Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2025). Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies: A Results-Driven Work Plan and Future Research Avenues, Business Strategy and the Environment, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4216
This research raises awareness of practitioners’ crowdsourcing initiatives and collaborative approaches, such as sharing ideas and resources with external partners, expert consultants, marketplace stakeholders (like suppliers and customers), university institutions, research centers, and even competitors, as the latter can help them develop innovation labs and to foster industrial symbiosis (Calabrese et al. 2024; Sundar et al. 2023; Triguero et al. 2022). It reported that open innovation networks would enable them to work in tandem with other entities to extend the life of products and their components. It also indicated how and where circular open innovations would facilitate the sharing of unwanted materials and resources that can be reused, repaired, restored, refurbished, or recycled through resource recovery systems and reverse logistics approaches. In addition, it postulates that circular economy practitioners could differentiate their business models by offering product-service systems, sharing economies, and/or leasing models to increase resource efficiencies and to minimize waste.
Arguably, the cocreation of open innovations can contribute to improve the financial performance of practitioners as well as of their partners who are supporting them in fostering closed-loop systems and sharing economy practices. They enable businesses and their stakeholders to minimize externalities like waste and pollution that can ultimately impact the long-term viability of our planet. Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework that clarifies how open innovation cocreation approaches can be utilized to advance circular, closed-loop models while adding value to the businesses’ financial performance.
The collaborative efforts between organizations, individuals, and various stakeholders can lead to sustainable innovations, including to the advancement of circular economy models (Jesus and Jugend 2023; Tumuyu et al. 2024). Such practices are not without their own inherent challenges and pitfalls. For example, resource sharing, the recovery of waste and by-products from other organizations, and industrial symbiosis involve close partnership agreements among firms and their collaborators, as they strive in their endeavors to optimize resource use and to minimize waste (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Eisenreich et al. 2021). While the open innovation strategies that are mentioned in this article can lead to significant efficiency gains and to waste reductions, practitioners may encounter several difficulties and hurdles, to implement the required changes (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). Different entities will have their own organizational culture, strategic goals, and modus operandi that may result in coordination challenges among stakeholders.
Organizations may become overly reliant on sharing resources or on their symbiotic relationships, leading to vulnerabilities related to stakeholder dependencies (Battistella and Pessot 2024). For instance, if one partner experiences disruptions, such as operational issues or financial difficulties, it can adversely affect the feasibility of the entire network. Notwithstanding, organizations are usually expected to share information and resources when they are involved in corporate innovation hubs and clusters. Their openness can lead to concerns about knowledge leakages and intellectual property theft, which may deter companies from fully engaging in resource-sharing initiatives, as they pursue outbound innovation approaches.
Other challenges may arise from resource recovery, reverse logistics, and product-life extension strategies (Johnstone 2024). The implementation of reverse logistics systems can be costly, especially for small and micro enterprises. The costs associated with the collection, sorting, and processing of returned products and components may outweigh the benefits, particularly if the market for recovered materials is not well established (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). Moreover, the effectiveness of resource recovery methodologies and of product-life extension strategies would be highly dependent on the stakeholders’ willingness to return products or to participate in recycling programs. Circular economy practitioners may have to invest in promotional campaigns to educate their stakeholders about sustainable behaviors. There may be instances where existing recovery and recycling technologies are not sufficiently advanced or widely available, in certain contexts, thereby posing significant barriers to the effective implementation of open circular innovations. Notwithstanding, there may be responsible practitioners and sustainability champions that may struggle to find reliable partners with appropriate technological solutions that could help them close the loop of their circular economy.
In some scenarios, emerging circular economy enthusiasts may be eager to shift from traditional product sales models to innovative product-service systems. Yet, such budding practitioners can face operational challenges in their transitions to such circular business models. They may have to change certain business processes, reformulate supply chains, and also redefine their customer relationships, to foster compliance with their modus operandi. These dynamic aspects can be time-consuming, costly, and resource intensive (Eisenreich et al. 2021). For instance, the customers who are accustomed to owning tangible assets may resist shifting to a product-service system model. Their reluctance to accept the service providers’ revised terms and conditions can hinder the adoption of circular economy practices. The former may struggle to convince their consumers to change their status quo, by accessing products as a service, rather than owning them (Sgambaro et al. 2024). In addition, the practitioners adopting products-as-a-service systems may find it difficult to quantify their performance outcomes related to resource savings and customer satisfaction levels and to evaluate the success of their product-service models, accurately, due to a lack of established metrics.
In a similar vein, the customers of sharing economies and leasing systems ought to trust the quality standards and safety features of the products and services they use (Sergianni et al. 2024). Any negative incidents reported through previous consumers’ testimonials and reviews can undermine the prospective customers’ confidence in the service provider or in the manufacturer who produced the product in the first place. Notwithstanding, several sharing economy models rely on community participation and localized networks, which can pose possible challenges for scalability. As businesses seek to expand their operations, it may prove hard for them to consistently maintain the same level of trust and quality in their service delivery. Moreover, many commentators argue that the rapid growth of sharing economies often outpaces existing regulatory frameworks. The lack of regulations, in certain jurisdictions, in this regard, can create uncertainties and gray areas for businesses as well as for their consumers.
This blog post is an excerpt from my latest open-access article on the intersection of open innovation and the circular economy.
Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2025). Cocreating Value Through Open Circular Innovation Strategies: A Results-Driven Work Plan and Future Research Avenues, Business Strategy and the Environment, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4216
The stakeholders’ open innovation approaches are evidenced through collaborative practices across value chains, as practitioners are willing to share ideas and technologies with “new” partners to advance disruptive sustainable innovations (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Bocken and Ritala 2022; Brown et al. 2020). Inbound innovation practitioners can benefit from external stakeholders’ knowledge and expertise to implement product-life extension strategies and resource recovery methods and to cocreate circular economy ecosystems including industrial symbiosis, reverse logistics, product-service systems/product-as-a-service, sharing economy, and leasing models (Köhler et al. 2022; Lisi et al. 2024).
Resource Recovery and Industrial Symbiosis
Open innovation practitioners would benefit from external competences, capabilities, and technologies from stakeholders who are not in the company’s books. Their ongoing engagement and collaboration with them may help them improve their operations as they acquire resources such as human capital, materials, energy, water, and by-products, among others. Resource sharing can help the businesses to optimize manufacturing processes, to minimize waste, and to create a more sustainable and efficient industrial ecosystem (Johnstone 2024).
Practitioners may even benefit from other businesses’ externalities including by-products or unwanted waste materials and could utilize them as resources. They can leverage open innovation approaches to address resource scarcity (and resource depletion) by finding new ways to repurpose waste. They may do so by reducing material inputs and by recycling valuable resources (Berkemeier et al. 2024). For example, the heat generated from a power plant could be used to heat buildings or greenhouses located in nearby communities. Industries situated close to each other may share utilities including energy and water supply infrastructure or services, such as transportation, water treatment facilities, or waste management services. Their resource recovery can result in cost saving and operational efficiencies (Johnstone 2024).
Cross-industry collaboration and industrial symbiosis can help companies to discover new uses of waste streams to develop circular supply chains. There is scope for business leaders to engage with external stakeholders, to exchange or sell discarded resources, and by-products that would otherwise end up as waste. Arguably, one company’s waste, materials and by-products can serve as resources for others. The sharing of resources among organizations can significantly enhance the practitioners’ capabilities, as partners can work in tandem on sustainability initiatives and innovation projects to achieve circular economy outcomes. The stakeholders’ pooling of surplus resources can lower the manufacturing costs for collaborating partners, as they allow them to access tools and materials at lower market prices.
The case of Kalundborg, Denmark, typifies such open innovation approaches (CEStakeholderEU n.d.; Valenzuela-Venegas et al. 2016). A power plant (located at Asnæs), a Novo Nordisk (a pharmaceutical company), and an oil refinery (belonging to Equinor, formerly known as Statoil), among other organizations, are working together in industrial symbiosis. In sum, these entities have created a network that optimizes materials from waste or by-products and are turning them into valuable resources. Their aim is to lower their costs while minimizing their environmental impact.
Kalundborg started as an informal exchange of waste materials between industries that are situated in close proximity to one another. For example, the excess heat from the power plant is used by Novo Nordisk for production processes, and to heat local homes. In addition, surplus water from the oil refinery is used by a local fish farm. Over the years, this collaboration has grown into a large-scale, highly efficient system, where waste from one process becomes a resource for another. Such symbiosis has significantly reduced waste, emissions, and water consumption, thereby contributing to environmental and economic sustainability.
Similarly, the municipality of Amsterdam is collaborating with a nonprofit organization, entitled, “Circle Economy.” Together, they have developed a strategic plan whose objectives are to turn Amsterdam into a fully circular city by 2050 (Calisto Friant et al. 2021; CEStakeholderEU 2016; Government.nl 2016). This initiative involves the transformation of various sectors, such as construction, energy, and waste management, among others, to adapt the city to operate closed-loop systems. Collaborative projects comprise the reutilization of materials from demolished buildings to reduce waste generated from the construction industry, the promotion of business models like “product as a service” that encourage the leasing of assets rather than owning them, the development of shared mobility solutions, and the reduction of food waste, among others (Camilleri 2021; Camilleri 2025). These circular economy practices can contribute to reducing resource utilization, consumption, and depletion of materials.
Resource Recovery, Reverse Logistics, and Product-Life Extension Strategies
Practitioners can collaborate with external partners to extend the life of certain products and/or of their components. They can help each other to recover materials from used and unwanted items, including from waste, in order to reuse, refurbish, recycle, and remanufacture resources to promote sustainable supply chains (Hadi 2024). The resource recovery procedures focus on reclaiming discarded products and their component materials to reuse them as inputs for new production processes (Brown et al. 2020). Similarly, reverse logistics approaches are intended to support the collection and transportation of waste items, like plastics, metal, and electronics, among others (Pichlak and Szromek 2022). For example, returned electronics can be refurbished, remanufactured for further use, and resold. Such operational processes facilitate the flow of products in the opposite direction of traditional supply chains, as they involve returning, repairing, restoring, and recycling materials for a specific manufacturer, or for designated facilities.
The utilized materials that could have finished in a landfill can be repurposed as plausible resources in industrial production (Lisi et al. 2024). Likewise, the products collected through reverse logistics can also be refurbished or remanufactured. This form of resource recovery extends the life of products and reduces the need for new raw materials (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). There are instances where materials like organic waste, used oils, or even heat could be captured and utilized in waste-to-energy processes, and for resource extraction purposes, instead of being disposed of, in the natural environment (Ahmad et al. 2024; Liu et al. 2023). Therefore, external stakeholders could help sustainability champions in the recovery of resources, or to increase product longevity, and the lifecycles of extant products and/or of their component materials, while reducing material consumption (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). As a result, the responsible manufacturers would be in a position to develop sustainable products that are durable, repairable, recyclable, and/or biodegradable.
For example, retail brands, including H&M, among others have teamed up with Ellen MacArthur Foundation as well as with philanthropists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and disruptive innovators, to design a “new textiles economy” known as Circular Fibres Initiative (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021a; UNEP 2023). One of its objectives is to develop materials including sustainable fibers in order to improve their end-of-life processing. As a result, clothing and apparel materials could last longer, be worn multiple times, and may be easily rented, resold, or recycled. This collaboration set the foundation for H&M’s efforts to collect and recycle used clothing through their in-store garment collection programs. Similarly, Nike has launched a Circular Innovation Challenge (Di Summa 2023). Like H&M, it invited innovators from around the world to propose ideas for new sustainability materials, design processes, and end-of-life solutions for shoes, to transform the future of footwear. Evidently, Nike’s goal was to reduce waste by creating closed-loop products that are recycled or reused at the end of their lifecycle. One of the major outcomes of their challenge was the development of shoes made from recycled materials, including from factory waste and recycled plastics.
Like Nike, Adidas partnered with Parley for the Oceans, an environmental organization, as well as with material innovators and recycling experts, to address a growing consumer demand for eco-friendly and sustainable footwear, without compromising on performance or quality (Murfree and Police 2022). This collaboration is aimed at developing shoes made from recycled ocean plastics, thereby contributing to a circular product lifecycle. As a result, the company’s Parley line of shoes, which was/is made from ocean plastics, has quickly become a global success, with millions of pairs sold since its launch. Other apparel brands, including Patagonia, REI, and Eileen Fisher, have joined forces with Yerdle, a technology company that provides logistics capabilities to buy back and resell their used items (Agrawal et al. 2019; Forbes 2019). By taking advantage of resale, brands take control of the growing secondary retail market. Such sustainable recovery practices provide them with an opportunity to extend the life of their existing products. Hence, they are in a position to reduce the generation of unwanted materials that end up in landfills. At the same time, they promote responsible consumption behaviors among consumers, and increase their profits, by selling refurbished items.
Alternatively, for-profit businesses may collaborate with other organizations, including with competitors, to reduce waste related to single-use packaging, that could inevitably end up in landfills, and/or in our oceans. TerraCycle, a United States–based company specializing in recycling hard-to-recycle materials, is a case in point, of such organizations, as its “Loop” platform aims to reduce single-use packaging, by offering consumers reusable, refillable containers for everyday products (Conick 2019; WEF 2023). Launched in 2019, Loop represents a major step toward implementing circular economy principles. It is intended to eliminate waste from disposable packaging through a “return and reuse” system. For the record, Terracycle entered into a partnership with multinational brands like Nestlé, Unilever, and Procter & Gamble, among other retailers Consumers can purchase these brands’ products through Loop’s platform, and when finished, they can return their empty packages for cleaning and reuse. The partnerships among these big brands has dramatically reduced the need for single-use plastic packaging. As a result, a number of companies have been able to extend the lifecycle of their packaging materials, while offering consumers a more sustainable alternative to traditional packaging. The Loop model has expanded to major retailers like Carrefour in Europe and Walgreens in the United States, among others, demonstrating that open innovation efforts across different sectors can scale circular practices globally (WEF 2025).
For instance, there is scope for businesses to collaborate with research institutions as well as with NGOs, to develop open innovation solutions that are intended to reduce waste and pollution that are damaging the natural environment and the biosphere (Pichlak and Szromek 2022). For instance, Interface (a flooring company) and the Zoological Society of London have launched the Net-Works Program (Luqmani et al. 2017; ZSL 2025). Essentially, this program involves the utilization of discarded fishing nets and their recycling into nylon yarn, to develop sustainable carpets. Net-Works is designed to tackle the growing environmental problem of discarded fishing nets in some of the globe’s poorest coastal communities, including those in the Philippines and Cameroon, among others. This program is aimed at reducing pollution in the oceans, as plastic materials can be ingested by marine animals and/or destroy their habitat. It raises awareness on the use of dangerous resources that are polluting the world’s natural environment. Moreover, it offers economic opportunities for the governments of developing countries, as they enable them to provide new sources of income for local communities. Through such sustainable initiatives, Interface has integrated a circular economy approach into its supply chain. It created a model that combines environmental conservation with social impact.
In a similar vein, Unilever, one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies, is collaborating with external innovators, research institutions and startups to address the challenge of plastic waste. In short, this multinational business indicated that it is seeking external ideas to reduce plastic waste, to use better plastic that is designed to be recycled, and/or to avoid using plastic by switching to alternative materials (Arijeniwa et al. 2024; Phelan et al. 2022). Unilever’s engagement with external partners has helped the organization to utilize responsible material designs, sustainable packaging, and recycling technologies that align with circular economy principles. For example, one of the key success factors of Unilever’s open innovation initiative was the development of a fully recyclable plastic detergent bottle that is made from 100% recycled materials. Additionally, this multinational organization continuously raises awareness about its reuse and refill stations for personal care products, in various supermarkets, in different contexts around the globe, thereby reducing the need for single-use packaging. The diverse ideas sourced through external partners are significantly contributing to minimizing the use of virgin plastics by its distributors in the value chains, as well as by their consumers.
Likewise, Proctor & Gamble (P&G) collaborates with external scientists, startups, research institutions, and industry partners in its Connect + Develop program that is intended to develop sustainable products and solutions (Huston and Sakkab 2006). This laudable program seeks external ideas related to sustainable packaging and product designs that are congruent with the company’s circular economy goals. Since its inception, P&G has developed new packaging materials that are easier to recycle, such as its clear, recyclable plastic for shampoo bottles. The company has also introduced concentrated product formulations that reduce packaging waste and shipping emissions. P&G’s open innovation model allowed the company to access diverse ideas and to rapidly implement responsible and sustainable solutions that align with its circular economy vision.
Another good example of circular economy practices is clearly illustrated when organizations leverage open innovation approaches to adopt waste-to-resource technologies to accelerate their transition to a zero-waste economy. A number of manufacturing firms including automotive businesses are already recovering materials and reutilizing resources from used vehicles at their end-of-life. Renault, one of Europe’s largest car makers, has teamed up with Veolia, a global environmental services company and Solvay, a global chemical and advanced materials company, to develop closed-loop recycled resources for automotive parts (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021b; Muller et al. 2021). These companies collaborate to utilize end-of-life vehicles to recover metals, plastics and other materials from them, as they are no longer in use. This allows Renault to operate its business sustainably, as the French car maker incorporates recycled materials in its new automobiles. The automotive company’s manufacturing plant in Flins, France, became a leading facility in Europe for vehicle disassembly and material recovery, thereby contributing to the circular economy agenda.
Product-Service Systems/Product-as-a-Service
Other manufacturing practitioners operating in different industries are adopting product-service systems that are also known as product-as-a-service business models. Such circular economy approaches involve companies offering products in combination with services (Sgambaro et al. 2024). The businesses offering product-service systems emphasize about the value derived from accessing and utilizing their maintained products rather than owning them. This economic model clearly specifies that customers do not have to purchase the products they use. Hence, consumers would benefit from utilizing the products and from its performance. Frequently, the practitioners operating business models that are very similar to leasing systems would provide additional services including maintenance, upgrades, and training, among others, along with their products, to add value to customers. As the service providers would usually retain the ownership of their products, it is in their interest to design them as efficient as possible, as they are meant to serve their purpose for a long time, without the need for regular maintenance (Chen 2018). Preferably, they should be designed in a very sustainable manner. Their components ought to be easily recyclable, and preferably modular and lightweight, to increase their likelihood of offering extended product lifespans.
A case in point is Signify (that was formerly known as Philips Lighting). Currently, the Dutch multinational conglomerate is collaborating with various municipalities and businesses (Bocken 2021; Camilleri 2019). The company is adopting a product-service system strategy, as it provides lighting systems as a service to its clients including to municipalities and to businesses, rather than merely selling light bulbs. This enables Signify to retain ownership of its equipment, to maintain its infrastructure as well as to upgrade and recycle its products at their end-of-life. In plain words, its customers will be only expected to pay for the light they use.
Arguably, this business model is clearly promoting the circular economy. It encourages the manufacturers and/or service providers to use efficient materials, as well as to increase the recycling of resources and materials. Hence, they will be in a better position to reduce their waste.
Sharing Economies and Leasing Systems
There are other sustainable business models that are related to product-service systems (Sergianni et al. 2024). In this case, their payment structure is typically based on subscription models, leases, and/or may involve pay-per-use arrangements. Customers including individuals and organizations, such as institutions, businesses, and NGOs, will be expected to pay for the duration of the service(s) they receive, or to pay the amount of the products they consume. Like the product-service systems (that were mentioned in the previous section), such circular economy models are shifting the focus from ownership to access (Eisenreich et al. 2021).
Such sustainable propositions can extend product lifecycles, reduce the generation of waste, and encourage resource-efficient practices. The proprietors who lease their assets are responsible for their ongoing maintenance and repairs. Hence, it is in their interest to design and develop high-quality, durable items and components that are easy to replace, refurbish, recycle, and repair. If they do so, they would require fewer raw materials, minimize their reliance on new resources, and also decrease their waste output.
The partnership between FROG Bikes (a manufacturer of children’s bikes) and Bike Club (a subscription service for bikes) represents a good example of open innovation practices, as the two businesses joined forces to lease bikes for families, and to exchange bikes as children outgrow them (Eurofound 2018). Essentially, Frog Bikes maintains, refurbishes, and reuses its bikes with new customers, once existing consumers need to upgrade to bigger ones. They strive in their endeavors to maximize the use of their resources. In reality, such a sharing economy initiative has extended the life of the bikes and has significantly reduced the likelihood that they end up in landfills when kids outgrow them. Indeed, the Bike Club’s leasing model is promoting a circular approach by prioritizing maintenance, reuse, and resource efficiency, over ownership and disposal.
Similarly, Floow2, a Dutch business-to-business sharing platform, collaborates with hospitals, construction companies, and other firms to share underutilized equipment, vehicles, and office spaces (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021c). This sharing economy company invites businesses from various industry sectors, including healthcare and construction, among others, to list their idle assets (that can be rented). Floow2 facilitates the sharing economy of high-cost resources such as medical equipment and/or construction tools. Its platform enables its customers (including hospitality, clinics, healthcare centers, and construction companies, among others) to optimize their operations, by utilizing leased technologies and systems, without the need to purchase them. This sharing economy approach reduces unnecessary investments in new equipment, minimizes waste, and improves resource efficiencies across multiple sectors.
Discussion
This research raises awareness of practitioners’ crowdsourcing initiatives and collaborative approaches, such as sharing ideas and resources with external partners, expert consultants, marketplace stakeholders (like suppliers and customers), university institutions, research centers, and even competitors, as the latter can help them develop innovation labs and to foster industrial symbiosis (Calabrese et al. 2024; Sundar et al. 2023; Triguero et al. 2022). It reported that open innovation networks would enable them to work in tandem with other entities to extend the life of products and their components. It also indicated how and where circular open innovations would facilitate the sharing of unwanted materials and resources that can be reused, repaired, restored, refurbished, or recycled through resource recovery systems and reverse logistics approaches. In addition, it postulates that circular economy practitioners could differentiate their business models by offering product-service systems, sharing economies, and/or leasing models to increase resource efficiencies and to minimize waste.
Arguably, the cocreation of open innovations can contribute to improve the financial performance of practitioners as well as of their partners who are supporting them in fostering closed-loop systems and sharing economy practices. They enable businesses and their stakeholders to minimize externalities like waste and pollution that can ultimately impact the long-term viability of our planet. Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework that clarifies how open innovation cocreation approaches can be utilized to advance circular, closed-loop models while adding value to the businesses’ financial performance.
The collaborative efforts between organizations, individuals, and various stakeholders can lead to sustainable innovations, including to the advancement of circular economy models (Jesus and Jugend 2023; Tumuyu et al. 2024). Such practices are not without their own inherent challenges and pitfalls. For example, resource sharing, the recovery of waste and by-products from other organizations, and industrial symbiosis involve close partnership agreements among firms and their collaborators, as they strive in their endeavors to optimize resource use and to minimize waste (Battistella and Pessot 2024; Eisenreich et al. 2021). While the open innovation strategies that are mentioned in this article can lead to significant efficiency gains and to waste reductions, practitioners may encounter several difficulties and hurdles, to implement the required changes (Phonthanukitithaworn et al. 2024). Different entities will have their own organizational culture, strategic goals, and modus operandi that may result in coordination challenges among stakeholders.
Organizations may become overly reliant on sharing resources or on their symbiotic relationships, leading to vulnerabilities related to stakeholder dependencies (Battistella and Pessot 2024). For instance, if one partner experiences disruptions, such as operational issues or financial difficulties, it can adversely affect the feasibility of the entire network. Notwithstanding, organizations are usually expected to share information and resources when they are involved in corporate innovation hubs and clusters. Their openness can lead to concerns about knowledge leakages and intellectual property theft, which may deter companies from fully engaging in resource-sharing initiatives, as they pursue outbound innovation approaches.
Other challenges may arise from resource recovery, reverse logistics, and product-life extension strategies (Johnstone 2024). The implementation of reverse logistics systems can be costly, especially for small and micro enterprises. The costs associated with the collection, sorting, and processing of returned products and components may outweigh the benefits, particularly if the market for recovered materials is not well established (Panza et al. 2022; Sgambaro et al. 2024). Moreover, the effectiveness of resource recovery methodologies and of product-life extension strategies would be highly dependent on the stakeholders’ willingness to return products or to participate in recycling programs. Circular economy practitioners may have to invest in promotional campaigns to educate their stakeholders about sustainable behaviors. There may be instances where existing recovery and recycling technologies are not sufficiently advanced or widely available, in certain contexts, thereby posing significant barriers to the effective implementation of open circular innovations. Notwithstanding, there may be responsible practitioners and sustainability champions that may struggle to find reliable partners with appropriate technological solutions that could help them close the loop of their circular economy.
In some scenarios, emerging circular economy enthusiasts may be eager to shift from traditional product sales models to innovative product-service systems. Yet, such budding practitioners can face operational challenges in their transitions to such circular business models. They may have to change certain business processes, reformulate supply chains, and also redefine their customer relationships, to foster compliance with their modus operandi. These dynamic aspects can be time-consuming, costly, and resource intensive (Eisenreich et al. 2021). For instance, the customers who are accustomed to owning tangible assets may resist shifting to a product-service system model. Their reluctance to accept the service providers’ revised terms and conditions can hinder the adoption of circular economy practices. The former may struggle to convince their consumers to change their status quo, by accessing products as a service, rather than owning them (Sgambaro et al. 2024). In addition, the practitioners adopting products-as-a-service systems may find it difficult to quantify their performance outcomes related to resource savings and customer satisfaction levels and to evaluate the success of their product-service models, accurately, due to a lack of established metrics.
In a similar vein, the customers of sharing economies and leasing systems ought to trust the quality standards and safety features of the products and services they use (Sergianni et al. 2024). Any negative incidents reported through previous consumers’ testimonials and reviews can undermine the prospective customers’ confidence in the service provider or in the manufacturer who produced the product in the first place. Notwithstanding, several sharing economy models rely on community participation and localized networks, which can pose possible challenges for scalability. As businesses seek to expand their operations, it may prove hard for them to consistently maintain the same level of trust and quality in their service delivery. Moreover, many commentators argue that the rapid growth of sharing economies often outpaces existing regulatory frameworks. The lack of regulations, in certain jurisdictions, in this regard, can create uncertainties and gray areas for businesses as well as for their consumers.
Previous research explored the circular economy practices of different businesses in various contexts; however, limited contributions have focused on the responsible production and consumption of food (Huang et al., 2022; Van Riel et al., 2021). Even fewer articles sought to explore environmental, social and governance (ESG) dimensions relating to the sustainable supply chain management of food and beverages in the tourism context.
This special issue will shed light on the responsible practices in all stages of food preparation and consumption in the tourism and hospitality industry. It raises awareness on sustainable behaviors that are aimed to reduce the businesses’ externalities including the generation of food waste on the natural environment. It shall put forward relevant knowledge and understanding on good industry practices that curb food loss. It will identify the strengths and weaknesses of extant food supply chains as well as of waste management systems adopted in the sector. It is hoped that prospective contributors identify laudable and strategic initiatives in terms of preventative and mitigating measures in terms of procurement and inventory practices, recycling procedures and waste reduction systems involving circular economy approaches.
Academic researchers are invited to track the progress of the tourism businesses on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal SDG12 – Responsible Consumption and Production. They are expected to investigate in depth and breadth, how tourism businesses are planning, organizing, implementing and measuring the effectiveness of their responsible value chain activities. They may utilize different methodologies to do so. They can feature theoretical and empirical contributions as well as case studies of organizations that are: (i) reusing and recycling of surplus food, (ii) utilizing sharing economy platforms and mobile apps (that are intended to support business practitioners and prospective consumers to reduce the food loss and waste), (iii) contributing to charitable institutions and food banks, through donations of surplus food, and/or (iv) recycling inedible foods to compost, among other options.
The contributing authors could clarify how, where, when and why tourism businesses are measuring their ESG performance on issues relating to the supply chain of food and beverage. They may refer to international regulatory instruments and guidelines (Camilleri, 2022), including the International Standards Organization (ISO) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, among others, to evaluate the practitioners’ ESG performance through: a) Environmental Metrics: The businesses’ circularity; Recycling and waste management; and/or Water security; b) Social Metrics: Corporate social responsibility; Product safety; Responsible sourcing; and/or Sustainable supply chain, and; c) Governance: Accounting transparency; Environmental sustainability reporting and disclosures.
They could rely on GRI’s Standards 2020, as well as on GRI 204: Procurement Practices 2016; GRI 303: Water and Effluents 201; GRI 306: Effluents and Waste 2016; GRI 306: Waste 2020; GRI 308: Supplier Environmental Assessment 2016 and GRI 403: and to Occupational Health and Safety 2018, to assess the businesses’ ESG credentials.
Prospective submissions ought to clearly communicate about the positive multiplier effects of their research (Ahn, 2019). They can identify responsible production and consumption behaviors that may result in operational efficiencies and cost savings in their operations (Camilleri, 2019). At the same time, they enable them to improve their corporate image among stakeholders (hence they can increase their financial performance). They can examine specific supply chain management initiatives involving open innovation, stakeholder engagement and circular economy approaches that may ultimately enhance the businesses’ legitimacy in society. More importantly, they are urged to elaborate on the potential pitfalls and to discuss about possible challenges for an effective implementation of a sustainable value chain of food-related products and their packaging, in the tourism and hospitality industry (Galati et al., 2022).
It is anticipated that the published articles shall put forward practical implications for a wide array of tourism stakeholders, including for food manufacturers and distributors, airlines, cruise companies, international hotel chains, hospitality enterprises, and for consumers themselves. At the same time, they will draw their attention to the business case for responsible consumption and production of food through strategic behaviors.
Potential topics may include but are not limited to:
– Responsible food production for tourism businesses
– Responsible food consumption practices in the hospitality industry
– Circular economy and closed loop systems adopted in restaurants, pubs and cafes
– Open innovation and circular economy approaches for a sustainable tourism industry
– Recycling of inedible food waste to compost
– Measuring performance of responsible food production/sustainable consumption
– Digitalisation and the use of sharing economy platforms to reduce food waste
– Artificial intelligence for sustainable food systems
– Sustainable food supply chain management
– Food waste and social acceptance of circular approaches
– Stakeholders’ roles to minimize food waste in the hospitality industry
– Food donation initiatives to decrease food loss and waste
References
Ahn, J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility signaling, evaluation, identification, and revisit intention among cruise customers. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(11), 1634-1647.
Camilleri, M. A. (2019). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development, 27(3), 530-536.
Camilleri, M. A. (2022). The rationale for ISO 14001 certification: A systematic review and a cost–benefit analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(4), 1067-1083.
Galati, A., Alaimo, L. S., Ciaccio, T., Vrontis, D., & Fiore, M. (2022). Plastic or not plastic? That’s the problem: Analysing the Italian students purchasing behavior of mineral water bottles made with eco-friendly packaging. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106060
Huang, Y., Ma, E., & Yen, T. H. (2022). Generation Z diners’ moral judgements of restaurant food waste in the United States: a qualitative inquiry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2150861
Van Riel, A. C., Andreassen, T. W., Lervik-Olsen, L., Zhang, L., Mithas, S., & Heinonen, K. (2021). A customer-centric five actor model for sustainability and service innovation. Journal of Business Research, 136, 389-401.
Hospitality businesses can implement a number of responsible practices. The very first step for them is to develop ‘sustainable’ menus. The restaurants’ menus can offer a choice of different portion sizes to satisfy the requirements of different customers. They may feature fewer items in their menus to operate their business with a reduced inventory of food products to decrease storage costs, minimize waste and spoilage. It is in the interest of restaurant owner-managers to procure fresh ingredients from local businesses including farmers, bakers, butchers, et cetera, to ensure that they are preparing good food for their valued customers. Local products including organic items like fruit and vegetables, will have a longer shelf life than imported ones.
The hospitality businesses ought to forge close relationships with dependable, local suppliers to implement just-in-time purchasing systems (Camilleri, 2015a; Camilleri, 2017a). There is scope for them to purchase regularly and in smaller quantities to reduce the probabilities of food spoilage and dehydration. They are expected to continuously monitor the expiration dates of their food items and ingredients to minimize waste and to respect relevant hygienic standards. Owner-managers may apply the first expired first out (FEFO) principles in their kitchens, to avoid any stock-outs. Moreover, they can use food tracking devices to identify the types of food waste they are generating.
Their monitoring and control of food waste should be carried out on a day-to-day basis, as it can lead to significant operational efficiencies and cost savings. Practitioners may keep a track record of their waste in a spreadsheet. They can measure the quantity of organic waste that is generated from their premises. They may include details like the dates (and times of events), which ingredients or recipes were wasted, the name of the employee(s) who was (or were) responsible for the waste, et cetera. Furthermore, practitioners can estimate the composition of their organic waste and identify whether it is derived from vegetables, bread/pasta, specific meats, etc. This will allow them to make adjustments in their food menus (if possible).
Such food trackers may also help the hospitality business to detect irresponsible behaviors in their kitchens and to minimize food waste from their properties. It may indicate that certain employees are not engaging in responsible food preparation behaviors. There is scope for hospitality businesses to train their human resources, at all levels, particularly new employees, on circular economy approaches [Camilleri, 2014). This way, they will be in a better position to improve their efficiencies in terms of reducing, reusing and recycling resources, and responsible waste disposal practices (Camilleri, 2019a; Camilleri, 2020). They have to be supported and educated on the best practices to ensure that they are improving the (economic) sustainability of their businesses’ food and beverage operations whilst minimizing their impact on the natural environment (Camilleri, 2015b; Camilleri, 2016a; Camilleri, 2017). Table 1 illustrates the responsible behaviors that can be implemented by hospitality businesses to reduce food loss and the generation of waste from their premises:
This research shed light on a number of laudable circular economy initiatives that were drawn from the hospitality industry. It also made reference to a sustainable enterprise that utilizes a sharing economy platform that links consumers with hospitality service providers. Mobile users can purchase surplus food from hotels, restaurants and cafes at a discount. At the same time, the app enables the businesses to make revenue out of their perishable food and to minimize their environmental footprint by reducing their waste. Moreover, it reported that businesses can benefit from tax deductions and credit systems, in different contexts, if they donate surplus (edible) food to charities and food banks. Alternatively, if the food is contaminated or decayed it may be accumulated and turned it into animal feed, compost or transformed into energy through methanation processes. The case studies indicated that the re-utilization of non-edible leftovers may be monetized if they are used for such secondary purposes.
Key Takeaways
The implementation and execution of the circular economy’s closed loop systems ought to be promoted through different marketing channels. Hotels and restaurants can use marketing communications through different media to raise awareness on how they are capable of generating less waste (Camilleri, 2016b). They should promote sustainable production and consumption behaviors through different media outlets, including traditional and digital channels (Camilleri & Costa, 2018; Camilleri, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c).
The hospitality businesses responsible initiatives can raise their profile among different stakeholders, including customers and suppliers, among others (Camilleri, 2015; 2018d). The customers will probably appreciate the hospitality businesses’ efforts to reduce their impact to the natural environment. Some of their sustainability measures are dependent on the active commitment of hotel clients and restaurant patrons. Therefore, it is very important for them to raise awareness about their waste prevention campaigns and on their environmental achievements so that they may feel part of the responsible initiatives. This way, they become key participants in the reduction of generated waste. Hence, businesses can educate customers about responsible consumption behaviors to help them in their endeavors to curb food loss and the generation of unnecessary waste [Camilleri & Ratten, 2020; Camilleri, 2019b). The food and beverage servers could engage in conversations with their clients to better understand their food requirements.
In a similar vein, this research suggests that the hospitality businesses ought to forge closer relationships with their suppliers including farmers and other retailers, to implement responsible inventory management systems and just-in-time purchasing. Suppliers must continuously be informed and updated on their procurement policies. Their ongoing communications may facilitate collaborative practices that may translate to positive outcomes, including the sourcing of better-quality products with extended lifecycles and longer expiry dates.
This contribution reported various preventative measures and recycling practices that may be taken on board by hospitality practitioners and their stakeholders, to reduce food waste and its detrimental effect on our natural environment and biospheres. There is scope for trade unions and industry associations in tourism and hospitality, to promote the responsible behaviors, among their members.
Notwithstanding, regulatory authorities and their policy makers can encourage hospitality practitioners to invest in environmentally friendly systems to minimize their food loss and waste. They can offer them financial incentives like tax deductions or exemptions when they donate surplus food. Alternatively, governments can support them by providing adequate infrastructures and resources including on-site composting facilities and/or methanization processes that are aimed to minimize the accumulation of food waste that finishes in landfills. Such responsible investments will ultimately result in a sustainable value chain in tourism cities, as they add value to the hospitality businesses, to the environment and to society, at large (Salonen & Camilleri, 2020; Camilleri, 2017b).
Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2021). Sustainable Production and Consumption of Food. Mise-en-Place Circular Economy Policies and Waste Management Practices in Tourism Cities. Sustainability, 13, 9986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179986 (OPEN ACCESS)
Camilleri, M.A. (2015a). Re-conceiving CSR programmes for education. In Corporate Social Responsibility: Academic Insights and Impacts, Vertigans, S. & Idowu, S.O. (Eds), Springer: Cham, Swtizerland, http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9783319350820
Camilleri M.A. (2016b). Reconceiving corporate social responsibility for business and educational outcomes. Cogent Business and Management, 3, 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1142044
Camilleri, M.A. (2017b). Corporate sustainability and responsibility: Creating value for business, society and the environment. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 2, 1, 59-74. https://ajssr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41180-017-0016-5
Camilleri, M.A. (2018c) Unleashing corporate social responsibility communication for small businesses in the digital era. In Academy of Management Annual Conference Proceedings: Improving Lives, Chicago, 11 August 2018, Academy of Management. Available online: https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.10467abstract
Camilleri, M.A. (2018d). Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: The inclusion of non-financial capitals in corporate disclosures. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23, 4, 567-581. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2018-0016:
Camilleri, M.A. & Costa, R. A. (2018). The small businesses’ responsible entrepreneurship and their stakeholder engagement through digital media. 13th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE) (11 September). University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3233528 (accessed on 24 August 2021).
Camilleri, M. A. (2019a). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development, 27(3), 530-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1909
Camilleri, M. A. (2020). European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders. Sustainable Development, 28(6), 1804-1812.https://doi.org/10.1002/SD.2113
Salonen A.O. & Camilleri M.A. (2020). Creating Shared Value. In Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management, Idowu S., Schmidpeter R., Capaldi N., Zu L., Del Baldo M. and Abreu R. (eds), Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3683975
This is an excerpt from my latest paper that was accepted for publication in Wiley’s Sustainable Development (impact factor: 4.082).
The EU’s (2020) plan is encouraging businesses as well as their consumers to engage in the circular economy’s sustainable production and consumption behaviors, and to use and reuse products, materials and resources. It is urging them to minimize their impact on the natural environment by reducing their waste and emissions.
The transition towards the circular economy can be facilitated if the EU national governments would create a favorable climate for stakeholder engagement. They can provide technical assistance, mobilize financial resources and facilitate positive impact investing in circular economy systems.
For instance, the European Green Deal Investment Plan (EIP) is currently supporting industry sectors relating to the provision of sustainable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable cities and sustainable agricultural practices, among other areas.
Various academic articles confirmed that practitioners will only be intrigued to engage in the circular economy if it adds value to them, in terms of the economic return on investment, process improvements and product benefits. The business case will motivate practitioners, creditors and investors to shift from unsustainable and irresponsible practices to the circular economy’s sustainable production and consumption behaviors.
Business and industry practitioners are perceiving that there are economic and environmental benefits if they adopt cleaner production systems and sustainable supply chains. Notwithstanding, there are various organizations, including non-profit organizations that are actively engaged in repairing, refurbishing, restoring and/or recycling materials.
On the other hand, this paper identified some of the possible challenges that could have an effect on the businesses’ engagement in the circular economy. The advancement toward the circular economic practices may still prove to be difficult and challenging for some industries.
For the time being, there are many practitioners that are opting to remain in their status quo as they still rely on linear economy models. In pragmatic terms, it may not be feasible for businesses in the mining and extraction industries and/or for those that manufacture products and components for textiles, plastics, electrical and electronic items, among others, to avoid using hazardous substances (as there are no sustainable options for them) or to reduce their externalities, including emissions and waste.
These industry sectors are still finding it hard to reuse and recycle materials or to dispose of their waste in a sustainable manner. For example, the construction and demolition industry will incur significant costs to sort, clean, repair and reutilize materials like scrapped steel, metals, tiles, cement, glass, et cetera.
The smaller business enterprises may not have access to adequate and sufficient financial resources to make green investments. They may not perceive the business case for the long term, sustainable investment, or they may not be interested in new technologies that will require them to implement certain behavioral changes.
There may be other challenges that could slow down or prevent the industry practitioners’ engagement in the circular economy strategies. The governments may not introduce hard legislation to trigger the corporations’ sustainable production and consumption behaviors as this could impact on the businesses’ prospects.
For these reasons, businesses may not mitigate their externalities, including their emissions or unwanted waste, as these responsible actions would require changing or upgrading the extant technologies or practices. Alternatively, they may face other contingent issues like weak economic incentives; access to finance; shortage of green technologies; and a lack of appropriate performance standards in their workplace environments, among other issues.
This review indicated that, in many cases, the European policies and strategies have led to a significant reduction in waste and externalities in different EU contexts. However, the Commission ought to accelerate the shift toward the circular economy ~ in the light of the significant changes in our natural environment and biospheres.
Relevant academic research reported that policy makers can possibly provide the right infrastructures, resources and capabilities in terms of logistics, supply, distribution, training, et cetera, to different businesses and industry practitioners. For instance, they can create clusters that would facilitate the circular economy’s closed loop systems. The development of clusters may result in less dispersed value chains, economies of scales and scope, as well as improved operational efficiencies in manufacturing and logistics.
How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2021). European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders. Sustainable Development, https://doi.org/10.1002/SD.2113
Related papers:
Camilleri, M. A. (2019). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development, 27(3), 530-536. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sd.1909
Camilleri, M. A. (2018). Closing the loop for resource efficiency, sustainable consumption and production: a critical review of the circular economy. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 21(1-4), 1-17. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJSD.2018.100802
Abstract submission deadline: 30th June 2020
Full chapters due: 31st December 2020
The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) defined sustainable development as; “development that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43). Its underlying assumption is that the world’s physical resources are not finite; therefore, they have to be managed responsibly to sustain future generations (Camilleri, 2018a; Camilleri, 2014). Subsequently, the United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development has put forward Agenda 21 that dedicated a chapter that was focused on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. This document recommended that the UN’s member states ought to intensify their efforts to reduce the use of scarce resources during production processes, whilst minimising the environmental impacts from the generation of waste and pollution (Camilleri, 2018a; Camilleri, 2014; Agenda 21, 1992).
In 2002, the UN Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development also made reference to unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. The UN’s member states were urged to manage their natural resources in a sustainable manner and with lower negative environmental impacts; by promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems, whilst reducing waste (WSSD, 2002, p. 13). Moreover, in another resolution, entitled; “The future we want,” the General Assembly at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development has reaffirmed its commitment to implementing green economy policies in the context of sustainable development. The heads of state and government or their representatives have agreed to continue promoting the integrated and sustainable management of ecosystems, whilst facilitating their conservation, regeneration, and restoration of resources (UNCSD, 2012). Furthermore, during the UN’s General Assembly Resolution of September 25 2015 entitled “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” the world leaders have agreed to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals that replaced the previous millennium development goals that were established in the year 2000. Specifically, the Sustainable Development Goal 12 of the 2030 agenda, namely, “Sustainable Consumption and Production” explained that there is an opportunity for business and industry to reap economic gains through resource and energy efficiencies. It also raised awareness on the use of sustainable infrastructures and urged the UN member states to address air, water, and soil pollution to minimise their environmental impact (UNDP, 2015). Moreover, the Paris Climate Agreement (COP 21) and Resolutions 1/5 and 2/7 on chemicals and waste, and 2/8 on sustainable production and consumption, as adopted by the first and second sessions of the United Nations Environment Assembly (that was held in Nairobi, Kenya, on the June 27, 2014 and the May 27, 2016), are also considered as important policy instruments for many stakeholders, as they have paved the way for the transition towards the CE strategy.
These intergovernmental policy recommendations on sustainable consumption and production have led to increased regulatory pressures on business and industry towards controlled operations management and environmentally responsible practices.
Relevant theoretical underpinnings reported that the circular economy reduces the reliance on resource extraction and raw materials (Camilleri, 2018b; Camilleri, 2017; Cooper, 1999). Therefore, it restores any damage in resource acquisition by ensuring that little waste is generated throughout the production process and during the products’ life. Liu, Li, Zuo, Zhang, and Wang (2009) explained that the circular economy aims at minimising the generation of waste, as it involves environmental conservation. Similarly, Su, Heshmati, Geng, and Yu (2013) contended that the circular economy strategy involves efficiency‐oriented control systems at all stages of production, distribution, and consumption of materials. They made reference to energy efficiency and water conservation, land management, and soil protection, among other issues. Hence, the circular economy model can lead to resource and energy efficiencies as well as economic development.
In this light, the publisher is calling for theoretical and empirical contributions that are focused on the sustainable production and consumption of resources, materials and products. Therefore, the readers of this publication will be in a better position to understand the operations and strategies in manufacturing industries as well as in closed loop and product-service systems (Camilleri, 2018a). This special issue will include but is not limited to the following topics:
Alternative consumption patterns;
Assessment and Reporting;
Biomass;
Clean production;
Circular economy;
Circular economy business models;
Circular economy product designs;
Climate change;
Climate change policy and adaptation;
Closed loop systems;
Corporate social responsibility;
Corporate sustainability,
Eco-efficiency;
Eco-industrial parks;
Ecological management and natural capital;
Education for sustainability;
Emissions reduction;
Energy efficiency;
Energy policy;
Energy use and consumption;
Environmental assessment;
Environmental behavior;
Environmental economics;
Environmental management;
Environmental policy;
Environmental protection;
Environmental sustainability;
Extended producer responsibility;
Footprints and other assessment types;
Green/sustainable engineering;
Green/sustainable supply chains;
Industrial, agricultural and supply chains;
Industrial ecology;
Life cycle assessment;
Pollution reduction;
Product-service systems;
Recycling Resources;
Regional sustainability;
Renewable energy;
Renewable resource;
Resource and energy use;
Resource Efficiency;
Sustainable consumption;
Sustainable production;
Sustainable tourism;
Urban and regional sustainability;
Water conservation;
Waste management;
Waste minimization;
Submission Procedure
Academics and researchers are invited to submit a 300-word abstract before the 30th June 2020. Submissions should be sent to Mark.A.Camilleri@um.edu.mt. Authors will be notified about the editorial decision during July 2020. The accepted chapters should be submitted before the 31st December 2020. The length of the chapters should be around 7,000 words (including references, figures and tables). The references should be presented in APA style (Version 6). All submitted chapters will be critically reviewed on a double-blind review basis. All authors will be requested to serve as reviewers for this book. They will receive a notification of acceptance, rejection or suggested modifications –before the 25th February 2021.
Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for the publication of the book chapters. All abstracts / proposals should be submitted via the editor’s email.
Editor
Prof. Dr. Mark Anthony Camilleri (Ph.D. Edinburgh)
Following the double-blind peer review process, the full chapters will be submitted to Emerald for final review. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit https://www.emerald.com/insight/. This prospective publication will be released in 2021.
Camilleri, M. (2014). Advancing the sustainable tourism agenda through strategic CSR perspectives. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(1), 42-56.
Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Closing the Loop of the Circular Economy for Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility. In Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (pp. 175-190). Springer, Cham.
Camilleri, M. A. (2018a). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development, 27(3), 530-536.
Camilleri, M. A. (2018b). Closing the loop for resource efficiency, sustainable consumption and production: A critical review of the circular economy. International Journal of Sustainable Development.21(1-4), 1-17.
Cooper, T. (1999). Creating an economic infrastructure for sustainable product design. Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 8, 7– 17.
Liu, Q., Li, H. M., Zuo, X. L., Zhang, F. F., & Wang, L. (2009). A survey and analysis on public awareness and performance for promoting circular economy in China: A case study from Tianjin. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 265– 270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.06.003
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42, 215– 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020
WCED (1987). Our common future. In World commission on environment and development. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University press.
WSSD (2002). United Nations report of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August‐ 4 September 2002. http://www.un‐documents.net/aconf199‐20.pdf.
This is an excerpt from my latest paper: Camilleri, M. A. (2018). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sd.1909
(c) The Sustainable Business Edit
Many academic commentators claim that product-service systems (PSS) are moving society towards a resource‐efficient, circular economy (CE) (Tukker, 2015; Piscicelli et al., 2015; Yuan et al., 2006). PSSs shift the businesses’ focus from designing and selling only physical products, to selling a marketable set of products, services, supporting networks, and infrastructures, by including repair and maintenance, updates/upgrades, help desk, training and consultancy, and disposal‐services such as recycling and take‐back (Gaiardelli et al., 2014). Therefore, PSS consists of tangible products as well as intangible services that are combined so that they are jointly capable of satisfying the consumers’ demands (Hockerts & Weaver, 2002).
PSS providers are in a position to design need‐fulfilment systems with lower impacts to the environment, by either replacing an alternative product‐service mix or by influencing the customers’ activities to become more eco‐efficient. Tukker (2015) suggested that firms have an incentive to prolong the service life of their products and to make them as cost‐ and material‐efficient as possible. Moreover, PSSs would typically extend beyond purchase, affecting the use and disposal of resources. Hence, these systems could lead to the minimisation of material flows in the economy whilst maximising the businesses’ service output and their users’ satisfaction (Tukker & Tischner, 2006). There are three types of PSSs that prescribe different product service components and ownership packages:
(a) a product‐PSS that adds extra services but the ownership of the product(s) is transferred to the consumer(s);
(b) the results‐PSSs that would involve both parties agreeing to achieve target results, as they recast product(s) as utilised materials;
(c) in use‐PSSs, the provider(s) lease, share or pool their product(s); however, they retain the ownership of the product(s).
For instance, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips, commonly known as Philips), a diversified technology company utilises the use‐PSS approach, as it provides a lighting service to customers and is responsible for its technology risk. The Dutch company installs its lighting equipment (including street lighting), maintains it, and ensures that it runs for a very long time. Eventually, it reclaims back its equipment when it is the right time to recycle materials. This property rights are distributed amongst Philips and its clients, over the life time of the products. Philips has recognised an untapped opportunity to retain ownership of its products, as it has committed itself to dispose of the infrastructure and its constituent parts at their end of life. At the same time, customers (including the government) do not have to pay high upfront costs for their lighting equipment. Interestingly, Philips is also adopting a similar PSS within health care environments where it has established leasing relationships with clients for its medical infrastructure. Again, the company will eventually reclaim back its equipment and upgrades it when necessary. When the medical equipment is refurbished with the state‐of‐the art technology, the multinational firm will reuse it for another customer; it provides a warrantee cover and guarantees its products as new.
The idea of shared ownership is conspicuous with the results‐ and use‐PSSs. These systems have led to upstream effects (through sustainable designs) and increased throughput. As a result, they are sustainable in the long run, as there are less externalities, in terms of waste and emissions.
References
Camilleri, M. A.(2017). Corporate sustainability, social responsibility and environmental management: An introduction to theory and practice with case studies. Cham: Springer Nature.
Gaiardelli, P.,Resta, B., Martinez, V., Pinto, R., & Albores, P. (2014). A classification model for product‐service offerings. Journal of cleaner production, 66,507–519.
Hockerts, K.,& Weaver, N. (2002). Are service systems worth our interest. Assessing the eco‐efficiency of sustainable service systems. Working document, INSEADFontainebleau, France.
Piscicelli, L.,Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative consumption:Insights from a product service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.032
Tukker, A., &Tischner, U. (2006). Product‐services as a research field: Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17),1552–1556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.02
Yuan, Z., Bi, J.,& Moriguichi, Y. (2006). The circular economy: A new development strategy in China.Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(1), 4–8.
This is excerpt from my latest paper that was accepted by ‘Sustainable Development’ (Wiley).
How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2018). The Circular Economy’s Closed Loop and Product Service Systems for Sustainable Development: A Review and Appraisal. Sustainable Development. Forthcoming.
The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) defined sustainable development as; “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43). Its underlying assumption is that the world’s physical resources are not finite, therefore, they have to be managed responsibly to sustain future generations. Subsequently, the United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development has put forward Agenda 21 that dedicated a chapter that was focused on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. This document recommended that the UN’s member states ought to intensify their efforts to reduce the use of scarce resources during production processes, whilst minimising the environmental impacts from generation of waste and pollution (Agenda 21, 1992).
These intergovernmental policy recommendations on sustainable consumption and production have led to increased regulatory pressures on business and industry toward controlled operations management and environmentally-responsible practices. In 2014, the European Union (EU) Commission anticipated that, “new business models, eco-designs and industrial symbiosis can move the community toward zero-waste; reduce greenhouse emissions and environmental impacts” (EU, 2018). Eventually, in March 2017, the EU Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee organised a Circular Economy Stakeholder Conference, where it reported on the delivery and progress of some of its Action Plan. It also established a Finance Support Platform with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and issued important guidance documents to Member States on the conversion of waste to energy.
WSSD 2002. United Nations Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August- 4 September 2002. http://www.un-documents.net/aconf199-20.pdf [29 June 2018].
How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2018). Closing the Loop for Resource Efficiency, Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Critical Review of the Circular Economy. International Journal of Sustainable Development (forthcoming). DOI: 10.1504/IJSD.2018.10012310
This publication provides a concise and authoritative guide on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and related paradigms, including environmental responsibility, corporate sustainability and responsibility, creating shared value, strategic CSR, stakeholder engagement, corporate citizenship, business ethics and corporate governance, among others. It is primarily intended for advanced undergraduate and / or graduate students. Moreover, it is highly relevant for future entrepreneurs, small business owners, non-profit organisations and charitable foundations, as it addresses the core aspects of contemporary strategies, public policies and practices. It also features case studies on international policies and principles, exploring corporate businesses’ environmental, social and governance reporting.
“Mark Camilleri’s new book provides an excellent overview of the eclectic academic literature in this area, and presents a lucid description of how savvy companies can embed themselves in circular systems that reduce system-wide externalities, increase economic value, and build reputation. A valuable contribution.” Charles J. Fombrun, Founder of Reputation Institute and a former Professor of Management at New York University and The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA
“I am pleased to recommend Dr. Camilleri’s latest book, Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility, and Environmental Management. The book is a rich source of thought for everyone who wants to get deeper insights into this important topic. The accompanying five detailed case studies on a wide array of corporate sustainable and responsible initiatives are helpful in demonstrating how theoretical frameworks have been implemented into practical initiatives. This book is a critical companion for academics, students, and practitioners.” Adam Lindgreen, Professor and Head of Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
“This book is an essential resource for students, practitioners, and scholars. Dr. Mark Camilleri skillfully delivers a robust summary of research on the business and society relationship and insightfully points to new understandings of and opportunities for responsible business conduct. I highly recommend Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility, and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies.” Diane L. Swanson, Professor and Chair of Distinction in Business Administration and Ethics Education at Kansas State University, KS, USA
“Mark’s latest book is lucid, insightful, and highly useful in the classroom. I strongly recommend it.” Donald Siegel, Dean of the School of Business and Professor of Management at the University at Albany, State University of New York, NY, USA
“The theory and practice of corporate sustainability, social responsibility and environmental management is complex and dynamic. This book will help scholars to navigate through the maze. Dr Camilleri builds on the foundations of leading academics, and shows how the subject continues to evolve. The book also acknowledges the importance of CSR 2.0 – or transformative corporate sustainability and responsibility – as a necessary vision of the future.” Wayne Visser, Senior Associate at Cambridge University, UK. He is the author of CSR 2.0: Transforming Corporate Sustainability & Responsibility and Sustainable Frontiers: Unlocking Change Through Business, Leadership and Innovation
“Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies” provides a useful theoretical and practical overview of CSR and the importance of practicing corporate sustainability.” Geoffrey P. Lantos, Professor of Business Administration, Stonehill College. Easton, Massachusetts, USA
“This book offers a truly comprehensive guide to current concepts and debates in the area of corporate responsibility and sustainability. It gives helpful guidance to all those committed to mainstreaming responsible business practices in an academically reflected, yet practically relevant, way.” Andreas Rasche, Professor of Business in Society, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
“A very useful resource with helpful insights and supported by an enriching set of case studies.” Albert Caruana, Professor of Marketing at the University of Malta, Malta and at the University of Bologna, Italy
“A good overview of the latest thinking about Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Management based on a sound literature review as well as useful case studies. Another step forward in establishing a new business paradigm.” René Schmidpeter, Professor of International Business Ethics and CSR at Cologne Business School (CBS), Germany
“Dr. Camilleri’s book is a testimony to the continuous need around the inquiry and advocacy of the kind of responsibility that firms have towards societal tenets. Understanding how CSR can become a modern manifestation of deep engagement into socio-economic undercurrents of our firms, is the book’s leading contribution to an important debate, that is more relevant today than ever before.” Mark Esposito, Professor of Business and Economics at Harvard University, MA, USA
“Mark’s book is a great addition to the literature on CSR and EM; it will fill one of the gaps that have continued to exist in business and management schools, since there are insufficient cases for teaching and learning in CSR and Environmental Management in Business Schools around the globe.” Samuel O. Idowu, Senior Lecturer in Accounting at London Metropolitan University, UK; Professor of CSR at Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, China and a Deputy CEO, Global Corporate Governance Institute, USA
“Corporate Social Responsibility has grown from ‘nice to have’ for big companies to a necessity for all companies. Dr Mark Camilleri sketches with this excellent book the current debate in CSR and CSR communication and with his cases adds valuable insights in the ongoing development and institutionalization of CSR in nowadays business.” Wim J.L. Elving, Professor at the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Substantia Mea 
You must be logged in to post a comment.