CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From trust to transition: Residential customer acceptance of circular solar business models

Van Opstal, Wim, Manshoven, Saskia·2024·Energy Research & Social Science
DOI 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103647
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While the contribution of circular business models to achieving sustainable development goals is increasingly acknowledged, most studies tend to focus on conceptual, technological, or supply-side considerations. Customer acceptance, however, is also a necessary condition for a transition to a circular economy. In this study, we employ household survey data to investigate the impact of trust on customer acceptance of circular business models in solar photovoltaics (PV). Results highlight the importance of high trust-levels in governments, suppliers, and technology to gain customer acceptance, as well as the importance of time-consistent policies to support interest in circular solar solutions. Furthermore, results suggest that vulnerable groups may miss beneficial opportunities of circular business models because of lower levels of institutional trust. This is also reflected in an analysis of barriers and value propositions, where low institutional trust levels appear to limit rational cost-benefit considerations. The paper formulates policy and management recommendations and identifies research gaps related to the redistributive impact of the circular economy. Moreover, it coins the concept of a circular risk premium that may vary along socio-economic groups and calls for further study of the impact of vocal opinions on social interactions that may spur or impede the transition to a circular economy.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103647

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. Calisto Friant, 2023, Transition to a sustainable circular society: more than just resource efficiency, Circ.Econ.Sust.
  2. Elzinga, 2020, Consumer acceptance of circular business models, J. Clean. Prod., 254, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119988 · DOI
  3. D’Adamo, 2021, Sustainability and resilience after COVID-19: a circular premium in the fashion industry, Sustainability, 13, 1861, 10.3390/su13041861 · DOI
  4. Boyer, 2021, Product labels for the circular economy: are customers willing to pay for circular?, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 61, 10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.010 · DOI
  5. Geissdoerfer, 2023, Drivers and barriers for circular business model innovation, Bus. Strateg. Environ., 32, 3814, 10.1002/bse.3339 · DOI
  6. Assmann, 2023, Determinants of circular business model adoption—a systematic literature review, Bus. Strateg. Environ., 32, 6008, 10.1002/bse.3470 · DOI
  7. Guldmann, 2020, Barriers to circular business model innovation: a multiple-case study, J. Clean. Prod., 243, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118160 · DOI
  8. Linder, 2017, Circular business model innovation: inherent uncertainties, Bus. Strateg. Environ., 182, 10.1002/bse.1906 · DOI
  9. Büscher, 2015, “Trust” and “confidence” as socio-technical problems in the transformation of energy systems, Energy Sustain. Soc., 5, 34, 10.1186/s13705-015-0063-7 · DOI
  10. Stenner, 2017, Willingness to participate in direct load control: the role of consumer distrust, Appl. Energy, 189, 76, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.099 · DOI
  11. Camacho-Otero, 2018, Consumption in the circular economy: a literature review, Sustainability, 10, 2758, 10.3390/su10082758 · DOI
  12. Lüdeke-Freund, 2019, A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns, J. Ind. Ecol., 23, 36, 10.1111/jiec.12763 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Kemp, 2018, The heart in organizational buying: marketers’ understanding of emotions and decision-making of buyers, J. Bus. Ind. Mark., 33, 19, 10.1108/JBIM-06-2017-0129 · DOI
  14. Tsanakas, 2020, Towards a circular supply chain for PV modules: review of today’s challenges in PV recycling, refurbishment and re-certification, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl., 28, 454, 10.1002/pip.3193 · DOI
  15. Schumacher, 2022, Circular economy in a high-tech world, Circ. Econ. Sustain.
  16. Radavičius, 2021, Circular solar industry supply chain through product technological design changes, IRD, 3, 10, 10.9770/IRD.2021.3.3(1) · DOI
  17. De Groote, 2024, The political economy of financing climate policy — evidence from the solar PV subsidy programs, Resour. Energy Econ., 77, 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2024.101436 · DOI
  18. Van Opstal, 2023, Circular economy strategies as enablers for solar PV adoption in organizational market segments, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 35, 40, 10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.019 · DOI
  19. Bocken, 2016, Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy, journal of industrial and production, Engineering, 33, 308
  20. Tukker, 2015, Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy – a review, J. Clean. Prod., 97, 76, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.049 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Zink, 2017, Circular economy rebound, J. Ind. Ecol., 21, 593, 10.1111/jiec.12545 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Ackermann, 2024, Careless product use in access-based services: a rebound effect and how to address it, J. Bus. Res., 177, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114643 · DOI
  23. Rousseau, 1998, Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust, AMR, 23, 393, 10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Hart, 1997, Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange, Organ. Sci., 8, 23, 10.1287/orsc.8.1.23 · DOI
  25. Horne, 2021, Rooftop solar in the United States: exploring trust, utility perceptions, and adoption among California homeowners, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 82, 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102308 · DOI
  26. Greenberg, 2014, Energy policy and research: the underappreciation of trust, Energy Research & Social, Science, 1, 152
  27. Familia, 2022, Customer trust in their utility company and interest in household-level battery storage, Appl. Energy, 324, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119772 · DOI
  28. Berglund, 2013, Business model innovation from an open systems perspective: structural challenges and managerial solutions, Int. J. Prod. Dev., 18, 274, 10.1504/IJPD.2013.055011 · DOI
  29. Mostaghel, 2021, Role of customers in circular business models, J. Bus. Res., 127, 35, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.053 · DOI
  30. Catulli, 2012, What uncertainty? Further insight into why consumers might be distrustful of product service systems, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag., 23, 780, 10.1108/17410381211253335 · DOI
  31. W. Reim, V. Parida, D. Örtqvist, Product–Service Systems (PSS) business models and tactics – a systematic literature review, J. Clean. Prod. 97 (2015) 61–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.003. · DOI
  32. Tunn, 2021, Consumer adoption of access-based product-service systems: the influence of duration of use and type of product, Bus. Strateg. Environ., 30, 2796, 10.1002/bse.2894 · DOI
  33. Akerlof, 1970, The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism*, Q. J. Econ., 84, 488, 10.2307/1879431 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Cantú, 2021, Learning from failure and success: the challenges for circular economy implementation in SMEs in an emerging economy, Sustainability, 13, 1529, 10.3390/su13031529 · DOI
  35. Hankammer, 2019, Towards circular business models: identifying consumer needs based on the jobs-to-be-done theory, J. Clean. Prod., 231, 341, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.165 · DOI
  36. Han, 2022, How do companies launch circular service business models in different countries?, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 31, 591, 10.1016/j.spc.2022.03.011 · DOI
  37. Kim, 2014, An integrated adoption model of solar energy technologies in South Korea, Renew. Energy, 66, 523, 10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.022 · DOI
  38. Strupeit, 2016, Overcoming barriers to renewable energy diffusion: business models for customer-sited solar photovoltaics in Japan, Germany and the United States, J. Clean. Prod., 123, 124, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.120 · DOI
  39. Rigo, 2022, Competitive business model of photovoltaic solar energy installers in Brazil, Renew. Energy, 181, 39, 10.1016/j.renene.2021.09.031 · DOI
  40. Sommerfeldt, 2022, Hide and seek: the supply and demand of information for household solar photovoltaic investment, Energy Policy, 161, 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112726 · DOI
  41. Wolske, 2017, Explaining interest in adopting residential solar photovoltaic systems in the United States: toward an integration of behavioral theories, Energy Research & Social, Science, 25, 134
  42. T.L. Curtis, H. Buchanan, L. Smith, G. Heath, A Circular Economy for Solar Photovoltaic System Materials: Drivers, Barriers, Enablers, and U.S. Policy Considerations, National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.2172/1774574. · DOI
  43. Salim, 2019, Drivers, barriers and enablers to end-of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: a systematic literature review, J. Clean. Prod., 211, 537, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.229 · DOI
  44. Mishra, 2022, Circular economy principles in community energy initiatives through stakeholder perspectives, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 33, 256, 10.1016/j.spc.2022.07.001 · DOI
  45. Boccard, 2021, Solar rebound: the unintended consequences of subsidies, Energy Econ., 100, 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105334 · DOI
  46. Verbruggen, 2004, Tradable green certificates in Flanders (Belgium), Energy Policy, 32, 165, 10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00262-8 · DOI
  47. Verbruggen, 2021, Early European experience with tradable green certificates neglected by EU ETS architects, Environ. Sci. Pol., 119, 66, 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.013 · DOI
  48. De Groote, 2019, Subsidies and time discounting in new technology adoption: evidence from solar photovoltaic systems, Am. Econ. Rev., 109, 2137, 10.1257/aer.20161343 · DOI
  49. Juwet, 2021, Territorial and institutional obduracy in regional transition: politicising the case of Flanders’ energy distribution system, Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc., 14, 301, 10.1093/cjres/rsab005 · DOI
  50. De Groote, 2022, The Political Economy of Financing Climate Policy -- Evidence from the Solar Pv Subsidy Programs
  51. Van Opstal, 2022, Market-specific barriers and enablers for organizational Investments in Solar PV—lessons from Flanders, Sustainability, 14, 13069, 10.3390/su142013069 · DOI
  52. De Angelis, 2018, Supply chain management and the circular economy: towards the circular supply chain, Prod. Plan. Control, 29, 425, 10.1080/09537287.2018.1449244 · DOI
  53. Bocken, 2022, Circular business model innovation in consumer-facing corporations, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 185, 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122076 · DOI
  54. Drury, 2012, The transformation of southern California’s residential photovoltaics market through third-party ownership
  55. Rai, 2013, Diffusion of environmentally-friendly energy technologies: buy versus lease differences in residential PV markets, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014022 · DOI
  56. Sigrin, 2015, Diffusion into new markets: evolving customer segments in the solar photovoltaics market, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084001 · DOI
  57. Sarasini, 2024, Reviewing the climatic impacts of product service systems: implications for research and practice, J. Clean. Prod., 452, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142119 · DOI
  58. Best, 2022, The impact of income on household solar panel uptake: exploring diverse results using Australian data, Energy Econ., 112, 10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106124 · DOI
  59. Colasante, 2022, What drives the solar energy transition?, The effect of policies, incentives and behavior in a cross-country comparison, Energy Research & Social Science, 85
  60. Jacksohn, 2019, Drivers of renewable technology adoption in the household sector, Energy Econ., 81, 216, 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.04.001 · DOI
  61. Rai, 2016, Overcoming barriers and uncertainties in the adoption of residential solar PV, Renew. Energy, 89, 498, 10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.080 · DOI
  62. Palm, 2020, Early adopters and their motives: differences between earlier and later adopters of residential solar photovoltaics, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 133, 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110142 · DOI
  63. Skjott Linneberg, 2019, Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the novice, Qual. Res. J., 19, 259, 10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012 · DOI
  64. Kumar, 2020, Exploring impact of age and gender on sentiment analysis using machine learning, Electronics, 9, 374, 10.3390/electronics9020374 · DOI
  65. Rozin, 2001, Negativity Bias, negativity dominance, and contagion, Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev., 5, 296, 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Basiri, 2014, Exploiting reviewers’ comment histories for sentiment analysis, J. Inf. Sci., 40, 313, 10.1177/0165551514522734 · DOI
  67. Roh, 2021, Exploring extremity and negativity biases in online reviews: evidence from yelp. Com, social behavior and personality: an, Int. J., 49, 1
  68. Amemiya, 1984, Tobit models: a survey, J. Econ., 24, 3, 10.1016/0304-4076(84)90074-5 · DOI
  69. Best, 2022, Energy inequity variation across contexts, Appl. Energy, 309, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118451 · DOI
  70. Lüthi, 2010, Effective deployment of photovoltaics in the Mediterranean countries: balancing policy risk and return, Sol. Energy, 84, 1059, 10.1016/j.solener.2010.03.014 · DOI
  71. Van Opstal, 2023, When do circular business models resolve barriers to residential solar PV adoption?, Evidence from survey data in Flanders, Energy Policy, 182
  72. Jaeger-Erben, 2021, There is no sustainable circular economy without a circular society, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 168, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105476 · DOI
  73. Blankenship, 2019, Explaining willingness to pay for pricing reforms that improve electricity service in India, Energy Policy, 128, 459, 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.015 · DOI
  74. Jachimowicz, 2017, Community trust reduces myopic decisions of low-income individuals, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 5401, 10.1073/pnas.1617395114 · DOI
  75. Hong, 2007, Status and distrust: the relevance of inequality and betrayal aversion, J. Econ. Psychol., 28, 197, 10.1016/j.joep.2006.06.003 · DOI
  76. Franco, 2021, A systematic literature review of the solar photovoltaic value chain for a circular economy, Sustainability, 13, 9615, 10.3390/su13179615 · DOI
  77. Boukhatmi, 2023, Designing a digital platform to foster data-enhanced circular practices in the European solar industry, J. Clean. Prod., 418, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137992 · DOI
  78. Camacho-Otero, 2019, User acceptance and adoption of circular offerings in the fashion sector: insights from user-generated online reviews, J. Clean. Prod., 231, 928, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.162 · DOI
  79. Bowles, 1998, The moral economy of communities: structured populations and the evolution of pro-social norms, Evol. Hum. Behav., 19, 3, 10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00015-4 · DOI
  80. Reeves, 2017, Evolution of consumer information preferences with market maturity in solar PV adoption, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6da6 · DOI
  81. Chattopadhyay, 2024, Can renewable energy work for rural societies?, Exploring productive use, institutions, support systems, and trust for solar electricity in the Navajo Nation, Energy Research & Social Science, 107

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Van Opstal, W., & Manshoven, S.
Venue
Energy Research & Social Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-09
Volume
115
Pages
103647
ISSN
2214-6296
DOI
10.1016/j.erss.2024.103647
Cited by
16
References
3
Language
en
Licence
Funders
European Commission (776680, H2020-EU.3.5.4)

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