Cited by 35Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingEnvironmental Sustainability in Business

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 52 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Effective stakeholder governance in circular economy: Insights from Italian companies

Open access
Minoja, Mario, Romano, Giulia·2024·Journal of Cleaner Production

Abstract

Notwithstanding a growing scholarly interest in stakeholder governance, the issue of how stakeholder governance can motivate a firm's stakeholders to cooperate to the transition to circular economy (CE) is still underdeveloped. This study intends to contribute to advance knowledge in this field by investigating the comparative effectiveness of three stakeholder governance forms – hub-and-spoke, lead role, and shared governance – to motivate stakeholders of a focal company (FC) to cooperate to the development and implementation of circular business models. Drawing on three case studies of Italian companies engaged in the transition to CE, we propose a contingent model of CE stakeholder governance. We found that the most effective stakeholder governance form at FC level depends on CE boundaries, the attitude of market forces to incentivise stakeholder cooperation to the CE, and the owners’ identity of the FC. We also found that a FC can adopt different stakeholder governance forms for the diverse CE-enhancing projects it has undertaken, appropriately tailoring the governance arrangements to the nature of activities of each project and to the value, uniqueness, and complementarities of the resources held by the stakeholders involved. This papers makes both theoretical and practical contributions. From a theoretical point of view, it advances knowledge at the intersection of stakeholder theory and governance of the CE in two main ways: first, by pointing out that the transition to the CE requires a shift from a perspective of a company responsibility to its stakeholders to that of stakeholders’ responsibility to a company, a supply chain or a local community they belong to. Second, by proposing some conditions under which shared forms of stakeholder governance are likely to foster this transition. From a pratical perspective, this paper suggests how stakeholder governance can be a tool to achieve CE targets at local community, industry , supply chain or individual firm level.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper uses three Italian circular economy pioneers to build a contingent model of stakeholder governance for circular business models. It finds that the most effective governance form depends on CE boundaries, owners’ identity, market incentives, and project-level novelty and resource characteristics.

Key findings

  • At focal-company level, hub-and-spoke, lead role, and shared governance are comparatively most effective at micro, macro, and meso levels, respectively (Proposition 1).
  • Ownership identity matters: hub-and-spoke, lead role, and shared governance are most effective for private, public, and non-profit private ownership, respectively (Proposition 2).
  • When market incentives for CE are effective, hub-and-spoke is more effective than lead role or shared governance; when they are not effective, lead role and shared governance are more effective than hub-and-spoke (Proposition 3).
  • At project level, shared governance effectiveness increases with novelty/uncertainty (Proposition 4) and with the value, uniqueness, and complementarity of resources controlled by the focal company and stakeholders (Proposition 5); a focal company can use different governance forms for different CE projects.

Methods

  • Multiple-case qualitative study using the Gioia Methodology, selecting three Italian CE pioneers as “extreme exemplars”: Aquafil (hub-and-spoke), Contarina (lead role), and Comieco (shared governance).
  • Data included archival sources (financial statements, sustainability reports, analyst presentations, websites) and 27 semi-structured interviews with owners and managers, totaling 1,590 minutes; five informants were interviewed again to discuss interpretations.
  • Analysis proceeded through first-order informant codes, second-order themes, aggregate dimensions, and an illustrative grounded model with propositions, in a recursive/abductive process combining theory and data. Case numbers reported include Aquafil’s EUR 572 million revenues in 2023 and ECONYL at about 49% of revenues with a 60% target by 2025; Contarina’s 89.9% separate collection and 40 kg unsorted waste per capita in 2022 versus national averages of 64% and 181 kg; and Comieco’s paper recycling rate of 81.2% in 2022, above the EU’s 75% target for 2030.

Limitations

  • Stated: the study is built on only three Italian cases, and the comparative analysis is limited to three stakeholder governance forms.
  • Stated: future research should compare a wider set of institutional arrangements, governance rights, and organizational forms, and explore stakeholder governance for CE at meso and macro levels.
  • Evident: the qualitative, case-based design uses selected CE pioneers and develops propositions rather than statistically tested findings, limiting generalizability beyond the Italian context and the chosen cases.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143584

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

3 of 52 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 48 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 54
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 44
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
76 of 76

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Adeoye-Olatunde, 2021, Research and scholarly methods: semistructured interviews, JACCP: J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm., 4, 1358

Metadata

Authors
Minoja, M., & Romano, G.
Affiliations
University of Udine (IT)
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-10
Volume
474
Pages
143584
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402306847
Cited by
35
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 16
FWCI
7.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
European Union
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
Keywords
stakeholder governance, circular economy, circular business models, shared governance, stakeholder collaboration, market incentives, stakeholder identity, supply chain, Italian firms

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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