Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 43–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Procedia CIRP
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/procir

Circular economy adoption in the aquafeed manufacturing industry

Niken Kusumowardani, Benny Tjahjono, Conceptualisation∗
Centre for Business in Society, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK

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

Keywords: This paper aims to explore the extent to which the Circular Economy (CE) concept has been implemented
Circular economy in the aquafeed manufacturing industry. The issues surrounding this industry are pertinent to the re-
Aquaculture
source inefficiency concerns, involving waste generation from aquatic species; resource scarcity including
Assessment
water, energy and overfishing; and pollution as a result of aquafeed production. Due to the growth in
Natural resource based view
Dynamic capabilities the aquaculture sector, the demand for raw materials increases rapidly, creating a high dependency on
resources derived from the marine catchment. Our research found that (1) CE has so far merely been
translated into a practical implementation by means of the conversion of food waste and by-products to
replace fish meal; (2) the circularity assessment methods in aquafeed industry are lacking; and (3) indi-
cators to measure CE in the aquafeed industry is not apparent in the literature. A conceptual framework
has been synthesized to incorporate the theoretical lenses of Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV) and Dy-
namic Capabilities (DC). The framework describes the relationships that exist across the NRBV, DC and the
principles of CE, relevant to the context of the aquafeed manufacturing industry.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

1. Introduction 1.1. High feed compression ratio or rate (FCR)

The increasing demand of seafood products has caused the in-
tensification of aquaculture practices. With the projection of an
increasing population of the world, the demand for aquaculture
products will also increase (Bostock et al., 2010). The aquaculture
industry provides more than half of all of fish for human consump-
tion (FAO 2018). The world fish supply reached a new record in
2014 and growth has surpassed all meat consumption from terres-
trial animals combined. It is projected that aquaculture supply to
over 60% of fish destined for direct human consumption (Kobayashi
et al., 2015).
Such rapid growth does not come without challenges and risks
associated with the environmental strain. The current food produc-
tion system is claimed to be highly wasteful, damages the envi-
ronment and does not produce healthy outcomes (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation 2017). Moreover, the fact that resources are finite and
the energy cost, particularly from fossil fuels, continues to increase,
increases more pressure on the fulfilment of the sustainable devel-
opment goals. Some of the important issues related to the environ-
ment are discussed below.
FCR is a ratio of the input to output. In accordance with the
intensity of production, the semi-intensive and intensive farming
typically use a considerable amount of feed. So, the concern is
the increasing dependence on aquaculture fishmeal which requires
more wild-caught fish (Allsopp et al., 2009). Aquafeed contains
high protein, in which the waste is not utilized by other aquacul-
ture species (Chatvijitkul et al., 2017), causing water eutrophication
(Mirto et al., 2010), when a body of water overly enriched with
minerals and high nutrients induces bloom growth of plants and
algae (Boyd and Tucker, 2014) and depletion of oxygen could cause
stress of water organism. The uneaten food pellets contribute to
disease of aquatic animals.
1.2. Poorly managed farms
It is evident that farming practices often ignore biosecurity
management resulting in the deterioration of farming environ-
ments. Many farms have had to close their operations due to fail-
ing to recover from the loss of their capital as a result of low har-
vest (Goss et al., 20 0 0; Asche and Tveteras, 2002).

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: benny.tjahjono@coventry.ac.uk (B. Tjahjono).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.088
2212-8271/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
44 N. Kusumowardani and B. Tjahjono / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 43–48
1.3. Habitat conversion
Most aquaculture farms located on the seafront or inland, so
unexploited areas have been converted for pond construction. This
has led to the destruction of mangroves and coastal wetlands. It
has also exposed large areas of soil erosion and destroyed native
nursery grounds for the aquatic organisms and cause the degrada-
tion of local habitats (Asche and Tveteras, 2002).
1.4. Ecosystem disturbance
As a consequence of aquaculture practices, i.e. the destruction
of natural habitats, potential risks may occur via the spread of dis-
eases into the natural ecosystem and this threatens wild fauna that
lives in surrounding areas.
1.5. Chemicals used
To maintain the organisms, pesticides, disinfectants, and antibi-
otics may be added before preparing the water or during the rear-
ing process. However, regular application would increase the risk
to public health as bacteria may become resistant, water pollution,
potentially harmful to the workers and may also cause explosions
(Boyd and McNevin, 2015).
1.6. Water pollution
Aquaculture industries consume high amount of water intake to
stimulate the growth of aquaculture species. Water also needs to
be flushed out during rearing and harvesting. The effluent or liq-
uid waste disposal into the biosphere may contain pollutants that
could harm the environment if there is no proper water manage-
ment system in place (Tucker et al., 2008).
1.7. Disease outbreaks
Excess feed and fecal matters deposited at the bottom of the
pond undergo ammonification resulting in a low survival rate of
aquatic animals. This is associated with the low yield of the crops.
Another possibility is the transmission of aquatic animal diseases
to humans. Thus, aquaculture practices need to be aware of the
importance of food safety compliance.
1.8. Resource scarcity
Intensive fisheries are very dependent on artificial feed needs
that could reach 40–60% of production costs (Hertrampf and
Piedad-Pascual, 20 0 0). Artificial feed raw material is derived from
fish meal and fish oil. Beside the decline in wild stock, production
is also limited because of countries rules and competition with
consumption for humans themselves and other feedstocks. Such
anticipated shortage of raw materials derived from soybean has
been noticed; however, replacing the raw material still challenging
to meet standard requirements.
The aquaculture industry needs direction to shift towards the
adoption of an alternative business model, for instance Circular
Economy (CE), because the traditional, linear economy approach
of ‘take-make-dispose’ is no longer relevant in this situation. In
the context of high-demand aquaculture products, efforts need to
be made to accelerate production and to address the growing de-
mand, while at the same time there is a concern over the pace
of change and calls for the prudent use of natural resources. This
new alternative business model appears to be the right solution
to alleviate the environmental strain and answer the single flow
economy issue (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). As the aqua-
culture is very broad, thus the scope of the study focuses on the
aquafeed manufacturing. The aim of this paper is to examine the
extant literature to investigate the extent to which the CE concept
been implemented in the aquafeed industry. This is our main re-
search question (RQ).
2. Methodology
Due to the early nature of our research and the needs to first
appreciate the extant contributions of relevant literature, we em-
ployed the desk-based research to provide initial answers to our
RQ. The systematic literature review (SLR) was thus employed as
the research method, guided by the following literature review
questions. LRQ1: What are the definitions of circularity in the con-
text of the aquafeed industry? LRQ2: How can the circularity in
the aquafeed industry be assessed? LRQ3: What are the indicators
of circularity in the aquafeed industry?
Scopus, EBSCO, and ABI/INFORM were the databases used to
retrieve the relevant papers using the search string combinations
around the keywords and synonyms of Circular Economy, aquacul-
ture and assessment. In addition, the review only includes the peer
reviewed academic articles, English language and no range time in
order to obtain as many papers as possible. The final 48∗ papers
were selected for a systematic review after applying stringent but
transparent inclusion criteria to the paper titles, abstracts and full-
text.
3. Analysis
3.1. Understanding CE in the aquafeed industry
A comparative study associated with environmental impacts be-
tween the conventional mix feed and feed obtained from the food
waste of a cruise ship, through a life-cycle approach (Strazza et al.,
2015) was claimed to be a pioneer of the CE practice in aquacul-
ture. In this context, CE is the application of an industrial ecol-
ogy concept striving for zero waste and as the characterization of
cradle-to-cradle. Based on that perspective, food waste which was
formerly unlinked to the food system therefore is now to be con-
nected to the system. Extended the applications of CE based on
the combine concepts derived from European environmental food
policy, in which the outcome proposes a green protein footprint
methodology (Laso et al., 2018). Through these processes, human
consumed fish from the residues that related to the production of
canned anchovy, this is closing the loop of the product life cycle.
They also emphasize the importance of promoting CE in food sup-
ply chains to minimize environmental impacts.
Another experiment to substitute fish oil to alternative sustain-
able resource not only from vegetable, but also from animal fats is
supporting the CE concept (Monteiro et al., 2018).
3.1.1. Findings 1
• CE in the aquafeed industry has been translated into many dif-
ferent approaches that contribute to its practical implementa-
tion.
• CE in aquafeed industry is by far the best basis for character-
ization of cradle-to-cradle approach. CE is also considered to
be one of the strategies which has equal position among other
strategies as addressed by European food policy.
∗
Due to space limitation, the full list of these papers will be available upon
request.
 N. Kusumowardani and B. Tjahjono / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 43–48
3.2. Assessing circularity in the aquaculture industry
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is claimed to be a robust method
that has been widely used in the aquaculture industry and is per-
ceived as the most ‘classic’ of environmental studies of the life
cycle of a product from ‘cradle-to-grave’, (Ellen MacArthur Foun-
dation 2015; Boyd et al., 2007; Cao et al., 2013; Huysveld et al.,
2013; Avadí and Fréon, 2015) LCA in aquaculture just developed in
less than a decade compared to other industries (Cao et al., 2013;
Badiola et al., 2017), however a third of the reviewed papers em-
ployed LCA as a tool to evaluate the sustainability in aquaculture
with a variety of different species, regions and objectives.
The advantages of LCA lie in their ability to address a wide
range of environmental issues throughout the whole life cycle of
a product (Biermann and Geist, 2019). Although LCA is commonly
used to evaluate environmental impacts, there is no general rule
about what to include in the impact assessment, due to the em-
phasis of each study being unique (Lazard et al., 2014). Some stud-
ies use LCA on the cradle-to-farm gate (Pelletier et al., 2009), be-
cause post-farm stage less affected by aquaculture practices, thus
are usually excluded from studies (Cao et al., 2013) but might be
significant from the subsequent cradle-to-grave perspective from
withdrawal of raw material through to the processes of production
and disposal (Laso et al., 2018).
A review on the application of LCA attempts to investigate the
role of LCA in the assessment of sustainable aquaculture (Cao et
al., 2013). It compares the environmental performance of aquacul-
ture production systems and examines the potential of LCA in set-
ting criteria for certification and eco-labelling is very limited since
the socio-economic impacts assessment still underdeveloped in the
LCA framework. Some recommendations for future development
include guidelines for a benchmarking tool in seafood products to
enhance more sustainable production and consumption and to im-
pose more appropriate functional units and a set-based indicator
(Cao et al., 2013).
The flexibility to determine what items to cover in the inven-
tory (Abdou et al., 2017; Badiola et al., 2017) of LCA also draw-
backs of this approach. LCA has a limitation, such as biodiversity
(Cao et al., 2013), difficult to define because of a lack of knowledge
of the farmers. The uncertainty is high and may call into question
the validity and robustness of the LCA results (Abdou et al., 2017).
Challenges in methodology are also exposed by many authors. Data
comprehension is indicated to be the main problem in classic envi-
ronmental impact (Biermann and Geist, 2019; Samuel-Fitwi et al.,
2013). Moreover, LCA is often based on generic and average data
given which leads to diverse assumptions and flawed conclusions.
In response to the inadequacy of conventional LCA as claimed
by a number of authors, many studies used multi-criteria to com-
bine LCA with SWOT analysis to support the weaknesses of LCA
(Badiola et al., 2017), LCA with ecological footprint and consequen-
tial LCA (Samuel-Fitwi et al., 2013), energy accounting, and uncer-
tainty analysis using Monte-Carlo analysis (Abdou et al., 2017). One
thing to consider is that there is no single assessment in the aqua-
culture industry (Cao et al., 2013). Various methods can be used to
measure sustainability in aquaculture, such as the analysis of en-
ergy, ecological footprint, resilience analysis, and the use of a set
of indicators (Moura et al., 2016).
3.2.1. Findings 2
• LCA is a mainstream tool to assess sustainability related to the
environment in the aquaculture and possibly to extend the ap-
plication to assess from cradle-to-grave, which is at the root of
the CE concept.
• Some limitations, such as no standard of LCA and methodology
in the context of aquafeed industry have been identified in the
literature.
45
3.3. Circularity indicators in the aquaculture industry
This review has identified a large proportion of references of in-
dicators. However, only two papers used indicators that associated
with CE (Strazza et al., 2015; Laso et al., 2018). The results from the
SLR show that the indicators used are mostly to assess sustainabil-
ity in aquaculture. Further classification of indicators in the data
analysis was done using NVivo 12 based on the main dimensions
of the three pillars of sustainability. More than half of the papers
discussed indicators in the environment dimension. This indicates
that assessing sustainability in aquaculture is mainly focus in envi-
ronmental aspect.
This review also identified hundreds of indicators that were
very heterogeneous due to the different species and emphases
what to measure. Consequently, the choice of indicators is dissim-
ilar from one study to another (Badiola et al., 2017). Due to the
large amount of data on indicators in the literature, all with re-
spective arguments about what criteria to select in the studies, the
review has classified the indicators based on the methods used as
follows:
3.3.1. Indicators related to the Circular Economy
Three standalone indicators (global warming potential (GWP),
non-renewable energy demand (NRED) and water scarcity index
(WSI)) were used in life cycle impact assessment to measure en-
vironmental impacts on salmon (Strazza et al., 2015). Other stud-
ies combine four environmental indicators: GWP, acidification po-
tential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), ReCIPE endpoint single
score (SS) in LCA and life cycle protein assessment (LCPA) to ob-
tain the GPF index (Laso et al., 2018). The indicators, GWP, AP and
EP are frequently used in many LCAs of aquaculture products.
Indicators serve as descriptive tools that reflect scenarios
through critical points and could facilitate the identification of
strengths and weaknesses which other methods could not reveal
(Moura et al., 2016). Other assessments require data immensely
which are often difficult to obtain and to some extent only cover
the environmental dimension (Moura et al., 2016).
One of the comprehensive indicators to assess aquaculture sys-
tems in a quantitative manner classifies indicators into a total of
56, based on the three dimensions of sustainability (Valenti et
al., 2018). The indicators were classified in four hierarchical lev-
els: farm, means assessment in the production unit; regional in a
specific geographical area with specific attributes; global indicators
are appropriate for the world scale; the sector refers to the differ-
ent segments in aquaculture species.
3.3.2. Indicators in LCA studies
A single indicator that is commonly used in LCA to measure en-
ergy consumption is the cumulative energy demand (CED), how-
ever CED is not recommended as it only provides single value;
therefore, it may not reflect the reality on the farm (Badiola et al.,
2017). It is suggested that the impact assessment using abiotic de-
pletion (AD), GWP and energy use, are the major categories on a
global scale, whereas on a regional scale EP and AP are the pri-
mary categories (Badiola et al., 2017). Another study suggest it is a
novel set of sustainability performance indicators which cover the
three pillars of sustainability based on LCA combined with nutri-
tional, energy and socio-economic assessment of anchoveta for di-
rect human consumption and freshwater aquaculture (Avadí and
Fréon, 2015).
3.3.3. Co-construction
Another approach of assessment is co-construction (Rodrigues
et al., 2019, Westers et al., 2017). The co-construction approach
was established through three stages: preparation stage where the
typologies of aquaculture are selected, surveys of perception and
46 N. Kusumowardani and B. Tjahjono / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 43–48
production system, and analysis of surveys (1); validation stage is
to finalize the principle, criteria and indicators (2); and the last
stage is the implementation phase data collection and validation of
diagnoses (3). The criteria are classified into four dimensions envi-
ronmental, social, economic and institutional.
3.3.4. Resource Efficiency
Resource efficiency is a series of indicators that are focus
on land, water, nutrients, and energy as the primary resources
(Monteiro et al., 2018). These indicators provide ways to assess the
potential of pollution in local waters from discharges of aquacul-
ture. They also suggest that feed-based aquaculture systems usu-
ally have a greater pollution compared to fertilized ponds.
3.3.5. Findings 3
• Global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP),
and eutrophication potential (EP) are the indicators to assess
the environmental impacts related to CE in the aquafeed man-
ufacturing.
• The indicators found in the aquafeed manufacturing varied due
to the different emphases on what to measure, and based on
the conventional three pillars of sustainability not in the CE
context.
4. The framework
Based on our findings, we conclude that CE in the aquacul-
ture, particularly in the aquafeed manufacturing is underexplored.
There is lack of reference to define the circularity in the indus-
try. Thus, we proposed the elements of circularity in the aquafeed
manufacturing is defined by five key elements, resource resilience,
resource and energy efficiency, renewable resources, waste man-
agement, and social welfare. We also found that CE shared com-
mon concept with natural resource-based view (NRBV). Therefore,
we draw the line between NRBV and CE. NRBV has four key con-
structs: pollution prevention, product stewardship, clean technol-
ogy, and based of pyramid (Westers et al., 2017; Hart, 1995).
We posit that the NRBV is one of the roots of CE, particularly in
the field of strategic management. It has been stated in the litera-
ture that the underlying concepts of CE is closely related to cradle-
to-cradle, and industrial ecology (Hart, 1997). We argue that the
idea of CE paradigm is aligned with the environmental movement
and the policies of end-of-pipe influenced the industry sector to
think carefully how firms prevent high costs of operations.
Another theoretical lens incorporated in the framework is the
dynamic capabilities (DC). DC have been defined as the organiza-
tion’s ability to renew its internal and external competencies as
a consequence of the rapidly changing environment (Teece et al.,
1997). From the literature, DC is identified as the central construct
in the strategy of an organization, and has three core elements:
sensing, seizing, transforming (Teece et al., 1997).
The conceptual framework in this paper, along with our propo-
sitions, is thus based on of the circularity in the context of aqua-
culture where all elements of CE principles are addressed.
4.1. Resource resilience
The aquaculture involves high demands of natural raw mate-
rials and living creatures. Some species are dependent upon the
provision of wild caught fisheries (Tacon and Metian, 2008), which
sometimes are uncertain because the rate of natural recovery can-
not exceed exploitation. Moreover, climate change and disease out-
breaks also contribute to the uncertainty of resources. All the un-
certainty leads to resource scarcity and price volatility. On the
other hand, customer demands for aquatic products have tended
to become basic needs as alternative sources to access animal pro-
tein, and that need has to be fulfilled. Reconfigured resources are
a catalyst for firms to attain circularity. Clean technology suggests
that through investing to advance technology, subsequently reduce
and optimise the use of natural resources (Hart, 1995). Therefore,
we postulate that:
Proposition 1a: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing,
sensing is the first capability that enables firms to achieve re-
source resilience.
Proposition 1b: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing, ap-
plying clean technology achieves resource resilience.
4.2. Resource and energy efficiency
Strategy of pollution prevention can drive value for companies.
Reducing the use of energy and raw materials will lead to reducing
the cost and risk associated with the impacts of production. The
clean production (CP) as the antecedent of CE (Sousa-Zomer et al.,
2018) has the same fate as pollution prevention, which is common
in the strategic management; hence it is argued here that pollu-
tion prevention is the antecedent to CE. In relation to this study,
some issues in aquaculture are related to the wastefulness of re-
sources (Boyd et al., 2007). Firms should invent efficient fish mills
without risking the growth of aquatic species. The propositions are
therefore:
Proposition 2a: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing,
firms that apply pollution prevention as a strategy will benefit
by gaining resource and energy efficiency, therefore supporting
circularity.
Proposition 2b: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing,
firms should invent more efficient feed mills that are more effi-
cient in their use, therefore supporting circularity.
Proposition 2c: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing,
product stewardship mediates to achieve efficiency of resources
and energy.
4.3. Integrated renewable resources
Product stewardship allows firms to restructure their supply
chain, giving signals both to downstream and upstream where the
raw materials come from, all the way to the point of delivery. This
means reinventing the whole supply chain that brings about a pos-
itive reputation and legitimacy of companies together with internal
capabilities building future opportunities (Hart, 1995, Hart, 1997).
This in line with the circular business model that advice there are
opportunities to collaborate to a broader stakeholder to achieve ef-
fectiveness and efficiency by closing the loops (Geissdoerfer et al.,
2018).
While LCA is considered the most prevalent tool to assess envi-
ronmental impacts, the product stewardship also plays similar role
in the NRBV theory. LCA is the standard tool to measure environ-
mental impacts (Hart, 1995) and the application of LCA is extended
to CE (Tóth Szita, 2017). In relation to product stewardship, compa-
nies can also use LCA to reflect their current production. Thus, LCA
is a tool to aid in redefining the goals incorporated within business
strategy. With this, we postulate that:
Proposition 3a: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing, dy-
namic capabilities introduce the possibility of a sequence of de-
riving new raw materials to replace unsustainable sources by
sustainable sources therefore supporting circularity.
Proposition 3b: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing, the
use of LCA as a legitimate process will lead to innovation there-
fore becoming circular.
 N. Kusumowardani and B. Tjahjono / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 43–48
Proposition 3c: Firms that have the capability to transform will
evidence the development of new, low-environmental impacts,
therefore supporting circularity.
4.4. Waste management and emission control
Firms must scrutinize how waste and emissions can be man-
aged so as not to harm the community and be ecologically respon-
sible to the wider community by not contributing to global warm-
ing and climate change. More important is the notion of recovery
of resources. The common disposal pattern has consequences in
the loss of valuable resources. Therefore, we posit that:
Proposition 4: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing, ap-
plying pollution prevention captures valuable resources from
waste and emission, therefore supports circularity.
4.5. Social welfare for employee and implementation of social
responsibility
Social welfare of employees is important and become cus-
tomers’ attention. Firms need to be aware of the market shift as
now customers are aware of the products from sustainable sources,
as it was indicated from the review that one of the drivers of sus-
tainability is that customers require the traceability of products to
be transparent. The idea of traceability is to inform customers of
the sources or origins of products, considering that aquatic prod-
ucts have become global products. In relation to the DC, sens-
ing, suggests that firms should have the sense to understand the
customers’ demands. Firms understand this as an opportunity to
go towards greater circularity. We therefore suggest the following
propositions:
Proposition 5a: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing,
firms that integrate the BoP into their strategy will provide ev-
idence of alleviating poor in society therefore supporting circu-
larity.
Proposition 5b: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing,
sensing is a capability that see customers are aware of sustain-
ability products as well as the social aspects of firms, therefore
it also supports circularity.
Companies should adapt to the current change in the business
environment and should become companies whose culture is em-
bedded in the organization’s strategy for continuing change. DC
moderate the transformation to the adoption of CE. Firms must
have the capability to see that resources are scarce, aware of
volatile prices, higher cost of imported raw materials and be aware
of customers’ demands. Companies able to transform in response
to the current situation are ready to face future challenges. It is
therefore postulated that DC moderates the transition from linear
production to circular. Therefore:
Proposition 6: In the context of the aquafeed manufacturing, all
elements of dynamic capabilities are seen as moderating in or-
der to accelerate the information transformation towards cir-
cularity. The more capable, the more the aquaculture industry
becomes circular.
5. Conclusions
This paper contributes to an understanding on how CE has
been applied in the aquaculture industry and proposes a concep-
tual framework for the aquafeed manufacturing in the adoption of
CE, stemmed from the strategic management theories of NRBV and
DC. The framework provides guidance for aquafeed manufacturers
to implement CE. The framework that we proposed based on the
47
characteristic of the industry of aquafeed manufacturing. However,
to some extent the framework is possibly to be used in other con-
text that have similar nature of business of aquafeed manufactur-
ing. Our future work continues by testing the proposed conceptual
framework in real-life case studies of aquafeed manufacturing in-
dustry, with the hope to refine it further. The short-term plan is
testing the propositions related to resource resilience, energy ef-
ficiency and waste management, while for renewable resources,
social welfare, and DC as moderating variable are in the medium
term.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Niken Kusumowardani: Conceptualization, Methodology, In-
vestigation, Writing - original draft. Benny Tjahjono: Validation,
Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
References
Abdou, K., Aubin, J., Romdhane, M.S., Le Loc’h, F., Lasram, F.B.R., 2017. ’Environmen-
tal Assessment of Seabass (Dicentrarchus Labrax) and Seabream (Sparus Aurata)
farming from a life cycle perspective: a case study of a Tunisian aquaculture
farm’. Aquaculture 471, 204–212.
Allsopp, M., Page, R., Johnston, P., Santillo, D., 2009. State of the World’s Oceans.
Springer, Netherlands.
Asche, F., Tveteras, R., 2002. ‘Economics of aquaculture: special issue introduc-
tion. Marine Resource Economics, 17. The University of Chicago Press, pp.
73–75.
Avadí, A., Fréon, P., 2015. ’A set of sustainability performance indicators for seafood:
direct human consumption products from peruvian anchoveta fisheries and
freshwater aquaculture’. Ecol. Indic. 48, 518–532.
Badiola, M., Basurko, O.C., Gabiña, G., Mendiola, D., 2017. ’Integration of energy au-
dits in the life cycle assessment methodology to improve the environmental
performance assessment of recirculating aquaculture systems’. J. Cleaner Prod.
157, 155–166.
Biermann, G., Geist, J., 2019. ’Life cycle assessment of common carp (Cyprinus Car-
pio L.) – a comparison of the environmental impacts of conventional and or-
ganic carp aquaculture in Germany’. Aquaculture 501, 404–415.
Bostock, J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K., Corner, R.,
2010. Aquaculture: global status and trends. Philosoph. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
365 (1554), 2897–2912.
Boyd, C.E., Tucker, C.S., 2014. Handbook for aquaculture water quality.
Handb.Aquacult. Water Qual. 439.
Boyd, C., McNevin, A., 2015. Aquaculture, Resource Use, and the Environment. John
Wiley & Sons.
Boyd, C.E., Tucker, C., Mcnevin, A., Bostick, K., Clay, J., 2007. ’Indicators of Resource
use Efficiency and Environmental Performance in Fish and Crustacean Aquacul-
ture’. Rev. Fisheries Sci. 15 (4), 327–360.
Cao, L., Diana, J.S., Keoleian, G.A., 2013. ’Role of Life Cycle Assessment in Sustainable
Aquaculture’. Rev. Aquaculture 5 (2), 61–71.
Chatvijitkul, S., Boyd, C.E., Davis, D.A., McNevin, A.A., 2017. ’Embodied resources in
fish and shrimp feeds’. J. World Aquaculture Soc. 48 (1), 7–19.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017. Cities in the Circular economy: an Initial Explo-
ration. Ellen Macarthur Foundation, Cowes.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015. Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale
for an Accelarated Transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes.
FAO, 2018. FAO Fishstat Plus: Universal Software for Fishery Statistical Time Series.
Fisheries Department, Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit.
Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S.N., de Carvalho, M.M., Evans, S., 2018. Business models
and supply chains for the circular economy. J. Cleaner Prod. 190, 712–721.
Goss, J., Burch, D., Rickson, R.E, 20 0 0. Agri-food restructuring and third world
transnationals: Thailand, the CP Group and the global shrimp industry. World
Dev. 28 (3), 513–530.
Hart, S.L., 1995. ’A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm’. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20
(4), 986–1014.
Hart, S.L., 1997. Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harv. Bus. Rev.
75 (1), 66–77.
Hertrampf, J.W., Piedad-Pascual, F., 20 0 0. Soya Protein Products. In Handbook on
Ingredients for Aquaculture Feeds. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 396–402.
Huysveld, S., Schaubroeck, T., De Meester, S., Sorgeloos, P., Van Langenhove, H., Van
linden, V., Dewulf, J., 2013. ’Resource use analysis of pangasius aquaculture in
the Mekong delta in Vietnam using Exergetic life cycle assessment’. J. Cleaner
Product. 51, 225–233.
Kobayashi, M., Msangi, S., Batka, M., Vannuccini, S., Dey, M.M., Anderson, J.L., 2015.
’Fish to 2030: The role and opportunity for aquaculture’. Aquacult. Econ. Manag.
19 (3), 282–300.
Laso, J., Margallo, M., Serrano, M., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Avadí, A., Fullana, P., Bala, A.,
Gazulla, C., Irabien, Á, Aldaco, R., 2018. ’Introducing the Green Protein Footprint
method as an understandable measure of the environmental cost of anchovy
consumption’. Sci. Total Environ. 621, 40–53.
48 N. Kusumowardani and B. Tjahjono / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 43–48
Lazard, J., Rey-Valette, H., Aubin, J., Mathé, S., Chia, E., Caruso, D., Mikolasek, O.,
Blancheton, J.P., Legendre, M., René, F., Levang, P., Slembrouck, J., Moris-
sens, P., Clément, O., 2014. ’Assessing Aquaculture Sustainability: A Comparative
Methodology’. Int. J. Sust. Devel. World Ecol. 21 (6), 503–511.
Mirto, S., Bianchelli, S., Gambi, C., Krzelj, M., Pusceddu, A., Scopa, M., Holmer, M.,
Danovaro, R., 2010. ’Fish-farm impact on metazoan meiofauna in the mediter-
ranean sea: analysis of regional vs. habitat effects’. Marine Environ. Res. 69 (1),
38–47.
Monteiro, M., Matos, E., Ramos, R., Campos, I., Valente, L.M.P., 2018. ’A blend of land
animal fats can replace up to 75% fish oil without affecting growth and nutrient
utilization of European Seabass’. Aquaculture 487, 22–31.
Moura, R.S.T., Valenti, W.C., Henry-Silva, G.G., 2016. ’Sustainability of Nile tilapia
net-cage culture in a reservoir in a semi-arid region’. Ecol. Indic. 66, 574–582.
Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., Sonesson, U., Scholz, A., Ziegler, F., Flysjo, A., Kruse, S.,
Cancino, B., Silverman, H., 2009. ’Not all Salmon are Created Equal: Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of Global Salmon Farming Systems’. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43
(23), 8730–8736.
Rodrigues, W.S., Mauad, J.R.C., Vogel, E., Sabbag, O.J., Ruviaro, C.F., 2019. ’Sustainabil-
ity and technical efficiency of fish hatcheries in the STATE of MATO GROSSO do
SUL, Brazil’. Aquaculture 500, 228–236.
Samuel-Fitwi, B., Nagel, F., Meyer, S., Schroeder, J.P., Schulz, C., 2013. Comparative
life cycle assessment (LCA) of raising rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in
different production systems. Aquacult. Eng. 54, 85–92.
Sousa-Zomer, T.T., Magalhães, L., Zancul, E., Campos, L.M.S., Cauchick-Miguel, P.A.,
2018. ’Cleaner production as an antecedent for circular economy paradigm shift
at the micro-level: evidence from a home appliance manufacturer’. J. Cleaner
Prod. 185, 740–748.
Strazza, C., Magrassi, F., Gallo, M., Del Borghi, A., 2015. ’Life Cycle Assessment from
Food to Food: A Case Study of Circular Economy from Cruise Ships to Aquacul-
ture’. Sust. Product. Consumpt. 2, 40–51.
Tacon, A.G., Metian, M., 2008. Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in
industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture
285 (1-4), 146–158.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic manage-
ment. Strategic Manag. J. 18 (7), 509–533.
Tóth Szita, K., 2017. The application of life cycle assessment in circular economy.
Hungarian Agricultural Eng. 31, 5–9.
Tucker, C.S., Hargreaves, J.A., Boyd, C.E., 2008. Better Management Practices for
Freshwater Pond Aquaculture. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp. 151–226.
Valenti, W.C., Kimpara, J.M., Preto, B.d.L., Moraes-Valenti, P., 2018. ’Indicators of sus-
tainability to assess aquaculture systems’. Ecol. Indic. 88, 402–413.
Westers, T., Ribble, C., Daniel, S., Checkley, S., Wu, J.P., Stephen, C., 2017. ’Assessing
and comparing relative farm-level sustainability of smallholder shrimp farms
in two Sri Lankan provinces using indices developed from two methodological
frameworks’. Ecol. Indic. 83, 346–355.