CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Circular business model evolution: Stakeholder matters for a self‐sufficient ecosystem

Moggi, Sara, Dameri, Renata Paola·2021·Business Strategy and the Environment
DOI 10.1002/bse.2716
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Food waste is a key issue in the circular economy. A circular ecosystem results from the contributions of various stakeholders; however, the claims and value propositions of these stakeholders can differ, hampering long‐term sustainability of the ecosystem. This study analyses the case of RiCibo, a circular ecosystem based in Genoa, Italy. RiCibo collects surplus food and redistributes it to the needy in the local community. The study examines the conditions that facilitated RiCibo’s evolution from a simple project to a circular self‐sufficient ecosystem characterised by a co‐designed circular business model with a broad range of stakeholders. The results show that sharing people, infrastructure and knowledge, together with mutual trust among stakeholders, are the preconditions of a circular ecosystem. Long‐term continuity depends on additional tools that enhance financial self‐sufficiency, namely, participative governance, a co‐designed circular business model, accountability, frequent engagement, local actions and the development of advocacy power.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bse.2716

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Albino V., 2015, The industrial symbiosis approach: A classification of business models, Procedia Environmental Science, Engineering and Management, 2, 217
  2. 10.1177/0899764012450777 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.emj.2016.07.004 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.010 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.003 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1504/IJKBD.2017.088183 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.083 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.006 · DOI
  13. 10.3390/su12031190 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/bse.2477 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.295 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1177/0007650316660534 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.11.003 · DOI
  19. 10.5465/AMBPP.2019.10747abstract · DOI
  20. 10.1111/jiec.12610 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1007/s10551-015-2728-8 · DOI
  22. Denzin N. K., 1978, The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods
  23. Devin B., 2016, Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain, Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 1
  24. 10.1111/jiec.13025 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.016 · DOI
  26. 10.2307/258887 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1108/11766091011034271 · DOI
  28. 10.2307/258557 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.5465/amj.2016.4004 · DOI
  31. European Commission, 2015, Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the circular economy—COM (2015) 614 final
  32. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO), 2011, Global food losses and food waste—Extent, causes and prevention
  33. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO), 2014, Global initiative on food losses and waste reduction
  34. Franco M., 2011, Determining factors in the success of strategic alliances: An empirical study performed in Portuguese firms, European Journal of International Management, 5, 608
  35. 10.1007/s10551-011-0935-5 · DOI
  36. 10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.159 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118987 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.100 · DOI
  41. 10.1177/1086026614535786 · DOI
  42. 10.1108/MD-09-2018-0990 · DOI
  43. 10.1108/11766091011034307 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01015-7 · DOI
  45. 10.3390/su8010069 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119942 · DOI
  48. 10.3390/su8010043 · DOI
  49. 10.1002/bse.1906 · DOI
  50. 10.1002/bse.2059 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.093 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1111/jiec.12763 · DOI · Paper page
  53. 10.3390/su8030282 · DOI
  54. 10.1007/s11625-017-0502-9 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.3390/su10103515 · DOI
  56. 10.1007/s10551-012-1501-5 · DOI
  57. 10.4324/9781351232272 · DOI
  58. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2026 · DOI
  60. Patton M. Q., 2002, Qualitative research & evaluation method
  61. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.170 · DOI
  62. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.017 · DOI
  63. 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119799 · DOI
  64. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.159 · DOI
  65. 10.5465/AME.2003.9474812 · DOI
  66. 10.1177/1086026615599806 · DOI
  67. 10.5465/amj.2007.24160882 · DOI · Paper page
  68. 10.1007/978-3-642-28848-7 · DOI
  69. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.063 · DOI
  70. Stake R. E., 2013, Multiple case study analysis
  71. 10.1177/1086026608318042 · DOI
  72. 10.1108/11766091011034299 · DOI
  73. Talmar M., 2018, Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The ecosystem pie model, Long Range Planning, 53, 1
  74. 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003 · DOI · Paper page
  75. 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007 · DOI · Paper page
  76. United Nations, 2015, Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development‐A/RES/70/1
  77. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119497 · DOI
  78. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.061 · DOI
  79. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.015 · DOI · Paper page
  80. 10.1287/orsc.1060.0232 · DOI · Paper page
  81. 10.1177/0149206311406265 · DOI · Paper page
  82. 10.1002/bse.2216 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 103

Metadata

Authors
Moggi, S., & Dameri, R. P.
Affiliations
  • Business Administration Department University of Verona Verona Italy
  • Department of Economics and Business Studies University of Genova Genoa Italy
ORCID
Venue
Business Strategy and the Environment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-02-21
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
2830-2842
ISSN
  • 0964-4733
  • 1099-0836
DOI
10.1002/bse.2716
Cited by
103
References
7
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review