Circular economy

in the Austrian plastics sector:

An exploratory study of the current state and possible future directions

Master’s Thesis

for the attainment of the academic degree

Master of Science

in Environmental System Sciences / Sustainability and Innovation Management

at the Karl-Franzens University of Graz

submitted by

Martin Popowicz, MSc

at the Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research

Supervisor: Univ.-Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.nat.techn. Tobias Stern

Graz, 2021
Acknowledgements

First of all, I want to thank my supervisor Prof. Tobias Stern for the great supervision and the
help during the writing process of this thesis. Further, I want to thank him for awakening my
interest in research and the possibility to be a part of his research team during my master studies.

Great thanks also to Daniel Holzer for the support during the research process and the
discussions regarding the analysis of the collected data. Here I also want to thank Assoz. Prof.
Romana Rauter, the supervisor of the twin study, for her inputs and ideas.

I would also like to thank the participants for sharing their knowledge and expertise.

A special thanks also goes to the author of the twin study and good friend of mine, Kilian
Silberschneider. The discussions regarding our joint research and the mutual support during the
interviews were very helpful in writing this thesis. Further, the cooperation increased the fun
involved in writing this thesis significantly.

I also want to thank my parents Johanna and Johann, who always were there for me and
continuously supported me during my years at university. Without them this would not have
been possible. A special thanks also goes out to my brother Andreas and his wife Johanna for
always supporting me and helping me whenever and however necessary.

Finally, I want to thank all my friends, which I met during my years at university and which
helped in creating unforgettable memories. Here especially to mention are: Alexander, Mathias,
Laura, Albert, Moritz, Katharina and Philipp.

ii
Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 STATE OF RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...................................................................................... 6
1.3 TWIN STUDY...................................................................................................................................................... 7

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 8

2.1. CIRCULAR ECONOMY ...................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1.1 CIRCULAR ECONOMY PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.2 CIRCULAR ECONOMY BENEFITS ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.3 DISADVANTAGES AND CRITICISM OF THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ..................................................................... 18
2.2 CURRENT STATE AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY ............................................. 22
2.2.1 CURRENT STATE OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY ................................................................................................ 22
2.2.2 CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN THE PLASTICS SECTOR ............................................................................................. 26
2.3 INNOVATION AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ................................................................................................ 31
2.3.1 BASICS OF INNOVATION ................................................................................................................................. 31
2.3.2 TYPES OF INNOVATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 33
2.3.3 INNOVATION FOR CIRCULAR ECONOMY ......................................................................................................... 35

3. METHOD..................................................................................................................................................... 49

3.1 METHOD FOR DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................. 50

3.2 METHOD FOR DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 51
3.3 SELECTION OF COMPANIES ............................................................................................................................. 53
3.4 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................... 54
3.5 INTERVIEW GUIDELINE ................................................................................................................................... 56

4. RESULTS..................................................................................................................................................... 58

4.1 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 58

4.1.1 PERCEPTIONS OF CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN THE AUSTRIAN PLASTICS SECTOR ................................................ 58
4.1.2 CIRCULAR ECONOMY PRACTICES ................................................................................................................... 60
4.1.3 REASONS FOR CIRCULAR ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................. 66
4.1.4 CONTRIBUTION OF COMPANIES TOWARDS A MORE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ...................................................... 71
4.1.5 ENVISIONED CHANGES IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN AND BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT ................................................ 74
4.1.6 OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 81
4.1.7 CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................................................. 83
4.1.8 FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF CIRCULAR ECONOMY PRACTICES ................................................................. 89
4.1.9 INNOVATIONS FOR CIRCULAR ECONOMY ....................................................................................................... 90
4.2 IMPLICATION MATRIX AND FURTHER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 92
4.2.1 THE PRESENT CASE ........................................................................................................................................ 92
4.2.2 THE FUTURE CASE ......................................................................................................................................... 96
4.2.3 COMPARISON PRESENT AND FUTURE CASE .................................................................................................. 100

5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................ 101

iii
5.1 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................................. 107

6. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................ 109

APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW GUIDELINE ................................................................................................... 123

APPENDIX B. IMPLICATION MATRICES ................................................................................................ 125

APPENDIX C. CAUSAL CHAIN MAPS INCLUDING NUMBER OF MENTIONS ................................ 127

List of Figures
Figure 1. Global Resource Consumption, Population and GDP ............................................... 8
Figure 2. End of life waste streams and recycled, reused or composted materials, EU 27, 2010
.................................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Linear economy and the Biosphere .......................................................................... 10
Figure 4. Circular economy and the biosphere ........................................................................ 11
Figure 5. The R framework of circular economy .................................................................... 12
Figure 6. Circularity strategies and the supply chain .............................................................. 13
Figure 7. The butterfly diagram of circular economy.............................................................. 16
Figure 8. Circular economy rebound effect ............................................................................. 19
Figure 9. Global plastic consumption of popular plastics and per head plastics consumption of
various countries in 2015 .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 10. Global plastics production from 1950 till 2014 ..................................................... 23
Figure 11. Plastic packaging flows in 2013 (globally) ............................................................ 24
Figure 12. The circular plastics economy ................................................................................ 26
Figure 13. Innovation in the narrow and in the broader sense................................................. 32
Figure 14. Categorization of innovations ................................................................................ 33
Figure 15. Typology of eco innovations .................................................................................. 37
Figure 16. Circular economy and eco innovations .................................................................. 40
Figure 17. Strategies for circular business models .................................................................. 43
Figure 18. Types of circular business model innovation ......................................................... 44
Figure 19. Sustainable oriented innovation/Circular oriented innovation and collaboration .. 47
Figure 20. Motives for collaboration in circular oriented innovation activities ...................... 48
Figure 21. Graphical illustration of the research process ........................................................ 49
Figure 22. Representation of code system ............................................................................... 53

iv
Figure 23. Structure of the interview guideline ....................................................................... 56
Figure 24. Perceptions of the circular economy in the Austrian plastics sector, n = 17 ......... 58
Figure 25. Implemented circular economy practices, n = 17 .................................................. 61
Figure 26. Reasons for circular economy implementation, n = 17 .......................................... 66
Figure 27. Contributions of companies towards a more circular economy, n = 17 ................. 71
Figure 28. Changes in the supply chain and business environment, n = 17 ............................ 75
Figure 29. Opportunities in the context of circular economy, n=17 ........................................ 81
Figure 30. Challenges associated with circular economy, n=17 ............................................. 83
Figure 31. Implementation of further circular economy measures in the next five years, n=17
.................................................................................................................................................. 89
Figure 32. Number of mentions of different innovation types in the context of circular
economy, n=17 ......................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 33. Causal chains map - present ................................................................................... 95
Figure 34. Causal chains map - future ..................................................................................... 99
Figure C 1. Causal chains map including number of mentions - present .............................. 128
Figure C 2. Causal chains map including number of mentions - future ................................ 129

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of eco innovations for a circular economy ...................................................... 41

Table 2. Barriers for circular business model innovation ........................................................ 45
Table 3. Details of companies in the sample ........................................................................... 54
Table 4. Subcategories of economic reasons with number of mentions .................................. 67
Table 5. Subcategories of environmental reasons with number of mentions .......................... 68
Table 6. Subcategories of social reasons with number of mentions ........................................ 69
Table B 1. Implication matrix reasons and practices – present case ..................................... 125
Table B 2. Implication matrix opportunities/challenges and practices – present case .......... 125
Table B 3. Implication matrix reasons and contributions – future case................................. 126
Table B 4. Implication matrix opportunities/challenges and contributions – future case ..... 126

v
Abstract

The circular economy concept has become popular among researchers, policy makers as well
as practitioners. In this transition towards a more circular economy, especially plastics, which
is an important material in today’s society, but also causes environmental problems and
damages, plays a crucial role. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to investigate the current state
of the circular economy and possible future directions regarding the circular economy in the
Austrian plastics sector. In order to assess the current state and possible future directions, this
thesis investigates the understanding of companies of the circular economy concept in the
context of their firms, already implemented circular economy practices, causes for the
implementation of circular economy practices, opportunities and challenges associated with the
implementation of the circular economy within firms, possible future contributions of
companies to achieve a more circular future, necessary changes in the supply chain and business
environment for more circular economy as well as types of innovations in the context of a
transition towards a circular plastics economy. For this purpose, 17 semi-structured interviews
were conducted. The findings are as follows: most companies identify recycle as their
understanding of circular economy, have already implemented the recycling of inputs as
circular economy practice and implement circular economy practices due to economic reasons.
Further, most participants identify market opportunities as chance and the quality of material
as a challenge. Regarding future directions, most firms identify research and development as
their contribution for a more circular economy and changes in legislation are the most often
indicated necessary change in the business environment.

Keywords: circular economy; Austrian plastics sector; opportunities and challenges; future
directions;

vi
Kurzfassung

Das Konzept der Kreislaufwirtschaft hat bei Forschern, politischen Entscheidungsträgern und
Praktikern stark an Beliebtheit gewonnen. Im Übergang zu einer Kreislaufwirtschaft spielt
insbesondere Kunststoff, welcher ein wichtiger Werkstoff ist, aber auch Umweltprobleme und
-schäden verursacht, eine entscheidende Rolle. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es daher, den aktuellen
Stand der Kreislaufwirtschaft und mögliche zukünftige Richtungen der Kreislaufwirtschaft in
der österreichischen Kunststoffbranche zu untersuchen. Um den aktuellen Stand und mögliche
künftige Richtungen zu bewerten, untersucht diese Arbeit das Verständnis der Unternehmen
bzgl. des Konzepts der Kreislaufwirtschaft, bereits umgesetzte Praktiken der
Kreislaufwirtschaft, Gründe für die Umsetzung von Praktiken der Kreislaufwirtschaft, Chancen
und Herausforderungen im Zusammenhang mit der Umsetzung der Kreislaufwirtschaft in
Unternehmen, mögliche künftige Beiträge der Unternehmen zur Erreichung einer stärker
kreislauforientierten Zukunft, notwendige Änderungen in der Lieferkette und im
Geschäftsumfeld für eine stärker kreislauforientierte Wirtschaft sowie Arten von Innovationen
im Zusammenhang mit dem Übergang zu einer kreislauforientierten Kunststoffwirtschaft. Zu
diesem Zweck wurden 17 semi-strukturierte Interviews durchgeführt. Die Ergebnisse ergeben
sich wie folgt: Die meisten Unternehmen identifizieren Recycling als ihr Verständnis von
Kreislaufwirtschaft, haben bereits das Recycling von Inputs eingeführt und führen
Kreislaufwirtschaftspraktiken aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen ein. Außerdem sehen die meisten
Unternehmen die Marktchancen als Möglichkeit und die Qualität der Materialien als
Herausforderung. In Bezug auf die Zukunft nennen die meisten Unternehmen Forschung und
Entwicklung als ihren Beitrag zu einer stärker kreislauforientierten Wirtschaft und Änderungen
in der Gesetzgebung sind die am häufigsten genannten notwendigen Veränderungen im
Unternehmensumfeld.

Keywords:
Kreislaufwirtschaft; österreichischer Kunststoffsektor; Chancen und Herausforderungen;
zukünftige Richtungen;

vii
1. Introduction
The increasing use of natural resources and the corresponding impact on the nature is a main
challenge in the 21st century. The increase in the use of resources is mainly driven by the rise
of global population, the consumption patterns, which have manifested in the developed
countries as well as the transforming of the developing countries (IRP, 2017). In the past, the
growing resource use was linked to an increase in well-being and affluence. Europe, for
instance, was able to experience many decades of growing wealth and well-being based on the
intensive use of natural resources, but is now facing the challenge to achieve the needed growth
in order to provide well-being and jobs to its citizens, by simultaneously making sure, that the
economic growth matches with a sustainable future (European Commission, 2011). The
economic growth and the previously mentioned factors have led to more than a tripling in the
use of natural resources compared to 1970, which in turn has also led to stronger environmental
pressure and environmental impacts around the world (IRP, 2017).

Hence it becomes obvious, that there is a need for comprehensive concepts and practices, which
are aiming at decreasing the use of natural resources, increasing resource efficiency and are
enabling the possibility of a sustainable economic growth. Increasing resource efficiency, and
hence resource efficient development, is an important pillow regarding a more sustainable
future, because it provides the possibility to produce more with less and to minimize the impact
on the environment by using natural resources in a sustainable way (European Commission,
2011). One possibility to achieve a higher degree of resource efficiency is the implementation
of a circular economy.

The circular economy is seen as a win-win situation and is said to offer the possibility to boost
the economy as well as decrease environmental impacts (European Commission, 2015).
Regarding the environmental impact of a transition towards a circular economy, the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation (2015), states, that in Europe, a circular economy transition would lead
to a reduction of 48% of carbon dioxide emissions until 2030 and respectively to a reduction
up to 83% in carbon dioxide emissions until 2050, compared to today´s level. Given this
possible win-win situation, policymakers around the world, especially in Europe1 and China2
(McDowall et al., 2017), are starting to focus on the circular economy concept. Furthermore,

1
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614
2
https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/library/china-circular-economy-promotion-law

1
also the private sector is perceiving the transition towards a circular economy as opportunity.
For instance, three out of four companies in Austria have already implemented circular
economy measure (e.g. reduction of waste, recycling of goods and packaging or improvements
of the waste management) or are planning to do so (ARA, 2019).

All in all, it is nevertheless surprising, that given the importance of reducing the use of natural
resources, the support from policy makers and the positive perceptions of the circular economy
within the private sector, the world economy is still mainly linear and only to a small percentage
circular. According to de Wit et al (2018) only 9.1% of the world economy are yet circular.
This shows, that although on the macro level, the circular economy concept seems to be
spreading fast, the implementation of circular economy practices on the micro level, and hence
on company level is lacking behind. According to Ghisellini et al. (2016), the implementation
of circular economy is worldwide still in the early stages.

Therefore, it is important to understand and analyze, why circular economy practices are not
yet further implemented on a company level. Recently, there have been studies on what hinders
or promotes a transition towards a circular economy from a company’s perspective (e.g. Tura
et al., 2019; Bilal et al., 2020; Gusmerotti et al., 2019) and also studies on the interrelationship
between drivers for circular economy implementation (e.g. Gue et al., 2020). Kirchherr et al.
(2018) for instance identify lacking consumer awareness and interest and a hesitant company
culture as the most important barriers slowing down a transition towards a circular economy.
Studies on drivers and barriers regarding the implementation of a circular economy are
important for the progression regarding a transition towards a circular economy and need
further attention. Furthermore, Rizos et al. (2016) also mention an important barrier regarding
the implementation circular economy practices by companies, in this case SME´s, namely the
support of the supply network. Especially SME´s do not recognize themselves as powerful
enough to implement circular solutions by themselves, without support from their supply
network (Rizos et al., 2016). The importance of the supply chain is also recognized by Tura et
al (2019), who state, that many circular economy solutions have been created in cooperation
with supply chain partners and that differing or opposing interests reduce the opportunities for
circular economy solutions.

2
Given the fact, that nearly all companies currently are part of a supply chain or network, and
the insights from Rizos et al (2016) and Tura et al (2019), the role of the supply chain regarding
the circular economy should be investigated in further detail.

Hence, this thesis will focus on the identification of different understandings, reasons for and
barriers and opportunities regarding the implementation of circular economy practices within
the Austrian plastics sector. Further, a specific focus will be put on future perspectives
regarding necessary changes of companies and corresponding supply chains in order to achieve
a more circular economy. In addition, also already implemented practices and possible
innovations in the context of the circular economy are investigated. The Austrian plastics sector
is chosen due to the high relevance of plastics regarding environmental pollution (e.g. Parker,
2019; Eriksen et al., 2014) and the fact, that the circular economy is seen as possible solution
for the plastic waste problematic (e.g. Calleja, 2019). The further thesis will be composed as
follows: Firstly, the state of research is presented, following the research objectives and
questions will be elaborated. Then, the theoretical background regarding the circular economy
and especially the circular economy in the plastics sector, and innovations in the context of the
circular economy will be introduced. Following the method will be presented, followed by the
presentation of the results. Finally, the thesis is finished with the discussion and the conclusions.

1.1 State of Research

Regarding drivers and barriers of circular economy implementation on company level a broad
stream of literature exists. Ranta et al. (2018) used multiple case studies to identify and compare
drivers and barriers for circular economy in China, the US and Europe. De Jesus and Mendonça
(2018) take an innovations studies perspective and analyze hard and soft drivers regarding the
transition towards a circular economy. Kirchherr et al (2018) analyze potential barriers towards
the transition to a circular economy within the geographical context of the EU. Other examples
of studies focusing on drivers and barriers regarding the implementation of circular economy
are Tura et al (2019) or Ormazabal et al. (2018), who focuses on opportunities and challenges
regarding circular economy in Spanish SME`s. All the previously mentioned studies are
including different sectors in the analysis, without focusing on one specific sector or branch.

Holzer et al (2021) aimed at the identification of opportunities for Austrian SME´s with a view
to a transition towards a circular economy. Holzer et al (2021) included different sectors into

3
his analysis. To the authors knowledge, this is the only study so far aiming at Austrian
companies and the possible drivers and barriers with regard to a circular economy transition.

Given that this thesis will focus on the Austrian plastics sector, also literature dealing with
circular economy in the plastics sector is important to this thesis. Paletta et al. (2019) as an
instance, focus on plastic converting companies in the Italian region of Emiglia-Romana in
order to identify barriers and challenges regarding the shift towards circular economy within
the plastics sector. Such a study has so far not taken place regarding the Austrian plastics sector.
Furthermore, Paletta et al. (2019) focus specifically on the challenges regarding plastic
vaporization, while this study will focus on organizational, companywide challenges (e.g.
financial barriers) instead of challenges regarding a specific process. So far, no studies focusing
on perceptions and perceived barriers and opportunities regarding the circular economy has
been carried out in the Austrian plastics sector. Given the fact, that the plastics sector plays a
crucial role regarding resource efficiency and also environmental protection, the first part of
this thesis will focus on the previously identified research gap.

The second part of the thesis will focus on the changes of supply chains necessary for a
transition towards a circular economy. Regarding the topic of supply chains and circular
economy, a broad stream of literature with focus on the implementation of closed loop supply
chains exist. Although, closed loop supply chains may be an important contribution to the
implementation of a circular economy, the aim of this study is to investigate supply chain
changes on a broader level, than only at the level of resource flows and reverse supply chains.
This thesis is focusing on the perceived necessary changes in the supply chain for a more
circular economy.

The necessity of collaboration between supply chain/supply network actors is often described
on a theoretical or general level, without providing deeper insights. Hofmann (2019) for
instance names collaboration within the value creation network as core principle for the
integration of circular business models into daily practices. Lüdeke-Freund (2019), based on
Schenkel et al (2015) states, that closed loop supply chains are not enough and companies need
to know, how they can create value with closed loop supply chains and argues, that here circular
business models play a crucial role. Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) study the combination of circular
supply chains and circular business models. The role of supply chains regarding the
implementation of circular business models by individual firms may not be underestimated.

4
Bocken et al., (2018) argue, that value creation and delivery in circular business models
includes various stakeholders and partners into the innovation process and that these partners
may vary significantly from the conventional partners so far. Furthermore, Farooque et al.
(2019) state, that circular supply chain cooperation and coordination is an important topic,
which still shows a large knowledge gap and needs further research. Exactly on this knowledge
gap this thesis will focus by exploring the perceptions of necessary supply chain changes for
the transitions towards a circular economy.

5
1.2 Research Objective and Research Questions
The objective of this thesis is to gain knowledge about the current state of the circular economy
in the Austrian plastics sector and to explore potential future directions of the Austrian plastics
sector regarding the implementation of a circular economy. The research aims at identifying
barriers and opportunities for companies regarding the implementation of circular economy
practices as well as the identification of potentially necessary changes along the supply chain,
to support the transition towards a circular economy. Hence, the aim of this thesis can be seen
as threefold: Firstly, the different perceptions of the circular economy concept within the
Austrian plastics sector, as well as the already implemented circular economy practices will be
evaluated, following that, the potential barriers and opportunities perceived by the companies
regarding the transition towards a circular economy will be identified and finally, the potentially
necessary changes of companies and the corresponding supply chains regarding the
transformation to a more circular economy will be investigated. Therefore, the following seven
research questions can be formulated:

1. How do companies in the Austrian plastic sector perceive the circular economy
concept?

2. Which circular economy practices have already been implemented by companies in the
Austrian plastics sector?

3. What are the main reasons for firms in the Austrian plastics sector to implement circular
economy practices?

4. What opportunities and challenges do companies in the Austrian plastics sector perceive
regarding the implementation of circular economy practices within their companies?

5. How do companies in the Austrian plastics sector perceive their contribution to a more
circular economy?

6. Which changes in the supply chain are considered as necessary for a more circular
economy by companies in the Austrian plastic sector until 2030?

6
 7. What types of innovations are companies in the Austrian plastics sector considering as
necessary for a circular economy?

Question 1, 2,3 and 4 have a strong focus on the present and are aiming at the identification of
the current state. Research question 5 and 6 are focusing on the future, by allowing companies
to focus on potential contributions and changes necessary within their own company and
potentially necessary changes of their supply chain. In order to answer research question 5 and
6, a backcasting approach will be used. The detailed description of the used methods can be
found in the methods section. Research question 7 will be answered using the part focusing on
the present as well as the part focusing on the future.

1.3 Twin Study

The overall research project consists of two simultaneous but independent sectoral analyses of
the Austrian plastics sector (Martin Popowicz) and the Austrian wood sector (Kilian
Silberschneider). This thesis is acknowledged within the Start Circles project (Project No: 199),
which is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg V-A
Slovenia-Austria cooperation programme. During the research process extensive collaboration
between the authors was performed, meaning that the interview guideline was developed
together and also the interviews were conducted as a team. The writing of the thesis and the
analysis of the results were performed individually. For the detailed analysis, the authors agreed
on the interpretation categories to enable the basis for a possible future cross-sector comparison
on the issue of how circular economy is perceived and how detected barriers can be overcome
at a later stage.

7
2. Theoretical Background
In this section the relevant theoretical background will be introduced. Firstly, circular economy
in general will be discussed, followed by the circular economy in the plastics sector and
innovations in the context of the circular economy.

2.1. Circular Economy

Although a beginning change can be felt, our economy is still mostly based on a linear model
of resource consumption. This linear model of resource consumption is referred to “take-make-
dispose” pattern by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Basically, companies gather resources
and use them to manufacture a product, which is then sold to a customer, who disposes it, when
it is no longer of use (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). This linear model was enabled by
the first industrial revolution, accelerated after world war two together with a strong growth in
global population and finally lead to unfavorable outcomes like for instance climate change,
environmental pollution or loss of biodiversity (Cui, 2021). Generally, the linear model is
considered as wasteful (Cui, 2021). Figure 1 below shows the growth in global resource
consumption, GDP and population. Global resource consumption is measured in billions of
metric tons (left scale). The right scale measures growth in population and GDP with 1900 = 1.
GDP is measured in constant 1990 Geary-Khamis Dollars.

Figure 1. Global Resource Consumption, Population and GDP

Source: Cui (2021)

8
As can be seen from Figure 1, the growth in GDP was accompanied by a strong growth in the
use of resources. The linear model, which has led to a great growth in affluence of humanity,
has also lead to an increased use of resources (as can be seen form Figure 1) and hence to a
stronger pressure on the planetary boundaries (Cui, 2021). Furthermore, according to Ellen
MacArthur Foundation (2013), this linear model leads to significant losses of resources. Firstly,
waste, which occurs in the production chain leads to resource losses (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013). Large amounts of resources, about 21 billion tons per year in OECD
countries, are lost in the production chain from mining to final production, where examples of
these lost materials are for instance agricultural harvesting losses or parting materials from
mining (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).
Secondly, end-of-life waste leads to loss of
materials in the linear model (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013). In Europe, in 2010 only about
40% of the generated waste was either recycled,
reused or composted and digested (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Figure 2 on the left
shows the total end of life streams and the amount
of recycled, reused or composed materials.
Furthermore, at the moment recycling rates are
adequate only for waste streams, which occur in
large homogenous volumes (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013). Thirdly, energy losses, which
occur for instance in the case of a product being
disposed into landfill, are significant in the linear
economic model (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2013). In a linear model, the use of energy
resources is highest in the process of extracting
materials from the earth and converting them into
a form, which can be commercially used and hence
the use of energy can be decreases by not using
new materials each time a product is manufactured
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). The
Figure 2. End of life waste streams and recycled, reduction of energy use also is crucial, due to the
reused or composted materials, EU 27, 2010
current economic system mostly relying on fossil
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013)

9
fuels (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Lastly, the linear model lead to the erosion of
ecosystem services (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Costanza et al (1997) refer to
ecosystem goods and services together as ecosystem services and defined them as:

“Ecosystem goods(such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) represent

the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem
functions.” (Costanza et al,1997, p. 253)

Currently, humanity consumes more than can be provided by ecosystems in a sustainable

manner, which leads to a reduction of the natural capital of the Earth (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013).

Figure 3. Linear economy and the Biosphere

Source: Suárez-Eiroa et al. (2019)

Suárez-Eiroa et al. (2019) state, that in the past, the linear economy system´s size remained
within the boundaries of the biosphere (Figure 3a), but at the present, the linear economy is
using more resources and produces more emissions and waste, than the biosphere could provide
or absorb (Figure 3b).

Given the stressing of Planetary Boundaries mentioned by Cui, (2021) and the described
resource losses, a transformation of the linear model on which today´s affluence is based,
towards a model, which can help in maintaining the integrity of the system earth, is necessary

10
 (Cui, 2021). A possible approach is
the so-called circular economy.
According to Suárez-Eiroa et al.
(2019) the aim of a circular
economy should be a reduction of
the system size of the economy
down to a size, which is acceptable
to the biosphere. This is pictured in
figure 4 on the left side. In
summary of the previously
discussed arguments the aim of a
circular economy should be to
reduce the size of the economy
Figure 4. Circular economy and the biosphere below the planetary boundaries and
Source: Suárez-Eiroa et al. (2019) the bearing capability of the
biosphere by offering an alternative way to the current linear economy, in which significant
resource losses appear.

Regarding circular economy many differing definitions exist. One of the most famous
definitions is the one used by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013):

“A circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by

intention and design. It replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with restoration, shifts
towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, which impair
reuse, and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials,
products, systems, and, within this, business models.” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation
(2013, p. 7)

Another possible definition of circular economy is:

“A circular economy aims to maintain the value of products, materials and resources
for as long as possible by returning them into the product cycle at the end of their use,
while minimizing the generation of waste.” (Eurostat, n.d.)

11
As a third example, also the following definition of circular economy by Sauvé et al. (2016) is
possible:

“Production and consumption of goods through closed loop material flows that
internalize environmental externalities linked to virgin resource extraction and the
generation of waste (including pollution)” (Sauvé et al., 2016, p. 49)

An extensive review of different circular economy definitions would be out of scope of this
thesis and hence reference is made to Rizos et al. (2017), who extensively study different
possible definitions of the circular economy.

Further, also the so-called R framework is popular regarding the characterization of a circular
economy. This framework typically involves various strategies, which are ordered from high
circularity, what corresponds with a low R number, to low circularity, what corresponds with a
high R number (Potting et al., 2017). There are various R frameworks available (e.g. 3Rs or
4Rs) (Reike et al., 2018), one of the most prominent possible R frameworks including nine R
strategies is represented in figure 5 below.

Figure 5. The R framework of circular economy

Source: Kirchherr et al. (2017) adapted from Potting et al. (2017)

12
Furthermore, given the importance of the supply chain in this thesis, figure 6 below gives an
overview about, where in the supply chain the different R strategies are possible and, on the
actors, which are involved in the implementation of these strategies.

Figure 6. Circularity strategies and the supply chain

Source: Potting et al. (2017)

2.1.1 Circular economy principles

According to Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) the circular economy represents an economy,
which is restorative by intention and further, its objective is to rely on renewable energy,
minimize or eliminate the use of toxic chemicals and to eliminate waste by altered design.
Additionally, the management of material flows is crucial in the circular economy, where two
distinctive types can be distinguished: biological nutrients and technical nutrients (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Biological nutrients are designed to re-enter the biosphere and
to build natural capital, while technical nutrients are designed in order to circulate in high
quality, without entering the biosphere (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

13
The circular economy is strongly distinguishing between the use and the consumption of
materials and emphasizes the necessity of a functional service model, where producers keep the
ownership of their products and rather sell the use of the product and not the product itself
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

Basically, the circular economy can be described with the help of a few principles. There are
more comprehensive frameworks, but in this thesis, the original framework developed by Ellen
MacArthur Foundation (2013) will be used. Following, the five principles introduced by Ellen
MacArthur Foundation (2013) will be described:

1. Design out waste

The idea is, that waste does not even exist, in the case that the biological and technical parts
are designed with the objective to be part of a technical or biological material cycle (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013). While technical components, like for instance polymers, are
designed for reuse with the highest possible quality and least possible energy consumption,
biological components are non-toxic and can hence be easily composted (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013).

2. Resilience through diversity

Systems, which are more divers, tend to be more resilient in a fast-evolving environment
and in face of external shocks, compared to systems, which are built simply on efficiency
and throughput maximization and hence tend to be more fragile (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013).

3. Energy from renewable resources

The energy involved into the production process is crucial regarding circular economy and
finally the system should aim at depending solely on renewable energy sources (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

4. Thinking in systems
The understanding of the reciprocal influence of parts and elements within a whole and
further how the whole is related to the parts and elements is of high importance (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013). According to Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) system
thinking is usually related to non-linear systems, which include feedback-loops and inexact

14
 starting conditions, and hence might lead to outcomes, which might not be proportional to
the input (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Generally, system thinking puts more
emphasize on flow and interconnection across periods and allows to include restorative
conditions (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Hence it does not limit itself to only parts
or the short-term (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

5. Waste is food
Regarding biological components the reintroduction of products and materials through
loops back into the biosphere is the key regarding this principle (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013). Regarding technical components upcycling through improvements in
quality is also possible (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Furthermore, the circular
economy strives for using more biological components or nutrients instead of technical
nutrients and for cascading them through different possible applications before finally
reintroducing them into the biosphere (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

Figure 7 on the next page shows the popular circular economy diagram originally introduced
by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Basically, it shows, how biological and technical
component move in cycles through the economic system. Figure 7 also clearly shows the
differences between biological and technical components regarding how they are circulated
taking into account the respective differences. Generally, the smaller the circles the better (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013). This means, that the smaller the circles are, the higher should
be the savings regarding material, labor, energy, capital and also the reduction of externalities
like for instance GHG emissions or toxic substances (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

15
Figure 7. The butterfly diagram of circular economy

Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013)

Furthermore, it is essential to keep products or materials into use longer (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013). This aim can be achieved by passing more consecutive circles or by staying
longer within one circle (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). This keeps the materials and
products longer within the system and hence decreases the need for virgin materials (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013). While the previously mentioned possibilities refer to the same
product or material category, cascading also offers the possibility of to use them in different
categories and hence further reduces the need of virgin materials (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2013). Furthermore, there are benefits, which can be gained by the use of non-toxic, pure or
easier to separate materials (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). To gain advantages from the
possibilities described in the circles in figure 7, a certain purity and quality of materials is
necessary, which is not achieved at the moment, due to different materials being mixed during
the production process or during the waste collection process (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2013). Through amendments in the design of products and in the reverse process, like for
instance a design, which allows for easier separation of materials or collection of disposed
products, economies of scale and improved efficiency regarding the reverse cycle can be
achieved (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). These improvements can further lead to a higher

16
maintained quality especially of technical components and hence an improved longevity of
materials (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Furthermore, Ellen MacArthur Foundation
(2013) states, that the circular economy would lead to less need for virgin materials and also to
a reduction in landfill and material stock.

2.1.2 Circular economy benefits

The European Parliament (2021) names the following general benefits of moving towards a
circular economy:

• Reduced pressure on the environment

• Improved security of the availability of raw materials
• Improved competitiveness
• Incentives to innovate
• Increased GDP
• Creation of about 700.000 jobs in the EU by 2030
• Availability of more durable and innovative products that result into a higher quality of
life and monetary savings of consumers

Sariatli (2017) performs a SWOT analysis regarding the circular economy compared to the
current linear economy. The strengths and opportunities will be discussed here, while the
weaknesses and threats are part of the next section. Sariatli (2017) mentions the possibility of
creating a competitive edge by achieving proficiency in the reverse material flow cycle and the
reduction of material costs combined with the reduced dependence on resources as potential
strengths of the circular economy. Further, the use of considerations regarding circular
economy in the research and development process leads to higher quality and more durable
products (Sariatli, 2017). Additionally the economy is less vulnerable by price fluctuations due
to the closed-loop processes and also the risk caused by externalities, which are associated with
the flow and use of materials, decrease due to the lower consumption of materials associated
with the circular economy (Sariatli, 2017).
Regarding opportunities, Sariatli (2017) mentions the reduction of material costs, namely 600
billion USD per year regarding the EU, associated with the reduction in needed input materials.
Additionally, designing products in a circular way leads to a secured access to better and less
expensive materials (Sariatli, 2017). Finally, regarding circular solutions, the development of

17
expertise in legal, mechanical, operational, sectoral and cross-sectoral challenges can lead to
the development of business opportunities for the enablers (Sariatli, 2017).

2.1.3 Disadvantages and criticism of the circular economy

Although a circular economy might offer many benefits, which were described in the previous
section, also potential disadvantages and rebound effects have to be taken into account. Zink
and Geyer (2017) investigate potential rebound effects regarding the circular economy and
argue, that it is possible, that the closing of material loops and other circular economy activities
might increase overall production and hence the benefits of a more circular economy could be
offset. Especially two mechanisms could cause this effect: the inability of circular economy
activities to effectively compete with primary production and the lower prices, which lead to a
shift in consumption patterns, caused by circular economy activities (Zink & Geyer, 2017).
Regarding the inability of secondary goods to compete with primary goods, this is rooted in the
partly inferior quality or other inferior attributes of these products compared to primary goods
(Zink & Geyer, 2017). Zink and Geyer (2017) name used smartphones as an example, in which
the technology changes so quickly, that a second-hand market is not supported, and hence
refurbished phones are an addition to new phones instead of replacing them. Hence in
comparable cases, the overall consumption and production is increased (Zink & Geyer, 2017).
Secondly, the lower prices at which secondary product are traded, partly in order to make up
for their inferior quality, lead to the possibility of downstream producers to buy more materials
and hence produce more of a final product, which then again might be cheaper at the market
and leads to consumers buying more of the cheaper product (Zink & Geyer, 2017). Therefore,
the use of secondary materials leads to an increase in production and consumption, which may
offset the benefits corresponding to the use of secondary materials (Zink & Geyer, 2017). This
effect could happen although prices of secondary goods are not intentionally set at a lower level,
simply by increasing the amount of available materials, because the secondary products are
available additionally to the primary products, which then results in a lower price for primary
as well as secondary products (Zink & Geyer, 2017). On a broader level Zink and Geyer (2017)
mention the economic growth associated with circular economy as potential rebound, because
economic growth leads to lower environmental benefits than expected. Figure 8 below shows
the mechanism of the circular economy rebound effect due to increased production. The y-axis
shows the environmental impacts, which are at 𝐸0 at the beginning and could be lowered to 𝐸2 ,
in the case of no rebound effect would occur. As can be seen, this full potential benefit is only
realized, in the case, that no increase in production occurs. Given the previously described

18
mechanisms, this is rather unlikely and hence the potential benefit will always be reduced by
rebound effects leading to the overall impact of 𝐸1 in figure 8. Therefore, the reduction in
overall impact is only 𝐸0 - 𝐸1 instead of 𝐸0 - 𝐸2 . In the case of a sufficiently large rebound
effect, the overall benefit could even be completely erased or even an increased impact could
occur, which means 𝐸0 -𝐸2 ≤ 0 (Zink & Geyer, 2017).

Figure 8. Circular economy rebound effect

Source: Zink & Geyer (2017)

Korhonen et al. (2018) name further limitations regarding the circular economy concept. Firstly,
the state, that there are thermodynamic limits regarding the circular economy. Complete
recycling is not possible and also circular systems create waste and consume resources
(Korhonen et al., 2018). Further, they identify spatial and temporal system boundary
limitations. Spatial limitations are related to a shifting of the problem along the product life
cycle, which means, for instance, the reduction of an environment related problem in one part
of the system by shifting it to another part (Korhonen et al., 2018). Temporal limitations are
related to short-term non-renewable use may create long-term renewable infrastructure
(Korhonen et al., 2018). The previously discussed rebound effect is, together with the Jevon´s
paradox and the boomerang effect, referred to limits posed by the physical scale of the economy
Korhonen et al. (2018). Also limits connected to path-dependency and lock-in effects are
identified by Korhonen et al. (2018). It will be difficult for new circular economy related
technologies and innovations to break through in the market, although they might be

19
economically, ecologically and socially advantageous, because of lock-in effects (Korhonen et
al., 2018). Further, there are limits regarding management and governance (Korhonen et al.,
2018). The physical flows of materials and energy do cross many different parts of the
production and consumption ,thereby crossing many administrative boundaries, before finally
ending up as waste and emissions (Korhonen et al., 2018). Circular economy related business
models hence need inter-organizational sustainability considerations and cooperation in order
to be successful (Korhonen et al., 2018). Further, a strategy, which might make sense for a
single company, e.g. waste minimization, might be contra productive in terms of circular
economy in a larger regional business network context, because other companies could use the
waste flows of this company as input and thereby reduce their need for virgin materials, which
would lead to the conclusion, that this company should maximize its waste flows (Korhonen et
al., 2018). Finally, Korhonen et al. (2018) identify social and cultural definitions as limitations
regarding the circular economy. The decision on which flows of materials are valuable and
which are not, as well as the concept of waste are socially influenced and constructed as well
as dynamically changing (Korhonen et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the concept of waste is strongly
influencing the way it is handled, managed and utilized and therefore, circular economy
suggestions and activities have to be seen in the context of temporal, cultural and spatial
contexts (Korhonen et al., 2018). Additionally to the identified rebound effect and the
limitations mentioned by Korhonen et al. (2018), Sariatli (2017) identifies weaknesses and
threats regarding the circular economy. The following weakness of the circular economy
concept are identified by Sariatli (2017):

• Need for fusion of the complete product life cycle from the provision of raw materials
to the extermination
• Lack of guidelines for sectors on how to implement the circular economy
• Lack of internationally recognized standards institution
• Circular economy might leave out the concept semi-recyclability of raw materials for
production
• Still inefficient public opinion regarding circular economy and lack of social marketing
campaigns
• Lack of legal regulation regarding circular economy and its applications
• Lack of investments for the introduction of circular economy

20
Further, Sariatli (2017) identifies the possibility of cartel formation caused by the strong
collaboration as potential threat of the circular economy. Additionally, companies controlling
the entire lifecycle may lead to problems regarding high prices and capability of products.
Producers directing their own was streams leading to disadvantages for companies in the waste
industry is another threat identified by Sariatli (2017).

21
2.2 Current state and the circular economy in the plastics industry
Plastics as a material, due to low costs and great functional capabilities, have become of great
importance for modern economies and hence the use of plastics has grown quickly throughout
the last century and is expected to grow further in the coming years (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). Therefore, humanity has to find a new way to deal with the resulting plastic
waste.

2.2.1 Current state of the plastics industry

Plastics have become increasingly popular as a raw material for products, mostly because it
offers great properties regarding processing and low cost and weight, which has led to an
estimated production of 359 million metric tons of plastic in 2018 (Balaji & Liu, 2021).
Consumption of plastics per year and person is between 9 and 108 kilograms, where polyolefin
represents the largest part of consumed plastics (Balaji & Liu, 2021). Figure 9 below shows the
global consumption of different plastics as well as the per head consumption of plastics in
various countries in 2015. Most of currently used plastics are non-degradable and their lifetime
amounts to centuries, due to their durability (Balaji & Liu, 2021).

Figure 9. Global plastic consumption of popular plastics and per head plastics consumption of various countries in 2015

Source: Balaji & Liu (2021)

22
The popularity of plastics is also mirrored in an incomparable growth in plastics production
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). As can be seen from figure 10 below, global plastics
consumption has
increased from 15
million metric tons in
1964 to 311 million
metric tons in 2014,
what amounts to a
twenty-fold increase
in 50 years (Ellen
MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). It
is expected, that
plastics production
Figure 10. Global plastics production from 1950 till 2014 will double again in
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) the next twenty years,
and that a quadruplication will occur by 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Plastics
packaging, as a result of plastics being especially cheap, lightweight and offer a high
performance as packaging materials, is the most prominent application of plastics and amounts
to 26% of the total volume (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Plastic packaging has
increasingly substituted other kinds of packaging in recent years, what is reflected in a growth
of the share of plastic packaging regarding global packaging volumes from 17% to 25%
between 2000 and 2015 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Especially plastic packaging,
which is almost every time a single use application (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017), leads
to several problems due to its high volume and low recycling quotas. According to Ellen
MacArthur Foundation (2017) about 95% of plastic packaging is disposed after a short first use,
which leads to a yearly loss of about 80-120 billion USD for the economy. Only 14% of plastic
packaging is collected for recycling, where finally only about 5% are brought into use again
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Further, recycled plastics are usually brought into lower
value applications and global recycling rates of plastics are far below the rates of paper and
iron/steel (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Although PET shows a higher recycling rate
compared to other sorts of plastics, also in this case globally only about half of the PET is
collected for recycling and only about 7% is recycled bottle-to-bottle. Figure 11 below gives an
overview of the flows of materials associated with plastic packaging in a global context. As can

23
be seen, of the 14%, which are collected for recycling, only two percent are recycled in a closed-
loop way, what means recycling in the same application or an application of comparable quality
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).

Figure 11. Plastic packaging flows in 2013 (globally)

Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017)

About 4% of the materials collected for recycling are lost during the process and 8% are used
for cascaded recycling, which refers to the recycling of the collected plastics into lower-value
applications (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Beside the 14% which are collected and
energetically recovered, 40% are landfilled and 32% are either not collected or collected and
illegally dumped, which is referred to as leakage in figure 11 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2017). This leads to the conclusion, that almost 72% of plastic packaging materials are not yet
recovered in any way (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). The increased use of plastics
combined with the currently poor waste management hast hence lead to plastics becoming a
global issue, because they are contributing to problems like global warming, reduction in
groundwater and are causing health hazards (Balaji & Liu, 2021). Further, Ellen MacArthur
Foundation (2017) mentions degradation of natural systems due to leakage, greenhouse gas
emissions, which are the result of the production of plastics and of the combustion of plastics
after the use, and health and environmental impacts caused by specific substances of concern

24
as negative externalities associated with plastics. Regarding the degradation of natural systems,
especially plastic, which leaks into the ocean represents a problem (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). About 8 million metric tons of plastic are entering the oceans every year
and stays there for centuries, which leads to an accumulation of plastic in the ocean over time
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Calculations show, that without acting against this issue,
there might be more plastic than fish in the ocean in terms of weight in 2050 (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). Ocean plastic can lead to significant economic costs, for instance regarding
cleaning of beaches, and may also affect human health, food chains and societal and economic
systems as a whole (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Additionally, plastic, that enters the
environment can lead to the degeneration of natural systems like forests and waterways and
also may affect urban infrastructure negatively, for instance urban sewers may be not working
due to plastic waste (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). The second negative externality
mentioned by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) is the emission of greenhouse gases.
Significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the production and after use
treatment of plastics (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). In the case of no changes are made
regarding the production and consumption patterns of plastic, the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions caused by the global plastics sector will be about 15% of the global annual carbon
budget in 2050, where today the emissions of the global plastics sector only account for 1% of
the global annual carbon budget (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Thirdly, plastics are
made out of a complex mixture of polymers together with additives, like for instance stabilizers,
and might hence, due to impurities or contaminants, include substances, which could possibly
have negative effects on human health as well as on the environment (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). The leakage of these substances into the ocean from the previously
mentioned ocean plastics and the emissions of these substances in the environment in the case
of improper combustion after use represents another potential problem (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). Alongside these negative externalities the plastics industry is at the moment
mainly relying on finite sources of oil and gas and about 6% of the world-wide oil production
is used in order to produce plastics (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). In the case of the
expected growth in the plastics sector continues, the consumption regarding the production of
plastics might grow to 20% of the worldwide oil consumption (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2017). Given the described problems, which the plastics sector is going to face in the next years,
it becomes obvious that a fundamental change has to occur. One possibility is the introduction
of circular economy in the plastics sector, which would help tackling many of the previously
described problems.

25
2.2.2 Circular economy in the plastics sector
According to Plastics Europe (2019), the idea of a circular economy in the plastics sector is to
promote the reuse of products and to generate value out of the plastics waste instead of sending
it to the landfill. Plastics waste should be seen as valuable resource and should be used as input
for the production of new plastic products and for energy production in the case of recycling
not being possible (Plastics Europe, 2019). Further, Plastics Europe (2019) mentions the
importance to focus on the replacement of fossil sources by renewables and CO2 and on altered
thinking all along the value chain, regarding design of products and also recycling.
Additionally, the conversion of more waste into new raw materials via recycling, resource
efficiency and the minimization of greenhouse gas emissions are stressed by Plastics Europe
(2019) as crucial points, on which the plastics industry is currently focusing. Figure 12 below
shows the idea of a new circular plastics industry. As can be seen, virgin materials entering the
circular economy should be mainly produced out of renewable resources. Additionally, virgin

Figure 12. The circular plastics economy

Source: Plastics Europe (2019)

feedstocks should be substituted by mechanically or chemically recycled plastics when

possible. As can also be seen in Figure 12, during the collection, sorting and recycling processes
there will be a loss of products, which are then either landfilled or used for energy recovery,
26
depending on the corresponding contamination of the materials. According to Ellen MacArthur
Foundation (2017) the overall goal of the new circular economy in the plastics sector is, that
plastics never become waste, but instead enter the economy as technical or biological nutrients.
The circular economy in the plastics sector is built on three main pillars (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017):

1. Creation of an effective after-use plastics economy:

This is the most important part regarding a circular plastics economy (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). It is crucial to capture more material value and increase resource
productivity and thereby also an incentive regarding the avoidance of leakage of plastics
into the environment is created (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).

2. Reduction of leakage of plastics in the environment

To ensure, that plastics do not end up in the environment, an improvement in collection
systems and recovery infrastructure is necessary (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).

3. Unlinking plastics from fossil resource use

Although recycling and reuse are important for decoupling the plastics industry from fossil
resource use, they on their own might not be enough for satisfying the resource needs of the
plastic industry and hence virgin materials will nevertheless be necessary, which should
ideally be out of renewable resources (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). These
renewable feedstocks can either be produced directly out of methane or CO2, or out of
biomass (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).

The circular plastics economy described by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) leads to a
number of associated benefits. Firstly, the switch to a circular economy in the plastics sector
could help in capturing the material value of packaging made out of plastic (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). While at the moment only about 5% of material value of plastic packaging
is preserved steps towards a circular economy could increase this share significantly (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Secondly, the negative externalities associated with plastics
could be significantly decreased (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Negative externalities,
like leakage into the environment or greenhouse gas emissions could by significantly reduced
by the introduction of a circular economy in the plastics sector (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2017). By the creation of the previously mentioned effective after-use markets, the circular

27
economy in the plastics sector would create incentives to decrease the leakage of plastics in the
environment and for reusing and recycling of plastic materials (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2017). As an instance, one metric ton of additionally recycled plastics leads to the mitigation
of 1.1 – 3.0 metric tons of CO2 equivalent when compared to the production of one metric ton
fossil-based virgin material (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Further, also some
bioplastics, which are also included in the creation of a new circular plastics economy, have
negative global warming potential and by reducing substances of concern in plastic materials,
the circular economy also mitigates risks, which would be associated with them (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Corresponding to the reduction of negative externalities, a
reduction of risk for businesses would be achieved (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). The
externalities per se do not represent a cost or risk to businesses, but they can lead to regulatory
risks for companies or even to the ban of specific plastic types (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2017). These risks can lead to substantial negative impacts on affected companies and hence
with the reduction of the underlying externalities, also the associated risks are eliminated or
reduced (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Finally, circular economy in the plastics sector
would lead to a reduction of the exposure to volatility of fossil based virgin raw materials (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017). The use of recycled or renewable alternatives is a possibility for
affected businesses to reduce their exposure to the volatility of oil-based virgin materials (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Although a circular economy in the plastics sector would offer
several benefits, there are also some obstacles and challenges, which will occur during the
process of change. Balaji and Liu (2021) identify seven especially important challenges
regarding the transformation from a linear to a circular economy in the plastics sector:

1. Finding value for recycled plastics

Given that recycled materials are sometimes more expensive that virgin materials and their
quality might be questionable, it is necessary finding addition to value for these materials
(Balaji & Liu, 2021).

2. Redesigning of products
Many plastic products are, due to the combination of plastic with additives like glue or
bonds, difficult to recycle (Balaji & Liu, 2021). Hence it is necessary to redesign the
products with a focus on recyclability and additionally also new materials should be used,
which are not only easy to recycle, but also eco-friendly (Balaji & Liu, 2021). An instance

28
 would be the use of the newly developed bio-based plastic polyethylene furanoate instead
of currently common used PET bottles (Balaji & Liu, 2021).

3. Availability
The availability of the newly used materials, recycled or bio-based, is also of great
importance and a challenge, because without a stable supply of these products, a
uninterrupted manufacturing process is not possible (Balaji & Liu, 2021).

4. The manufacturing processes

The use of alternate or recycled materials and an altered design may affect current
production processes, which makes it necessary to find possibilities, that do not alter
production processes too much (Balaji & Liu, 2021).

5. The sorting
Given, that the collected plastics has different properties, colors and attributes, the sorting
and categorizing of them becomes difficult (Balaji & Liu, 2021).

6. Recycling
Recycling is one of the most important pillars of a circular plastics economy and it is
commonly distinguished between mechanical and chemical recycling (Balaji & Liu, 2021).
In the case of mechanical recycling, which is better suited for thermoplastic polymers and
mostly unsuitable for thermoset polymers, the after-use plastics are converted into
secondary raw materials without an altering of the chemical structure (Balaji & Liu, 2021).
The main challenges regarding mechanical recycling are the need for sorting the plastic
waste due to possible contaminations and the potentially diminished quality, which occurs
due to the heating of the polymers during the process (Balaji & Liu, 2021). In the case of
chemical recycling, large polymeric chains are converted into smaller units and then
become gases, fuels, other chemicals or again raw material for the production of plastic
(Balaji & Liu, 2021). The great advantage is, that chemical recycling leads to recycled
monomers of plastics, without a mentionable loss of quality (Balaji & Liu, 2021). The main
challenges regarding chemical recycling are, that it is limited to the recycling of
condensation polymers and it cannot be used for the recycling of additional polymers, like
for instance PP and PE, and that it needs large volumes in order to be cost efficient (Balaji
& Liu, 2021).

29
7. Collaboration
For a transformation from a linear to a circular plastics economy, the collaboration between
all stakeholders, which are involved in the product and the supply chain, is necessary (Balaji
& Liu, 2021).

30
2.3 Innovation and the circular Economy
In order to achieve the transition from a linear to a circular economy significant changes in
technologies as well as in business practices will be necessary. In this context especially
innovations play a key role for enabling this transition. Hence here firstly the basics of
innovations and the different types are introduced and finally the contribution of innovations to
a more circular economy will be discussed.

2.3.1 Basics of innovation

Similar to the concept of circular economy, also regarding the term innovation, there is no clear
mutually agreed definition on it. A possible early definition is given by Thompson (1965):

“By innovation is meant the generation, acceptance, and implementation

of new ideas, processes, products or services” (Thompson, 1965, p.2)

Rogers (1983) defines the term innovation as follows:

”An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new

by an individual or other unit of adoption.” (Rogers, 1983, p. 11)

As can be seen, from the definitions above, an innovation is basically something new. Given
the fact, that an innovation is something new, it hast to be distinguished between invention an
innovation. An invention is basically a preliminary stage of an innovation and can be described
as the first technical implementation of an idea or concept (Strebel, 2007). An innovation is
contrary to an invention, where the focus is on the solution of a problem, focused on market
success and hence additionally to the application of the invention, also the exploitation of it is
crucial (Strebel, 2007). Further, it can be distinguished between innovation in the narrow sense,
which comprises the invention of a solution for a specific problem, the corresponding
investments and the manufacturing, and innovation in the broader sense, which additionally
contains the idea regarding the innovation, research and development and the introduction into
market with the associated diffusion of the innovation (Strebel, 2007). Further, an innovation
has to be distinguished from an imitation, which is basically an attempt of a company to copy
the already introduced innovation of another company (Strebel, 2007). Figure 13 below shows
the innovation process in the narrower and in the broader sense. Starting with an idea for a
project, research and development leads to the creation of an invention, may it be planned or

31
not planned, which then, after successful implementation and manufacturing is introduced into
the market (Strebel, 2007).

Figure 13. Innovation in the narrow and in the broader sense

Source: Strebel (2007)

Further, the degree of innovation, which is closely related to the newness of the innovation in
question, can be used to distinguish different innovations (Strebel, 2007). More precisely, it can
be distinguished between radical and incremental innovations (Strebel, 2007). Radical
innovations are usually occurring at irregular intervals, are the results of inventions and show
a high degree of novelty (Strebel, 2007). Corresponding to the high degree of novelty, radical
innovations show high success potential in the case of a successful market introduction, but are
also associated with a high degree of technical and economic risk (Strebel, 2007). Incremental
innovations show a lower degree of novelty and are usually rather improvements to existing
products or processes (Strebel, 2007). In addition to these two different categories of
innovations, also additional categories are possible. Figure 14 below shows another possibility

32
of categorization of innovations according to novelty. Goffin and Mitchell (2016) additionally
introduce breakthrough innovations. Figure 14 also offers further explanations of the different
innovation categories.

Figure 14. Categorization of innovations

Source: Own representation adapted from Goffin and Mitchell (2016)

2.3.2 Types of innovations

Regarding the subject matter, it can be distinguished between four different types of innovations
(Granig, 2007):

Product innovation:
In the case of needs and wants of customers being satisfied by new, not previously available
products, these new products are referred to as product innovation (Granig, 2007). Usually
companies aim at strengthening the current competitive position or at extending the competitive
position (Granig, 2007).

Process innovation:
A process is basically a sequence of actions, which lead to a result after a specific time (Granig,
2007). Process innovations are new combinations of factors, which lead to a process, for instead
the production of a product, becoming less expensive or faster (Hauschildt & Salomo, 2010).

33
The aim of a process innovation is to increase the efficiency (Hauschildt & Salomo, 2010). It
is often the case, that product and process innovations are accompanied by each other (Granig,
2007).

Social innovation:
Social innovations are focusing on the human and especially on the human and the
corresponding sphere of action within companies (Granig, 2007). Examples for aims of social
innovations are reduction of sick leaves or increasing job satisfaction (Granig, 2007).

Organizational innovations:
Organizational innovations are mostly strongly connected to product, process or social
innovations and are aiming at improvements regarding the structures of a company (structure
and process organization) (Granig, 2007).

Business model innovation:

Besides these four types of innovations, also business model innovation is an important aspect,
especially regarding the shift towards a more circular plastics economy. Firstly, it has to be
clarified, what the term business model refers to. A business model can be defined as follows:

“A business model is a conceptual tool containing a set of objects, concepts and

their relationships with the objective to express the business logic of a specific
firm.“ (Osterwalder et al., 2005, p. 3)

According to Teece (2010) the business model describes the design of the mechanisms, a
company uses to generate, deliver and create value. Business model innovation is the discovery
of a new business model in an existing business and does not include new products and services,
but rather redefines existing products or services and the way it is provided to the customer
(Markides, 2006). As an example, Amazon did not invent the business of bookselling, but
redefined the service and the benefit of the customer (Markides, 2006).

34
2.3.3 Innovation for circular economy
Innovation plays a key role in the transformation from a linear to a circular economy and may
accelerate it (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Innovations increasing the efficiency of
production could lead to a reduction of waste, which occurs during the production (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Here Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) names 3D printing as
an example, which would further also enable a more flexible design and offer the possibility of
production of specific spare parts to extend the life of products. New materials could lead to
lower costs and less input scarcity, while new biological materials and progress in chemistry
could lead to a faster transformation towards a circular economy production (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013). Regarding plastics packaging Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) stresses,
that without innovation and redesign about 30% of plastic packaging will never be recycled or
reused and that there is a need to foster material innovation regarding recyclable or compostable
packaging solutions, which can then be used instead of the currently prevailing not recyclable
packaging solutions, which consist out of a mixture of materials. It becomes obvious, that
innovation plays a crucial role in the transformation towards a circular economy. Especially
eco innovations and business model innovations are often mentioned as important contributions
towards a circular economy. For instance de Jesus et al. (2018) mentions eco innovations as a
key component for the transition from a linear to a circular economy. Business model
innovation as means of adapting business models to a circular economy and potential driver for
circular economy transitions is mentioned by Bocken et al. (2019). Further, Suchek et al. (2021)
perform a systematic literature review regarding innovation and circular economy and
conclude, that eco innovations, business model innovations and interactions among
stakeholders regarding innovations are recognized as especially important regarding the
transition towards a circular economy in literature. Hence these three topics will be further
elaborated in this section.

Eco Innovation for circular economy

OECD (2010) refers to an eco-innovation as an innovation, which, whether intended or not,
leads to a reduction of environmental impacts. Hence basically all innovations, which
contribute to a better environmental performance of a company can be seen as eco innovations.
A more detailed definition of eco innovations is given by Kemp and Pearson (2007):

35
 “Eco-innovation is the production, assimilation or exploitation of a product,
production process, service or management or business method that is novel
to the organization (developing or adopting it) and which results, throughout
its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and other negative
impacts of resources use (including energy use) compared to relevant
alternatives.” (Kemp & Pearson, 2007, p. 7)

Another possible definition of eco innovations is given by de Jesus and Mendonça (2018):

“new or improved socio-technical solutions that preserve resources, mitigate

environmental degradation and/or allow recovery of value from substances already in
use in the economy.” (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018, p. 77)

Basically, an eco-innovation can be understood based on three components (OECD, 2010):

1) Target
Here the basic focus of the eco innovation is meant (OECD, 2010). The basic focus of
an eco-innovation can be products, processes, marketing methods, organizations or
institutions (OECD, 2010).

2) Mechanism
Mechanism refers to the method, which leads to the change in the target of the eco
innovation and also refers to whether the underlying change is rather technological or
non-technological (OECD, 2010). OECD (2010) identifies the following four
mechanisms:

o Modifications: small adjustments of products or processes

o Redesign: significant changes in existing products, processes or
organizational structures
o Alternatives: introduction of substitutes
o Creation: introduction of entirely new products, processes,
organizational or institutional settings

36
 3) Impact
The impact refers to the effect of the eco innovation on the environment (OECD, 2010).
The impact can thereby range from incremental environmental improvements up to the
complete abolition of potential environmental harm and is the result of the combination
of the target of the eco innovation and the corresponding mechanism (OECD, 2010).

Figure 15 below gives an overview about eco-innovation targets, mechanisms and impacts.

Figure 15. Typology of eco innovations

Source: OECD (2010)

Product and process eco innovations can be distinguished in curative, which refers to
technologies that try to reduce impacts on the environment (e.g. contaminants) which have
already taken place, or preventive, which refers to technologies that try to eliminate the source
of the potential negative environmental impacts (OECD, 2010). Generally, product and process
eco innovations tend to be rather technological in nature, like for instance production processes,
that use a reduced amount of resources or cars, which are more fuel-efficient (OECD, 2010).
In contrast to primary technological product and process innovations, marketing, organizational
and institutional eco innovations tend to be rather non-technological in nature (OECD, 2010).
Marketing eco innovations refers to the integration of an environmental strategy into the
communications and sales strategy of a company (OECD, 2010). Organizational eco
innovations basically refers to the introduction of environmental management systems and

37
corresponding environmental strategies, where also training programs for employees aiming at
an increased environmental awareness or changes in relationships with other firms, like for
instance partnerships for environmental research, are included into this category (OECD, 2010).
Regarding institutional eco innovations, firstly it has to be distinguished between informal
institutions, e.g. social norms or value patterns, and formal institutions like for instance codified
laws or institutional frameworks (OECD, 2010). Regarding eco innovations in formal
institutions, this means the redefinition of roles and relations across independent entities, which
usually are based on legal enforcement, international agreements or arrangements between
multiple stakeholders (OECD, 2010). Examples are agencies, which focus on a clean local
water supply or financial platforms for the facilitation of the development of environmental
technologies (OECD, 2010). Informal institutional eco innovations are leading to
environmental improvements by changing social behavior and practices based on changes in
value patterns beliefs or knowledge (OECD, 2010). An example would be the switching of
transportation methods from cars to more environmentally friendly ones like, bicycles or public
transport caused by an enhanced environmental education of the individuals using them
(OECD, 2010). The resulting impact of the different types of innovations does not only rely on
the design of the eco innovation, but also on the corresponding socio-technical environment
(OECD, 2010). Also, innovations, which are not specifically aiming at the improvement of the
environment can lead to significant environmental improvements by interconnections with
other factors (OECD, 2010). Generally, in the case that a specific target for the eco innovation
is chosen, the environmental benefit usually follows the mechanism of the eco innovation,
which means, that modification tends to lead to less environmental benefits than creation
(OECD, 2010).

A slightly simpler classification is introduced by Kemp and Pearson (2007). They distinguish
between environmental technologies (e.g. pollution control technologies or green energy
technologies), organizational innovation (e.g. environmental management and auditing
systems), product and service innovation (e.g. environmentally improved products like eco-
buildings or services like car sharing) and green system innovations (e.g. alternative systems of
production and consumption, which are less environmentally harmful).

After defining the term of eco-innovation and the description of the different types and impacts
of eco innovations, now the contribution of eco innovations to a more circular economy will be
investigated. Generally, the link of eco innovations and the circular economy concept is straight

38
forward. Given, that eco-innovations are innovations, which improve environmental
performance, which for instance also includes efficiency gains and the corresponding reduction
of material use in production processes, it becomes obvious, that eco-innovations play an
important role regarding the transformation towards a circular economy. Although the link
between the circular economy and eco innovations is obvious, not all eco-innovations are linked
to the circular economy concept (de Jesus et al., 2018). De Jesus et al. (2018) stresses the
necessity of a deeper analysis of the interconnection of these concepts and argues, that an
analysis based on the previsously introduced eco-innovation targets, mechanisms and impacts
as well as on circular economy distinguished in micro, meso and macro level is a possibility to
further analyze the interconnection of these two concepts.

Figure 16 on the next page gives an overview over the circular economy concept and the eco
innovation concept. It shows the eco-innovations target, mecahnism and impact on the
horizontal axis and the different levels of circular economy on the vertical axis.

Regarding the macro level of circular economy, the role of eco innovations is mainly decreasing
the environmental impact of economic activities and helping in a transition towards a more
sustainable and integrated society, economy and environment (de Jesus et al., 2018). The eco
innovation target is organizational and the mechanism in technological (de Jesus et al., 2018).
Further, policies should be designed for supporting R&D and also for facilitating the exchange
of information (de Jesus et al., 2018).

At the meso level, the role of eco innovations is the facilitation of systemic integration and
thereby the enabling of green collective innovation, which should also lead to the possibility of
redirecting and employing by-products between different industrial actors (de Jesus et al.,
2018). Also here the eco innovation target is organizational and the mechanism is technological
(de Jesus et al., 2018). Especially the cooperation between companies, which are close to each
other should be promoted in order to achieve a more circular system (de Jesus et al., 2018).

At the micro level eco innovation should help in overcoming the linear take-make-dispose
business model by leading to new products, services or also resources and marketing concepts
(de Jesus et al., 2018). Here the eco innovation targets are goods and services and the

39
Figure 16. Circular economy and eco innovations

Source: de Jesus et al. (2018)

mechanism is again technological (de Jesus et al., 2018). Further, circular economy and eco
innovations can be used regarding the differentiation from competitors (de Jesus et al., 2018).

Doranova et al. (2016) distinguish between hardware and software eco-innovations for circular
economy. Hardware circular economy eco innovations are technologies, which allow to
transform waste again into valuable resources, while software circular economy eco
innovations are for instance skills, expertise and business models, which allow for the creation
of a business case out of the hardware eco innovations (Doranova et al.,2016). Furthermore,
Doranova et al. (2016) conclude, that different types of eco innovations (e.g. product eco
innovations or marketing eco innovations) will be required and necessary for the transition from

40
a linear towards a circular economy. Table 1 below gives an overview of the different types of
eco innovations and their corresponding contribution towards a more circular economy.

Table 1. Types of eco innovations for a circular economy

Source: Doranova et al. (2016)

TYPE BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS, EXAMPLES & KEYWORDS

Overall impact on the environment and material input is minimized over the whole
Product design product’s life cycle
eco-innovation Allowing for recovery options like repairing, maintenance, remanufacturing, recycling and
cascading use of components and materials (e.g. Fairphone)
Material use, emissions and hazardous substances are reduced, risks are lowered, and
costs are saved in production processes
Advancing remanufacturing, such as
- Refurbishment by replacing or repairing components that are
Process eco-
defective, including the update of products
innovation
- Disassembly and recovery at the component, material and
substance level
- Upcycling, functional recycling, downcycling
zero waste production, zero emissions, cleaner production
Methods and management systems reorganization pushing for closing
the loops and increasing resource efficiency
Organizational New business models e.g. industrial symbiosis, new collection and recovery schemes for
eco-innovation valuable resources (incl. Extended Producer Responsibility/Individual Producer
Responsibility)
from products to functional services (product-service systems)
Product and service design, placement, promotion, pricing
Marketing Promotion of the reuse for the same purpose (e.g. bottles, appliances), promotion of the
eco-innovation reuse for different purposes (e.g. tires as boat fenders, for playgrounds)
eco-labelling, green branding
Behavioral and lifestyle changes, user-led innovation
Social eco- Sharing (e.g. domestic appliances, books, textiles), collaborative consumption (e.g. flats,
innovation garden tools) sufficiency (e.g. plastic bag bans)
smart consumption, responsible shopping, use rather than own schemes
Entirely new systems are created with completely new functions reducing the overall
System eco- environmental impact
innovation Leading to a substantial dematerialization of the industrial society
new urban governance, smart cities, permaculture

41
Circular business model innovation
Beside the contribution of eco-innovations to the transition towards a circular economy, also
the transformation of current linear business models into circular business models is crucial for
achieving the goal of a circular economy. In this context business models and business model
innovation play a crucial role. As business models and business model innovation have already
been introduced, in this context especially business models, which deal with a higher degree of
circularity, referred to as circular business models and the corresponding circular business
model innovation are going to be elaborated. Nußholz (2017) gives the following definition for
a circular business model:

“A circular business model is how a company creates, captures, and delivers value with the
value creation logic designed to improve resource efficiency through contributing to
extending useful life of products and parts (e.g., through long-life design, repair and
remanufacturing) and closing material loops.” (Nußholz, 2017, p. 12)

A more detailed definition of circular business models is given by Geissdoerfer et al. (2020):

“business models that are cycling, extending, intensifying, and/or dematerializing material
and energy loops to reduce the resource inputs into and the waste and emission leakage out
of an organizational system. This comprises recycling measures(cycling), use phase
extensions (extending), a more intense use phase(intensifying), and the substitution of
products by service and software solutions (dematerializing).” (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020,
p. 7)

Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) further identifies four generic strategies for circular business models:
cycling, extending, intensifying and dematerializing. Cycling includes reuse, remanufacturing,
recycling and refurbishing and basically refers to materials and energy being kept within the
system (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). Extending includes maintenance, repair, marketing
strategies aiming at encouraging long use phases and design decisions, which result in a long
lasting use phase of the product and basically aims at an extension of the use phase, which
results in extended resource loops (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). Intensifying is about the
promotion of an intensified use phase through possibilities like for instance the sharing
economy (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). Finally, dematerializing refers to the provision of the
utility of a product without using hardware and instead providing the same utility with the help

42
of software and services (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). An instance, is the provision of product
service systems instead of products for a specific task (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). These four
strategies are summarized in figure 17 below.

Figure 17. Strategies for circular business models

Source: Geissdoerfer et al. (2020)

Nußholz (2017) emphasizes, that the key difference between linear business models and
circular business models is not rooted in a different configuration of business model elements,
but in the “embeddedness of a circular strategy in the offer” (Nußholz, 2017, p. 12), which can
also lead to a transformation of the involved material flows. In the case, that the business model
of a company involves several use phases of the offered good or service, this might lead to a
complex supply chain including several cycles and hence also business model elements might
iterate, like for instance the good or service being offered to varying customer groups in each
cycle (Nußholz, 2017). Hence also the value proposition might change from cycle to cycle
rooted in the different user groups and is therefore more dynamic compared to a linear business
model (Nußholz,2017).

Circular business model innovation can, on a basic level, be seen as a shift from a linear
business model to a circular business model (e.g. Bocken et al. (2018); Rizos et al. (2016)).
Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) refer to a circular business model innovation as:

43
 “the conceptualization and implementation of circular business models, which comprises
the creation of circular start-ups, the diversification into circular business models, the
acquisition of circular business models, or the transformation of a business model into a
circular one. This can affect the entire business model or one or more of its elements, the
interrelations between the elements, and the value network.” (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020, p.
8)

Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) identifies four types of circular business model innovation: circular
business model transformation, circular start-ups, circular business model diversification and
circular business model acquisition. These four types of circular business model innovation are
summarized in figure 18 below.

Figure 18. Types of circular business model innovation

Source: Geissdoerfer et al. (2020)

Although circular business model and therefore also circular business model innovation is of
high importance regarding the transformation towards a circular economy and circular business

44
models might seem promising, there are inherent risks and barriers in the innovation process
towards a more circular business model. Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) conducted a multiple
case study in order to identify possible barriers regarding the shift from a circular towards a
circular business model, which are summarized in table 2 below.

Table 2. Barriers for circular business model innovation

Source: Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020)

Level of identified barrier Identified barrier

Regulatory barriers
Difficulty securing funding for CBMs
Market and institutional level Market demand unclear
Public procurement policies not sustainability oriented
Low price of virgin raw materials compared to recycled
materials
Investments in existing manufacturing facilities and value
chain
Concerns about quality control of returned goods
Concerns about consistency of flow of return goods
Value chain level Dispersed, complex value chains
Reluctance to involve external stakeholders in CBMI
activities
Takes time to build new partnerships and mutual trust
Lack of knowledge or competencies in value chain
Narrow focus of existing sustainability strategies
Difficulty attaining management buy-in
ROI and similar requirements for new business ventures
Cannibalization concerns
Organizational level Little evidence of financial and environmental benefits
Lack of resources, knowledge or competencies in-house
Uncertainty about legislation in this field
Difficulty establishing cross-organisational collaboration
Special product design required for maximum profitability
Lack of knowledge about circular economy and CBMs
Employee level Hesitant approach to promoting the circular economy agenda
Prevailing linear business model structures and thinking
Incentive structure supporting linear business models

45
Cooperation and collaboration for circular economy innovation
Suchek et al. (2021) also identifies collaboration among stakeholders for advancing the
transition towards a circular economy and the corresponding innovations as important topic
regarding the connection of innovations and the circular economy. Brown et al. (2020) argue,
that the knowledge and capabilities necessary for circular economy-oriented innovation are
separated between different actors and identify a need for collaboration among actors in order
to connect the actor’s innovation activities and additionally stress the need for complementary
innovations. Additional support regarding the importance of collaboration regarding a
transformation towards a more circular economy is given by Kirchherr et al. (2018), who
identifies lack of collaboration within the value chain as a barrier to a more circular economy.
Brown et al. (2019) link sustainable oriented innovation to the concept of circular oriented
innovation and distinguish between innovations with a focus on products, innovations leading
to new market opportunities and system innovation. They also acknowledge different levels of
collaborations needed for achieving these three different sorts of innovations, where system
innovation needs the highest degree of innovation and innovation with a focus on products
needs the lowest degree of collaboration.

Product focused innovation are usually aiming at compliance and efficiency, reduce harm,
constitute incremental improvements to the business as usual of firms and the design approach
is focusing on the product level (Brown et al., 2019).

Innovations for new market opportunities follows the aim of creating new products, services or
business models in order to contribute to a better society, create social, environmental and
economic value, constitute a shift in the firm´s purpose (create wider benefits) and the design
approach is about servitization, product as a service or the establishment of closed loop systems
(Brown et al., 2019).

Finally, systemic innovations aim at the creation of new products, services or business models,
which cannot be created by a company on its own (Brown et al., 2019). Systemic innovations
lead to the creation of net-positive value configurations that foster societal change and
constitute an extension of a company´s purpose (Brown et al., 2019). Systemic innovations use
a systemic design approach with focus on innovation and transition, like for instance circular
design or circular business models (Brown et al., 2019).

46
Product focused innovations are seen as rather incremental innovations, while systemic
innovation are regarded as rather radical innovations (Brown et al., 2019). Figure 19 below
summarizes the connection between the necessary degree of cooperation and the corresponding
innovations.

Figure 19. Sustainable oriented innovation/Circular oriented innovation and collaboration

Source: Brown et al. (2019)

Brown et al. (2019) further investigate, why companies collaborate regarding innovations for
circular economy. They distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motives and include the
personal as well as the organizational level. Figure 20 on the next page summarizes these
motives.

47
Figure 20. Motives for collaboration in circular oriented innovation activities

Source: Brown et al. (2019)

48
3. Method
For the data collection a qualitative-exploratory approach in the form of semi-structured
interviews was used. The semi-structured interviews made use of the laddering technique. The
interviews consisted only of open questions and for the analysis of the interviews the content
analysis according to Mayring (1991) was used. The first part of the interview guideline focused
on the current state of the circular economy and on research questions one to four. The second
part included a short description of a scenario of a more circular plastics economy and follow
up questions, regarding the contribution of the respective firm to the achievement of the
scenario and regarding necessary changes in the supply chain in order to achieve the scenario.
In order to answer the future-oriented research questions five and six, a combination out of a
backcasting approach and semi-structured questions was used. Research question seven was
answered using the current as well as the future oriented part and is hence not part of figure 21
below, which gives an exemplary overview of the overall research process.

Figure 21. Graphical illustration of the research process

49
3.1 Method for data collection
For the collection of the data semi-structured interviews with company representatives of firms,
which belong to different levels in the supply chain of the Austrian plastics sector, were
conducted. The interview partners were asked open questions in order to gain information about
the current state as well as future possibilities regarding the implementation of circular economy
practices in the companies, which they are representing. Furthermore, the interviews are
inspired by the laddering approach.

The laddering technique is an in-depth interview technique, which aims at understanding, how
consumers translate attributes of products into meaningful associations with regard to
themselves (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). Laddering follows the Means-End-Theory (Reynolds
& Gutman, 1988). The laddering technique is used for the empirical identification of the
different levels of meaning associated with the Means-End-Theory (Liebel, 2007). The Means-
End-Theory assume, that every individual has specific moral concepts and objectives, which
influence their consumer behavior and the product, or the actions of consuming is seen as means
to achieve a specific objective (ends) (Liebel, 2007). Usually, the Means-End-Theory includes
three levels of meaning: attributes of the product, consequences of the use of the product and
values of the consumer (Liebel, 2007). The laddering technique is used to identify these
different levels by scrutinizing given explanations of the respondents again and again, usually
with questions like: Why is this of importance for you? (Liebel, 2007).

Qualitative interviews were chosen in this thesis, because these give the respondents the
possibility to answer questions very individually with regards to their companies. Given the
explorative approach of this study, this is important, because one of the aims is to identify yet
unknown drivers and barriers regarding the implementation of circular economy in the Austrian
plastics sector. The laddering approach was seen as suitable for identifying the underlying
values of the company representatives, and hence of the companies, for implementing or not
implementing circular economy measures. The advantage of the laddering method is, that it
will not only be discovered, what is important for the companies regarding the implementation
of circular economy, but also why it is important to them, what offers deeper insights into
potential obstacles for implementing further circular economy practices. Hence this approach
was seen as the best possibility for gaining further knowledge about the facilitation of the
implementation of circular economy practices in companies within the Austrian plastics sector.

50
Regarding research questions five and six, a combination of a qualitative interview and
backcasting was used. Backcasting is a method, in which the future desired state is described,
and then steps are planned, on how this desired state could be achieved (Holmberg & Robert,
2000). According to Dreborg (1996) backcasting is especially suitable as a method, when:

• The studied problem is complex

• There is a need for major change
• Dominant trends are part of the problem
• The problem is to a great extent a matter of externalities
• The time horizon is long enough to allow enough scope for deliberate choice

Given these insights, it becomes obvious, that for the transition towards the circular economy
and the underlying problems, shortness of natural resources and climate change, backcasting is
a suitable approach. In order to answer research questions five and six, which are future
oriented, a short scenario was developed, which describes an ideal future state regarding the
circular economy within the Austrian plastics sector and then the interview partners were asked,
how their company can contribute to the achievement of the described scenario and what
changes in the supply chain would be needed for the scenario to become reality. The scenario
was based on the EU vision for plastics in a circular economy3 and developed together with the
supervisors for this thesis and the author of the twin study.

3.2 Method for data analysis

For the evaluation of the interviews the qualitative content analysis was chosen as a method.
More explicit, the summarizing content analysis based on Mayring (1991) was used. Here, the
aim is to reduce the material in a way, so that the essential contents are preserved. The
summarizing content analysis is especially suited for the case, that the interest is only in the
content level of the material (Mayring, 1991). This is clearly the case in this thesis, and hence
this approach will be used.

The next important task was the development of categories for the context analysis. Again, it
has to be distinguished between research questions 1 to 4, which are focusing on the present
and research questions 5 and 6, which focus on the future. In order to answer research questions

3
Accessible at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:28:FIN (19.10.2021)

51
one to four, a deductive category system was used. Regarding this research questions, there has
already been preliminary work (Interreg Project “Start circles”) and the category development
was built on the yet gained insights. In order to answer research questions 5 and 6, an inductive
approach to the category development was used.

For the transcribing as well as for the analysis the software package MAXQDA4 was used.
Finally, after the descriptive analysis, implication matrices were constructed. An implication
matrix indicates, the number of times, each category leads directly or indirectly to another
category (Lee & Lin, (2011); Kaciak & Cullen, (2006)). Based on this implication matrices,
causal chains were identified.

The category system used to analyze the interviews consists out of nine main categories:
perceptions of circular economy, implemented practices, reasons circular economy
implementation, contribution of the company, supply chain changes, opportunities, challenges,
innovation for circular economy and further circular economy practices. The code system was
developed based on the already mentioned previous work and on the interview guideline, but
the two main categories contribution of the company and supply chain changes, were developed
completely inductive, including subcodes, due to the absence of previous work. Additionally,
to the deductive subcategories, additional subcategories were added inductively during the
analysis. Figure 22 below gives an overview of the code system, including all main categories
and additionally, as example, two instances of subcategories for each main category.

4
Software package developed by the company VERBI for qualitative data and text analysis

52
 Figure 22. Representation of code system

3.3 Selection of companies

All companies, which were included, are part of the Austrian plastics sector. The aim of the
thesis was to include companies, that could be part of the same supply chain, in order to gain
better insights into potentially necessary changes in the supply chain. In order to gain contact
information of the relevant companies, the partner database of the Austrian Plastics Cluster was
used. All included companies were scanned and in a first step, all companies, which work with
plastics as a raw material (e.g. injection molding), produce plastic raw material or are involved
into the recycling of plastics were chosen. In a second step, all websites of companies identified
in the first step were investigated, in order to secure, that the companies fit within the previously
described plastics related activities. Further, personal contacts and a snowballing approach were
53
used to gain further contacts. This resulted in a list of 131 companies, which were contacted.
All companies received an e-mail describing, why the contribution of the company in focus
would be helpful for the underlying thesis and also further information on how the interview
would be handled was included. Additionally, this mail included the interview guideline, so all
companies participating have received the guideline before the interview. Finally, 18 interviews
could be performed, while one interview was excluded in retrospect, because two companies
of a group were simultaneously giving the interview, which was identified as not suitable for
the further analysis. Hence overall 17 interviews were finally analyzed, which refers to a
response rate of 13%. Further, all interview partners of the companies participating should be
in a position to make decisions regarding circular economy activities in the company or should
otherwise be involved into circular economy activities, for instance research and development
(R&D) managers.

3.4 Sample description

The final sample was constituted out of one producer, three recyclers, 12 converters and one
trader, who traded plastic waste and constituted an interface between waste collection
companies and recyclers. Due to most converters selling their products directly to business to
business customers and distributors, which usually sell plastic articles, like for instance
hardware stores, do not only offer plastic articles, but rather a huge range of different products
out of very different materials, distributors were not included into the sample. According to the
recommendation of the European Commission5 regarding the classification of companies based
on the number of employees, six companies were large companies, eight companies were
medium companies, two small companies and one micro enterprise. Table 3 below gives
detailed information on each company of the sample. All interviews were conducted as video
conferences or via telephone.

Table 3. Details of companies in the sample

Number of Interviewee Main business

Short form
employees position area

Circular economy
Production of
Producer P1 6900 strategy
plastics
responsible

Senior Vice
Packaging
Converter C1 8300 President Group
production
R&D

5
Accessible at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361&from=DE
(19.10.2021)

54
 Head of
Sustainability and Packaging
C2 11000
Corporate production
Responsibility
Production of
C3 110 CEO plastic
containers
Plastics
Managing applications for
C4 50
Director medical
technology
Packaging
C5 200 Head of Sales
production
Plastic injection
C6 100 CEO molding, Plastic
films extrusion
Plastic
C7 550 CEO packaging films
extrusion
Packaging
C8 10 CEO
production
C9 330 CEO Product displays
Kitchens and
household
goods out of
C10 80 CEO
plastics,
Contract
manufacturing
Plastics
applications for
Head of medical
C11 50 competence technology,
center plastics Supplier
automotive
industry
Head of Silicone and
international two-component
C12 450
business injection
development molding
Plastic
Trade with
waste T1 1 CEO
plastic waste
trader
Head of
Operations: Post-Consumer
Recycler R1 200
Business Unit Recycling
Polymers
Recycling of
R2 17 CEO used tires
(plastic parts)
Post-Consumer
R3 100 General Manager
Recycling

55
3.5 Interview guideline
For ensure, that all interviews have the same structure, an interview guideline was developed
and sent to each participant prior to the interview. The interview guideline is composed out of
four main categories, A-D. Figure 23 below gives an overview of the structure of the interview
guideline.

Figure 23. Structure of the interview guideline

In the first part of the interview, the background of the study and the interview was described
to the interview partner and the social demographics were questioned, like for instance position
within the company and number of employees. In section A company representatives were
asked regarding their understanding of circular economy, the already implemented practices
and the causes for the implementation of circular economy practices. In section B, the scenario
was introduced to the interviewees and then they were asked, how their company can contribute
to the achievement of the scenario. In section C, the participants were asked, which changes in
the supply chain would be necessary regarding the achievement of the scenario. Finally, in
section D, companies were asked regarding the opportunities and challenges in the context of
circular economy and whether they plan to implement further circular economy practices. At
the end of the main interview, participants were asked, whether they would know any other

56
companies, which would be suitable for interviews. The full-length interview guideline can be
found in the appendix.

The first three interviews were considered as test-interviews, but due to the experiences during
these interviews, the guideline was seen as suitable and no further changes were made, hence
also the first three interviews were included into the sample. The interviews were conducted in
a team consisting out of the author and the author of the twin study, which focuses on the
Austrian wood sector.

57
4. Results
This section contains a descriptive analysis followed by further analysis regarding the causes
for circular economy implementation, already implemented practices and future contributions
and their connection to opportunities and challenges.

4.1 Descriptive analysis

Firstly, a descriptive analysis of the interviews will be presented.

4.1.1 Perceptions of Circular Economy in the Austrian plastics sector

The aim of this section is to investigate how companies in the Austrian plastics sector perceive
the circular economy and what they understand as circular economy in the context of their
business field and operations. The analysis resulted in the identification of 10 different possible
understandings of the circular economy in the plastics sector, where also multiple responses
were possible. The three most often mentioned categories are presented in figure 24. Out of 17
interviewed company representatives, 12 understand circular economy as recycling. Closing
loops is mentioned by 10 interview partners as their understanding of a circular economy and
seven companies refer to the minimization of the material input as their understanding of
circular economy.

Perceptions of Circular Economy

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Recycle 12

Closing loops 10

Minimizing material input 7

Figure 24. Perceptions of the circular economy in the Austrian plastics sector, n = 17

58
Recycling
Recycling was mentioned by a total of 12 companies as their understanding of circular
economy. One company referred to recycling as the introduction of raw materials, in this case
recycled materials, which are enabling circular economy (P1, Par.12). Another company also
referred to the increased use of recycled inputs as their understanding of circular economy (C
12, Par. 11). Three companies stated, that in their understanding the recycling of production
inputs, which occurs as rejects during the production process, refers to what they understand as
circular economy (C9, Par. 11; C 7 Par. 10; C10, Par. 11). One of these companies declared:

“For us in our own company, circular economy also means that we collect production
waste or rejects or sprues by type, recycle them and return them within our company”
(C 10, Par. 11)

Six companies referred to the recycling of their products as their understanding of a circular
economy. The companies referred to the design of their products, which should enable a
recycling of them and the creation of recyclable solutions (C 1, Par. 10; C 5, Par. 10), the
recycling of products at the end of their life (C2, Par. 2; C3, Par. 12; T 1, Par. 10), the closing
of loops by the recycling of their product (C 8, Par. 2) as recycling in the context of the
understanding of circular economy regarding their organization. Two recyclers in the Austrian
plastics sector also refer to recycling as their understanding of the circular economy and see the
recycling of plastic waste and the corresponding creation of new input materials for the plastics
sector as the task of their company (R1, Par. 10 – 12; R 2, Par. 4)

Closing loops
The closing of loops was mentioned by 10 companies as their understanding of a circular
economy. Although all companies referred to the understanding of circular economy as the
closing of loops, their understanding regarding how the loops should be closed differs
significantly. One firm referred to the prevention of materials entering the environment and the
enhancement of circular inflow, which means the use of recyclable materials, as their
understanding of the circular economy and the closing of loops (P 1, Par. 12). Two companies
referred to the closing of loops as starting to think in circles (C 6, Par. 6; T 1, Par. 10). Two
other companies understand the taking back of their products as the closing of loops (C 9, Par.
11; C 10, Par. 11). One company enhances this view by adding the recycling and corresponding
reuse of the resulting granulate in the production of the company to the previously mentioned

59
taking back of products (C 3, Par. 10). One company sees the production of products, which
enable circularity as the closing (C 8, Par. 5) of loops, while another firm refers to the closing
of loops as the recycling and reintroduction into the process of production rejects (C 7, Par. 11
- 12). Two recyclers see their purpose as the closing of the loop in the plastics sector and also
refer to the closing of loops as the production of new input material from waste, which is
delivered to them (R 3, Par. 10; R 1, Par. 14).

Minimizing material input

The minimization of input material and hence the better use of resources and waste prevention
was mentioned by seven companies as their understanding of circular economy. Two
companies referred to less use of primary resources as their idea of minimizing material input
(C 6, Par. 10; C 12, Par. 11). Four companies referred to the better use of resources and hence
waste-free working and waste prevention as their way of minimizing input materials and their
understanding of a circular economy (P 1, Par. 12; C 11, Par 2; C 3, Par. 12; R 2, Par. 4 ). One
company mentioned the overall handling of resources as important regarding the minimization
of input material and gave the case of handling water in the production process and when
possible keeping the water in a circle (C 2, Par. 2).

Others
Other understandings, which were mentioned by only one or two companies were: sustainable
packaging, the impossibility of circular economy, the reduction of CO2 emissions, repurpose,
reuse, reduce and responsibility. Regarding the impossibility of circular economy, one company
stated, that the understanding of circular economy regarding their company is, that circular
economy is not possible, and they have to litter all plastic related materials, due to regulatory
restrictions in their field of business (C 4, Par. 11). Another instance in this category is, that one
interview partner understood the circular economy as taking responsibility as a plastics
converter (C 6, Par. 10).

4.1.2 Circular economy practices

Here the measures and practices, which have already been implemented by companies in the
Austrian plastics sector are described. Again, multiple responses were possible and overall, 15
categories were identified. The most often mentioned category was the recycling of inputs. Nine
companies indicated, that they recycle the material, which occurs during the production process.
Seven companies mentioned the design for recycling and the use of recycled inputs as already

60
implemented measure. The other identified categories can be found in figure 25 below, where
only practices which were at least mentioned by four companies were included.

Circular economy practices

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Recycling of inputs 9

Design 7

Use of recycled Inputs 7

Reduce 5

Recycling of products 5

Renewable Energy 5

Waste prevention 5

Recovery 4

R&D 4

Figure 25. Implemented circular economy practices, n = 17

Recycling of inputs
The recycling of inputs during the production process was the most often mentioned category
during the interviews. Companies referred to the recycling of input materials as closing the loop
regarding the production process and internally utilizing the production rejects (e.g.: P1, Par.
12; C 6, Par. 18; C 9, Par. 11). The regranulation of input materials is described by one company
as follows:

“Wherever possible, we mill them on site and reintroduce them into the injection
molding process. This means there is no waste.” (C 11, Par. 2)

One company, which produces plastic films, mentioned the high amount of material rejects,
which occur during the production process of the foil and hence the use of recycling equipment
in direct connection with each production machine in order to regranulate the occurring
production rejects (C 7, Par. 10). Further, another firm mentioned the regranulation of
production rejects directly after the production machine (C 9, Par. 36). In contrast to the other
company, this one, used partners for the recycling of larger parts and also sold the main part of

61
the regranulated material and only reintroduced a smaller share of the recycled materials (C 9,
Par. 36). Also, the prevention of waste by the reintroduction of rejects into the production
process was named by one participant (C 3, Par. 12). Beside the reintroduction of production
rejects directly back into the production process, companies also cooperate with partners
regarding the recycling of their input materials. Four companies mentioned the recycling of
production residuals with the help of partners as already implemented measure. One company
stated to ensure, that the material is proceeded in the best possible way (P 1, Par. 12, 14), while
another interview partner stated, that they forward the sorted material, which cannot
reintroduced into the production process due to, for instance, quality standards in the
corresponding business field, to partners, who then regranulate it and reintroduce it into the
plastics market (C 11, Par. 2). The collection and sorting in order to get mono fractions for
forwarding it to partners, which then recycle the production rejects was also mentioned by
another firm (C 12, Par. 26).

Design
Seven companies mentioned design for recycling as already implemented measure. One
company identified the need to design the products, which are brought in the market by them,
in a way, that they are recyclable at the end of their lifetime (P 1, Par. 12). Also, the need of
recycling into the same application instead of downcycling was stressed (C 1, Par. 14). For the
recycling in the same application the design of the products plays a crucial role:

“We want to design it in such a way that we can also work ideally, really in a circle. In
other words, we want to turn a film package into a film again and not, as some people
do, jump a little shorter and say, well, I'll turn the film package into an injection-molded
component.” (C 1, Par. 10)

Here also the need of using mono-materials instead of compounds, regarding the design
decisions and the possibility of recycling, was mentioned and already implemented (C 1, Par.
18; C 6, Par. 10; C 10, Par. 76). In this context also the creation of internal design guidelines
for ensuring the recyclability was mentioned, especially again regarding, which materials
should be used, and which additives can be used (C 2, Par. 3, 10). One company also mentioned
the aim of designing a product which is suitable for chemical recycling (C 8, Par. 18). Finally,
one company also mentioned the urging of their customers regarding recyclable plastic

62
packaging and the need of them to design recyclable packaging solutions as a practice, which
they have already implemented (C 5, Par. 21).

Use of recycled inputs

The use of recycled inputs for the production process was also mentioned by seven companies.
The switch to recycled inputs, or also to bio-based inputs, was mentioned by one company (P
1, Par. 12), while another company stated, that they are already using recycled material in
production, which is mainly material from industrial processes, and that they are trying to
increase this share (C 6, Par. 18). One company also referred to the use of recycled inputs, but
rather saw it as a sustainability practice than a circular economy practice (C 9, Par. 11). Also,
the aim of using recycled inputs instead of fossil-based inputs was mentioned in this context (C
2, Par. 10) as well as the creation of a new product line only based on the use of recycled inputs
(C 10, Par. 17). The search for suitable raw materials on commodity markets, like for instance
recycled material, was also referred to as the use of recycled inputs (C 5, Par. 16). Summarizing,
the companies stated, that they are trying to use recycled inputs in production instead of virgin
or fossil-based materials.

Reduce
Five companies mentioned reduce as already implemented circular economy praktice. Reduce
referred to the combination of materials in order to use less material for the production of
products, while maintaining the necessary requirements (C 1, Par. 18). Beside the reduction of
the input of raw materials also the reduction of operating supplies, in this special case of water,
was mentioned (C 2, Par. 10). Two companies, which referred to recycling as not really
possible, due to the operational area of their products or due to the specific properties of the
used material, mentioned the reduction of the material used in their production processes as
implemented practice and their contribution towards a more circular economy (C 6, Par. 25; C
12, Par. 13). Both companies managed to have less than one percent production rejects (C 6,
Par. 54; C 12, Par 13). Also, the reduction of waste, energy and input materials through the
adaption of production to the demand instead of producing in stock for optimizing
manufacturing costs was mentioned by one participant (R 2, Par. 14).

Recycling of products
The recycling of products was also mentioned by five interview partners. Here in contrast to
the previously recycling of inputs, the specific recycling of the products produced by the

63
corresponding companies is in focus. Two companies stated, that they recycle their products on
their own at their plants (P1, Par. 14; C 3, Par. 12). One also stated, that they at the moment
work on getting more of their products and waste streams back from the waste industry (P 1,
Par. 14). One converter explicitly referred to the recyclability of its products, which could be
transformed into high quality new input materials, in the case that the collection and sorting
process in the waste industry would be improved (C 10, Par. 20). Two recyclers referred to their
business activities as the recycling of post-consumer materials, and hence of course also mainly
of products (R 1, Par. 20; R 3, Par. 20), while one especially mentioned the recycling of post-
consumer electronic products (R 3, Par. 20).

Renewable energy
Five companies mentioned the use of renewable energy as implemented circular economy
practice. The use of renewable energy in production and also the necessity of using renewable
energy in order to decrease CO2 emissions was mentioned in this context (P 1, Par. 12). The
necessity of clean energy for a switch towards a circular economy was also emphasized (P1,
Par. 12). The use of green electricity for the production and the building of photovoltaics at the
production sites for covering part of the electricity needed in operations were mentioned (C 3,
Par. 21; C 10, Par. 32; R 3, Par. 20). Finally, one company mentioned the use of waste heat for
heating (C 12, Par. 102).

Waste prevention
Five companies mentioned waste prevention as circular economy practice, which has already
been realized in the corresponding companies. The changed view on waste and the attempt to
prevent the combustion of the materials, which might potentially be valuable to other
companies was mentioned in this category (C 2, Par. 8). One participant stated that the
optimized their waste prevention in a way, that they basically do not have any production
rejects, which is also an outcome of the immediate recycling of production rejects (C 3, Par.
12). Further, also the prevention of waste beyond the production process, in this case by the
substitution of one-way coffee mugs with multi-use mugs, was mentioned as implemented
circular economy practice (C 10. Par. 32). Finally, one company mentioned the prevention of
waste as circular economy, practice, which is especially important, because the plastics used in
production cannot be recycled (C 12, Par. 13)

64
Recovery
Four companies mentioned recovery, meaning the incineration of material for energy recovery,
as implemented circular economy practice. Here, one company mentioned, that specific special
plastics used in production cannot be recycled and hence are combusted in a cement plant (C
11, Par. 12). Two recyclers also mentioned combustion of plastics, which they cannot recycle
as implemented practice (R 2, Par. 51; R 3, Par. 39). The share of combusted material was 20%
regarding one recycler, while 80% were recycled and also here, the combustion was carried out
in a cement plant (R 2, Par. 51). The other recycler mentioned the problem of a part of the
plastics being a mixture making it impossible to recycle the material and hence the need of
burning it (R 3, Par. 39).

Research and Development

Research and development were mentioned by four companies. One interview partner
mentioned the cooperation with partners in the waste industry in order to develop a way by
which at least the products can be recycled when they cannot be reused (C 2, Par.10). Three
companies mentioned the participation in research projects for different purposes as
implemented practice (C 8, Par. 16; C 5, Par. 16; C 10; Par. 32). One converter focused on
research regarding the chemical recycling of their product (C 8, Par. 16), while another
company explicitly mentioned the participation in research projects regarding plastic packaging
(e.g. packaging with direct food contact) as their contribution towards a more circular economy
(C 5, Par. 16). The participation in an innovation project with the aim of an improved internal
recycling process was also mentioned (C 10, Par. 32).

Others
Other practices, which were mentioned by less than four companies were: Communication and
consulting with customers, increasing durability, adjustments in the production process,
reduction of packaging material, the substitution of materials and refurbish.

For providing some examples, regarding the cooperation and communication with customers
in order to design plastic packaging in a more sustainable way one converter stated (C 2, Par.
14):

“And together with them we then look at how we are basically also consultants, not only
manufacturers but also consultants. And we look at what we need to do to make

65
 packaging more sustainable, and we can change something directly tomorrow.” (C 2,
Par. 14)

Regarding adjustments in the production process, one company stated, that adjustments
regarding the injection mold as necessary for the increased use of recycled inputs (C 3, Par. 31).
The walls of the products, for instance in the case of collecting boxes, have to be more thick-
walled in the case of recycling material is used (C 3, Par. 31). In the context of the substitution
of material, one company stated:

“And now the question is, can we get that replaced? Can we do what we used to do
differently? Can we substitute the material?... Yes, and we are currently in the process
of intensively looking at which materials can be replaced and how to proceed.” (C 2,
Par. 10)

4.1.3 Reasons for circular economy implementation

The main idea in this section was to gain an understanding of why companies are implementing
circular economy measures. Economic reasons were named by 11 participants, while
environmental reasons were mentioned by nine. At the third position were social reasons, which
were referred to by seven interviewees. Purely internal motivation was stated as cause for the
implementation of circular economy practices by five participants and legal requirements are
the reason for the implementation for three participants. Finally, two recyclers saw the circular

Reasons for circular economy implementation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Economic reasons 11

Environmental reasons 9

Social reasons 7

Internal motivation 5

Legal Requirements 3

Recycler: Business purpose 2

Figure 26. Reasons for circular economy implementation, n = 17

66
economy as their business purpose and hence the circular economy itself as the main reason for
their existence. Figure 26 above gives an overview of these listed causes.

Economic Reasons
Overall 11 out of 17 companies named economic reasons as the cause for the implementation
of circular economy within their firms. Various economic reasons were named by the
participants and hence table 4 gives an overview about the different economic reasons identified
by the participating companies. As can be seen, pressure from customers in a business to
business (B2B) setting as well as a possible cost reduction were mentioned most often. General
economic reasons were also mentioned two times, while all other identified economic reasons
for the implementation of circular economy were only mentioned one time.

Table 4. Subcategories of economic reasons with number of mentions

Economic reason Number of companies

Pressure from customers (B2B) 5
Cost reduction 5
General economic reasons 2
Market pressure 1
Business Opportunities 1
Image/ Marketing 1
Resource efficiency 1

Regarding the pressure from customers, three participants identified the pressure from
customers or customer requests as the main cause of implementing circular economy measures
(C 11, Par. 17; C 9, Par. 40; C 5, Par. 31). Reflecting the increasing pressure from business
customers, one participant stated:

“Our customers are now saying we'll only work with circular companies in ten years.”
(C 2, Par. 24)

Beside the pressure from customers, also a potential cost reduction was mentioned by five
participants. On participant stated:

“Yes, then the next issue is clearly cost-effectiveness. As described before, we

regranulate where it is possible, where it is not possible it is sold externally. This is of
course an economic factor.” (C 11, Par. 17)

67
Another participant stated, that the cause for the implementation is basically not really
ideological, but rather due to costs and that this specific practice has already been implemented
20 years ago (C 9, Par. 83). Also, the combability of cost effectiveness and sustainability was
mentioned (R 2, Par. 18) and also the fact, that the circling of materials leads to lower costs and
is cheaper was mentioned (C 7, Par. 21). Under general economic reasons, the possible future
business opportunities regarding the combination with environmental protection (C 1, Par. 24)
and the need to become a circular company for securing the existence of the company in ten
years (C 2, Par. 18) were mentioned. Regarding market pressure, here referring to pressure from
financial markets, one company mentioned, that banks require concepts regarding sustainability
for authorizing loans (C 2, Par. 24). As business opportunity, the possibility to differentiate
from competitors was identified as a cause for the implementation of circular economy
practices. Regarding image and marketing, one participant mentioned the wish to improve the
image of plastics as a reason and stated, that plastics overall are a great material, in the case of
being handled correctly regarding recyclability (C 10, Par. 22). And finally, one company
mentioned resource efficiency as a cause for circular economy measures (C 12, Par. 29-30).

Environmental reasons
Environmental reasons were mentioned by nine out of 17 companies as a reason for the
implementation of circular economy. Again, the different environmental reasons are
summarized in table 5 below.

Table 5. Subcategories of environmental reasons with number of mentions

Environmental reasons Number of companies

General environmental reasons 6
Protecting the environment 4
Resource scarcity 3
Reducing CO2 emissions/Climate change
2
mitigation

General environmental reasons were indicated by 6 companies as reasons for the switch to a
circular economy. An example is a participant emphasizing, that the rejects are not waste, but
valuable resources and should be used instead of working in a wasteful way (C 12, Par. 28).
Another one named the meaningfulness of using resources in a right way and the conviction of
this way of using resources to be better for the environment (R 3, Par. 18, 25). Another example
is given by one participant, who states that he is sure, that it is possible to produce and process

68
plastics in an environmentally sound way and that his main motivation for circular economy is,
that it would be possible, but is not yet done (C 8, Par. 10). Four companies stated, that the
protection of the environment is a cause for contributing to a circular economy. One participant
mentioned in this context the aim of his company to work in harmony with nature (C 3, Par.
21). Another participant emphasized, that the company wants to contribute to a better world
and not to worsen it (C 11, Par. 16). Resource scarcity was mentioned by three participants as
a cause for the switch to a circular economy. In this context one company mentioned, that the
available resources have to be used in the best possible way (C 12, Par. 32) and another firm
representative highlighted, that the current way of using resources is wasteful and has to be
changed (C 6, Par. 30). Finally, two companies mentioned the reduction of CO2 emissions as
cause for implementing circular economy practices. One stated the aim of operating in a CO2
neutral way (C 3, Par. 18), while the other firm representative emphasized the overall care
regarding climate protection (C 6, Par. 24).

Social reasons
Social reasons were mentioned by seven out of 17 companies. Table 6 below summarizes the
different societal reasons.

Table 6. Subcategories of social reasons with number of mentions

Social reasons Number of companies

Responsibility 5

Pressure from customers (B2C) 2

Pressure from society 1

In this category, responsibility was mentioned most often. For instance, the responsibility
towards society as a plastic manufacturer was mentioned by one participant (C 11, Par. 16),
while another participant stressed the responsibility to manage and present a “clean” company
to stakeholders (C 7, Par. 23). Also, the responsibility regarding health was mentioned as a
cause for more circular economy (C 8, Par. 14). In this category also the pressure from
consumers (B2C) was mentioned by two companies. One interviewee emphasized, that the
consumers are already further in their thinking regarding environment and sustainability as the
industry (R 3, Par. 55). Another participant stated:

69
 “So, a lot of people are exerting pressure, and you as consumers are now watching, too.
There is a lot of pressure, so to speak.” (C 2, Par. 24).

Finally, one firm brought up pressure from society as a cause for the implementation of circular
economy practices. This participant stressed the circumstance, that the plastics industry is in a
difficult position regarding the public perception and the cause for the switch to a circular
economy is basically necessary to sustain the “license to operate” (P 1, Par. 26), where the
license-to-operate can basically be defined as:

“Grant of permission to undertake a trade or carry out a business activity, subject to

regulation or supervision by the licensing authority.” (Nielsen, 2013)

Internal motivation
Five companies named internal motivation as their cause for implementing measures, that
contribute towards a more circular economy. One recycler stated, that the circular economy is
basically the essence of their existence (R 3, Par. 24) and one participant said, that the cause is,
that he wants to contribute towards an improvement of the earth (T 1, Par. 40). One company
representative also mentioned the overriding need as an internal motivation towards the
contribution to a circular economy. The internal pressure caused by the formulated vision of
the company and the associated acceptance of higher production costs was also mentioned in
the context of internal motivation (C 3, Par. 21, 23). Another interviewee mentioned, that the
cause regarding circularity for him is, that “when looking back in 30 years, the way ahead is
already clear” (C 8, Par. 24).

Legal requirements
Three companies stated, that for them legal requirements are a cause for circular economy. One
participant for instance stated:

“This is a necessity, and we are also obliged to do so by all the new legislation in
Europe.” (C 1, Par. 10)

Another participant said that plastics is highly regulated, because the politics say, that the way
the plastics industry is working at the moment is not acceptable (e.g. plastics in the sea) and
that there is a need for a switch to another system for plastics (C 2, Par. 26).

70
Business purpose
Two recyclers mentioned that their business purpose is basically the circular economy and that
hence also this is the main cause for them for circular economy. One participant explicitly
stated:

“Yes, that is actually the essence of our existence. If there were no circular thought,
then we would have no reason to exist.” (R 3, Par. 24)

4.1.4 Contribution of companies towards a more circular economy

The aim of this section was to identify, how the participating companies can contribute to the
achievement of the elaborated scenario. Research and development were mentioned by most
companies, to be specific, by nine companies, as their contribution to the achievement of the
scenario. The other contributions and how often they were referred to by participants can be
found in figure 27 below. Only contributions, which were at least mentioned by four
participants are included into the graphical representation.

Contribution of companies
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Research and Development 9

Communication with customers 6

Adjustments in production process 5

Design 4

Figure 27. Contributions of companies towards a more circular economy, n = 17

Research and development

A total of 9 companies out of 17 mentioned research and development (R&D) as their
contribution to the achievement of the scenario. The recyclers mentioned their development of

71
new recipes for the production of superior recyclate (R 1, Par. 40) and the development of new
technologies to get more plastics out of a mixture of different plastics, which is at the moment
very difficult to recycle (R 3, Par. 39), as their contributions regarding R&D. One converter
named research regarding bio-based materials, and hence research regarding the biological
cycle of circular economy, as their contribution, but was at the same time also investigating
possibilities to recycle these bio-based plastics (C 8, Par. 30, 32). Another converter mentioned
the ongoing research for substituting the barrier effect of aluminum and the therewith connected
difficulties (C 7, Par. 66). Also changes regarding potential impurities of recycled input material
in the production machinery and the creation of knowledge on how to handle new circular
inputs in the production process were mentioned as contribution towards the scenario and R&D
(C 11, Par. 32). One converter mentioned more generally, the getting out of the way of technical
obstacles in their production regarding the use of recycled input materials (C 6, Par. 36).
Regarding research and development as a contribution towards the achievement of the scenario,
one participant stated:

“And we are currently conducting large-scale tests to ensure that we will be able to
recycle the ever-increasing quantities of recyclable products in-house in the future.” (C
1, Par. 20)

Finally, one participant highlighted the large investments into R&D needed regarding the
switch to a circular economy, for instance, research and development regarding chemical and
mechanical recycling (P 1, Par. 37, 38).

Communication with customers

Communication with their customers was mentioned by six companies as their contribution to
the scenario. One participant stated, that they will approach customers early in the production
process and consult them regarding the design of the product, so that beside the customer view,
regarding specific requirements, also the circular economy perspective is considered (C 12, Par.
58, 60). A recycler said, that they are approaching designers of products, which they are
recycling, in order to communicate to them to use less “exotic” polymers, which would result
in a simplification of their work (R 3, Par. 43). According to this recycler, with about five
different sorts of polymers, 90% of requirements could be fulfilled, what would make the
recycling for them easier (R 3, Par. 43). Another converter approaches customers, which are
not yet using recycled inputs for their materials and communicates to them, that it would be

72
possible and that they should consider doing, so, because the decision is in the end made by the
customer (C 10, Par. 44, 52). Two more companies stated, that they actively approach the
customer regarding more circular possibilities and see this as their contribution towards the
scenario (C 9, Par. 43; C 6, Par. 36).

Adjustments in the production process

Future adjustments in the production process were named by five companies. One recycler
stated, that they are continually dealing with technological innovations in order to produce
higher qualities and recycle more, as instance, twin screw extruders were given (R 1, Par. 40).
Also, another recycler mentioned the need to bring the current technology and the actual
requirements as good as possible inline (R 2, Par. 33). One converter saw the only contribution
which could be done by them in adapting the production in order to process products, which
are then recyclingable (C 5, Par. 40).

Design
Four companies named design related contributions in order to achieve the described scenario.
One converter described the contribution as follows:

“That, as far as possible, we develop and produce the products in such a way that we
can work exclusively on the basis of recycled materials.” (C 3, Par. 29)

Hence this converter is aiming at designing products in a way, that only recycled inputs can be
used. Another converter from the packaging sector stated, that their contribution will be the
designing of products, which can be recycled (C 2, Par. 38). One company stated, that they
have committed themselves to designing all produced packaging material in a recyclingable
way until 2025 and that by this design for recycling, they make it easier for recyclers to work
with the packaging as their contribution towards the scenario (C 1, Par. 41). The enhancement
of the share of circular products in the product portfolio was also mentioned in the context of
design of products as a contribution to the achievement of the scenario (P 1, Par. 37).

73
Others
Other contributions towards a more circular economy, which were mentioned less than four
times, are business as usual, increased use of recycled inputs, increase of recycling capacity and
changes to circular economy compatible business model. Business as usual refers to no changes
being necessary in order to contribute to the achievement of the scenario. As an example,
regarding the increased use of recycled inputs one converter stated:

“So we are working on offering customers more products made from recycled plastics
wherever possible.” (C 10, Par. 44)

The increasing of the recycling capacity was mentioned as example by one recycler, that
mentioned the building of additional plants as contribution (R 1, Par. 40), while another
participant, who basically works as an intersection between collectors and recyclers, stated that
his contribution is to “save plastics from being burned” and hence thereby contributes to an
increased amount of recycled inputs being available (T 1, Par. 76).

4.1.5 Envisioned changes in the supply chain and business environment

The participating companies were also asked about changes of the supply chain, which would
be necessary in their opinion. Many companies also mentioned changes in the business
environment (e.g. changes in legislation) and hence, these answers were also included into the
analysis. In fact, changes in legislation were most often mentioned by participants regarding
necessary changes for more circular economy in the plastics sector, namely 13 companies
mentioned them as necessary. Overall, 11 categories were identified. Collaborations in the
supply chain were mentioned by 12 and improvements of waste collection by 10 participants.
Figure 28 below gives an overview of necessary changes, which were at least mentioned by
five participants.

74
 Changes in the supply chain and business environment

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Changes in Legisaltion 13

Collaborations 12

Improvements of waste collection 10

Improvements of suppliers/recyclers regarding

6
material quality

New partners/Change of partners 5

Figure 28. Changes in the supply chain and business environment, n = 17

Changes in legislation
Changes in legislation were named by 13 companies as necessary for more circular economy.
One converter, based in the medical technology sector, stated that it is only possible for the firm
to contribute more towards a circular economy, when the legislation is changed (C 4, Par. 36)
and also that in other sectors, e.g. the automobile industry, also the pressure regarding prices is
high and changes will only be possible, when changes in legislation are made (C 4, Par. 40).
Another participant identified and emphasized the need to create the right legal framework for
companies (T 1, Par. 40). One converter emphasized, that legal regulations are needed in order
to create a safe environment for investments (C 10, Par. 61). The need for changes in legislation
regarding the collection of plastics was also mentioned by one converter (C 10, Par. 56) and
one recycler (R 1, Par. 51). The change of legislation regarding the use of recycled inputs in the
packaging production was stressed by one participant (C 5, Par. 54). The introduction of a
deposit return scheme was also mentioned in the interviews as a necessary change in legislation
for enabling more circular economy (C 9, Par. 23). One participant stated, that he would suggest
a grading of disposal fees according to the recyclability in order to. create an incentive for those
firms, which create recyclingable packaging (C 1, Par. 53). Another recycler mentioned the

75
need for open and transparent recycling quotas in order to ensure, that everyone can act in
accordance with them (R 2, Par. 68). The need of regulations regarding the change in consumer
behavior and as the fastest way in creating such a change was also named as cause, why changes
in legislation are necessary for more circular economy (C 3, Par. 47). Finally, one converter
stated, that the legislator has to intervene in order to create incentives, for instance via taxation,
and gave a decreased VAT rate for recyclates as an example (C 2, Par. 67). Further this
converter also mentioned the necessity of defining terms like recyclability on a European level
(C 2, Par. 67).

Collaborations
Collaborations were mentioned by 12 companies as change in the supply chain or business
environment for switching to a circular economy. One participant stated:

“…and think about it: How does the one after me continue, yes? And understand that. I
think you also have to understand that, the easier this cycle is to live.” (C 12, Par. 34)

One recycler mentioned the ongoing collaboration with converters as already implemented and
necessary for their business (R1, Par. 62-65), while another recycler referred to the
collaboration between designer and recyclers as important for more circular economy (R 3, Par.
43). The recycler emphasized the importance of this collaboration:

“That's very important, because designers ultimately determine which materials are
used in new equipment, and that is of course important. There has to be an exchange
between the recycling industry and designers, because otherwise it can't go together.”
(R 3, Par. 48)

One converter also stated, that the collaboration and cooperation between recyclers and garbage
collection companies is important for more circular economy (C 10, Par. 62-63). Another
converter gave examples of the collaboration with recyclers in order to secure the recyclability
of its products and the elaboration of recycling concepts (C 8, Par. 32), while one other
emphasized the necessity of open communication within the supply chain as necessary change
(C 7, Par. 80). A company in the packaging sector stated, that it is impossible for companies in
the value chain to solve circular economy related issues on their own, otherwise it would have
already been done by single companies, and that an association of the value chain is necessary

76
and that companies have to start to work together, to what they have not yet been used until
now (C 2, Par. 35). More collaboration and thinking towards a process chain was also
mentioned as necessary change (C 6, Par. 44). It was emphasized, that the working on a
common final objective within a process chain is necessary and one company alone can only
make a very limited difference (C 6, Par. 46). Another converter stressed, that the necessary
achievements regarding quality of the recycling material and willingness to invest in recycling
equipment can only be done in close cooperation between recyclers and raw material producers
(C 1, Par. 45). One producer also mentioned the necessity of collaborations and stated, that it
is already happening and that they are now involved into discussions with supply chain partners
like for instance retailers or brand manufacturers, which was not the case in their linear business
model (P 1, Par. 54). Three participants also referred to research and development
collaborations as especially important for more circular economy. One company stated:

“Yes, cooperation, especially the kind that are now being initiated, this development
cooperation is quite essential, because only if my upstream supplier understands what
problems I now have in production, can he in principle continue to work with this
information. So, on a scale of 1-10, cooperation is 10.” (C 3, Par. 41)

Another company emphasized, that collaborations are essential and that there is a need for the
creation of pilot projects and use-cases, to show that specific ideas are possible to realize (C 11,
Par. 44). In this context also the collaboration of an interviewed firm, a converter, in initiatives
of recyclers was mentioned (C 1, Par. 20).

Improvements of waste collection

The need for improvements of waste collection was mentioned by 10 companies as necessary
change for the enablement of a development towards circular economy. Regarding
postproduction materials, one participant stated, that a correctly sorted collection by converters
should be conducted and the material should be returned to the supplier, which delivered the
virgin material and not to any other company (C 12, Par. 74, 80). One recycler stated:

“In order to achieve more circular economy in our area, that is, in the area of plastics
recycling, we have to go right to the front, to the collection.” (R 1, Par. 44)

77
Further, this recycler especially emphasized, that the sorting of materials is very important as a
preliminary work for them and stated, that this is at the moment not yet happening in Austria
and hence also a challenge for them:

“Then I have to make sure that this material is sorted very well. And that in turn paves
the way for high-quality recyclates. Sorting is also not working optimally at the moment
in Austria, for example, we clearly have too little sorting capacity to achieve these goals.
This means that something has to happen, and modern sorting plants have to be built
that are capable of producing very pure materials.” (R 1, Par. 49)

Another recycler also said, that at the moment only about 22% of plastics out of electrical
devices is reaching recyclers and that large amounts are vanishing in the take-back channels (R
3, Par. 63-65). The third recycler, which was part of the sample, also stated that the purity of
variety is very important to them and basically determines the quality, which can be achieved
by them, but also mentioned, that this process is continually improving at the moment (R 2,
Par. 41, 43). A converter emphasized, that recyclers can only work, with the materials, which
they receive from collectors and hence, the collection and sorting have to be improved in order
to produce better quality of recycled materials (C 10, Par. 67). Further, the need for incentives
for collectors and the sorting of more different polymers and not only of PET was remarked by
a participant, who also mentioned that at the moment for him it is simply not possibly to get
recycled input for the production process (C 8, Par. 41, 43). Additionally, the overall
improvement regarding the sorting of plastics by end-consumers, so basically at the first stage
of sorting, was mentioned by one participant:

“One important point that is being discussed in society is, of course, that we should
actually separate plastics when we throw them away. Not only from the residual waste,
but also different plastics, I would say, must be recorded differently in the material flow.
Then it will be easier. That is the essential change for us.” (C 3, Par. 35)

The increased collection of engineering plastics was also remarked by a converter, who stated,
that there is only a small amount of recylates of engineering plastics available at the market (C
6, Par. 44). Another participant stated more generally, that the waste industry, including
collection, the sorting and then with the first preparation of the waste, has to make large

78
improvements in the next ten years in order to achieve the scenario, because at the moment not
even the necessary capacities are available (P 1, Par. 52).

Improvements of recyclers/suppliers regarding material quality

Improvements regarding material quality of suppliers regarding the recyclability of raw
materials was mentioned by six companies as necessary for a switch to a circular economy. One
participant mentioned, that the supplier of raw materials should focus on how the raw materials
can later be recycled (C 12, Par. 71). The quality of the recycled material and the avoidance of
downcycling of plastics during the recycling process was also mentioned by one participant (C
10, Par. 67). Another converter stated regarding material quality:

“As already briefly described, the bottom line is that we need materials of the quality
that is required in the industries.” (C 11, Par. 38)

Another participant stated:

“We will also need more from our suppliers in the recycling sector, both in quality and
quantity .“ (P 1, Par.52)

Hence it becomes obvious, that for companies working with recycled materials the quality of
the input materials is key and has to be improved in order to reach the scenario.

New partners/Change of partners

Five companies mentioned the necessity of new partners or the change of current partners in
the supply chain as necessary modification. One participant stated, that the supply chain could
stay the same, but the companies assembling it would have to change their practices (T 1, Par.
83-84). Another participant said regarding new partners and changes of existing partners:

“At the very least, they have to find themselves anew, let's put it that way. This way of
thinking about the entire value chain simply isn't there yet and isn't as used to it. But
I'm convinced that new ones will certainly have to be added.” (C 6, Par. 49)

One company stated, that companies which are now working together are essentially new
partners, because some years ago, they were not collaborating with them (P 1, Par. 56)

79
Others
Other necessary changes, which were mentioned by less than five participants were: acceptance
of customers, no necessary changes, changes of design, an increased recycling capacity,
innovation and research and development of partners and price differentiation between recycled
and virgin material. An example regarding the importance of the acceptance of customers was
given by one participant:

“And then finally, not to forget, the consumer, who then has to buy these developed
products. Because if he doesn't understand that, then it won't happen.” (R 3, Par. 53)

The unnecessity of changes was mentioned by four participants. One interview partner for
instance stated:

“So I don't really see any problem from the partners' side. If our suppliers provide the
materials and the customer wants them, then we will supply the parts.” (C 11, Par. 42)

Another example given by a participant was the need for an increased recycling capacity. When
asked the question regarding necessary changes, the participant simply stated: “Massive
increase in recycling capacities in any case” (C 10, Par. 56)

80
4.1.6 Opportunities
In this section the opportunities, which companies perceive in the context of the circular
economy are investigated. The identified opportunities, which were at least mentioned by five
participants are shown in figure 29 below.

Opportunities
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Market opportunities 8

Increasing competitiveness 5

Differentiation from competitors 5

Figure 29. Opportunities in the context of circular economy, n=17

Market opportunities
Market opportunities were mentioned by eight companies. One recycler stated:

“Our opportunity is certainly to participate in this great change in Europe and

hopefully also in the whole world. And to swim with the wave that should come if we
want to achieve the EU's circular economy goals, and our goals are clearly growth.”
(R 1, Par. 73)

Another recycler also mentioned, that the increased need for recycled input material and the
currently low share of plastics from electronic waste that is recycled (about 3%) offers great
opportunities to them (R 3, Par. 61). One converter identified the possibility to secure the
current revenue and also to gain further revenue and new customers, in the case that the switch
to circular products within the company is carried out accordingly (C 5, Par. 56). The gaining

81
of new customers was mentioned by one more converter (C 2, Par. 58). The increasing demand
for environmentally friendly plastics was identified as an opportunity by one converter (C 11,
Par. 54), while another converter identified clear growth possibilities (C 1, Par. 59).

Increasing competitiveness
Five companies identified the increasing of competitiveness as possibly opportunity. One
participant identified the increasing of efficiency as an opportunity associated with the circular
economy (C 12, Par. 91). Another company mentioned the resulting competitive advantage
regarding the switch to circular economy practices as opportunity (C 11, Par. 50). Further, also
the achieving of an attractive market position was named in this context (P1, Par. 62).

Differentiation form competitors

The differentiation from competitors was also named by five companies as possible
opportunity. On converter mentioned the creation of a product line, made completely from
recycled inputs as opportunity to differentiate from competitors (C 10, Par. 70). One converter
stated the differentiation from competitors as opportunity in the following way:

“There is no one in Austria who currently produces CO2 neutrally, except us. And this
pioneering role will also lead to economic success, because there will be more and more
demand for it in the coming years.” (C 3, Par. 49)

The differentiation from competitors, especially in business areas with high quality standards,
was mentioned by another converter (C 11, Par. 54). The possibility to manage the change
caused by the transition towards a circular economy, in a good way and benefiting from this
advantage was also mentioned as an opportunity (P 1, Par. 62).

Others
Beside the already described opportunities, the possibility for innovations and the improvement
of the image were mentioned by two participants each as possible opportunity. As an example,
it was mentioned, that the circular economy helps the company to be more innovative (P 1, Par.
62). Regarding the image improvement, one participant, for example, saw the possibility to
improve the image of the company in the context of employee recruitment and employee
retention as opportunity (R 3, Par. 65).

82
4.1.7 Challenges
Here the challenges, which companies associate with the circular economy are described. The
quality of material was mentioned most often, namely by 10 companies, as a challenge in the
context of the circular economy. Figure 30 below summarizes the identified challenges in the
context of circular economy, which were at least mentioned by five companies.

Challenges
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Quality of material 10

Legislature 8

Higher costs 8

Technical obstacles 7

Acceptance of customers 6

Critical mass for implementation 5

Figure 30. Challenges associated with circular economy, n=17

Quality of material
Ten companies mentioned the quality of the plastics material as a challenge associated with the
circular economy. One recycler mentioned the difficulty of handling mixed fractions, which
cannot really be sorted as challenge regarding the production of high-quality recycled materials
(R 1, Par. 22). One converter mentioned the need for materials, which are fulfilling the basic
requirements to be used by them as challenge regarding the material quality (C 4, Par. 29).
Another converter stated, that the material in the plastics sector has to be preprocessed perfectly
and that the recyclers have to deliver well sorted and processed materials as input for the
production processes of the converters (C 3, Par. 31). Further this converter stated, regarding
the challenge of quality of the material:

83
 “Well, for us the biggest challenge is of course that on the one side the material is
available in the quality we want it to have, as we need it for our production.” (C 3, Par.
51)

Further, one participant indicated, that the recycled materials, which are used as input have to
fulfill the quality requirements of customers (C 11, Par. 34). Regarding material quality another
participant stated:

“Another challenge is that we have the vision in many areas, but we are simply not there
yet. So we just don't get the qualities we would like to have and you just have to deal
with that situation and you have to stay calm and stay patient.” (P 1, Par. 64)

Hence, as can be seen, the quality of recycled inputs represents a major challenge for converters,
and the quality of the collected plastics waste regarding sorting, constitutes a challenge for
recyclers.

Legislature
The current legislature was named by eight companies as a challenge regarding the switch to a
circular economy. One recycler very explicitly mentioned legislature to be a challenge
regarding getting more input material for the recycling processes from outside of Austria,
because the border crossing of waste is problematic at the moment (R 3, Par. 71). The challenge
of legislature not allowing recycled material being used in the case of the product being directly
in contact with food was also named as a challenge for firms (C 1, Par. 20; C 6, Par. 38; C 10,
Par. 11). Further also the impossibility to use recycled inputs in the business area of medical
technology was mentioned as a legislative challenge (C 4, Par. 13; C 11, Par. 34). One
participant mentioned, that in the case of public procurement, there are no extra points for a
production and products using mainly recycled inputs and sees this as a challenge (C 3, Par.
53).

84
Higher costs
Eight companies mentioned higher costs, which might occur due to the transition to a circular
economy as an occurring challenge. One company stated, that the higher costs of recycled
inputs compared to virgin inputs is a challenge (C 10, Par. 52). Another participant stated, that
in the upcoming five years, all activities related to circular economy regarding his company
will not pay off, but rather costs will occur, and high investments will be needed (C 8, Par. 64).
Regarding higher costs, one company stated:

“So it's not that we save ourselves anything, it's that both the products and the
production are a bit more expensive than if we didn't do it, but we take that into
account.” (C 3, Par. 23)

Although this company might face the higher costs for reaching their visions, for other firms
theses costs may be a barrier regarding the implementation of circular economy practices.
Another converter from the packaging sector referred to the challenge of higher costs as
follows:

“Yes, the big challenge is that I have this old linear model, which is so, how do you say
it, it's just so, it's painfully efficient, that is, and efficiency always means that you can
make money with it. And this new model, to operate circularly, that is in parts not yet
profitable.” (C 2, Par. 60)

One participant further mentioned, that customers might be interested into the use of recycled
inputs for their products, which the company is producing for them, but change their mind when
realizing, that therefore the costs are higher (C 6, Par. 55).

Technical obstacles
Technical obstacles as a challenge were mentioned by seven companies. In this category all
challenges mentioned by participants, which referred to technology were summarized. One
participant stated, that with regard to the scenario, he expects technological change to take
longer and hence as a challenge regarding the attainability of the scenario (C 7, Par. 60). With
regards to his company, the participant stated the production of thin-walled products as a
challenge regarding the use of recycled inputs (C 7, Par. 107). Another company stated
regarding technical obstacles:

85
 “Therefore, we are very, of course, very dependent on how and to what extent something
is advanced in the raw materials sector and, on the other hand, to what extent in
recycling. In general, in the technology something is advanced.” (C 5, Par. 42)

The adaptation of the production processes to the use of recycled and bio-based inputs was also
indicated as challenge (C 11, Par. 59) and one other participant also referred to general technical
challenges regarding the use of recycled inputs (C 6, Par. 55). Another firm stated, that for their
products to be taken back, the customers would need the technical know-how to disassemble
them correctly, what would not be possible, because they are not trained in doing so (C 9, Par.
66). The need for higher quality recycling technologies was also mentioned by one participant
(C 1, Par. 45).

Acceptance of customers
The acceptance of customers was mentioned by six companies as challenge. One participant
mentioned, that mixed plastics waste occurred in production, because each customer wanted a
different material for the basically same product (T 1, Par. 94). The decision of customers
regarding the use of recycled inputs was also by one other participant mentioned as a challenge,
who referred to it as the decision of customers, that cannot really be influenced by the converters
(C 10, Par. 13, 17). Another converter gave the following statement regarding the acceptance
of customers as challenge:

“And above all, I think the big question on the part of our customers is how consciously
they are prepared to think in cycles and how much courage we will have to steer the
development of our products in this direction.” (C 6, Par. 55)

Further, the lack of possible color design regarding the use of recycled inputs was mentioned
in this context as a challenge with regards to the acceptance of customers (C 3, Par. 43). One
converter also saw the necessity of changes in legislature regarding the motivation of customers
to buy their newly designed recyclable products (C 1, Par. 57). Hence, the challenge of the
acceptance of the customers, could be overcome with the help of legislature.

86
Critical mass for implementation
Five companies mentioned the critical mass regarding the implementation of circular economy
practices as challenge. One participant for instance stated:

“Yes, this is probably a chicken-and-egg situation. So if there is not enough demand,

the manufacturers will not invest so much, not so much energy, that it is possible. And
if there are not enough plastics, the customer will not get the idea: Okay, I'll use it.” (C
11, Par. 40)

Two more participants stated, that the currently slightly higher prices of recycled input
materials are a challenge (C 1, Par. 53; C 2, Par. 62), because for instance, there are no scale
effects yet (C2, Par. 62). One participant also referred to the impossibility of one company to
solve this issue alone:

“So that's where you also notice that as an enterprise you are in a very tight corset, so
to speak, because the market simply doesn't yet offer what you need and the customer is
perhaps still far too little or far too much price-sensitive and says: "Well, if it's recycled,
then it has to be cheaper!” (C 10, Par. 52)

Others
Challenges, which were mentioned by less than four companies are: the current economic
system, the impossibility of reuse or recycling, short supply of input material and quality of
input material, the unwillingness to change of firms, the image of plastics, product specific
adjustments, economic obstacles and the combability of circular economy and climate
protection. To give some examples, referring to the current economic system as a challenge, on
participant stated:

“And then it's primarily, I think, on the part of the industry to go higher, faster. As long
as there are interests in simply producing large quantities, this will not be sustainable.
At the same time, as I said, I see that the necessary change in consumer behavior.” (C
6, Par. 57)

Regarding short supply of input material and the quality of the input material, two recyclers
basically stated, that they are not receiving enough input material for their processes and that

87
the quality of the input regarding sorting constitutes a challenge for them (R 1, Par. 75; R 3,
Par. 67).

The unwillingness to change of firms was also mentioned. One participant described the
perception of former workers of recycling at one of his former employers the following way:

“Then he says: "Recycling. We produce automobiles!" Then it became clear to me: I

don't need to talk to him anymore, he is/he lives in a bubble. I probably won't be able to
wake him up, I can forget it, yes.” (T 1, Par. 94)

Referring to economic obstacles, one participant stated:

“Well, the challenges are already massive because these investments / Because the
general profitability levels of these businesses that we are building are not approaching
what we are normally used to in our industry.” (P 1, Par. 64)

One participant also stated, that the combability of circular economy and climate protection is
a challenge. The challenge was described as follows:

“And I see a further challenge in the connection between the circular economy, i.e. the
approach, which is very much about waste management and efficiencies, and the whole
issue of CO2 emissions. This is not always something that goes hand in hand. There are
technologies that are wonderful for waste management, but they are not so great in
terms of CO2 at the moment. Here, for example, we are talking about chemical
recycling. And we will have to deal with these contradictions, because the whole great
circular economy is of no use to us if we do not manage to become climate-neutral as a
company on the horizon, as prescribed by the Paris Agreement. In other words, as an
industry, it will be very, very difficult work to combine these two elements. The circular
economy and CO2 emissions and then making the right decisions.” (P 1, Par. 64)

88
4.1.8 Further implementation of circular economy practices
Here, participants were asked whether they plan to implement further circular economy
practices in the next five years. As can be seen from figure 31 below, 82% of participants want
to implement further measures with the next five years, while only 18% stated, that they are not
planning to do so.

Implementation of further measures

18%

82%

Yes No

Figure 31. Implementation of further circular economy measures in the next five years, n=17

89
4.1.9 Innovations for circular economy
The objective of this section was to investigate, which innovations are identified by company
representatives as necessary for the transition towards a circular economy. As can be seen from
Figure 32 below, 11 participants identified product innovations, five participants process
innovations and two participants business model innovations.

Innovations for circular economy

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Product Innovation 11

Process Innovation 5

Business Model Innovation 2

Figure 32. Number of mentions of different innovation types in the context of circular economy, n=17

Product innovation
Product innovations were named by most participants as innovations, which are currently or in
future considered by the company in the context of the circular economy. Product innovations
were mentioned by 11 companies. One company for instance named digital watermarks as
addition to their products in order to recognize them during the sorting process by waste
industry companies (C 2, Par. 14). Some participants also referred to product innovations rather
on a general level, for instance by saying, that they try to increase the share of circular products
in their product portfolio (P1, Par. 37). Another example of a product innovation was named
by a converter, that stated, that the aim is to create a bottle out of recycled polylactic acid (C 8,
Par. 18). Another participant stated, that they are always on search for recyclable solutions for
their customers (C 5, Par. 10). One participant stated, like already mentioned in the section
focusing on practices, that they are basically redesigning their whole product portfolio (C 1,
Par. 57). Nearly all innovations, which were mentioned, were rather incremental innovations,

90
because basically mostly the products and the functions of the products stay the same, while
only the raw materials are exchanged. Or the design is changed in order to allow for recycling.

Process innovations
Process innovations in the context of circular economy were mentioned by five companies. One
participant for instance referred to the need for adapting the production process regarding the
use of recycled input materials (C 3, Par. 31). The circular use of operating supplies like for
instance water was also mentioned by one participant (C 2, Par. 2). Regarding operating
supplies, also one recycler mentioned, that it is necessary to challenge processes currently in
place and consider, whether specific elements or operating supplies can be changed (R 2, Par.
14). The necessary changes in processes regarding potentially polluted recycled inputs was
indicated by one participant (C 11, Par. 32). Here, it again becomes obvious, that the adaptations
seem to be rather on an incremental basis.

Circular business model innovation

Only two companies out of 17 referred to business model innovation in the context of circular
economy. One participant referred to it on a more general level (C 12, Par. 80), while another
participant explicitly stated, that beside the current product-based business model, their
company will establish new service-based business models as well (P 1, Par. 41). Further, this
participant gave an example, how a possible service-based business model in their company
could look like.

Summarizing, product innovations were the most popular innovations within the sample of 17
participating companies, while process innovations, which are often connected to product
innovations, like discussed previously in the theoretical background, were explicitly mentioned
only by five participants. Circular business model innovation was the least popular within the
sample.

91
4.2 Implication matrix and further analysis
The next step after the descriptive analysis was to create an implication matrix regarding the
causes for the implementation of circular economy practices, the implemented practices and the
corresponding challenges/opportunities. This analysis was done for the present, hence
implemented practices and for the future. In the case of the future being analyzed, the causes
remained unchanged, while the already implemented practices were substituted with the
categories from the future contributions of companies. Firstly, the present case will be analyzed.

4.2.1 The present case

In order to gain knowledge about the most significant causal relations between the causes, the
practices and challenges and opportunities, only categories were included, which were at least
mentioned by five companies. Further, only connections between different causes, practices
and challenges were included, which were at least four times mentioned together, meaning that
they occur together in at least four documents, respective interviews. Further, connections that
were obviously coincidence or did not make sense, were exclude from the analysis. Based on
these limitations, an implication matrix between reasons and implemented practices was
created. The resulting matrix can be found in the appendix.

Based on the same criteria, the implication matrix regarding practices and challenges and
opportunities was created, which also can be found in the appendix. Based on these two
implication matrices, figure 33, showing the combination of both matrices, was created.
Further, figure 33 shows important connections between practices, but due to increase the
readability, the number indicating how often the elements (e.g. reason and practice) were
mentioned together, was excluded from this figure. The complete figure including all numbers
of mentions can be found in the appendix. Due to the combination of both implication matrices,
the following causal chains can be derived.

Use of recycled inputs as a circular economy practice occurs five times together with economic
reasons. Further, the opportunity, differentiation from customers was mentioned by four
participants together with the use of recycled inputs. Additionally, regarding challenges, the
use of recycled inputs was associated five times with higher costs and four times each with the
quality of the material and legislature. Hence this causal chain could be summarized as follows:
Due to economic reasons (e.g. pressure from B2B customers) companies are using recycled
inputs in the production process, where they also see the possibility to differentiate from

92
competitors, but also face challenges like higher costs for the input material, potential problems
regarding the quality of the recycled material and also problems regarding the legislature
allowing or prohibiting the use of recycled inputs (e.g. product with direct food contact).

Waste prevention was indicated four times together with economic reasons. Four times it was
associated with the opportunity of increasing the competitiveness and four times together with
the circular economy practice of recycling of inputs. Further, higher costs, were associated four
times with waste prevention as a challenge. Therefore, the following summarization could be
done: Economic reasons are the cause for companies to prevent waste during the production
process, which is achieved together with the recycling of input materials (e.g. regranulation of
production rejects), where it can lead to an increased competitiveness (e.g. efficiency gains),
but also to higher costs.

The recycling of inputs occurred together with economic and environmental reasons six times
each, and together with societal reasons five times. Further, as already described, it has a
connection to waste prevention and was mentioned together in four interviews. Recycling of
inputs was associated with differentiation from competitors five times and increasing
competitiveness four times. Regarding challenges, the recycling of inputs occurred together
with technical obstacles five times, the quality of the material six times and legislature five
times. The causal chain could be condensed into: Companies see economic (e.g. cost reduction),
environmental reasons (e.g. protection of the environment) and societal reasons (e.g.
responsibility towards society) as causes for the recycling of their inputs, which is also a part
of their waste prevention mechanisms and see the possibility to differentiate form competitors
and increase their competitiveness, while facing the challenges regarding technical obstacles,
the quality of the recycled input material and legislature regarding the use of the recycled
material.

Design occurs together with economic reasons five times and environmental reasons four times.
Further, it occurs together with the challenge higher costs five times and with the challenges
critical mass for implementation, technical obstacles and quality of material four times. Hence,
the causal chain could be summarized as: Companies see economic reasons like business
opportunities and environmental reasons like resource scarcity as cause for changing the
design of their products in order to make them recyclable and are seeing challenges regarding
potentially higher costs compared to the previous design, the need for a critical mass adapting

93
the new design in order to get necessary materials, technical obstacles and the quality of
materials.
.

94
Figure 33. Causal chains map - present

95
4.2.2 The future case
Here the causes for the future contributions of companies, how they will contribute and the
challenges and opportunities, which they are associating with their future contributions towards
a more circular economy, are investigated. The future contributions can also be seen as kind of
“practices”, which companies assume to have an impact regarding the transition towards a more
circular plastics economy. Therefore, in order to investigate differences and similarities
between the present practices and possible future contributions, also a causal chains map for
the future contributions was created.

In order to account for less often mentioned future contributions compared to currently
implemented practices, in contrast to the analysis of the present case, categories mentioned four
or more times were included and the threshold regarding the number of categories being
mentioned together was lowered to three instead of four compared to the present case. Again,
based on these limitations, an implication matrix between reasons and future contributions was
created. Again, the resulting matrix can be found in the appendix.

Also, in the future case the same criteria used for the creation of the reasons/contributions
matrix were used for the creation of the implication matrix regarding contributions and
challenges and opportunities, which also is part of the appendix.

On the basis of these two implication matrices, figure 34, was created. Figure 34 again shows
important connections between contributions. Like before, also in this case, for increasing the
readability, the number indicating how often the elements (e.g. reason and contributions) were
mentioned together, was excluded from this figure. The complete figure including all number
of mentions can be found in the appendix. Due to the combination of both implication matrices,
the following causal chains can be derived.

Adjustments in production processes occurred together with economic reasons four times, with
market opportunities four times and with technical obstacles three times. This causal chain
could be summarized in: Due to economic reasons (e.g. pressure from customers to deliver
recycled products), companies will adjust their production processes and by that see market
opportunities arising, like for instance the possibility to gain market shares from competitors,
which do not adapt their processes, but are also facing technical obstacles on their way.

96
Research and development were mentioned together with all included reasons regarding the
implementation of a circular economy. It occurred together with economic reasons five times,
with environmental reasons six times, with social reasons six times and with internal motivation
three times. Further, research and development occurred together with design three times.
Further, all included opportunities occurred together with research and development. Market
opportunities were referred to five times together with research and development, while
differentiation from customers and increasing competitiveness were mentioned three times
together with R&D. Further all challenges included into the analysis were associated with
research and development. Quality of material occurred six times in association with research
and development, higher costs and technical obstacles five times and critical mass for
implementation and legislature four times. This shows, that firstly, research and development
is one of them main contributions referred to by participating companies and that many different
reasons are the cause for companies to participate in R&D activities for the switch towards a
circular economy. Additionally, many challenges and opportunities are associated with circular
economy related research and development activities. All in all, the causal chain could be
summarized as: Many different reasons, economic, environmental, societal as well as intrinsic
motivation, lead to companies pursuing circular economy related research and development
activities. The research and development activities can lead to the creation of new design of
products, which are better compatible with the circular economy principles. The research and
development activities can lead to the opportunities of gaining new market share, differentiate
from competitors and increasing competitiveness, like for instance by increasing efficiency.
Although the opportunities are promising, companies are seeing challenges, like higher costs
due to the R&D activities, the need of material in the fitting quality to be used in the research
projects, legislative challenges like prohibition of using recycled inputs, technical obstacles
and also the need of a critical mass for implementation in order to further advance their R&D
activities.

Design occurred together with economic reasons as well as with environmental reasons three
times. It further was associated with research and development three times and with the
challenges of higher costs and quality of material three times each. The causal chain could be
summarized into: Economic reasons like for instance the pressure from customers regarding
recyclable alternatives, and economic reasons like the need for protecting the environment lead
to companies changing the design of their products in future in order to make the products

97
more circular and are facing thereby higher costs, like for instance due to changed input
material, and regarding the quality of material.

Communication with customers occurred together with economic reasons four times and
together with environmental reasons three times. Further it was associated with the challenge
legislature four times. The following summarization can be given: Economic and
environmental reasons lead to companies communicating with their customers regarding
circular economy related issues, like for instance the use of recycled inputs for the production
of their products, but legislative challenges, like for instance the prohibition of the use of
recycled inputs in some business areas of customers, are challenges associated with the
circular economy related communication process.

98
Figure 34. Causal chains map - future

99
4.2.3 Comparison present and future case
As can be seen regarding causes, the present case and the case, in which participants stated their
future contributions, are similar. In the future case, internal motivation is included into the final
diagram showing possible causal chains, while the other three causes, economic, environmental
and social reasons stay unchanged.

Regarding practices and contributions, the differences are obviously more significant. In the
present case, companies are mentioning already well known and often implemented circular
economy practices, namely: the use of recycled inputs, waste prevention, the recycling of
production inputs and the design for recycling. In the future case, especially research and
development are regarded as important. Hence the creation of new possibilities and products to
become more circular plays a key role here. Closely related to research and development is the
changing of design for enabling more circular economy. Here, the difference between design
and the design for recycling in the future case is, that in the present case, the adjustments and
changes of design have already been implemented, while in the future case, the necessary
changes have not already been carried out. Further adjustments in the production process to
become more circular were more important regarding the future case. Finally, Communication
with customers plays a crucial role in future, while it is less prominent in the present.

Regarding challenges and opportunities, one significant difference is, that companies also
mentioned market opportunities in association with future contributions as an opportunity,
while this was not the case regarding already implemented practices.

100
5. Discussion
Regarding the first research question, it was investigated, what companies in the Austrian
plastics sector understand by the term circular economy in the context of their company. Most
companies, namely 12, referred to recycle as their understanding of circular economy in the
context of their company. Further, 10 companies understand the closing of loops as circular
economy in the context of their firm. Finally, seven companies mentioned the minimization of
the material input as their understanding of a circular economy. The understanding of circular
economy as closing loops is also often mentioned in literature, for instance the definition of
circular economy given by Sauvé et al (2016) and introduced in chapter 2. The closing of loops
basically the fundamental idea of the circular economy (e.g. Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
(2013)) is also mentioned in the context of the definition of circular business models (e.g.
Nußholz, (2017)) and hence this kind of understanding by companies is perfectly in line with
circular economy literature. While the closing of loops is a rather abstract understanding of
circular economy, the understanding of the circular economy as recycle and the minimization
of input material is rather on a very specific level and not only an understanding of circular
economy, but also a circular economy practice. For instance, Kirchherr et al. (2017) mentions
recycling and reduce, which also includes the minimization of input materials in order to
consume fewer natural resources, as possible strategies for a circular economy. Hence it can be
seen, that the understanding of the circular economy by companies in the Austrian plastics
sector is closely related to the practices, which they can implement in order to become more
circular. Here especially recycling, which plays a key role in achieving a circular plastics
economy seems to be closely related to the understanding of circular economy in the Austrian
plastics sector. This occurs to be logical, given the fact, that for instance remanufacturing or
reuse is not possible for many plastics products like for example plastics packaging or single
use medical products. As can also be seen from the analysis of already implemented practices,
recycling and reduce are two of the most important already implemented practices. Hence,
summarizing it can be stated, that beside the abstract and in line with literature understanding
of circular economy as the closing of loops, the understanding of circular economy in the
Austrian plastics sector seems to be strongly connected to practices, which can be implemented
by firms for achieving a higher degree of circularity.

The second research question investigated, which circular economy practices have already been
implemented by companies in the Austrian plastics sector. Nine companies have already started
to recycle input materials. Design, which is compatible with the circular economy and the use

101
of recycled inputs was mentioned by seven participants. Reduce, the recycling of products, the
use of renewable energy and waste prevention were each mentioned by five companies and
recovery and R&D were each mentioned by participants four times. As can be seen, recycling
plays a key role for companies in the Austrian plastics sector regarding the implementation of
circular economy practices. This is true for the recycling of inputs as well as for the recycling
of products. This is in line with the findings of Bassi and Dias (2019), who investigated the
circular economy practices of small and medium enterprises in the EU and found out, that the
minimization of waste by recycling or reusing waste or selling it to another company was the
circular economy practice implemented by most companies in their study. Further, Bassi and
Dias (2019) found out, that 34.4% of companies in their study adopted the redesigning of
products and services regarding the minimization of the use of materials or the use of recycled
materials as a circular economy practice. They argue, that most companies are not planning to
adopt it, but these practices are ranked on place three of already adopted practices. Therefore
the findings of this thesis are again in line with the findings of Bassi and Dias (2019), because
the use of recycled inputs as well as the change of design were each mentioned by seven
participants out of 17, which means by 41% of participating companies, and both practices were
the second most implemented practices beside the recycling of inputs. Hence, the most popular
implemented practices of both studies are similar. One difference compared to the findings of
Bassi and Dias (2019) is, that in this study, five out of 17 companies (29%) stated, that they
have already implemented the practice of using renewable energy, while in the case of Bassi
and Dias (2019), only 15% of firms have already or are planning to implement this practice,
which makes it the least popular in their study. Additionally, the finding of this thesis regarding
recycling being one of the most important implemented practices is also in line with the findings
of Barreiro‐Gen and Lozano (2020), who studied the implementation of the 4R´s (reduction,
repairing, remanufacturing and recycling) and found out, that recycling and reduction are more
popular by organizations than remanufacturing and repairing. Recycling is mentioned by nine
companies as already implemented practice and reduce by five companies, which makes both
practices two of the most often implemented practices in this sample, while repair and
remanufacturing were not part of the most popular implemented practices in this study.
Additionally, the four practices recycling of inputs, design, use of recycled inputs and waste
prevention were further analyzed regarding causes for the implementation and potential
opportunities and challenges and possible causal chains were derived from this analysis. Here
also the recycling of inputs plays a central role and is the only practice linked to economic,
social as well as environmental reasons. It becomes obvious, that the practice recycling of

102
inputs shows the most connections to challenges and opportunities as well as a connection to
waste prevention. The possible interpretation of the causal chains has already been made in the
results part, but here it becomes obvious, that the recycling of inputs shows the most overall
connections to causes, opportunities and challenges as well as to another practice, which makes
it a central part of the analysis. This might be rooted in the fact, that most companies are already
recycling their inputs and have hence more experience with the corresponding challenges and
opportunities as well as a better understanding of the causes, why they started this practice.
Design shows the second most connections to challenges, opportunities and reasons. Hence it
is also central regarding current practices. This might be the case, that without the “right” design
of products, circular economy might be difficult to achieve. For instance, when the design
requires mixtures of materials to be realized, this would significantly hinder the recycling
possibilities. Hence it is logical, that the design takes a central role beside the widely
implemented practice of the recycling of inputs.

The focus of the third research question was on the causes for companies in the Austrian plastics
sector to implement circular economy practices. Most companies, to be specific 11, indicated
economic reasons, like for instance pressure from B2B customers, as the reason for them to
take part in circular economy activities. Nine companies mentioned environmental reasons, like
for example the protection of the environment, as cause for them to implement circular
economy practices and seven companies referred to social reasons, like responsibility, as reason
for the implementation of circular economy practices. Although it is often outlined, why the
circular economy is needed on a macro level, e.g. the overuse of natural resources, there is until
now far less work on why companies should adapt circular economy practices and hence
reasons for the implementation of a circular economy on a micro level. Regarding the reasons
for the implementation of the circular economy on a micro level Drabe and Herstatt (2016)
investigate why companies implement circular economy concepts and find, that for companies
the fit of a circular innovation with the philosophy of the company plays an important role. This
can be seen as internal motivation, which means, that the results of this thesis, namely economic
reasons being the most important cause for companies regarding the implementation of circular
economy practices, contradict the findings of Drabe and Herstatt (2016). Internal motivation
was only mentioned by five companies as cause for the implementation of circular economy
practices and is hence not as important for the participating companies as indicated in the
studies of Drabe and Herstatt (2016). Further, there exist many studies regarding drivers for the
implementation of circular economy practices by companies (e.g. (De Jesus & Mendonça,

103
2018)). These studies can also be seen as explaining causes for companies to implement circular
economy practices. The findings of this thesis are also in line with the findings of Gusmerotti
et al. (2019), who also identified economic drivers as most important regarding the reasons for
firms to implement a circular strategy. Given that the circular economy is often described as
win-win situation, which leads to economic as well as environmental benefits, it seems to be
reasonable, that most participants consider economic reasons as main reason for the
implementation of circular economy practices, followed directly by environmental reasons.

The fourth research question focused on the opportunities and challenges, which companies
identify regarding the implementation of circular economy practices. Regarding opportunities,
most companies, namely eight, saw market opportunities arising in the context of the
implementation of circular economy practices in their company. The opportunity of increasing
competitiveness and the possibility of differentiating from competitors was each mentioned by
five participants. In the case of challenges, 10 participants identified challenges regarding the
quality of the material, which makes is the most often mentioned challenge. Eight participants
identified challenges regarding legislature and increased costs. Technical obstacles were
mentioned by seven companies, the acceptance of customers by six companies and five
companies identified the critical mass for implementation as a challenge. Referring to
opportunities, the findings are similar to the ones by Holzer et al (2021), who identified the
efficient use of resources as key opportunity in Austrian SME´s. The efficient use of resource
is in this study included into the category increasing competitiveness, which is one of the most
often mentioned opportunities in this thesis. Hence also in the Austrian plastics sector, the
efficient use of resources constitutes an opportunity for companies. Further, Holzer et al (2021)
found, that differentiation was one of the topical areas, which were most important for Austrian
SME´s in the context of the circular economy. This is also in line with differentiation being
seen as one of the most important opportunities by companies in this study. In contrast to the
findings of by Holzer et al (2021), market opportunities (e.g. gaining market share) are seen as
the most important opportunity by companies in the Austrian plastics sector. Regarding
challenges, the findings of this study are similar to the study conducted by Paletta et al. (2019),
who studied barriers and challenges regarding plastics valorization in a circular economy
context in the Italian plastics sector. They identified technical challenges as one of the main
barriers, where they explicitly mention quality concerns as being the most concerning among
converters. This is perfectly in line with the findings of this thesis, given, that the quality of
material was mentioned by the most participants as a challenge regarding the circular economy.

104
Further, Paletta et al. (2019) identifies legal barriers, and state, that prohibitions of the use of
recycled materials in some applications e.g. medical applications constitutes a barrier. This
equals the findings of this thesis, because also here legal barriers regarding the use of recycled
plastics in the medical sector and in the food packaging sector were mentioned by participants
as a barrier and legislature was the second most often mentioned barrier. Further the findings
of this study differ from the findings of Rizos et al. (2016), who identified the lack of support
from the supply and demand network as most important barrier. The dependence on the
suppliers regarding the delivery of circular economy compatible input materials was only
mentioned by one participant in this study and was included into the category technical
obstacles. Additionally, the results of this study also show similarities to the work of Tura et al.
(2019). They identified difficulties of companies regarding the convincing of potential
customers of circular economy solutions and high initial investment costs as barriers regarding
the circular economy. This is similar to the two barriers acceptance of customers and higher
costs, which were identified in this study.

The fifth research question focused on the contribution of companies towards a more circular
future. The most often mentioned contribution by companies was research and development,
which nine companies referred to as their contribution towards the achievement of the scenario.
Six companies mentioned communication with customers regarding circular economy solutions
as their contribution and five companies mentioned adjustments in the production process.
Finally, four companies stated, that the change of the design of their products is their
contribution towards a more circular economy. When the future contributions are compared to
the already implemented practices it becomes obvious, that research and development plays a
central role in the future, while it is far less often mentioned as already implemented practice.
Hence it seems, that although some companies are already working towards more circular
solutions, more companies are planning to do so in the future. Therefore, it can be assumed,
that in the plastics sector there is a need for new developments and solutions in order to achieve
a more circular plastics economy. This also shows, that adjustments in the production process
are seen as an important future contribution by participants of this study. In research and
development as well as in adjustments of the production process innovations play a crucial role.
This is also in line with the findings of de Jesus & Mendonça (2018), who investigate the
interconnection of eco-innovations and circular economy and argue, that eco-innovations can
help in the implementation of a circular economy. Further, it seems, that process and product
innovations seem to be more important for companies in this study regarding the transition

105
towards a circular economy, given that adjustments in the production process and research and
development can be rather associated with product and process innovations than with business
model innovations. Design was also mentioned as possible future contribution. In this case,
changes of design were more popular regarding already implemented practices than as future
contributions. Nevertheless, it can also here be argued, that changes in design are rather
associated with product innovations. In the further analysis, it became obvious, that research
and development are the most central contribution, given that it is connected to all included
causes and opportunities as well as challenges and to the contribution design. Hence this further
fortifies the assumption of further development of circular solutions being necessary in the
Austrian plastics sector in order to achieve a more circular plastics economy and that the current
possibilities are not yet enough for a circular plastics economy.

The sixth research question investigated, which changes are seen by the participating companies
as necessary in the supply chain and in the business environment. Changes in legislature,
mentioned by 13 companies, were the most often mentioned necessary changes in the business
environment, closely followed by collaborations, which were addresses by 12 companies.
Improvements of waste collection were indicated by 10 companies and improvements of
suppliers and recyclers regarding the material quality were mentioned by six participants.
Finally, new partners or changes of existing partners were named by five companies. This
identified necessary changes are corresponding with the previously identified challenges. Given
that legislature was the second most often mentioned barrier, it seems to be logical, that most
companies identify changes in legislature as a necessary change for a more circular economy.
The same holds true for the most often mentioned challenge, the quality of the material. The
improvement of the waste collection as well as the improvement of the material quality by
suppliers and recyclers both address, indirectly and directly, the challenge regarding the
material quality. The improvement of the waste collection would also lead to the possibility of
higher quality recyclates and hence contributes indirectly to the overcoming of the challenge
regarding the material quality. Regarding collaborations, the results of this thesis are again in
line with the findings of Tura et al. (2019). They state, that many circular economy solutions
have been developed in collaboration with supply chain partners and that potentially conflicting
interests are hindering possibilities for the creation of circular economy solutions. Hence, it
seems, that the possibility to create circular solutions together with supply chain partners is also
recognized by companies in the Austrian plastics sector, given that it is the second most often
mentioned necessary change regarding the transition towards a more circular economy.

106
Finally, the seventh research question addressed the types of innovations, which companies
perceive as necessary for a more circular economy. Product innovations were mentioned by 11
companies and are hence the most popular innovation type among the participating companies.
The second most popular innovation type were process innovation, which were mentioned by
five participants. The least often mentioned innovations type were business model innovations,
which were only referred to by two companies. This corresponds with the postulation made in
the discussion of the possible future contributions previously in this chapter. In this sample,
product and process innovations seem to be more important for companies than circular
business model innovations. This might be, because process and product innovations are easier
to implement for established companies than business model innovations. Another possible
explanation is, that given the properties of plastics and the possibility of recycling companies
see more necessity for enabling the recycling by product and process innovations instead of
changing whole business models.

5.1 Limitations
The results of this thesis are of course also subject to limitations, which will be reviewed in the
following. First of all, although 17 interviews were conducted and the interview process was
stopped after reaching a content-related saturation, the sample cannot be considered as
representative and hence no claims regarding the generalizability of the obtained results can be
made. Further, although a structured approach regarding the selection of interview partners
(described in section 3.3) was applied, it is likely that the composition of the sample has been
subject to the self-selection bias and the participation bias. Regarding the participation bias
company representatives which show no interest into the circular economy might not have taken
part in the interviews and hence their perceptions are not included into the study. The same
holds true for the self-selection bias. Only company representatives, who show a genuine
interest into the circular economy might have decided to take part in the interviews and hence
also this might have led to distorted results. Regarding the qualitative content analysis, it has to
be mentioned, that this kind of analysis is interpretative and subjective. The development of the
used code system as well as the allocation of the text to the different codes and categories are
prone to subjectivity. In order to reduce the issue of subjectivity, the used deductive category
system was reviewed by both authors of the twin studies as well as by the supervisors. Further,
the inductive category system, which was developed to deal with the research questions, for
which no preliminary work was available, was developed and critically reviewed together with

107
the author of the twin study. Additionally, decisions regarding coding and the inductive
development were discussed and elaborated with the author of the twin study on a regular basis.
Hence by applying these measures, it was possible to reduce the involved subjectivity. Finally,
the derived causal chains might have been influenced by coincidence. Although it was tried to
make sure, that the causal chains follow the line of argumentation of the interviews, it cannot
be guaranteed, that coincidence did not at least slightly influence the creation of the causal
chains. Hence, they have to interpreted in the light of this possibility.

108
6. Conclusions
The aim of this master thesis was to identify the current state and possible future directions of
the circular economy in the Austrian plastics sector.

For gaining insights into this topic an exploratory qualitative approach was chosen and 17
laddering interviews with company representatives of firms, which are active in the Austrian
plastics sector were conducted. Following, the key results are shortly summarized.

In order to answer the first research question, which refers to the understanding of circular
economy most companies indicated, that they understand recycling as circular economy in the
context of their company. Hence their understanding of the circular economy is strongly linked
to practices, which they could implement or have already implemented.

Referring to practices, the most often already implemented practice was the recycling of inputs,
which means, that companies are either recycling their production rejects directly on their own
or are working with partners in order to recycle these rejects. Further, the design of products in
order to make sure, that they can be recycled, and the use of recycled inputs was a popular
already implemented practice among participating companies from the Austrian plastics sector.

Regarding the reasons for the implementation of circular economy practices, economic reasons,
like the pressure from B2B customers, were the most popular among the participating
companies, where it hast to be mentioned, that environmental reasons, like for instance the
protection of the environment, came in second just behind economic reasons.

The fourth investigated area were opportunities and challenges connected to the
implementation of circular economy practices within companies. Regarding opportunities,
market opportunities, like for instance the expansion of the market share, were the most
prominent among the participating companies. The most often mentioned challenge was the
quality of the material, where legislature was the second most often mentioned challenge for
companies in the context of a transition towards a circular economy.

The fifth research question focused on future contributions of companies towards a more
circular plastics economy. Here the most often mentioned contribution of companies, what was
also confirmed in the further analysis, is research and development and hence the creation of

109
more circular solutions. Given that research and development is mostly connected to
innovations, this also confirms the assumption of the importance of innovations for the circular
economy, which is further investigated in research question seven.

The sixth research question also focused on the future and examined necessary changes in the
supply chain and business environment for a more circular economy. Here the identified
changes are corresponding with the previously identified most pressing challenges. The most
often mentioned changes were changes in legislature and also changes regarding the collection
system in order to increase the quality of the recycled material. Further, also collaborations
were mentioned as necessary change in the supply chain.

The seventh research question focused on the types of innovations, which are considered as
necessary. Here the most prominent type of innovation were product innovations and the least
often mentioned were business model innovations.

From the results of this thesis a number of implications can be derived for research, practitioners
as well as for policy makers.

Given that the implementation of a circular economy in the plastics sector is still in the early
stages, further research regarding how to facilitate a transition towards a circular plastics
economy is necessary. Here further studies regarding the Austrian plastics sector could help in
understanding on how this transition could be made easier for companies and could help policy
makers to introduce changes, which incentivize companies regarding the implementation of
circular economy practices. Hence, for research, the results of this qualitative study could be a
starting point to investigate the current state and possible future developments of the Austrian
plastics sector in a quantitative manner. The results of this work could be used to design a
survey and for thereby gaining representative results. Further, some areas which were
investigated in this thesis offer the possibility to conduct a more focused study. For instance,
future research could focus explicitly on the necessary changes in the supply chain and business
environment or also on single challenges, which seem to be very important to companies in the
Austrian plastics sector. As an example, the challenge legislature can vary significantly from
company to company and hence a more detailed examination could be necessary. The same
holds true for the changes in the supply chain and business environment. Here the most
prominent change, changes in legislation, could be further investigated, regarding which

110
changes in detail would be necessary and possible to implement. Further, more a more detailed
investigation regarding collaborations within the supply chain for a more circular economy
could be conducted and a framework and tools to facilitate these collaborations could be
designed. Further, a similar study could be conducted in the plastics sector of other countries in
order to identify, how the insights differ regarding the geographical context. So basically, this
qualitative explorative study only serves as a starting point for possible further studies in the
plastics sector. Finally, similar studies in other sectors regarding the circular economy could be
conducted and the obtained results could be compared to the results of this study in order to
identify sectoral differences. This idea has already been taken up by the idea of conducting a
twin study in the Austrian woods sector, but more sectors would lead to a better insight into
sectoral differences, which could then be used by policy maker in order to design fitting circular
economy strategies.

For practitioners in the field of waste collection and recycling, the identified challenge
regarding the quality of the material could help in promoting actions, which would increase the
quality. However, the problem regarding the quality seemed to be already widely acknowledged
by firms within this sector. Further, the identified opportunities could be a starting point for
companies, which are not already taking part in circular economy activities, to analyze their
own possibilities with regard to the implementation of circular economy activities and how they
could profit from them. Furthermore, the identified need for more research and development
shows practitioners, that there is still a need for more circular solutions and hence that they can
profit from starting new or expanding existing research and development activities.

Finally, for policy makers also some important implications can be derived from the results of
this thesis. First of all, the identified need for changes in legislation, which was mentioned by
a majority of firms, can be resolved by them. Hence, they could contribute to a business
environment, which would facilitate the transition towards a more circular economy by
adapting laws in order to make it easier for firms to implement circular economy practices.
Secondly, policy makers could also help in achieving the necessary change regarding an
improvement of the waste collection by introducing new laws or also by the regional
harmonization of existing laws regarding the collection of waste and to be more specific, plastic
waste. This would increase the quality of recycled materials and hence also facilitate a transition
towards a more circular plastics economy. Another implication for policy makers is, that the
identified need for collaborations regarding changes in the business environment could be

111
supported by the creation of platforms or other tools, which facilitate the communication
between companies in the Austrian plastics sector. Additionally, the research and development,
which is needed in order to achieve a more circular future in the plastics sector could be
facilitated by increasing the support for research projects, which focus on the creation of new
circular solutions in the plastics sector or which focus on the gaining of insight on how to further
promote the circular economy concept. Finally, given that potentially higher costs were also
mentioned as a challenge regarding the implementation of circular economy practices, policy
makers could implement financial incentives, which would facilitate the implementation of
circular economy practices, similar like it has already be done in other sustainability related
topical areas.

112
References

ARA. (2019, September 19). Erstes "Circular Economy Barometer Österreichs": Unternehmen
sind bereit, Unsicherheiten sind groß.
https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20190919_OTS0089/erstes-circular-
economy-barometer-oesterreichs-unternehmen-sind-bereit-unsicherheiten-sind-gross-
bild

Balaji, A. B., & Liu, X. (2021). Plastics in Circular Economy: A Sustainable Progression. In L.
Liu & S. Ramakrishna (Eds.), An Introduction to Circular Economy (pp. 159–178).
Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8510-4_9

Barreiro‐Gen, M., & Lozano, R. (2020). How circular is the circular economy? Analysing the
implementation of circular economy in organisations. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 29 (8), 3484–3494. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2590

Bassi, F., & Dias, J. G. (2019). The use of circular economy practices in SMEs across the EU.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 523–533.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.019

Bilal, M., Khan, K. I. A., Thaheem, M. J., & Nasir, A. R. (2020). Current state and barriers to
the circular economy in the building sector: Towards a mitigation framework. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 276, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123250

Bocken, N. M. P., Schuit, C. S. C., & Kraaijenhagen, C. (2018). Experimenting with a circular
business model: Lessons from eight cases. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 28, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001

113
Bocken, N., Strupeit, L., Whalen, K., & Nußholz, J. (2019). A Review and Evaluation of
Circular Business Model Innovation Tools. Sustainability, 11(8), 2210.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082210

Brown, P., Bocken, N., & Balkenende, R. (2019). Why Do Companies Pursue Collaborative
Circular Oriented Innovation? Sustainability, 11(3), 635.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030635

Brown, P., Bocken, N., & Balkenende, R. (2020). How Do Companies Collaborate for Circular
Oriented Innovation? Sustainability, 12(4), 1648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041648

Calleja, D. (2019). Why the “New Plastics Economy” must be a circular economy. Field
Actions ScienceReports (Online), Special Issue 19.
https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5123

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S. Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem,
S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387 (15), 253-260.

Cui, M. (2021). Key Concepts and Terminology. In L. Liu & S. Ramakrishna (Eds.), An
Introduction to Circular Economy (pp. 17–34). Springer Singapore.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8510-4_2

de Jesus, A., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Eco-innovation in the transition
to a circular economy: An analytical literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production,
172, 2999–3018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.111

de Jesus, A., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-
innovation Road to the Circular Economy. Ecological Economics, 145, 75–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001

de Wit, M., Hoogzaad, J., Ramkumar, S., Friedl, H., & Douma, A. (2018). The circularity gap
report: An analysis of the circular state of the global economy. Circle Economy.
https://www.legacy.circularity-gap.world/2018

114
Doranova, A., Roman, L., Bahn-Walkowiak, B., Wilts, H., O’Brien, M., Giljum, S., Kong, M.
A., & Hestin, M. (2016). Policies and Practices for Eco-Innovation Up- take and
Circular Economy Transition. Eco-Innovation Observatory.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/policies-and-practices-eco-innovation-uptake-
and-circular-economy-transition_en

Drabe, V., & Herstatt, C. (2016, July 3-6). Why and how companies implement Circular
Economy concepts – the case of Cradle to Cradle innovations [Conference Paper]. R&D
Management Conference 2016 “From Science to Society: Innovation and Value
Creation”, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Dreborg, K. H. (1996). Essence of backcasting. Futures, 28(9), 813–828.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00044-4

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy Vol 1: an economic and
business rationale for an accelerated transition.
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/towards-the-circular-economy-vol-1-an-
economic-and-business-rationale-for-an

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and
business rationale for an accelerated transition.
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/towards-a-circular-economy-business-rationale-
for-an-accelerated-transition

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). The new plastics economy: Rethinking the future of
plastics & catalysing action. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/the-new-plastics-
economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics-and-catalysing

Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C. M., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., Galgani,
F., Ryan, P. G., & Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic Pollution in the World’s Oceans: More than
5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea. PLOS ONE, 9(12),
e111913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913

115
European Commission. (2011). Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0571

European Commission. (2015). An ambitious EU circular economy package [Fact sheet].

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circ
ular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits

European Parliament. (2021, March 3). Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circ
ular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits

Eurostat. (n.d.). Circular Economy – Overview. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-

economy

Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019). Circular supply chain
management: A definition and structured literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 228, 882–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.303

Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S. N., de Carvalho, M. M., & Evans, S. (2018). Business models
and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 712–
721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.159

Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M. P. P., Pigosso, D. C. A., & Soufani, K. (2020). Circular business
models: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123741.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Goffin K. & Mitchell R. (2016). Innovation Management: Effective strategy and

implementation (3rd ed.). Macmillan Publishers Limited

Granig, P. (2007). Innovationsbewertung: Potentialprognose und -steuerung durch Ertrags-

und Risikosimulation (1st ed.). Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.

116
Gue, I. H. V., Promentilla, M. A. B., Tan, R. R., & Ubando, A. T. (2020). Sector perception of
circular economy driver interrelationships. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276,
123204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123204

Guldmann, E., & Huulgaard, R. D. (2020). Barriers to circular business model innovation: A
multiple-case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118160

Gusmerotti, N. M., Testa, F., Corsini, F., Pretner, G., & Iraldo, F. (2019). Drivers and
approaches to the circular economy in manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 230, 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.044

Hauschildt, J., & Salomo, S. (2010). Innovationsmanagement (5th ed.). Vahlen.

https://doi.org/10.15358/9783800643530

Hofmann, F. (2019). Circular business models: Business approach as driver or obstructer of

sustainability transitions? Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, 361–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.115

Holmberg, J., & Robert, K.-H. (2000). Backcasting—A framework for strategic planning.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 7(4), 291–308.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500009470049

Holzer, D., Rauter, R., Fleiß, E., & Stern, T. (2021). Mind the gap: Towards a systematic
circular economy encouragement of small and medium-sized companies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 298, 126696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126696

IRP (2017). Assessing global resource use: A systems approach to resource efficiency and
pollution reduction. United Nations Environment Programme.
https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/assessing-global-resource-use

Kaciak E., & Cullen C. W. (2006). Analysis of means-end chain data in marketing research.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15, 12-20.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750028

117
Kemp, R., & Pearson, P. (2007). Final report of the MEI project measuring eco innovation.
Deliverable 15 of project Measuring Eco-Innovation,
https://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An
analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127, 221-232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens, A.,
& Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the Circular Economy: Evidence From the European
Union (EU). Ecological Economics, 150, 264–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028

Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular Economy: The Concept and its
Limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041

Lee, W.-I., & Lin, C.-H. (2011). Consumer hierarchical value map modeling in the healthcare
service industry. African Journal of Business Management, 5(3), 722-736.

Liebel, F. (2007). Motivforschung: Eine kognitionspsychologische Perspektive. In

G. Naderer & E. Balzer (Eds.), Qualitative Marktforschung in Theorie und Praxis –
Grundlagen, Methoden und Anwendungen (pp. 451-468). Wiesbaden: Gabler
Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9262-8_22

Lüdeke‐Freund, F., Gold, S., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2019). A Review and Typology of Circular
Economy Business Model Patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 36–61.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763

Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 23(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5885.2005.00177.x

118
Mayring, P. (1991). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardoff, H. Keupp, L. v.
Rosenstiel, & S. Wolff (Eds.), Handbuch qualitative Forschung: Grundlagen,
Konzepte, Methoden und Anwendungen (pp. 209-213). Beltz- Psychologie Verlags
Union.

McDowall, W., Geng, Y., Huang, B., Barteková, E., Bleischwitz, R., Türkeli, S., Kemp, R., &
Doménech, T. (2017). Circular Economy Policies in China and Europe. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 651–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12597

Nielsen, A.E. (2013). License to Operate. In: S.O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, L. Zu., A.D. Gupta (eds),
Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_502

Nußholz, J. (2017). Circular Business Models: Defining a Concept and Framing an Emerging
Research Field. Sustainability, 9(10), 1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101810

OECD. (2010). Eco-innovation in industry: Enabling green growth.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/eco-innovation-in-
industry_9789264077225-en

Ormazabal, M., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Puga-Leal, R., & Jaca, C. (2018). Circular Economy in
Spanish SMEs: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185,
157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.031

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying Business Models: Origins,
Present, and Future of the Concept. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 16, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01601

Paletta, A., Leal Filho, W., Balogun, A.-L., Foschi, E., & Bonoli, A. (2019). Barriers and
challenges to plastics valorisation in the context of a circular economy: Case studies
from Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118149

119
Parker L. (2019, June 7). The world’s plastic pollution crisis explained. Nationalgeographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/plastic-pollution/

Plastics Europe (2019). The circular economy for plastics: A European Overview.
https://www.plasticseurope.org/de/resources/publications/1899-circular-economy-
plastics-european-overview

Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worell, E., & Hanemaaijer, A. (2017). Circular Economy: Measuring
Innovation in the Product Chain. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-circular-economy-
measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf

Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2018). Creating value in the circular
economy: A structured multiple-case analysis of business models. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 201, 988–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.072

Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New or
Refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the
Circular Economy through a Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 246–264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027

Reynolds, T.J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis, And Interpretation.
Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1) 11-31.

Rizos, V., Behrens, A., van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T., Flamos, A.,
Rinaldi, R., Papadelis, S., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., & Topi, C. (2016). Implementation
of Circular Economy Business Models by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
(SMEs): Barriers and Enablers. Sustainability, 8(11), 1212.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111212

Rizos, V., Tuokko, K., & Behrens, A. (2017). The Circular Economy: A review of definitions,
processes and impacts (Research Report 2017(08)). CEPS. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-
publications/circular-economy-review-definitions-processes-and-impacts/

120
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed). Free Press.

Sariatli, F. (2017). Linear Economy Versus Circular Economy: A Comparative and Analyzer
Study for Optimization of Economy for Sustainability. Visegrad Journal on
Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development, 6(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/vjbsd-
2017-0005

Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., & Sloan, P. (2016). Environmental sciences, sustainable development
and circular economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research.
Environmental Development, 17, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.002

Schenkel, M., Caniëls, M. C. J., Krikke, H., & van der Laan, E. (2015). Understanding value
creation in closed loop supply chains – Past findings and future directions. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 37(3), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.009

Strebel, H. (2007). Innovations- und Technologiemanagement (2nd ed.). UTB GmbH.

Suárez-Eiroa, B., Fernández, E., Méndez-Martínez, G., & Soto-Oñate, D. (2019). Operational
principles of circular economy for sustainable development: Linking theory and
practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 952–961.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.271

Suchek, N., Fernandes, C. I., Kraus, S., Filser, M., & Sjögrén, H. (2021). Innovation and the
circular economy: A systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the
Environment, bse.2834. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2834

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning,
43(2–3), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003

Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,

10(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391646

Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S., & Valkokari, P. (2019). Unlocking
circular business: A framework of barriers and drivers. Journal of Cleaner Production,
212, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.202

121
Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2017). Circular Economy Rebound. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3),
593–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12545

122
Appendix

A. Interview Guideline

A. Perceptions of the Circular Economy

Definition:
The circular economy is a model of production and consumption in which existing materials
and products are shared, leased, reused, repaired, refurbished, and recycled for as long as
possible. In this way, the life cycle of products is extended. In practice, this means that waste
is reduced to a minimum. When a product reaches the end of its service life, resources and
materials remain in the economic cycle as far as possible. They can be used productively again
and again to continue generating added value. The circular economy contrasts with the
traditional, linear economic model ("throwaway economy").

Source:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/kreislaufwi
rtschaft-definition-und-vorteile (08.02.2021)

1. What does circular economy mean to you in the context of your company?

2. What circular economy practices have you already implemented?

3. What would you consider to be the main reason for implementing circular economy in
your company?

B. 1. Scenario 2030

We are in the year 2030, the EU vision for a more sustainable and competitive plastics industry
has become a reality. More than half of the plastic waste generated in Europe is recycled and
all plastic packaging placed on the EU market is either reusable or can be recycled at low cost.
In addition, recycling capacity has increased significantly and recycled plastics have become
an increasingly valuable raw material for industry. Collaboration between the chemical industry

123
and plastics recyclers offers recyclers the opportunity to find broader and higher value
applications for their output. In addition, the plastics value chain is far more integrated and
innovative materials and alternative, more sustainable feedstocks for plastics production have
been developed and are now being used.

B. 2. Question(s) based on the scenario

1. In which way can your company contribute to achieve the scenario described before?

C. Supply chains in the context of the circular economy

1. To achieve the scenario described earlier, what changes in your supply chain would you
consider necessary for circular economy?

D. Opportunities and Challenges

1. Which opportunities do you see for your company in the next 5 years due to circular
economy?

2. Which challenges do you see for your company in the next 5 years due to circular
economy?

3. Do you plan to implement (more) circular economy practices in the next 5 years?

Do you know of any other companies that would be helpful to our research project?

124
B. Implication matrices
Present case
Here the created implication matrices regarding the present case are presented. A “– “in a field
does not mean, that the two items never occurred together, but that they did not occur often
enough to be included.

Table B 1. Implication matrix reasons and practices – present case

Use of recycled Waste Recycling of

Design
inputs prevention inputs

Economic
5 4 6 5
reasons
Environmental
- - 6 4
reasons

Social reasons - - 5 -

Table B 2. Implication matrix opportunities/challenges and practices – present case

Use of recycled Waste Recycling of

Design
inputs prevention inputs

Differentiation
4 - 5 -
from customers
Increasing
- 4 4 -
competitiveness
Critical mass for
- - - 4
implementation

Higher Costs 5 4 - 5

Technical
- - 5 4
obstacles
Quality of
4 - 6 4
material

Legislature 4 - 5 -

125
Future case
Here the created implication matrices regarding the future case are presented. A “– “in a field
does not mean, that the two items never occurred together, but that they did not occur often
enough to be included.

Table B 3. Implication matrix reasons and contributions – future case

Adjustments in
Research and Communication
production Design
development with customers
process
Economic
4 5 3 4
reasons
Environmental
- 6 3 3
reasons

Social reasons - 6 - -

Internal
- 3 - -
Motivation

Table B 4. Implication matrix opportunities/challenges and contributions – future case

Adjustments in
Research and Communication
production Design
development with customers
process
Market
4 5 - -
opportunities
Differentiation
- 3 - -
from customers
Increasing
- 3 - -
competitiveness

Higher Costs - 5 3 -

Quality of material - 6 3 -

Legislature - 4 - 4

Technical obstacles 3 5 - -

Critical mass for

- 4 - -
implementation

126
C. Causal chain maps including number of mentions
In this section the causal chains map known from the results part are presented including the
numbers of mutual mentions. The numbers were removed in the results part in order to increase
the readability.

127
Present case

Figure C 1. Causal chains map including number of mentions - present

128
Future case

Figure C 2. Causal chains map including number of mentions - future

129