018). Therefore, we outline our philosophical positioning to set a context for the reader and create an understanding of the choice of method.

(25)

The epistemological view that we hold is of constructionist nature. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowing (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Constructionism aims at increasing the general socially constructed understanding in a particular field; in this case, the circular economy and its implementation. We do not only want to understand what a CE is and what steps need to be taken before implementation, but further, we aim to explore the underlying causes of implementation challenges and enablers, which are naturally influenced by a socially constructed reality. Constructionists believe in the existence of not only one true reality, but an understanding that is shaped by adding different perceptions that cannot be entirely generalised. Hence, there is not just one truth, but several that depend and are influenced by factors that vary from individual to individual (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).

The ontology that underlies our research, meaning the philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality, accord best to relativism. This theory supports the view outlined above that there are several truths and that facts depend on the viewpoint of the observer. Hence, it cannot be entirely objective. According to relativism, a reality or a truth “is reached through discussion and agreement between the main protagonists” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018: p. 129). We neither believe that there is one single truth (internal realism) nor that there is no truth at all (nominalism) and reality is a simple construct of people’s imagination (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Accordingly, we clearly position our research philosophy as a relativist constructivist view, through which this thesis should be regarded.

Our positioning as relativist constructionists supports the argumentation for our choice of method. Since “many aspects of ‘societal reality’ are determined by people rather than by objective and external factors” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018: p. 139), we choose a qualitative research design, as it brings out the perception and beliefs of people.

5.1.2 Choice of Method

The research method is a tool to apply the research purpose (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Thus, we need to remind ourselves what the purpose of this research is and which questions need to be answered to fulfil the purpose.

The purpose of this research is to explore the enablers and challenges that firms encounter when aiming to implement a CE, with a particular focus on analysing the supply chain functions that affect this implementation. By understanding these causes, we want to analyse how firms can overcome the challenges and which first steps need to be taken towards corporate circularness.

(26)

Today’s available literature provides answers to these research questions in the sense that we can retrieve ideas about what enablers and challenges firms encounter when aiming to implement a CE. Further, we have a list of supply chain functions that possibly affect the CE implementation in theory. In addition, some broad approaches and ideas on how firms can overcome challenges have been outlined (see appendix 3). Nevertheless, our research purpose manifests that we want to understand the underlying causes, to which current literature does not provide answers. Moreover, we want to explore the first steps that are required for a CE implementation.

The type of data we need must give information about the underlying causes of both enablers and challenges and must provide knowledge about how to start implementing a CE. Hence, we seek information and knowledge, and not data, because data by itself cannot explain the causes and cannot guide an implementation process. Instead, it is the data that, when accumulated and interpreted, turns into information and knowledge that will eventually lead us to an increased understanding (Yin, 2016). More specifically, there are three types of data that we need to collect. Firstly, there is technical data, technical challenges, chances and the technical aspects of the implementation. Secondly, there is data about people, meaning their perceptions, opinions and emotions. Thirdly, there is data about the organisational structure, including information about the supply chain processes. These three types of information that we want to collect can be summarised as people’s experiences. Essentially, all of the data that we collect stems from people’s perspectives, which ultimately characterises a qualitative study (Boeije, 2010). As we are conducting an explorative study, we need exhaustive information and knowledge, as well as detailed explanations regarding the topics in question (Gillham, 2000). We propose a qualitative embedded single case study method, which means that within this one organisation, there are multiple units of analysis. This enables us to analyse different units along the supply chain that are important for implementing a CE, including suppliers and customers (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018; Yin, 2018). At the same time, we are able to fulfil our purpose of understanding the underlying causes and fill the research gap of finding answers on how to kick off a CE implementation process. This adds to acquiring detailed explanations of the causes. The study is conducted in a live setting, as this allows us to retrieve raw and unreflected data from within the process of moving towards CE, to understand it as it unfolds. In addition to that, we avoid a perspective from the retrospect of the CE implementation, as it can alter the perception of the underlying challenges and enablers. To explore the exact moment when a company strives for CE implementation is therefore essential.

(27)

The single case study is a common method in constructionist research (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (Simons, 2009: p. 20), whereas in our case the contemporary phenomenon is the concept of a circular economy and the real-life context is the beginning of the implementation process thereof in a real organisation. It takes place in one single organisation but samples several different key individuals within this organisation and its environment.

We employ an inductive approach according to the naturalistic inquiry theory (Bowen, 2008), as we observe first and only develop theories at the end of the process as a result of observations (Saunders, 2012). Since there is no exhaustive theory in the current literature on how to initiate a transformation of a linear business model to a circular one, that we could test, we can exclude a deductive approach. Even though we explored the literature first, which was essential to obtain an overview of the topic and to identify the research gap, we conduct an inductive empirical study by exploring the field of the initiation of a CE transformation. Hence, exploration comes before sense-making (Gillham, 2000). In addition, a naturalistic inquiry proposes to study “real-world situations as they unfold naturally” (Bowen, 2008: p. 138), which again supports the method to conduct our research in a live setting.

We would like to highlight our constructionist view when arguing for an embedded single case study method. When believing that several truths depend on individuals and their characteristics, an embedded case study becomes a valuable research tool (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). By investigating the distinct enablers that push this specific organisation towards a CE and by examining the particular challenges that hinder this organisation from taking the first step of implementing a CE. This study critically sheds light on the practical aspect of CE implementation in an organisation. Hence, conducting this study in a live setting will create additional value, since for once it best supports our research purpose by enabling us to understand arising issues in that exact moment. It is always easy to judge what should have been done in retrospect; however, through a live study, we can observe a real-life situation as it unfolds. Secondly, we are not aware of any study in the field of corporate CE implementation that has been conducted in a live setting. Thus, it is a unique study that has the potential of delivering new insights due to its particular method.

In order to exhaust our argumentation further, we want to underline the possibility of retrieving in-depth information utilising a case study method that focuses on one case. Singleness is also

(28)

a vital characteristic of a case study, “it is about the examination and analysis of a single phenomenon” (Thomas & Myers, 2015: p. 7). The subject that forms this case study is one single organisation and its supply chain. In case study research the uniqueness and completeness of the chosen phenomenon are crucial (Thomas & Myers, 2015). The completeness in our case is given by studying the whole supply chain of this organisation. The uniqueness is given by studying the pre-implementation of a CE in a live setting. Studying multiple cases would force us to conduct fewer interviews per case, due to the strict time frame for our research, which would then lead to increased superficiality in treating the cases and a loss of completeness per case. A study that only scratches the surface of a deep understanding would fail our purpose. The aim is to get answers to ‘how’ and ‘why’. Therefore, we are required to look at the case from many different angles (Thomas & Myers, 2015).

5.1.3 Selection of Case

Since we are conducting a single case study, we essentially need to define the case at this point. The case is the object of study in case study research and can be an individual or an organisation (Gillham, 2000). Whatever object of study may be chosen, researchers must be able to fulfil the purpose of the study by investigating the object of study, namely the case (Flick, 2018). We want to conduct a live single case study that sheds light onto enablers and challenges with respect to the supply chain during the starting process of implementing a CE. The ideal object of study therefore is a company that is at this starting point of CE implementation. The studied company is ideally dealing with both enablers and challenges on its path to start the implementation process.

The industry we choose to target to find our Case Company is the manufacturing industry, which, compared to the service sector, connects various activities and processes, reaching from purchasing activities to the transport of finished goods, which leads to more significant opportunities in the field of CE innovation (Upadhyay et al., 2019). Given the current uprise of the global movement towards sustainability (Hagedorn et al., 2019), manufacturing firms, in particular, feel societal pressure to minimise their ecological impact (Haigh, 2019; Sengupta, 2019). Furthermore, this sector is an essential user of materials and energy and a significant producer of waste, leading it to be a relevant context to focus this case on (Blomsma et al., 2019). Although our research will focus on the manufacturing industry, the relevance of the topic is valid for all industries (Kalmykova et al., 2018; Upadhyay et al., 2019).

(29)

Large firms are targeted within this research as they can have a more significant global impact due to their size and reach, once their complex structures and challenges are overcome (Veleva et al., 2017). This consequently implies the interest for companies which are operating on a transnational level (Frishammar & Parida, 2019; Veleva et al., 2017). The focus, however, remains on Europe due to legal and cultural differences to other regions (Bianchini et al., 2019). Also, the development of social consciousness towards the topic of sustainability is actively carried out in Europe (Hagedorn et al., 2019).

Further, the social and economic influence is also high as the manufacturing industry is a relevant employment sector and contributor to GDP (Blomsma et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2013). Firms that have to date applied circular practices focus on parts of the value chain other than manufacturing, but rather distribution or sales. Hence, this is an area that still largely lacks CE implementation (Kalmykova et al., 2018).

The selection of our case has further been made based on pragmatic reasons (Simons, 2009): ● Existence of firms’ intent to increase sustainability in a circular fashion

○ Current stage: no further progress than the planning phase (to be able to conduct our study in a live setting)

● Geographical proximity to us as researchers ● Openness of the firm to collaboration

● Willingness to share sensitive information if necessary

We did not look for typicality in the selection process, as this does not necessarily mean greater transferability to other cases. After all, each organisation is different and cannot fully be generalised (Simons, 2009).

Concerning the purpose of the selected case, we envision a mixture of an instrumental as well as an explanatory function (Thomas, 2016). Regarding the former, our study is supposed to serve as a tool to understand the CE phenomenon and its implementation to increase the implementation rate of sustainable business models. About the latter, the CE concept needs further comprehension. The connections between its enablers, its challenges and its eventual implementation require further investigation, for which this case study offers a medium to explanation.

(30)

5.2 Data Collection

The primary data is collected through interviews, which we explain in detail in the following section. Secondary data collection is realised through collecting and examining organisational documents and websites (Yin, 2016), which serves as a valuable source of information and provides useful material for the case description.

5.2.1 Interviews as Medium for Data Collection

Interviews present an effective way for us to get a realistic perspective of the current situation regarding the point in time of CE pre-implementation. It enables us as researchers to get close to the research participant by understanding the individual perspectives of the interviewees and applying them to the bigger picture (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Rahman, 2016). Through individual interviews, as opposed to group situations, the risk of not wanting to share sensitive subjects with others is reduced (Gill, Stewart, Treasure & Chadwick, 2008). Additionally, interviewees are more likely to state their own opinion as they do not get influenced by others (Qu & Dumay, 2011). Therefore, we conducted mainly individual interviews. In some cases, two interviewees were present, but only if they held the same position and felt more comfortable complementing their ideas.

We choose semi-structured interviews as a useful in-depth interview type to be able to understand people’s explanations of behaviours and actions, answering the ‘how’ and ‘why’. Hence, the responses that we collect in the interviews are expressed as beliefs or viewpoints (Yin, 2016). This type of data collection helps to shed light on the underlying causes of challenges and enablers of CE implementation, as semi-structured interviews create the opportunity for us as interviewers to operate flexibly and react to given answers by the interviewee (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Hence, arising areas of interest can be explored immediately, as we as researchers are not strictly bound to the list of questions. This provides us with more opportunities than structured interviewers (Wilson, 2012).

We created an interview questionnaire in advance, which consists of loose questions on particular themes (see appendix 7). While all fields of the questionnaire should be covered in every interview, the execution can vary from interview to interview. The exact completion depends on the input provided by the interviewee and the notes of us as researchers conducting the interview. It further assures that we do not restrict the interviewee in the answers given, by providing unlimited time to reply to a given question (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Yin, 2018). One

(31)

of us researchers generally conducted the interviews while both of us were present, to avoid confusion for the interviewee. We took turns when it came to leading the interview and taking notes. In some cases, additional questions were asked by the second researcher at the end of the interview to fill potential gaps. The fact that different researchers conduct the interviews, the semi-structure facilitates its completion, and it supports the comparability of interviews afterwards. It ensures that the same topics are approximately being covered, as opposed to unstructured interviews (Bryman & Bell, 2015).

The interviews were carried out through online conferences, as all employees were working from home due to the COVID-19 restrictions. The internet connection worked well and without disturbance in most interviews. We had to replace the planned visit to the production site in Poland with online meetings for the same reason. We recorded the interviews to complete our notes and create transcripts. Besides, we conducted two interviews as email interviews due to time and language restrictions of the interviewees. Consequently, one interview was translated from Swedish to English by us researchers. After each interview, we incorporated the learnings of the interview execution to avoid similar errors in the future (Bryman & Bell, 2015).

5.2.2 Interviewees

The choice of interviewees in qualitative research is opposite to the random selection of a population within quantitative research. Interviewees in qualitative research are selected in a specific research field and with a specific purpose. The intention is to find suitable candidates that contribute to the research objective, by providing useful information that can be applied to the broad field of research (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Sargeant, 2012). The interviewees were selected under consideration of the supply chain of the Case Company as all stages are affected when transforming a company from a linear to a circular economy (Farooque et al., 2019). An overview can be found in appendix 5.

The contact to the interviewees was established through the Case Company, which provided us with contact information of employees with experienced and knowledgeable positions concerning practices in their department. The interviewees were then selected and contacted by us, under the consideration of assuring diversity of supply chain positions and reducing the risk of biased selection through the Case Company.

Although qualitative research does not require a specific sample size (Sargeant, 2012), data is collected until the data set is saturated, and no new information can be retrieved from the

(32)

interviews. No numbers are available throughout the literature on when saturation is reached, as saturation depends on the individual research situation (Bowen, 2008; Fusch & Ness, 2015). Hence, saturation is met when data starts to replicate or repeat itself (Bowen, 2008). Instead of targeting a specific sample size, we focus on gathering thick and rich data simultaneously in terms of quantity and quality (Burmeister & Aitken, 2012; Fusch & Ness, 2015). We found that after 20 interviews, retrieved information was significantly repeating itself for us to stop collecting. At that point, all relevant supply chain positions were covered.

In total, we conducted 20 interviews, of which 18 were executed via videoconference, adding up to 10 hours and 46 minutes of content. The remaining two interviews were realised via email due to language barriers. These two interviews are considered for the content but are not included in the hours of content. An overview can be found in appendix 9.

5.2.3 Interview Questionnaire

We based all of the interviews on the same interview topics (see appendix 6), to ensure comparability and coverage of the same topics (Bryman & Bell, 2015). This means that the interviews are conducted almost identically, to be able to compare the responses better. Slight differences may occur due to different follow-up questions in the face of differing functions along the supply chain, which are a natural process of semi-structured interviews (Gill et al., 2008). Furthermore, there are differences between the interview questions for respondents working at the Case Company and the guide for interviewees that are working for suppliers or customers. This is due to the different relationship to the Case Company.

In general, we based the interview questionnaire (see appendix 7) on the purpose and the research questions (see chapter 3) to be able to answer them afterwards. At the same time, caution is needed in the interviews as leading questions must be avoided (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The structure of the interview questions is based on Kvale (1996) who calls for a mixture of introducing questions, follow-up questions, probing questions, specifying questions, direct questions, indirect questions, structuring questions, interpreting questions and a considerable amount of listening.

Due to the frame of a semi-structured interview questionnaire, the interviewees still have the possibility to widely elaborate their opinions. In order to take the tension from interviewees and to give them a feeling of being prepared, the interviewees receive a broad overview of the interview topics in advance, to get familiar with the interview content. Not only is this beneficial

References

Related documents

Once again it is the case of Manchester United and Juventus that opposes from what the theory says, Manchester United has higher wages expenditure than both Juventus

Through the conducted case study on the Swedish hotel market, accommodation sharing is generally perceived as a positive phenomenon to the industry, mainly as the sharing

Cognitive research has shown that learning gained by active work with case studies, make the student gather information better and will keep it fresh for longer period of

The academic objective of this study is to investigate how companies that work with the circular economy model utilize social capital in order to close their circle.. Therefore

Having reliable supplier relationship is one of the main sources for companies’ open innovation strategy, exploring and raising the level of innovativeness. Consequently,

Further, and in contrast to prior research (e.g. This is because the concept of materiality is entity-specific and therefore, there is no ‘one size fits all’. While the

100 Diagram 18 Distribution of the respondents age and their ranking 1-5 to receive hotel and travel checks when using Care by Volvo services .... 101 Diagram 19 Distribution

The research topic was developed out of a pre-study at a case object which also was appointed as suitable for the case study in this research project. Hence,