Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

Key aspects for designing business models for a circular bioeconomy

Rodrigo Salvador a, *, Fabio N. Puglieri b, Anthony Halog c, Fernanda G. de Andrade d,
Cassiano M. Piekarski a, Antonio C. De Francisco a
a
Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP), Post-graduate Program in Industrial Engineering (PPGEP), Department of Industrial Engineering
(DAENP), Universidade Tecnolo
(UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil

gica Federal Do Parana
b
Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP), Department of Industrial Engineering (DAENP), Universidade Tecnolo
(UTFPR),

gica Federal Do Parana
Ponta Grossa, Brazil
c
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Queensland, Australia
d
Optimization and Decision Making (OTD), Post-graduate Program in Industrial Engineering (PPGEP), Department of Industrial Engineering (DAENP),
Universidade Tecnolo
(UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil

gica Federal Do Parana

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

Article history: The circular bioeconomy represents an opportunity of nearly USD $8 trillion until 2030. However,
Received 30 April 2020 innovative business models are needed for a circular bioeconomy to succeed. What mostly lacks in the
Received in revised form body of research on business models for the circular bioeconomy, and what marks the originality of the
18 September 2020
present article, is summarizing the key aspects that need to be considered when designing, imple-
Accepted 19 September 2020
Available online xxx
menting and managing businesses in a circular bioeconomy. Therefore, this study’s aim is twofold (i) to
reveal key aspects for implementing and managing business models for a circular bioeconomy; and (ii) to
Handling Editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes point out the issues that lack further research on the theme, based on the existing literature. A systematic
literature review was conducted on the Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Key aspects
Keywords: for implementing and managing business models were identified according to the business model
Circular economy Canvas framework. Key aspects are related to the role of innovation and new markets, taking the
Circular business model customer perspective into account in the value creation process and being close to customers, adequate
Bioresource management of logistics and feedstock collection systems, being aware of different routes for valuing
added value
biomass, seeking technological development, building resilient value chains, and focusing on value
Valorisation
creation to cover costs. Issues that need addressing in the existing literature include product-service-
systems, take back-systems, seasonal availability of resources, social impacts, rebound effects, and
aquatic activities.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Step 1: Definition of keywords and searches in databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Step 2: Removing duplicates and articles not written in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Step 3: Screening by title and keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Step 4: Screening by abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5. Step 5: Retrieving full-texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.6. Step 6: Full-reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.7. Step 7: Additional searches to establish the theoretical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.8. Step 8: Systematic literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

* Corresponding author. Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP), Universidade Tecnolo
gica Federal do Parana
(UTFPR), 330 Doutor Washington Subtil Chueire St
Jardim Carvalho, Postal Code 84017, Ponta Grossa, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: salvador.rodrigors@gmail.com (R. Salvador), puglieri@utfpr.edu.br (F.N. Puglieri), a.halog@uq.edu.au (A. Halog), fgandrade02@gmail.com (F.G. Andrade),
piekssarski@utfpr.edu.br (C.M. Piekarski), acfrancisco@utfpr.edu.br (A.C. De Francisco).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124341
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341

3.1. Customer segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.2. Value propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Customer relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Revenue streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Key resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7. Key activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.8. Key partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.9. Cost structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.10. Synergies and managerial implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Issues neglected in the existing literature on business models for a circular bioeconomy and future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Final considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

(Salvador et al., 2020). Environmental burdens may be lessened by

transitioning to an economy based on renewable resources, which
List of abbreviations
might help alleviate the pressing conditions of our planet’s carrying
capacity (Steffen et al., 2015). On that note, the bioeconomy en-
CBE Circular Bioeconomy
courages a transition to bio-based, renewable, resources (Dahiya
CBM Circular Business Model
et al., 2018).
CE Circular Economy
In a bioeconomy, resources can be said to be already naturally
CH Channels €ki et al., 2019), thus already
circular, to some extent (Vanhama
CR Customer Relationships
enabling greater environmental sustainability compared to fossil
CS Customer Segments
nchez et al., 2019). Nevertheless, bio-
resources (Paredes-Sa
C$ Cost Structure
economies are still quite diverse, varying largely depending on the
GDP Gross Domestic Product
local characteristics (availability of certain resources, logistics, etc.).
KA Key Activities
Bioeconomies can suffer imbalances between availability of re-
KP Key Partnerships
sources and technology, therefore, the development of bio-
KR Key Resources
economies might depend on strong cooperation between regions
PSS Product-service system
with rich availability of bioresources and regions with rich avail-
R$ Revenue Streams
ability of technology (Pant et al., 2019). Moreover, the bioeconomy
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
keeps broadening its scope to include new feedstock sources (see
TBS Take-back system
e.g. Barros et al., 2020) and uses, examples are CO2 markets (Bian
UN United Nations
et al., 2020) and the use of bioresources for medicinal purposes
VP Value Proposition
(see, e.g., Lima-Junior et al., 2019). Nonetheless, biomass is of sin-
gular importance in this context, Recent research has highlighted
the potential and the role of biomass in the current and future
economy (see e.g. Fradj et al., 2020; Tursi, 2019), where biomass
1. Introduction
supply alone could surpass the global need for energy (Tursi, 2019),
and rather than only producing economic growth, its use can also
High rates of resource consumption have sparked environ-
provide environmental benefits (e.g. ecosystem services)
mental awareness in the last few decades (Salvador et al., 2020).
(Hasselstro € m et al., 2020). However, an efficient bioeconomy seeks
The current behavior related to the consumption of natural re-
not only making products from bioresources, but mainly a cascaded
sources has been reported to be likely to drive an ecological
use of those, increasing the added value of resources and mini-
collapse (Gregorio et al., 2018). Coupled with the use of these re-
mizing the consumption of virgin ones (Klitkou et al., 2019), which
sources, large amounts of waste are produced (Maina et al., 2017). A
advocates for a circular bioeconomy (CBE) (European Commission,
circular economy (CE) could assist reducing both environmental
2018).
and economic concerns (BSI, 2017; Prasad, 2015) associated with
A CBE has gained political momentum in the last few years, in
such waste.
face of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (D’Amato
A CE encourages artificial processes and activities to mimic
et al., 2020) and it aims to create products with high added value
natural ones, hence seeking to make all processes circular (EMF,
from bioresources (Klitkou et al., 2019). A CBE is an economy where
2013a, 2013b), where no “disposable waste” is generated, and all
bioresources are used to make products with the highest possible
outputs are inputs to other processes (Schulte, 2013). A CE is
added value in a sustainable way, on a cascaded use of materials
defined as a system where resource use is optimized, seeking to
(and upcycling whenever possible), minimizing resource input
maintain it at its maximum value at all times, diminishing both
(from) and output (to) the natural environment. A CBE brings about
resource input (material and energy) and output (product,
both environmental and economic benefits (Mohan et al., 2018),
byproduct, waste), per product or service offer. This can be
where the recovery of bio-based wastes or byproducts can both
accomplished by feeding production systems with outputs that
prevent pollution and promote potential valorisation (Prasad,
would otherwise go to waste or receive less value-added destina-
2015), turning wastes into marketable products with added value
tions. Nevertheless, a CE alone might not be completely sustainable

2
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.
(Kwan et al., 2018), and allowing economic growth (Reim et al.,
2019). In a CBE, the concepts of circular economy and bio-
economy overlap to some extent, being CBE the intersection of
those two concepts (Carus and Dammer, 2018).
The innovative aspects of CBE compared to the bioeconomy is
that a CBE foments the use of bioresources in a way that makes
them stay longer within the technical cycle before leaving the
system, therefore, seeking upcycling and cascading rather than
solely seeking the best economic value to decide on the use of a
resource. Moreover, it has been reported that the CBE represents an
opportunity of USD $7.7 trillion until 2030 (WBCSD, 2019).
Furthermore, a CBE can contribute to a more sustainable develop-
ment, collaborating towards some of the sustainable development
goals (SDG) set by the United Nations (UN) (UN, 2020), including
affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), industry, innovation and
infrastructure (SDG 9), sustainable cities and communities (SDG
11), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), and climate
action (SDG 13).
Nevertheless, the transition to more circular systems of pro-
duction and consumption affects businesses, and forces them to
redesign their business strategies and business models (Na €yha€,
2020). The business model of a company is the way it does busi-
ness. It is a conceptual and simplified representation of what value
will be offered to consumers (Wirtz et al., 2016), its characteristics
and relationships with all stakeholders, thus showing how it will be
done, and the related financial consequences (Osterwalder et al.,
2005). Every company runs a business model, either knowingly
or unknowingly, using its strategic resources to create value via
meeting customers’ needs (Teece, 2010). Overall, a business model
comprises strategies for value proposition, creation, delivery, and
capture (Richardson, 2008). The most widely used and accepted
representation of business models currently is the business model
Canvas, proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010). Those au-
thors claim a business model to be made of nine building blocks,
which are (i) customer segments, (ii) value proposition, (iii) chan-
nels, (iv) customer relationships, (v) revenue streams, (vi) key re-
sources (vii), key activities, (vii) key partnerships, and (ix) cost
structure. Moreover, as new business models consist of one of the
pillars of CE (EMF, 2013a; 2013b), it makes clear the need for
business models that are more circular.
Establishing a CBE, hence, sets the need for business model
innovation (Hansen, 2016). However, circular approaches on a
business perspective are still under development (Gregorio et al.,
2018). Much of the existing literature has devoted efforts towards
technology-related research (Devappa et al., 2015) and bio-based
technology research (Laibach et al., 2019), but business model
innovation has been hardly ever addressed (Bocken et al., 2014;
Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002). Moreover, there is a scarcity of
both academic and practical approaches on circular business
models (CBM) (Bocken et al., 2017), and (mainly) bioeconomy
business models (Reim et al., 2017).
A CBM is a business model that seeks establishing systems that
are naturally regenerative, which maintain resource value at its
maximum wherever and whenever possible, and reduce or elimi-
nate resource leakage by slowing, narrowing, or closing resource
loops (Salvador et al., 2020). More than greater circularity, a well-
designed CBM can be a source of competitive advantage (WBCSD,
2017). Companies will need to adapt in order to be innovative,
seeking to benefit from local resources, tailoring strategies to
positively impact the sector/industry it belongs to, delivering
meaningful value to the customers and customer segments it tar-
gets using the resources that are available. On that note, Mohan
et al. (2018) highlight the need for more sustainable business
models if the CBE is to succeed. Thereupon, one can see the
importance of business models for a CBE.
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341
The existing research brings valuable insights into implement-
ing and managing business models for a circular bioeconomy. The
few reviews already published (see Table 1 in section 2) that
address the theme also help setting the scene and represent first
steps into organizing the knowledge on business models for a CBE.
However, the existing discussions on CBMs for the bioeconomy
indicate information in the field to be fragmented and lacking a
research agenda, which renders the insights and benefits of CBMs
for the bioeconomy not to be fully mapped out, or even understood
(Reim et al., 2017). Based on that, businesses require guidance on
this transition from a linear to a more circular bioeconomy, and
assistance to benefit from the opportunities linked to their business
type. What mostly lacks in this body of research, and what marks
the originality of the present article, is summarizing the key aspects
that need to be considered when designing, implementing and
managing businesses in a CBE. It is important, both for the scientific
community and for decision-makers, to know in detail the char-
acteristics of business models for a circular bioeconomy, because
developing a CBE will certainly depend on fine technical skills and
operational excellence; however, marketing and communication
skills will also play a major role in it (N€ €, 2020), and unfortu-
ahya
nately often businesses seem to be absent from or deficient in the
latter. Hence, knowing the aspects that dictate the performance of a
business is of strategic importance for a business’s survival and
success. Therefore, this study’s aim is twofold (i) to reveal key as-
pects for implementing and managing business models for a CBE,
and (ii) point out the issues that lack further research on the theme.
2. Methods
A few Steps were followed to conduct the systematic literature
review in this paper. These Steps are illustrated in Fig. 1.
2.1. Step 1: Definition of keywords and searches in databases
The following reference query was used in the searches:
“((“circular* econom*" OR “CE”) AND (“bioeconom*" OR “bio econ-
om*" OR “bio-based econom*")) OR (“circular*" AND (“bioeconom*"
OR “bio econom*" OR “bio based-econom*"))”. The searches were
conducted on January 6, 2020. All types of documents (including,
e.g., journal articles, books, book chapters, serials, and conference
proceedings) were retrieved, and no publication period or language
were restricted, therefore reaching 598 documents.
2.2. Step 2: Removing duplicates and articles not written in English
All duplicate documents were excluded, as well as documents
that were written in languages other than English.
2.3. Step 3: Screening by title and keywords
All documents were screened by their titles and keywords and
the question that aided selecting or ruling them out was: “do the
title and keywords in the publication refer to or resemble, or are
they related to aspects of business models within a circular
bioeconomy?“.
2.4. Step 4: Screening by abstract
All documents were screened by their abstracts and the ques-
tion that aided selecting or ruling them out was: “does the abstract
of the publication refer to or resemble, or is it related to aspects of
business models within a circular bioeconomy?“.
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341

Table 1
Documents in the final portfolio.

Reference Title of document Type of Source Source name

study type

D’Amato et al. Towards sustainability? Forest-based circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish Review Journal Forest Policy and Economics
(2020) SMEs Article
Jarre et al. Transforming the bio-based sector towards a circular economy - What can we learn Review Journal Forest Policy and Economics
(2020) from wood cascading? Article
Na€yh€a (2020) Finnish forest-based companies in transition to the circular bioeconomy - drivers, Original Journal Forest Policy and Economics
organizational resources and innovations Research Article
Ubando et al. Biorefineries in circular bioeconomy: A comprehensive review Review Journal Bioresource Technology
(2020) Article
Awasthi et al. A critical review of organic manure biorefinery models toward sustainable circular Review Journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
(2019) bioeconomy: Technological challenges, advancements, innovations, and future Article
perspectives
Bolwig et al. Beyond animal feed? The valorisation of brewers’ spent grain Original Book From Waste to Value: Valorisation Pathways for
(2019) Research Section Organic Waste Streams in Circular Bioeconomies
Bugge et al. Theoretical perspectives on innovation for waste valorisation in the bioeconomy Review Book From Waste to Value: Valorisation Pathways for
(2019) Section Organic Waste Streams in Circular Bioeconomies
Hagman et al. Assessment of By-product Valorisation in a Swedish Wheat-Based Biorefinery Original Journal Waste and Biomass Valorisation
(2020) Research Article
Klitkou et al. From waste to value: Valorisation pathways for organic waste streams in circular Original Book From Waste to Value: Valorisation Pathways for
(2019) bioeconomies Research Organic Waste Streams in Circular Bioeconomies
Loizides et al. Circular bioeconomy in action: Collection and recycling of domestic used cooking oil Original Journal Recycling
(2019) through a social, reverse logistics system Research Article
Paredes- Evolution and perspectives of the bioenergy applications in Spain Review Journal Journal of Cleaner Production

nchez
Sa Article
et al. (2019)
Reim et al. Circular Business Models for the Bio-Economy: A Review and New Directions for Review Journal Sustainability
(2019) Future Research Article
Zecevic et al. A Business Model in Agricultural Production in Serbia, Developing Towards Original Journal Ekonomika Poljoprivreda-Economics of
(2019) Sustainability Research Article Agriculture
Berbel and Review and analysis of alternatives for the valorisation of agro-industrial olive oil by- Review Journal Sustainability (Switzerland)
Posadillo products Article
(2018)
Dahiya et al. Food waste biorefinery: Sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomy Review Journal Bioresource Technology
(2018) Article
Egea et al. An efficient agro-industrial complex in Almería (Spain): Towards an integrated and Review Journal New Biotechnology
(2018) sustainable bioeconomy model Article
Egelyng et al. Cascading Norwegian co-streams for bioeconomic transition Original Journal Journal of Cleaner Production
(2018) Research Article
Gyalai-Korpos Bioeconomy opportunities in the danube region Original Serial World Sustainability Series
et al. (2018) Research
Lesage- Lavender- and lavandin-distilled straws: an untapped feedstock with great potential Original Journal Biotechnology for Biofuels
Meessen for the production of high-added value compounds and fungal enzymes Research Article
et al. (2018)
Mengal et al. Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking: The catalyst for sustainable bio-based Review
Journal New Biotechnology
(2018) economic growth in Europe Article
Mohan et al. Waste derived bioeconomy in India: A perspective Review Journal New Biotechnology
(2018) Article
Vea et al. Biowaste Valorisation in a Future Circular Bioeconomy Original Journal Procedia CIRP
(2018) Research Article
Imbert (2017) Food waste valorisation options: Opportunities from the bioeconomy Review Journal Open Agriculture
Article
Maina et al. A roadmap towards a circular and sustainable bioeconomy through waste valorisation Review Journal Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable
(2017) Article Chemistry
Puyol et al. Resource Recovery from Wastewater by Biological Technologies: Opportunities, Review Journal Frontiers in Microbiology
(2017) Challenges, and Prospects Article
Mohan et al. Waste Biorefinery: A New Paradigm for a Sustainable Bioelectro Economy Review Journal Trends in Biotechnology
(2016) Article

2.5. Step 5: Retrieving full-texts
All full texts of remaining documents were searched. The au-
thors tried retrieving the full-texts via a range of outlets, including
the access to scholarly sources the researchers had been granted via

dicos CAPES”, as well as by searching for the title
the “Portal de Perio
of the document on the open search engine Google®, and on the
platform ResearchGate. Only one full-text could not be retrieved.
2.6. Step 6: Full-reading
was assessed. A guiding question to keep the article in the final
portfolio was “does the research contribute to designing business
models for a circular bioeconomy?” During the full reading of all
documents, the authors used a reading form to collect the infor-
mation that would be useful in the systematic analysis. After
reading all documents, 15 of them were ruled out, there being only
26 left, which comprised the final portfolio used in this paper.
Steps 1 through 6 were used to build the final portfolio for the
literature review. The documents that comprised the final portfolio
can be seen in Table 1.

In this Step, all full-texts were read and their fit to the research
4
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.
Fig. 1. Steps for literature Review and theoretical background.
2.7. Step 7: Additional searches to establish the theoretical
background
Additional searches were conducted seeking to retrieve docu-
ments from other sources (either peer-reviewed or not) to help
establish the theoretical background of the present paper. Non-
systematic searches (on both scholarly and non-scholarly data-
bases, platforms, and websites) were conducted. Examples of non-
scholarly sources for the documents retrieved in this Step are the
Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development.
2.8. Step 8: Systematic literature review
During the full-reading of the documents, as mentioned in Step
Fig. 2. Relating key aspects to the canvas framework.
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341
6, a reading form was filled out, in which it was annotated various
pieces of information that would help gather useful information for
designing business models for a CBE. The reading form comprised
mainly the following information: main conclusions and recom-
mendations; and characteristics of business models for a CBM
based on the building blocks of the business model Canvas.
The key aspects identified in the existing literature were asso-
ciated with each of the nine building blocks of the business model
Canvas framework, as indicated in Fig. 2.
While analyzing the existing literature, the key aspects for
implementing and managing business models for a CBE were
identified and related to each of the building blocks. Aspects that
could potentially influence more than one building block were
mentioned in all of them, but described being tailored to reflect
which part of the aspect could influence each building block.
Lastly, on an overall assessment, the authors pointed out aspects
that could potentially influence the implementation and manage-
ment of business models for a CBE but are not present in the
existing literature. This can be seen in section 5.
3. Results
Given the definitions of bioeconomy and CBMs, it is possible to
observe that business models for a CBE are business models that
enable producing, using and managing bioresources in order to
deliver value offers with the highest possible added-value,
cascading and upcycling always that are possible, and seeking to
close, slow, or narrow resource flows, and reduce material leakage.
The type of business models for a CBE will depend on numerous
factors, including (e.g.) where in the value chain the company is,
and what its business approach is. Currently, bioeconomy seems to
focus on three streams of biomass use, being them (i) biomass for
food and feed, (ii) industrial bio-based products, and (iii) bioenergy
(Berbel and Posadillo, 2018).
Based on the literature review conducted in this paper, it seems
that most business models for a CBE tend to focus on the few
strategies listed hereafter: industrial symbiosis, with strategies to
reduce material leakage and design out waste; recycling, as a way of
conducting material recovery; developing strategic partnerships,
enabling the use of renewable resources and extending resource
value and efficiency; upcycling and cascading, as a way to enable
multiple cycles (of materials and products); and a great deal of
them appear to focus on energy recovery. Take-back systems (TBS)
and product-service systems (PSS) are hardly ever mentioned or
regarded, thus being opportunities to be explored.
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.
Fig. 3. Main topics per business model building block for implementing and managing business models for a circular bioeconomy.
Business models for a CBE can be very diverse. This section aims
to synthetically point out the key aspects of such business models
that were identified in the systematic literature review, based on
the nine building blocks of the business model Canvas. Fig. 3 il-
lustrates the main topics dealt with in each business model
building block, and the key aspects can be seen in Table 2.
Legend: CS - Customer Segments; VP - Value Proposition; CH -
Channels; CR - Customer Relationships; R$ - Revenue Streams; KR -
Key Resources; KA - Key Activities; KP - Key Partnerships; C$ - Cost
Structure.
The key aspects are now further detailed and discussed in the
following subsections (3.1 through 3.9), based on the literature
presented in Table 2.
3.1. Customer segments
C CS-1: creating/developing new markets. New/innovative
products might mark the creation of a new market, which
will need to be developed. This might also call for the
establishment of new partnerships along the value chain.
Nonetheless, those products can be an innovation only for
the company producing it, and not for the market. In that
case, the company will need to develop the existing market
onto accepting their value offer instead of creating a new
one.
C CS-2: developing/finding customer segments. If a company
makes a novel product, it will have to both find and develop a
customer segment. If a company is entering a well-
established market that is used to traditional value offers
(e.g., the energy market), but the company is producing the
same final product via different means, it might have to work
on consumer awareness and education before and while
entering the market, seeking to develop their customer
segments.
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341
C CS-3: seeking partnerships. Depending on the value offer,
companies might work with a variety of customer segments
(e.g. mass or niche market, segmented, diversified, multi-
sided platform), and for each one of them different part-
nerships will be needed.
3.2. Value propositions
C VP-1: upcycling. Businesses and the bioeconomy would
benefit from upcycling wherever and whenever possible.
C VP-2: offering innovative products with added value. It is
argued that the added value of biofuels is low compared to
more refined alternatives. Upcycling can be a strategy for
capturing and adding value. Innovation can be used to enable
bio-based products to compete with traditional products
offering equivalent or additional value. Added value of bio-
energy and biofuels (for instance) is low, which helps
extending resource life/value, since other routes tend to be
prioritized.
C VP-3: creating the most value for a certain volume of
resource. As bioresources are usually traded in bulk, the
value offer should be linked to the smallest possible portion
of resources. Besides reducing the consumption of the
resource, this will result in the most monetary value for the
company. Thus, it is advisable to seek the best economic
options for co-streams and byproducts.
C VP-4: paying attention to customers’ needs. Many com-
panies do not establish a close relationship with their cus-
tomers or end users, and do not even have adequate
knowledge of who their final customers or end users are.
Customers’ needs have to be strongly considered in the value
proposition. Companies need to pay attention to what cus-
tomers are looking and willing to pay for.
 Table 2

R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.

Characteristics of business models for a circular bioeconomy.

Building block ID Aspect Supporting literature

CUSTOMER CS- creating/developing new markets Awasthi et al. (2019); Reim et al. (2019); Scarlat et al. (2015)
SEGMENTS 1
CS- developing/finding customer segments Egelyng et al. (2018); Maina et al. (2017); Mohan et al. (2018)
2
CS- seeking partnerships Hagman et al. (2020)
3
VALUE VP- upcycling Hagman et al. (2020)
PROPOSITIONS 1
VP- offering innovative products with added value Bugge et al. (2019); Mengal et al. (2018); Vea et al. (2018)
2
VP- creating the most value for a certain volume of resource Berbel and Posadillo (2018); Reim et al. (2019)
3
VP- paying attention to customer’s needs €yh€
Na a (2020)
4
VP- co-creating with key-partners D’Amato et al. (2020)
5
CHANNELS CH- setting ideal logistic systems Awasthi et al. (2019); Egelyng et al. (2018)
1
CH- reducing/mitigating dependence on external stakeholders Loizides et al. (2019)
2
CH- developing adequate infrastructure Cambero and Sowlati (2014); Reim et al. (2019)
3
CUSTOMER CR- pursuing ecolabels Reim et al. (2019); Scarlat et al. (2015)
RELATIONSHIPS 1
CR- raising public awareness of bio-based products and its advantages/benefits Gyalai-Korpos et al. (2018); Imbert (2017)
2
7

REVENUE R$- seeking to detach revenue streams from physical inputs Loizides et al. (2019); Imbert (2017)
STREAMS 1
R$- benefitting from governmental subsidies Reim et al. (2019)
2
R$- low-cost pricing Brodin et al. (2017)
3
R$- building customer base € m et al. (2017); Reim et al. (2019)
Jernstro
4
R$- paying attention to best economic options for co-streams/byproducts Egelyng et al. (2018)
5
KEY RESOURCES KR- technological advancement Awasthi et al. (2019); Bolwig et al. (2019); Mohan et al. (2016); Reim et al. (2019)
1
KR- agricultural production Egea et al. (2018)
2
KR- forestry production €yh€
D’Amato et al. (2020); Jarre et al. (2020); Na a (2020)

Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341

3
KR- capital investment Reim et al. (2019)
4
KR- infrastructure/facilities Paredes-S

anchez et al. (2019)
5
KEY ACTIVITIES KA- agricultural and forestry activities Egea et al. (2018); Hagman et al. (2020)
1
KA- research & development & innovation Cambero and Sowlati (2014); Mengal et al. (2018); Puyol et al. (2017); Reim et al. (2019)
2
KA- transport/logistics €yh€
Egelyng et al. (2018); Na a and Pesonen (2014); Reim et al. (2019)
3
KA- biomaterial and biowaste collection Hagman et al. (2020); Loizides et al. (2019)
4
practicing an open culture Hansen (2016); Reim et al. (2019)
(continued on next page)
 Table 2 (continued )

R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.

Building block ID Aspect Supporting literature

KA-
5
KA- capacity building €yh€
Na a (2020)
6
KA- marketing & advertising €yh€
Na a (2020)
7
KA- seeking auto sufficiency Paredes-S

anchez et al. (2019)
8
KA- value recovery activities Dahiya et al. (2018); Franklin-Johson et al. (2016); Klitkou et al. (2019); Lesage-Meessen et al. (2018)
9
KA- secured access to bioresource inputs Reim et al. (2019)
10
KEY KP- establishing partnerships for collaboration (within the market) Awasthi et al. (2019); Egea et al. (2018); Egelyng et al. (2018); Hagman et al. (2020); N€ € and Pesonen (2014); Pan
ayha
PARTNERSHIPS 1 et al. (2015); Reim et al. (2019); Ubando et al. (2020)
KP- €m et al. (2017); Maina et al. (2017); Reim et al. (2019); Ubando et al.
governmental support to propose regulations for environmentally sound Egelyng et al. (2018); Gregg et al. (2017); Jernstro
2 products (2020)
KP- establishing reliable and resilient value chains Mengal et al. (2018); Paredes-Sa
nchez et al. (2019); Reim et al. (2019)
3
KP- establishing partnerships with research institutions €yh€
Na a and Pesonen (2014); Reim et al. (2019)
4
KP- establishing direct channels with customers and key stakeholders for €yh€
Na a (2020)
5 considering their opinions and needs
COST STRUCTURE C$- revenue streams should increase local gdp Zecevic et al. (2019)
1
C$- optimizing logistics/distribution Reim et al. (2019)
2
C$- focusing on value creation to cover the costs Reim et al. (2019)
8

3
C$- creating competitive advantage and/or additional income for key partners D’Amato et al. (2020)
4

Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341

R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.
C VP-5: co-creating with key-partners. Value can be co-
created with key-partners. This might boost performance,
but also lead to shared responsibility and risks.
3.3. Channels
C CH-1: setting ideal logistic systems. Transportation costs
might mark an economic difficulty, thus setting ideal logis-
tics systems is a requirement for a successful business model
for a CBE. Moreover, as mentioned in VP-3, bioresources tend
to be bulky, thus large masses and volumes tend to increase
the costs of transportation both to the manufacturing site
and for distribution. Hence, it might be beneficial to focus on
the local economy.
C CH-2: reducing/mitigating dependence on external
stakeholders. Many approaches can be followed here.
Building resilience via integrating (either upstream or
downstream) whatever is possible might contribute to
reducing dependency. Making unique products and avoiding
commodities can also diminish market dominance on price
setting.
C CH-3: developing adequate infrastructure. Bioresources
tend to decompose more rapidly and might require specific
conditions for storage and transportation. Thus, it is neces-
sary to establish adequate infrastructure to deal with such
issues.
3.4. Customer relationships
C CR-1: pursuing ecolabels. Businesses should pursue ecola-
bels to help assure and advertise product sustainability.
C CR-2: raising public awareness of bio-based products and
its advantages/benefits. One of the challenges for commer-
cializing bio-based products is the lack of public awareness of
their advantages and benefits. Thus, businesses should seek
designing strategies to overcome it.
3.5. Revenue streams
C R$-1: seeking to detach revenue streams from physical
inputs. One of the key factors for circular business models is
seeking to decouple physical inputs from the value they offer
to customers, consequently detaching it from their revenue
streams. Businesses should focus on innovative solutions and
value offers to achieve it.
C R$-2: benefitting from governmental subsidies. There has
been an increase in governmental subsidies towards bio-
economy and CBE. Companies could benefit from such sub-
sidies to help establish and develop their businesses.
C R$-3: low-cost pricing. Low-cost pricing is indicated to be
used to compete with non-bio-based products, in order to
build a customer base and try to secure a stable income.
C R$-4: building customer base. As mentioned in R$-3, a
customer base can help secure a stable income. Hence,
companies should consider the customer perspective in or-
der to build a solid customer base.
C R$-5: paying attention to best economic options for co-
streams/byproducts. Policies to reduce food waste tend to
increase the costs of this raw material in the future. Thus,
from a circular business perspective, it is necessary to come
up with routes that bring added value to co-streams and
byproducts.
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341
3.6. Key resources
C KR-1: technological advancement. The need for techno-
logical advancement is observed from a range of aspects. In
this case, it is highlighted the technology necessary for
refining/processing of bioresources (as both virgin raw ma-
terial and waste).
C KR-2: agricultural production. Agriculture is one of the
pivotal sectors of a bioeconomy, thus also for a CBE. Crops
and fruit production are essential to provide biomaterials for
a CBE.
C KR-3: forestry production. Forestry activities are also
pivotal for a bioeconomy and a CBE, providing wood-based
biomass for a CBE.
C KR-4: capital investment. Capital investment is necessary
for technology development and implementation, and
operational costs.
C KR-5: infrastructure/facilities. Key infrastructure for oper-
ating a business, such as manufacturing and storage facilities,
and resources for logistic operations and distribution.
3.7. Key activities
C KA-1: agricultural and forestry activities. As addressed in
KR-2 and KR-3, these activities are key for providing the in-
puts to a CBE.
C KA-2: research & development & innovation. Research and
development, mainly innovation-driven, can be decisive or at
least beneficial for developing a CBE, regarding the entrance
into existing markets or the creation of new ones. Businesses
should use research and development to reach technological
maturity.
C KA-3: transport/logistics. Transportation is a concerning
factor, since it can tear the sustainability of a CBE, both for
economic and environmental reasons.
C KA-4: biomaterial and biowaste collection. More than just
the logistics involved in the collection, it is necessary to pay
attention to all the conditions required for the collection of
biomaterials, concerning physical, chemical, and biological
integrity.
C KA-5: practicing an open culture. A culture that is open to
change, adaptation, and innovation, can be beneficial to a
CBE.
C KA-6: capacity building. CBE is in its infancy, therefore, it is
still necessary to develop and build capabilities on aspects
such as market behavior and technology development.
Therefore, there is a need for human and physical resources
to be tailored, enabling organizational capabilities to define
sustainable and efficient use of resources.
C KA-7: marketing & advertising. CBE needs to conquer its
place among traditional approaches. Therefore, smart and
transparent marketing and advertising is needed.
C KA-8: seeking auto sufficiency. One of the characteristics of
a CBE is increased circularity. The more sufficient society is
(regarding the use of resources), the better. Thus, businesses
should seek auto sufficiency, not necessarily at the local level,
but at regional and national levels, seeking to close loops,
reducing (e.g.) dependence on foreign/external energy.
C KA-9: value recovery activities. Rather than only cascading,
businesses should seek to recover the value of resources,
thus maintaining them cycling for as long as possible,
constantly developing and improving ways to create value
from co-products and byproducts, facilitating reuse and
recycling of bioresources.
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341

C KA-10: secured access to bioresource inputs. This relates to managing business models for a CBE, based on the business model
ensuring reliable and secure sources of bioresources, by (e.g.) Canvas framework, the next section will draw on takeaway lessons
developing strategic partnerships. from this synthesis of the existing literature.

3.10. Synergies and managerial implications

3.8. Key partnerships
A number of synergies might be observed among different key
C KP-1: establishing partnerships for collaboration (within
aspects, with one exerting multilateral influence over others. Those
the market). Partnerships can be formed with suppliers,
synergies may lead to different managerial implications depending
overall society (strengthening value-co-creation), for various
on the system under consideration. A few generic, thus transfer-
reasons and with various intents. Businesses could use
able, implications are presented hereafter.
partnerships for cooperative commercialization of technol-
Individual companies and consortia can benchmark good prac-
ogies, building clusters or networks of companies, and build
tices of seemingly successful bioeconomy businesses, however, as
cooperative organizations (between providers of raw mate-
bioeconomies (and one could stress that mainly circular bio-
rial, investors or end-users), as well as for creation of net-
economies) tend to rely on locally available resources, such good
works and consortia (e.g. many companies together seen as
practices cannot simply be copied, but need to be tailored to the
one biorefinery), and building new value chains for collection
specific local needs and context. On those grounds, one possible
and supply of biomass feedstock, thus closing outer loops.
common strategy among the aspects presented previously for the
C KP-2: governmental support to propose regulations for
transition to a CBE is business model experimentation (see Bocken
environmentally sound products. Policymakers play a very
et al., 2018; Konietzko et al., 2020). When implementing strategies
important role, even though current regulations might be
for a CBE, contextual regional aspects need to be taken into
unreliable. There is a lack of government support to propose
consideration, such as resource and technology availability, as
regulations for environmentally sound products. Therefore,
addressed by Pant et al. (2019). This also leads to the intrinsic need
support from governments external stakeholders is needed.
for stakeholder engagement and synergy for a stable quality supply
C KP-3: establishing reliable and resilient value chains. This
of feedstock.
is partially addressed in KP-1. Nonetheless, a bioeconomy
Strategic (perhaps several and different) partnerships might
needs constant resource supply, and resilient value chains
need to be arranged to ensure a stable supply. Such strategic
need reliable partnerships, which can be reached by
partnerships should also be made with actors that are downstream
contractual agreements and strategic relationships.
in the value chain, in order to ensure stable (or constant) demand.
C KP-4: establishing partnerships with research in-
As many types of feedstock might be seasonal, a company (or a
stitutions. Partnerships with research institutions might
consortium of companies) could produce and supply different
enable more efficient research and development, besides
products at different times of the year.
allowing highly-skilled intellectual workforce into the
Another critical issue for the success of a CBE is social awareness
organization.
(see Lieder et al., 2017). Society needs to be made aware and
C KP-5: establishing direct channels with customers and
encouraged to engage in the consumption of bio-based products.
key stakeholders for considering their opinions and
An aspect highlighted elsewhere in the literature (see
needs. Active dialogue and networking with stakeholders for
Lewandowski, 2016) is that the value proposition needs to be in line
considering their opinions and needs is necessary. Busi-
with the interests of the targeted customer segments. Tailored
nesses should incorporate stakeholder feedback into their
value propositions might be achieved by means of value co-
value proposition and also use it to power support for cus-
creation with customers or strategic partners.
tomers and other stakeholders.
Environmental soundness of circular bioeconomy systems also
cannot be disregarded. Even though CBE businesses might base
their value offers on renewable resources, environmentally-
3.9. Cost structure
friendliness of operations is necessary in order not to offset the
advantages of a bioeconomy over a fossil-based one.
C C$-1: revenue streams should increase local GDP. Revenue
streams need to increase local gross domestic product (GDP).
This could help reaching auto sufficiency (by greater in- 4. Discussion
vestments) and also conquer more financial incentives.
C C$-2: optimizing logistics/distribution. Logistic costs incur While analyzing and synthesizing the existing literature, a few
in some of the greatest costs and environmental impacts in a takeaway lessons could be derived from this review, comprising
CBE. Hence, logistic operations should be optimized. issues that could potentially act as either key drivers or hampering
C C$-3: focusing on value creation to cover the costs. Busi- factors for a CBE.
nesses should focus on value creation to cover the costs,
instead of drawing attention to traditional cost-cutting C Be aware of new markets: innovation can be tricky. Only
strategies. coming up with a new product might not solve a company’s
C C$-4: creating competitive advantage and/or additional problems or create new demands. The market, or its
income for key partners. Value capture (for actors other customer segments, needs to be developed.
than the company, i.e., the environment and societal actors) C Take the customer perspective into account. This issue, in
also include the creation of competitive advantage and fact, has been reported elsewhere in the literature, as piv-
additional income for key partners, which embed support to oting for CBMs (e.g. Salvador et al., 2020), since companies
job creation, improved consumption, quality of life for con- many times fail to communicate and integrate the customer
sumers, and reduced environmental and social impacts. into the value creation process. Although systems that are
more circular tend to encourage the prioritization of
Having presented the key aspects for implementing and environmentally-driven actions, customers must not be
10
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.
disregarded, as they should be at the core of a company’s
value offer.
C Account for logistics. One of the most challenging man-
agement (and economic) issues within circular systems is
logistics. It might increase costs significantly, and conse-
quently turn an operation unfeasible. When designing cir-
cular systems, a company is likely to benefit from focusing on
and prioritizing the local economy, both for the acquisition of
its feedstock and for the offer of its products.
C Be close to your customers, so that they know the inner
value of your offer. If a company is close to its customers, the
customers are also close to the company. A close relationship
might make customers more aware of the benefits of the
bioproducts offered by the company, regarding both their
environmental soundness, and the potential value on the use
stage.
C Pay attention to the biomass value. Biomass comprises a
significant aspect of a bioeconomy, therefore its use should
be responsibly explored. Virgin biomass, byproducts, and
wastes, can have a range of applications. The biomass value
pyramid (Verburg, 2007), in Fig. 4, provides an insight on the
different value options for commercializing bio-based
resources.
The information gathered from the pyramid should be coupled
with strategies for cascading, seeking to capture the most value of
bioresources while maintaining the resources for as long as
possible in the technical cycle.
C Seek technological development. Biomass is potentially the
largest available resource. Nonetheless, society is used to
making and consuming products based on other resources.
Achieving sufficient technological development to be able to
replace “traditional” products with bio-based ones requires
intellectual and capital investment.
C Develop effective waste collection and storage systems.
For the companies who have their businesses based on
byproducts or wastes, it is of great importance that they
develop an adequate system for collecting and storing their
feedstock. Many bioresources perish easily if not properly
managed.
C Build resilient value chains. Key, reliable partnerships
should be built in order to ensure constant resource supply,
and to try to maintain a stable flow of quality feedstock.
Fig. 4. Biomass value pyramid.
Source: translated from Verburg (2007)
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341
C Create value to cover the costs. Companies should prioritize
creating value through innovation, or establishing partner-
ships (e.g. value co-creation) to cover incurred costs, rather
than having to rely on traditional strategies for cutting costs.
Considering all the lessons and the key aspects presented, one
can observe that the existing research on business models for a CBE
has provided great contributions for both theory and practice.
However, there are still a few issues that lack addressing, either for
being unknown or having been neglected. They, therefore,
comprise future research directions. Some of these issues are pre-
sented in the next section.
5. Issues neglected in the existing literature on business
models for a circular bioeconomy and future research
directions
There are a few issues that are not present in the existing dis-
cussions on business models for a CBE. It seems that this body of
research has been receiving increasing attention, however, there
are issues that need to be addressed in order for a CBE to be able to
perform its full potential and succeed. In the context of a CBE, issues
such as product-service-systems (PSS), take back-systems (TBS),
seasonal availability of resources, social impacts, rebound effects,
and most surprisingly, aquatic activities (such as fishing and related
activities), which have not been addressed in any of the studies
analyzed, seem either to be lacking general interest or have been
neglected.
TBS involves reverse logistics, which is a topic fairly well
addressed in the existing literature. However, TBS itself was not
mentioned. These systems might be a better fit for materials and
products that have long lifespans, however, TBS of traditional
products could serve as inspiration and benchmark for TBS in a CBE.
The concept of TBS could be used to help design reverse cycles and
be further tailored to business models for a CBE.
PSS also has not been regarded in the existing literature. Many
examples of PSS can be found in CBMs (see, e.g., Mudjeans, 2020).
In a CBE, businesses could benefit from setting agreements for
providing bio-based products based on PSS. However, business
experimentation is encouraged to investigate the intricacies of such
practice. Therefore, it makes for an opportunity in a CBE.
Another important issue that has been left aside is the possi-
bility for companies (and biorefineries or consortia) to invest in a
wide portfolio of products, based on seasonal availability of bio-
resources. Greatly linked to agriculture, this strategy could
encourage partnerships for the establishment of biorefineries or
consortia in order to benefit from the use of bioresources (as well as
byproducts and wastes that are seasonal). This would also imply a
seasonal portfolio of products. This strategy could also benefit from
business experimentation and from being subject of further
research.
Social impacts of business models for a CBE seem to be great
potential subjects of research in the future, as there seems to be no
research on the matter thus far. The few studies on business models
for a CBE seem to completely neglect the social dimension. It is
necessary to investigate the social impacts that the development of
CBE businesses might have on the different social groups, including
(e.g.) their influence on rural development, the relationship be-
tween rural and urban environments, the possible results of
establishing CBE businesses altogether in urban environments
(based on wastes), and on top of that, how it would affect the offer
of jobs. These are only a few issues that would benefit from further
investigation, from a social perspective.
Rebound effects of CBE businesses, specifically, seem to have not
been given attention thus far. Concerns with rebound effects might
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.
be varied, which might include the following examples. Wastes
being turned into commodities, since products derived from those
would be environmentally preferable, but economically (on a
radical perspective) they could become mainstream feedstock,
depending on the added value. CBE products might need to be
introduced to the market on a low-price strategy, to be able to
compete with “traditional” products, which might end up trig-
gering increased consumption.
Aquatic activities also do not feature in the existing literature.
Business models for a CBE, or even for a bioeconomy, do not seem to
address this sector. It might be the result of little activity in this
sector (at least compared to agriculture, livestock farming, and
forestry), or lack of approaches to help develop this sector. None-
theless, it still embeds some of the pivoting activities in a bio-
economy or CBE. One “non-traditional” example that could be used
to illustrate the important contributions this sector might provide
is the use of tilapia skin to treat burns (see, e.g., Lima-Junior et al.,
2019).
Addressing these future research directions, which comprise the
topics that seem to have been left aside in the existing literature,
would contribute to paving the way to a more circular bioeconomy.
6. Final considerations
This article synthesized the existing literature on business
models for a CBE. To that end, it presented (i) key aspects for
implementing and managing business models for a CBE, and (ii) the
issues that lack further research on the theme.
The existing research on business models for a CBE seems not to
be well established and, therefore, it does not appear in the liter-
ature under this name. Moreover, there seems to be very little
business consideration in the academic environment towards
either bioeconomy or CBE. The subjects addressed in section 5,
undoubtedly need much further development and are pointed as
future research directions, however, all topics addressed in the
present paper, regarding business perspectives for designing busi-
ness models for a CBE need deepening. Nonetheless, it is pointed
that some of the most concerning issues to be addressed in more
detail in further studies are the possible rebound effects of business
models for a CBE, since more sustainable businesses should account
for those. Although the CBE has been developing in the last few
years, and bioeconomy-related activities have always been con-
ducted, the development of the CBE seems shier and shallower than
other industries and sectors.
The importance of developing a CBE has been recognized by
reliable and influential sources (see, e.g., WBCSD, 2019; EMF, 2017),
on both the environmental and economic perspectives. This
research comprises an initial effort towards revealing such impor-
tance and towards providing guidance on how to develop business
models for a CBE, as the authors expect the CBE to gain space in the
following years.
Lastly, this study neither claims to be exhaustive nor to be
exempt from limitations. It was limited to the systematic literature
review described in the methods section, based on a specific
combination of keywords and databases. Nevertheless, the authors
believe it to be representative of the body of research on business
models for the circular bioeconomy.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341
Acknowledgments
This study was financed in part by the Coordenaça ~o de Aper-
feiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance
Code 001, and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientí-
fico e Tecnolo
gico (CNPq).
References
Awasthi, M.K., Sarsaiya, S., Wainaina, S., Rajendran, K., Kumar, S., Quan, W., Duan, Y.,
Awasthi, S.K., Chen, H., Pandey, A., Zhang, Z., Jain, A., Taherzadeh, M.J., 2019.
A critical review of organic manure biorefinery models toward sustainable
circular bioeconomy: technological challenges, advancements, innovations, and
future perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 111, 115e131. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.017.
Barros, M.V., Salvador, R., de Francisco, A.C., Piekarski, C.M., 2020. Mapping of
research lines on circular economy practices in agriculture: from waste to en-
ergy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 131 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2020.109958, 109958.
Berbel, J., Posadillo, A., 2018. Review and analysis of alternatives for the valorisation
of agro-industrial olive oil by-products. Sustainability 10 (1), 237. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su10010237.
Bian, B., Bajracharya, S., Xu, J., Pant, D., Saikaly, P.E., 2020. Microbial electrosynthesis
from CO2: challenges, opportunities and perspectives in the context of circular
bioeconomy. Bioresour. Technol. 302 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio-
rtech.2020.122863, 122863.
Bocken, N.M., Schuit, C.S., Kraaijenhagen, C., 2018. Experimenting with a circular
business model: lessons from eight cases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Tr. 28, 79e95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001.
Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review
to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42e56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
Bocken, N.M., Ritala, P., Huotari, P., 2017. The circular economy: exploring the
introduction of the concept among S&P 500 firms. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 487e490.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12605.
Bolwig, S., Mark, M.S., Happel, M.K., Brekke, A., 2019. Beyond Animal Feed? the
Valorisation of Brewers’ Spent Grain. In: From Waste to Value: Valorisation
Pathways for Organic Waste Streams in Circular Bioeconomies.
Brodin, M., Vallejos, M., Opedal, M.T., Area, M.C., Chinga-Carrasco, G., 2017. Ligno-
cellulosics as sustainable resources for production of bioplasticseA review.
J. Clean. Prod. 162, 646e664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.209.
BSI (British Standards Institution), 2017. BS 8001 - the rise of the circular economy.
https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/benefits-of-using-standards/
becoming-more-sustainable-with-standards/BS8001-Circular-Economy/.
(Accessed 25 July 2020).
Bugge, M., Bolwig, S., Hansen, T., Tanner, A.N., 2019. Theoretical Perspectives on
Innovation for Waste Valorisation in the Bioeconomy. In: From Waste to Value:
Valorisation Pathways for Organic Waste Streams in Circular Bioeconomies.
Cambero, C., Sowlati, T., 2014. Assessment and optimization of forest biomass
supply chains from economic, social and environmental perspectiveseA review
of literature. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 36, 62e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2014.04.041.
Carus, M., Dammer, L., 2018. The circular bioeconomydconcepts, opportunities, and
limitations. Ind. Biotechnol. 14 (2), 83e91. https://doi.org/10.1089/
ind.2018.29121.mca.
Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S., 2002. The role of the business model in capturing
value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off
companies. Ind. Corp. Change 11 (3), 529e555. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/
11.3.529.
Dahiya, S., Kumar, A.N., Sravan, J.S., Chatterjee, S., Sarkar, O., Mohan, S.V., 2018. Food
waste biorefinery: sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomy. Bioresour.
Technol. 248, 2e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.176.
D’Amato, D., Veijonaho, S., Toppinen, A., 2020. Towards sustainability? Forest-based
circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. For. Pol. Econ. 110
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.004, 101848.
Devappa, R.K., Rakshit, S.K., Dekker, R.F., 2015. Forest biorefinery: potential of poplar
phytochemicals as value-added co-products. Biotechnol. Adv. 33 (6), 681e716.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.02.012.
Egea, F.J., Torrente, R.G., Aguilar, A., 2018. An efficient agro-industrial complex in
Almería (Spain): towards an integrated and sustainable bioeconomy model.
N. Biotech. 40, 103e112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.06.009.
Egelyng, H., Romsdal, A., Hansen, H.O., Slizyte, R., Carvajal, A.K., Jouvenot, L.,
Hebrok, M., Honkapa €€
a, K., Wold, J.P., Seljåsen, R., Aursand, M., 2018. Cascading
Norwegian co-streams for bioeconomic transition. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
3864e3873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.099.
EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation), 2013a. Towards the Circular Economy, Eco-
nomic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, Cowes, UK.
EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation), 2013b. Towards the Circular Economy: Op-
portunities for the Consumer Goods Sector. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation), 2017. High value products from organic waste:
Italian entrepreneurs in the circular bioeconomy. https://www.
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/our-work/activities/food/stories/high-value-
products-from-food-by-products. (Accessed 25 July 2020).
European Commission, 2018. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening
the Connection between Economy. society and the environment.
Fradj, N.B., Jayet, P.A., Rozakis, S., Georganta, E., Je˛ drejek, A., 2020. Contribution of
agricultural systems to the bioeconomy in Poland: integration of willow in the
context of a stylised CAP diversification. Land Use Pol. 99 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104797, 104797.
Franklin-Johnson, E., Figge, F., Canning, L., 2016. Resource duration as a managerial
indicator for Circular Economy performance. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 589e598.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.023.
Gregg, J.S., Bolwig, S., Hansen, T., Sole
r, O., Ben Amer-Allam, S., Pladevall
Viladecans, J., Klitkou, A., Fevolden, A., 2017. Value chain structures that define
European cellulosic ethanol production. Sustainability 9 (1), 118. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su9010118.
Gregorio, V.F., Pie
, L., Tercen ~ o, A., 2018. A systematic literature review of bio, green
and circular economy trends in publications in the field of economics and
business management. Sustainability 10, 4232. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10114232.
Gyalai-Korpos, M., Szabo
, Z., Hollo
sy, M., Da
vid, B., Pencz, K., Fehe
r, C., Barta, Z.,
2018. Bioeconomy Opportunities in the Danube Region. In: Towards a Sus-
tainable Bioeconomy: Principles, Challenges and Perspectives. Springer, Cham,
pp. 99e116.
Hagman, L., Eklund, M., Svensson, N., 2020. Assessment of by-product valorisation
in a Swedish wheat-based biorefinery. Waste Biomass Valorization 11,
3567e3577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00667-0.
Hansen, E., 2016. Responding to the Bioeconomy: Business Model Innovation in the
Forest Sector. In: Environmental Impacts of Traditional and Innovative Forest-
Based Bioproducts. Springer, Singapore, pp. 227e248.
Hasselstro €m, L., Thomas, J.B., Nordstro €m, J., Cervin, G., Nylund, G.M., Pavia, H.,
Gro€ndahl, F., 2020. Socioeconomic prospects of a seaweed bioeconomy in
Sweden. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 1e7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58389-6.
Imbert, E., 2017. Food waste valorization options: opportunities from the bio-
economy. Open Agric 2 (1), 195e204. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2017-0020.
Jarre, M., Petit-Boix, A., Priefer, C., Meyer, R., Leipold, S., 2020. Transforming the bio-
based sector towards a circular economy-What can we learn from wood
cascading? For. Pol. Econ. 110 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.017,
101872.
€m, E., Karvonen, V., Ka
Jernstro €ssi, T., Kraslawski, A., Hallikas, J., 2017. The main
factors affecting the entry of SMEs into bio-based industry. J. Clean. Prod. 141,
1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.165.
Klitkou, A., Fevolden, A.M., Capasso, M. (Eds.), 2019. From Waste to Value: Valor-
isation Pathways for Organic Waste Streams in Circular Bioeconomies.
Routledge.
Konietzko, J., Baldassarre, B., Brown, P., Bocken, N., Hultink, E.J., 2020. Circular
business model experimentation: demystifying assumptions. J. Clean. Prod.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122596, 122596.
Kwan, T.H., Ong, K.L., Haque, M.A., Kwan, W.H., Kulkarni, S., Lin, C.S.K., 2018. Val-
orisation of food and beverage waste via saccharification for sugars recovery.
Bioresour. Technol. 255, 67e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.077.
Laibach, N., Bo€ rner, J., Bro
€ ring, S., 2019. Exploring the future of the bioeconomy: an
expert-based scoping study examining key enabling technology fields with
potential to foster the transition toward a bio-based economy. Technol. Soc. 58
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.03.001, 101118.
Lesage-Meessen, L., Bou, M., Ginies, C., Chevret, D., Navarro, D., Drula, E., Bonnin, E.,
del Río, J.C., Odinot, E., Bisotto, A., Berrin, J.G., Sigoillot, J.C., Faulds, C.B.,
Lomascolo, A., 2018. Lavender-and lavandin-distilled straws: an untapped
feedstock with great potential for the production of high-added value com-
pounds and fungal enzymes. Biotechnol. Biofuels 11 (1), 217. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s13068-018-1218-5.
Lewandowski, M., 2016. Designing the business models for circular economy - to-
wards the conceptual framework. Sustainability 8 (1), 43. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su8010043.
Lieder, M., Asif, F.M., Rashid, A., 2017. Towards Circular Economy implementation:
an agent-based simulation approach for business model changes. Auton Agent
Multi Agent Syst 31 (6), 1377e1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-017-9365-
9.
Lima-Junior, E.M., de Moraes Filho, M.O., Costa, B.A., Fechine, F.V., de Moraes, M.E.A.,
Silva-Junior, F.R., Soares, M.F.A.D.N., Rocha, M.B.S., Leontsinis, C.M.P., 2019.
Innovative treatment using tilapia skin as a xenograft for partial thickness
burns after a gunpowder explosion. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2019 (6), 1e4. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jscr/rjz181.
Loizides, M.I., Loizidou, X.I., Orthodoxou, D.L., Petsa, D., 2019. Circular bioeconomy
in action: collection and recycling of domestic used cooking oil through a social,
reverse logistics system. Recycling 4 (2), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/
recycling4020016.
Maina, S., Kachrimanidou, V., Koutinas, A., 2017. A roadmap towards a circular and
sustainable bioeconomy through waste valorization. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain.
Chem. 8, 18e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2017.07.007.
Mengal, P., Wubbolts, M., Zika, E., Ruiz, A., Brigitta, D., Pieniadz, A., Black, S., 2018.
Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking: the catalyst for sustainable bio-based
economic growth in Europe. N. Biotech. 40, 31e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.nbt.2017.06.002.
Mohan, S.V., Butti, S.K., Amulya, K., Dahiya, S., Modestra, J.A., 2016. Waste bio-
refinery: a new paradigm for a sustainable bioelectro economy. Trends
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341
Biotechnol. 34 (11), 852e855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.06.006.
Mohan, S.V., Chiranjeevi, P., Dahiya, A.S., Kumar, A.N., 2018. Waste derived bio-
economy in India: a perspective. N. Biotech. 40, 60e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.nbt.2017.06.006.
Mudjeans, 2020. It’s time to rethink what we consume and how we produce.
https://mudjeans.eu/lease-a-jeans/. (Accessed 25 July 2020).
Na€yha€, A., 2020. Finnish forest-based companies in transition to the circular
bioeconomy-drivers, organizational resources and innovations. For. Pol. Econ.
110 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.022, 101936.
Na€yha€, A., Pesonen, H.L., 2014. Strategic change in the forest industry towards the
biorefining business. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 81, 259e271. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.04.014.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model Generation: a Handbook for Vi-
sionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C.L., 2005. Clarifying business models: origins,
present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16 (1), 1. https://
doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01601.
Pan, S.Y., Du, M.A., Huang, I.T., Liu, I.H., Chang, E.E., Chiang, P.C., 2015. Strategies on
implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy
system: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 409e421. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.06.124.
Pant, D., Misra, S., Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., van Leeuwen, R., Tabacchioni, S., Goel, R.,
Sarma, P., Bakker, R., Sharma, N., Kwant, K., Diels, L., Elst, K., 2019. Towards the
development of a biobased economy in Europe and India. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.
39 (6), 779e799. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2019.1618787.
Paredes-Sa
nchez, J.P., Lo

pez-Ochoa, L.M., Lo
pez-Gonza
lez, L.M., Las-Heras-Casas, J.,
Xiberta-Bernat, J., 2019. Evolution and perspectives of the bioenergy applica-
tions in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 553e568. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.12.112.
Prasad, M.N.V. (Ed.), 2015. Bioremediation and Bioeconomy. Elsevier.
Puyol, D., Batstone, D.J., Hülsen, T., Astals, S., Peces, M., Kro€ mer, J.O., 2017. Resource
recovery from wastewater by biological technologies: opportunities, challenges,
and prospects. Front. Microbiol. 7, 2106. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2016.02106.
Reim, W., Parida, V., Sjo € din, D.R., 2019. Circular business models for the bio-
economy: a review and new directions for future research. Sustainability 11
(9), 2558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092558.
Reim, W., Sjo €din, D., Parida, V., Rova, U., Christakopoulos, P., 2017. Bio-economy
Based Business Models for the Forest SectoreA Systematic Literature Review.
In: Rural Development 2017: Bioeconomy Challenges: Proceedings of the 8th
International Scientific Conference. Aleksandras Stulginskis University,
pp. 775e780, 23-24 November, 2017, 2017.
Richardson, J.E., 2008. The business model: an integrative framework for strategy
execution. Strat. Change 17, 133e144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.821.
Salvador, R., Barros, M.V., da Luz, L.M., Piekarski, C.M., de Francisco, A.C., 2020.
Circular business models: current aspects that influence implementation and
unaddressed subjects. J. Clean. Prod. 250 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2019.119555, 119555.
Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Nita, V., 2015. The role of biomass
and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: policies and facts. Environ. Dev. 15,
3e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.03.006.
Schulte, U.G., 2013. New business models for a radical change in resource efficiency.
Environ. Innov. Soc. Tr. 9, 43e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2013.09.006.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstro €m, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennet, E.M.,
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D.,
Heinke, J., Mace, M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathanm, V., Reyers, B., So €rlin, S., 2015.
Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet.
Science 347 (6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855, 1259855.
Teece, D.J., 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long. Range
Plan. 43 (2e3), 172e194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003.
Tursi, A., 2019. A review on biomass: importance, chemistry, classification, and
conversion. Biofuel Res. J. 6 (2), 962e979. https://doi.org/10.18331/
BRJ2019.6.2.3.
Ubando, A.T., Felix, C.B., Chen, W.H., 2020. Biorefineries in circular bioeconomy: a
comprehensive review. Bioresour. Technol. 299 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio-
rtech.2019.122585, 122585.
UN (United Nations), 2020. About the sustainable development goals. https://www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/. (Accessed 25
July 2020).
Vanham€ aki, S., Schneider, G., Manskinen, K., 2019. Perspectives on sustainable
bioeconomy in the baltic sea region. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Eng. 13 (4), 470e475.
Vea, E.B., Romeo, D., Thomsen, M., 2018. Biowaste valorisation in a future circular
bioeconomy. Procedia CIRP 69, 591e596. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.procir.2017.11.062.
Verburg, G., 2007. Government vision on the bio-based economy in the energy
transition [Overheidsvisie op de bio-based economy in de energietransitie].
https://www.mvo.nl/media/duurzaamheid/overheidsvisie_op_de_bio-based_
economy_in_de_energietransitie.pdf. (Accessed 25 July 2020).
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development), 2017. CEO guide to
the circular economy. http://docs.wbcsd.org/2017/06/CEO_Guide_to_CE.pdf.
(Accessed 25 July 2020).
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development), 2019. CEO guide to
the circular bioeconomy. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Circular-Economy/
Factor-10/Resources/CEO-Guide-to-the-Circular-Bioeconomy. (Accessed 25 July
2020).
R. Salvador, F.N. Puglieri, A. Halog et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 124341

€ttel, V., 2016. Business models: origin, devel-

Wirtz, B.W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., Go A business model in agricultural production in Serbia, developing towards
opment and future research perspectives. Long. Range Plan. 49 (1), 36e54. sustainability. Ekonomika poljoprivrede 66 (2), 437e456. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.04.001. 10.5937/ekopolj1902437z.
Zecevic, M., Pezo, L., Bodroza-Solarov, M., Brlek, T., Krulj, J., Koji

c, J., Mari

c, B., 2019.

14