CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 249Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessSustainability and Innovation in Business

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Do Companies Pursue Collaborative Circular Oriented Innovation?

Open access
Brown, Phil, Bocken, Nancy, Balkenende, Ruud·2019·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su11030635
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We investigate why companies collaborate within the circular oriented innovation process. The purpose is to understand what motives trigger collaborative circular oriented innovation, as well as conditions, drivers and barriers. First, we define circular oriented innovation building on sustainable oriented innovation literature. Subsequently, we investigate 11 leading circular economy companies operating within the Netherlands, who developed collaborative circular oriented innovation activities. ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ dimensions for innovation are identified and applied to delineate the drivers and barriers for collaborative circular oriented innovation. Our findings indicate that collaborations are conducted by entrepreneurially-minded actors through sharing a vision, enthusiasm, and crucially, a credible proposition for a circular economy. Furthermore, collaboration is sought early, to co-develop the problem and solution space and integrate disparate knowledge from across the value network, to mitigate increased complexity. Motives to collaborate vary between personal and organisational, and intrinsic and extrinsic levels. Collaborations start based on a relational basis between ‘CE front-runners’ to advance knowledge through experimentation. ‘Soft’ challenges to advance collaborations towards the competitive remain around culture, and the mindset to share rewards and risks. Without suitable solutions to these challenges, collaborative circular oriented innovation could remain underdeveloped within the transition towards the systemic level.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su11030635

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Design practices such as usability walkthroughs, rapid prototyping, and scenario testing are efficacious in tailoring systems to meet real-world operational demands.

    “These cases underline the efficacy of design practices such as usability walkthroughs, rapid prototyping, and scenario testing in tailoring systems to meet real-world operational demands (Brown et al., 2019).”

    From A Systematic Literature Review of User-Centric Design in Digital Business Systems Enhancing Accessibility, Adoption, and Organizational Impact (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2019

    Section 5.2.2 says experimentation and testing at scale can reveal logistics, storage, and other operational challenges; section 4.1.3 describes piloting ideas with clients. These passages support testing ideas against practical demands, but they do not establish the efficacy of usability walkthroughs, rapid prototyping, or scenario testing specifically. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • DSS platforms in educational institutions redesigned using feedback from both administrators and students demonstrated significantly improved decision-making outcomes.

    “In educational institutions, DSS platforms redesigned using feedback from both administrators and students demonstrated significantly improved decision-making outcomes and reduced user error.”

    From A Systematic Literature Review of User-Centric Design in Digital Business Systems Enhancing Accessibility, Adoption, and Organizational Impact (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2019

    Section 4.1.3 discusses collaboration in circular-oriented product and business-model innovation, not decision-support systems in educational institutions. Searches for educational DSS platforms, administrator and student feedback, and decision-making outcomes found no passage addressing the claim. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The deployment of a CRM system in a healthcare setting with iterative usability testing cycles achieved a 50% increase in clinician system adoption within the first six months.

    “In another example, the deployment of a CRM system in a healthcare setting with iterative usability testing cycles achieved a 50% increase in clinician system adoption within the first six months.”

    From A Systematic Literature Review of User-Centric Design in Digital Business Systems Enhancing Accessibility, Adoption, and Organizational Impact (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2019

    Section 5.2.2 discusses experimentation and fast learning cycles in circular-oriented innovation, not usability testing of a healthcare CRM system. Searches for clinician adoption, healthcare CRM, and the claimed 50% increase found no passage addressing that result. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • DSS platforms in educational institutions redesigned using feedback from both administrators and students demonstrated reduced user error.

    “In educational institutions, DSS platforms redesigned using feedback from both administrators and students demonstrated significantly improved decision-making outcomes and reduced user error.”

    From A Systematic Literature Review of User-Centric Design in Digital Business Systems Enhancing Accessibility, Adoption, and Organizational Impact (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2019

    The paper’s section 4.1.3 discusses collaborative circular-oriented innovation, product design, and customer engagement, not DSS platforms in educational institutions. Searches for administrator and student feedback, decision-making outcomes, and user error found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Hansen, 2009, Sustainability innovation cube—A framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations, Int. J. Innov. Manag., 13, 683, 10.1142/S1363919609002479 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 2007, Dimensions of environmentally sustainable Innovation: The structure of eco-innovation concepts, Sustain. Dev., 15, 148, 10.1002/sd.309 · DOI
  3. Seuring, 2013, Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: From stakeholders to performance, J. Clean. Prod., 56, 1, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.033 · DOI
  4. Altenburg, 2012, Sustainability-oriented innovation systems—Managing the green transformation, Innov. Dev., 2, 5, 10.1080/2157930X.2012.664037 · DOI
  5. 1986, Central Problems in the Management of Innovation, Manag. Sci., 32, 590
  6. Klewitz, 2014, Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review, J. Clean. Prod., 65, 57, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.017 · DOI
  7. Dougherty, 2011, Organizing Ecologies of Complex Innovation, Organ. Sci., 22, 1214, 10.1287/orsc.1100.0605 · DOI
  8. Allen, 2016, How innovation commons contribute to discovering and developing new technologies, Int. J. Commons, 10, 1035, 10.18352/ijc.644 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Freeman, 1991, Networks of innovators: of research issues, Res. Policy, 20, 499, 10.1016/0048-7333(91)90072-X · DOI
  10. Adams, 2016, Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review, Int. J. Manag. Rev., 18, 180, 10.1111/ijmr.12068 · DOI
  11. Schaltegger, 2016, Business Models for Sustainability: Origins, Present Research, and Future Avenues, Organ. Environ., 29, 3, 10.1177/1086026615599806 · DOI
  12. Pouwels, 2017, Inter-organizational cooperation and organizational innovativeness. A comparative study, Int. J. Innov. Sci., 9, 184, 10.1108/IJIS-01-2017-0003 · DOI
  13. Lozano, 2007, Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability, Sustain. Dev., 15, 370, 10.1002/sd.322 · DOI
  14. Ribeiro, 2014, Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review, J. Clean. Prod., 65, 76, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.035 · DOI
  15. Seebode, 2012, Managing innovation for sustainability, R D Manag., 42, 195
  16. Geissdoerfer, 2017, The Circular Economy—A new sustainability paradigm?, J. Clean. Prod., 143, 757, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Blomsma, 2017, The emergence of circular economy: A new framing around prolonging resource productivity, J. Ind. Ecol., 21, 603, 10.1111/jiec.12603 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Merli, 2018, How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review, J. Clean. Prod., 178, 703, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112 · DOI
  19. Blomsma, 2018, Exploring Circular Strategy Combinations—Towards Understanding the Role of PSS, Procedia CIRP, 69, 752, 10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.129 · DOI
  20. Aminoff, A., and Kettunen, O. (2016). Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Circular Economy—Towards Supply Circles, Springer. · DOI
  21. Niesten, 2017, Sustainable collaboration: The impact of governance and institutions on sustainable performance, J. Clean. Prod., 155, 1, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.085 · DOI
  22. Lieder, 2016, Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry, J. Clean. Prod., 115, 36, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Sautter, 2016, Futuring European industry: Assessing the ManuFuture road towards EU re-industrialization, Eur. J. Future Res., 4, 25, 10.1007/s40309-016-0100-6 · DOI
  24. Dangelico, 2010, Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability, J. Bus. Eth., 95, 471, 10.1007/s10551-010-0434-0 · DOI
  25. Albino, 2012, Do inter-organizational collaborations enhance a firm’s environmental performance? A study of the largest U.S. companies, J. Clean. Prod., 37, 304, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.033 · DOI
  26. Williams, 2017, Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research, J. Clean. Prod., 148, 866, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.002 · DOI
  27. Masi, D., Day, S., and Godsell, J. (2017). Supply Chain Configurations in the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 9. · DOI
  28. Bocken, 2016, Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy, J. Ind. Prod. Eng., 1015, 20
  29. Bakker, 2017, Product Design in a Circular Economy Development of a Typology of Key Concepts and Terms, J. Ind. Prod. Eng., 21, 517
  30. Egnhoefer, R.B. (2018). Design for the Circular Economy—Forthcoming book chapter—Inprint August 2018. Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Design, Routledge (Taylor Francis Group).
  31. Ceschin, 2016, Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions, Des. Stud., 47, 118, 10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002 · DOI
  32. Stubbs, 2008, Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”, Organ. Environ., 21, 103, 10.1177/1086026608318042 · DOI
  33. Gold, 2018, A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns, J. Ind. Ecol., 00, 1
  34. Fichter, 2009, Innovation communities: The role of networks of promotors in open innovation, R D Manag., 39, 357
  35. Szekely, 2013, Incremental, radical and game-changing: Strategic innovation for sustainability, Corp Gov., 13, 467, 10.1108/CG-06-2013-0084 · DOI
  36. Dahlin, 2005, When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness, Res. Policy, 34, 717, 10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.009 · DOI
  37. Hojnik, 2016, What drives eco-innovation? A review of an emerging literature, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 19, 31, 10.1016/j.eist.2015.09.006 · DOI
  38. Bogers, 2017, The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis the open innovation research landscape: Established, Ind. Innov., 2716, 1
  39. Bititci, 2006, Creating and managing value in collaborative networks, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag., 34, 251, 10.1108/09600030410533574 · DOI
  40. Ritala, 2009, What’s in it for me? Creating and appropriating value in innovation-related coopetition, Technovation, 29, 819, 10.1016/j.technovation.2009.07.002 · DOI
  41. Rohrbeck, 2013, Collaborative business modelling for systemic and sustainability innovations, Int. J. Technol. Manag., 63, 4, 10.1504/IJTM.2013.055577 · DOI
  42. 2018, Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-innovation Road to the Circular Economy, Ecol. Econ., 145, 75, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Ranta, 2018, Creating Value in the Circular Economy: A Structured Multiple-Case Analysis of Business Models, J. Clean. Prod., 201, 988, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.072 · DOI
  44. Zucchella, A., and Previtali, P. (2018). Circular business models for sustainable development: A “waste is food” restorative ecosystem. Bus. Strateg. Environ., 1–12. · DOI
  45. Carayannis, E.G. (2018). Open Innovation 2.0 The New Mode of Digital Innovation for Prosperity and Sustainability, Springer.
  46. Bocken, 2018, Experimenting with a circular business model: Lessons from eight cases, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 28, 79, 10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Bernard, 2016, Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research, Environ. Dev., 17, 48, 10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.002 · DOI
  48. Aminoff, 2016, Mapping multidimensional Value(S) for Co-Creation networks in a Ciruclar economy, Collab. Hyperconnected World, 480, 629, 10.1007/978-3-319-45390-3_54 · DOI
  49. Felin, 2014, Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice, Res. Policy, 43, 914, 10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.006 · DOI
  50. Antikainen, M., and Valkokari, K. (2016, January 13–16). Framework for sustainable circular business model innovation. Proceedings of the ISPIM Innov Forum, Boston, MA, USA.
  51. Weissbrod, 2017, Developing sustainable business experimentation capability e A case study, J. Clean. Prod., 142, 1, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.009 · DOI
  52. Sumter, D., Bakker, C., and Balkenende, R. (2018). The role of product design in creating circular business models: A case study on the lease and refurbishment of baby strollers. Sustainability, 10. · DOI
  53. Hallstedt, 2010, An approach to assessing sustainability integration in strategic decision systems for product development, J. Clean. Prod., 18, 703, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.017 · DOI
  54. Pearce, 2004, A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs), J. Organ. Behav., 25, 259, 10.1002/job.235 · DOI
  55. Fischer, A., and Pascucci, S. (2017). Institutional incentives in Circular Economy: The Case of material use in the Dutch Textile Industry. J. Clean. Prod., 1–16. · DOI
  56. Whalen, K.A., Milios, L., and Nussholz, J. (2017). Bridging the gap: Barriers and potential for scaling reuse practices in the Swedish ICT sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. · DOI
  57. Ormazabal, 2018, Circular Economy in Spanish SMEs: Challenges and opportunities, J. Clean. Prod., 185, 157, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.031 · DOI
  58. 2017, Barriers to the Circular Economy—Integration of perspectives and domains, Procedia CIRP, 64, 7, 10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005 · DOI
  59. Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press. [3rd ed.].
  60. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, SAGE Publications, Inc.. [4th ed.].
  61. Moratis, L., Melissen, F., and Idowu, S.O. (2018). Towards Understanding Collaboration Within Circular Business Models. Sustainable Business Models, Principles, Promise and Practice, Springer International Publishing. [1st ed.]. Available online: http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9783319735023#aboutBook. · DOI
  62. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2018, August 08). Government-Wide Programme for a Circular Economy, Available online: https://www.government.nl/documents/letters/2016/09/14/government-wide-programme-for-a-circular-economy.
  63. Reiss, 2012, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, Teach. Psychol., 39, 152, 10.1177/0098628312437704 · DOI
  64. Schumpeter, 1947, The Creative Response in Economic History, Econ. Hist. Assoc., 7, 149, 10.1017/S0022050700054279 · DOI
  65. Bogers, 2011, The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations, Eur. J. Innov. Manag., 14, 93, 10.1108/14601061111104715 · DOI
  66. Radziwon, 2017, Creating and capturing value in a regional innovation ecosystem: A study of how manufacturing SMEs develop collaborative solutions, Int. J. Technol. Manag., 75, 73, 10.1504/IJTM.2017.085694 · DOI
  67. Sarasvathy, S.D. (2009). Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. · DOI
  68. Sarasvathy, 2001, Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency, Acad. Manag. Rev., 26, 243, 10.2307/259121 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brown, P., Bocken, N., & Balkenende, R.
Affiliations
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Brown, Phil
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-01-25
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
635
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su11030635
OpenAlex
W2913645025
Cited by
249
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 7
FWCI
46.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Sustainability and Innovation in Business
Keywords
collaborative innovation, circular economy, innovation drivers, barriers to innovation, sustainable innovation, value networks, co-development, organizational culture

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