Moving toward a circular economy in manufacturing organizations: the role of circular stakeholder engagement practices

2.1 Circular economy and manufacturing organizations

The concept of CE focuses on optimizing resource usage and minimizing production waste, through transforming linear source-manufacture-sell-use-dispose resource flows into circular resource flows (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2022; Ghisellini et al., 2016). The aim is to change production and consumption patterns with approaches such as maintaining and reducing, reusing, remanufacturing and recycling products and material (Figure 1) (De Angelis et al., 2018; EC, 2022a; Kirchherr et al., 2017). Thus, CE has been recognized as a key approach to sustainable development, even though the relationship and potential differences between CE and sustainability and how organizations can approach these concepts, have not yet been fully investigated (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Pieroni et al., 2019; Stewart and Niero, 2018).

CE has been perceived as a beneficial approach, together with other organizational sustainability initiatives, or as a condition for sustainability, but also as a trade-off with sustainability efforts, highlighting that the conceptual and theoretical consolidation of CE needs further exploration (Allen et al., 2021; Bjørnbet et al., 2021; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Similarly, Chiappetta Jabbour et al. (2020) argue that the theoretical and conceptual link between CE and stakeholder theory is established through the existing connections between stakeholder theory and organizational sustainability concepts such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). On the other hand, Allen et al. (2021) highlight the need for further understanding the linkage between CE and stakeholder theory. An increasing number of scholars have, therefore, developed frameworks, strategies and processes for how organizations can implement CE in their organizational practices and supply chain (Blomsma et al., 2019; Calicchio Berardi and Peregrino de Brito, 2021; Frishammar and Parida, 2019).

To initiate a transition to CE, organizations need to focus first on their internal sustainability approach, such as establishing a clear vision and strategies for sustainability and CE, as well as a stakeholder engagement approach (Bertassini et al., 2021; Bocken et al., 2018; Frishammar and Parida, 2019). This includes identifying sustainability problems, learning and creating an awareness of CE principles and identifying and analyzing relevant stakeholders and their needs when starting the transition process (Bertassini et al., 2021; Blomsma et al., 2019; Salvioni and Almici, 2020). However, little is known about how stakeholder engagement may be approached from an overarching perspective to implement CE as part of the sustainability efforts (Bertassini et al., 2021;Farooque et al., 2019b; Rincón-Moreno et al., 2021).

2.2 Stakeholder engagement in the context of CE

Stakeholder engagement represents a key concept in stakeholder theory (Freeman et al., 2017) and is one of the most commonly used approaches in sustainability and business research. The theory states that to ensure survival, organizations need to consider stakeholders in their value-generation processes (Chang et al., 2017; Freeman, 2010; Hörisch et al., 2014). A stakeholder, from this perspective, has been defined as any individual, group or organization that affects or is affected by organizational activities (Freeman, 1984). Stakeholders are often categorized as internal (employees and management) and external (suppliers, customers, government and NGOs) (Bryson, 2004; Freeman, 2010). As this categorization does not necessarily allow for a CE perspective, Bertassini et al. (2021) recommend differentiating stakeholders as internal, value chain and value network. While value chain stakeholders are directly affected by, or affect an organization's activities (for example suppliers, customers, users), value network stakeholders are affected by or affect an organization's performance, but not their direct activities (such as governmental institutions, competitors, academia, NGOs and local communities) (Bertassini et al., 2021).

Stakeholder engagement describes all practices an organization undertakes to identify relevant stakeholders and manage their needs, establish different interaction approaches and create learning processes from and with stakeholders through education and training (Freeman et al., 2017; Greenwood, 2007). Based on a literature review, Samant and Sangle (2016) show that the perspective in the organizational sustainability literature on stakeholder engagement changed over the last few decades from stakeholders being perceived as value inhibitors to being perceived as enabling value co-creation. Within the CE literature, stakeholder engagement has been found crucial to implementing CE practices, as it can help to align interests, create a shared vision and build relationships based on trust that allow the sharing of knowledge and information (Bertassini et al., 2021; Calicchio Berardi and Peregrino de Brito, 2021; Salvioni and Almici, 2020). In addition, stakeholder engagement can enable sharing of risk, better access to resources, co-constructing knowledge for political decision-making and developing the industry (Fadeeva, 2005; Jakhar et al., 2019; Tapaninaho and Heikkinen, 2022). Thus, stakeholder engagement has been recognized as a valuable lens to enable a successful implementation of CE (Baah et al., 2022; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Gupta et al., 2019). However, organizations may also face a number of barriers related to stakeholder engagement, hindering the implementation of CE within their organizational practices and along the supply chain (Farooque et al., 2019a; Vermunt et al., 2019).

A number of scholars (Kumar et al., 2019; Santa-Maria et al., 2021; Tura et al., 2019) have discussed barriers within an organization, such as a lack of expertise on the topic, lack of management commitment and conflicts of interest and values between different geographic operation locations. For example, Hofmann and Jaeger-Erben (2020) argue that CE transformations are often only discussed by the sustainability and management department, while other functional areas such as operations and logistics are not involved. At the supply chain level, barriers such as a lack of knowledge along the supply chain on product design and production, lack of suitable partners and customer disinterest, as well as a lack of supply chain coordination and interaction with suppliers and customers, have been found (Jaeger and Upadhyay, 2020; Masi et al., 2018; Vermunt et al., 2019). For example, organizations that sell products to end users may exclude manufacturing organizations from after-sale and after-use product phases (Guldmann and Huulgaard, 2020; Hofmann and Jaeger-Erben, 2020; Tura et al., 2019). In addition, the recycling behavior of consumers affects potential CE practices (Vermunt et al., 2019). This not only underscores the important role of stakeholder engagement for circumventing these barriers, it also shows the need for more research into how stakeholder engagement may be approached to enable the implementation of CE within organizational practices and along the supply chain (Baah et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Supply chains and their management encompass, by definition, the engagement of various stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement, therefore, plays an important role in the SCM literature that aims to integrate CE principles (Farooque et al., 2019b; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018).

2.3 Circular supply chain management

CSCM describes the integration of CE principles into the management of the supply chain as well as its surrounding industrial and natural ecosystems, aiming to shape resource flows into circular models within and across supply chains (Farooque et al., 2019b). The concept is aligned with and builds on other concepts in the SCM literature, such as SSCM (Farooque et al., 2019a; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018). Despite both SSCM and CSCM being concerned with material and resource flows along supply chains, SSCM is based on linear thinking aiming to reduce material input and waste outputs to contribute to sustainable development, whereas CSCM aims to achieve a zero-waste economy through establishing restorative and regenerative cycles based on circular thinking (Farooque et al., 2019b; Genovese et al., 2017). CSCM encompasses multiple SCM approaches such as closed loop, reverse, remanufacturing and recycling SCM, as well as industrial symbiosis, but extends their boundaries (Zhang et al., 2021). Thus, CSCM requires new approaches on how to structure a supply chain, as well as on how to engage stakeholders to move toward circular flows (Calicchio Berardi and Peregrino de Brito, 2021; Farooque et al., 2019b). However, while there is a large body of literature that has applied stakeholder theory in SCM and SSCM, conceptual similarities and differences of applying stakeholder theory to move toward CE have not yet been fully explored (Allen et al., 2021; Chiappetta Jabbour et al., 2020).

Stakeholder engagement in traditional SCM focused predominantly on the linear exchange of material and resources with customers and suppliers to enable an effective supply chain (Mentzer et al., 2001; Stadtler, 2008). A number of scholars have discussed the influence of stakeholders on supply chain sustainability as well as interaction with stakeholders, in order to strengthen sustainability performance (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012; Seuring and Müller, 2008; Vachon and Klassen, 2008). For example, Seuring and Müller (2008, p. 1700) refer to the “cooperation among companies along the supply chain” when defining SSCM. In particular, the SSCM literature considers customers, suppliers and governments and how they influence sustainability implementation in supply chains through various pressures and incentives (Meixell and Luoma, 2015; Seuring and Müller, 2008). Wilhelm et al. (2016) found that manufacturing organizations that are first-tier suppliers increasingly face a double agency role of having to fulfill their customer sustainability requirements and at the same time oversee the implementation of sustainability in their suppliers' operations, thus indicating a linear engagement approach (Figure 2). Stakeholder engagement with stakeholders outside the direct supply chain, such as NGOs, local community, competitors and the media to implement SSCM are, even though increasingly in the focus, not commonly considered (Carmagnac, 2021; Chen et al., 2017; Meixell and Luoma, 2015). Other stakeholders, such as academia, external consultants and complementary innovators, are infrequently considered in the supply chain literature, according to a literature review from Meixell and Luoma (2015).

Previous CE research has mainly focused on managing stakeholder interest for CE implementation and analyzing the effect of stakeholder pressure on the process (Jakhar et al., 2019; Marjamaa et al., 2021; Pinheiro et al., 2022). For example, Marjamaa et al. (2021) analyze stakeholder interest in CE, highlighting that stakeholders are active in shaping practices for CE. Wang et al. (2022) identified consumers, governments and industry leaders as the most relevant stakeholders when it comes to overcoming barriers related to circular product design, followed by suppliers, competitors and local communities. However, collaboration with stakeholders beyond the immediate supply chain, such as competitors, remains still rare. Other stakeholders such as educational institutions, media and NGOs were found to be less influential (Wang et al., 2022). This is in line with other studies showing that mainly governmental, supply chain stakeholders and employees encourage organizations to start working with CE and implement it in their supply chain (Baah et al., 2022; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018).

CE scholars (Pieroni et al., 2019; Urbinati et al., 2020; Vermunt et al., 2019), therefore, advocate proactively involving employees and both up- and downstream stakeholders, so as to enable circular supply chain configuration. This includes promoting employee and management awareness to foster high-level commitment, as well as training and certifying external stakeholders along the whole supply chain on issues such as recycling to develop a shared CE understanding (Del Giudice et al., 2020; Mishra et al., 2019; Torres-Guevara et al., 2021). A study by Zhang et al. (2021) showed that manufacturing organizations mainly interact with stakeholders to innovate business models and processes, such as integrating modularity in product design and to establish reverse logistics with the aim of developing effective collection, reprocessing and redistribution channels. These kinds of stakeholder engagements are often established vertically along the direct supply chain with for example material suppliers (Zhang et al., 2021). Only a few studies have analyzed interaction approaches with stakeholders at the end of the value chain, such as users and waste companies, or in the value network such as academia (Ki et al., 2020; Mishra et al., 2019; Shah and Bookbinder, 2022). Thus, while stakeholder engagement has been recognized as a key factor for enabling the transition to CE (Calicchio Berardi and Peregrino de Brito, 2021; Mishra et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2021), there is a lack of conceptual understanding on how stakeholder engagement may be approached from an overarching perspective encompassing relevant stakeholders, focus and the engagement approach, as well as how this may differ from other SCM literature streams (Allen et al., 2021).

3.1 Case selection

The case companies were chosen by pursuing purposeful sampling of information-rich cases (Yin, 2003). To select the case companies, the following selection criteria were applied: (1) The company has recently started to work systematically with sustainability. This was assessed by searching for companies that have recently published their first sustainability report. Sustainability reporting has been recognized as a key element of organizational management activities (Baumgartner and Rauter, 2017; Maas et al., 2016) and publishing a sustainability report can, therefore, be used as an indicator of progress regarding systematic sustainability efforts. (2) To allow for certain comparability between the organizations and the role of stakeholder engagement, the focus was on Swedish manufacturing organizations. Governmental institutions such as the European Union and its member states have been advocating CE (EC, 2022b; Government Offices of Sweden, 2020). Sweden is recognized as a frontrunner in regard to sustainability initiatives, but Sweden's economy remains largely linear (Circle Economy, 2020; Hametner and Kostetckaia, 2020). As CE approaches are often context-specific (Tura et al., 2019), this ensured that the case companies face similar socioeconomic and competitive pressures and incentives to advance their sustainability and CE efforts. (3) To increase external validity, case companies representing different industries were chosen. Studies have shown that independent of the size or sector, stakeholders exert an influence on the adoption and implementation of CE principles (Baah et al., 2022; Chiappetta Jabbour et al., 2020; Jakhar et al., 2019). Consequently, similarities in the stakeholder engagement practices between the case companies may allow for analytical generalization.

To verify the fit of the case companies to the selection criteria, a first meeting with case company representatives was held to inform them about the study and gain an overview of the companies' sustainability efforts. Table 1 provides information about the case companies, whose names are withheld for confidentiality.

3.2 Data collection

As a primary method of data collection, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees in key positions (executives, managers, experts) who are able to provide information regarding aspects of the sustainability and CE approach as well as stakeholder engagement (Table 2). Semi-structured interviews are a common method in case study research, as they yield in-depth knowledge on the investigated phenomenon and allow the researcher to interact with the interview partner (Saunders et al., 2009; Yin, 2003). Before the interviews were conducted, a case study protocol was established to increase study reliability, and interview questions were tested for understandability, duration and to clarify potential ambiguities (Yin, 2003).

The interviews were conducted between October 2021 and January 2022 via an online meeting program (Microsoft Teams) and lasted roughly between 30 and 60 min. At the beginning of the interview, the interviewees were briefed on the purpose of the study and guaranteed anonymity. The interviews had two parts. The first focused on how the case study company approaches and implements sustainability; the second focused on stakeholder engagement related to the sustainability efforts. All interviews but one were recorded and transcribed. Detailed notes were taken for the interview that was not recorded. The transcriptions were sent to the interviewees to check for potential errors and misunderstandings, thus ensuring internal validity (Yin, 2003). The interviews were conducted in English and Swedish; quotes were later translated into English. To raise validity, the data were complemented with secondary data drawn from various sources such as the companies' sustainability report, corporate websites and other publicly available documents (Yin, 2003).

3.3 Data analysis

The data were analyzed in a multistep process following the guidelines from Gioia et al. (2013) (Figure 3). The coding software NVivo 12 was used to facilitate the process and ensure analytical rigor.

To avoid the potential risk of reduced depth of analysis in multiple case studies, a case is usually analyzed first on its own and then cases are compared to each other, allowing for analytical generalizations (Saunders et al., 2009; Voss et al., 2002; Yin, 2003). The data were, therefore, first coded as a first-order analysis per case company, by reading the transcriptions line by line. The in-case analysis allowed for an in-depth familiarization and discovering patterns with each case individually, before matching it with the other cases (Voss et al., 2002). After completing the in-case analysis, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify similarities, and this was cross-checked by the authors. Axial coding was applied to find potential connections between the codes, allowing for the reduction and categorization of the data, as well as developing comprehensive second-order categories (Gioia et al., 2013). The authors then discussed the results and synthesized them to validate the findings through data triangulation (Yin, 2003). This helped to find dynamic relationships among the second-order categories. The results were then summarized in key categories, also called aggregate dimensions (Gioia et al., 2013). The findings were presented to a representative from each case company for validation.

4.1 Extending stakeholder engagement

All three companies emphasize the importance of integrating sustainability and CE into their organizational practices and the need to establish new partnerships to achieve this. However, the establishment of circularity and sustainability is perceived as difficult; so far there has been a lack of knowledge both internally as well as down- and upstream in the supply chain about where products come from and where they are going. In addition, Company C refers to problems in the infrastructure that do not always allow for a more circular supply chain. To move toward sustainability and CE, the results showed that all three case companies extended with whom they engaged considering new internal, supply chain and value network stakeholders.

Internally, all case companies emphasized developing high employee engagement outside the sustainability department through building and exchanging knowledge. The case companies aim to build company-wide networks including all functional areas to facilitate the implementation of sustainability and CE. Company A established an internal ambassador network with employees from various functions and regions that meets regularly to create a common sustainability understanding, learn from each other and share best practices. The aim is for the participating employees to bring back the inputs and enable the implementation of sustainability and CE by engaging their colleagues on this issue. A respondent from Company A explains that the network already facilitated the reuse of product components, which would have not happened without the network, due to a lack of knowledge. The increased internal sharing of knowledge with different organizational functions and facilities also led to a new approach to waste reduction by reusing packaging material waste. A similar group existed within Company B but was replaced with the establishment of the sustainability department. However, a respondent from Company B explained that the sustainability department aims to have meetings with all functions within the company to enhance awareness of the CE and sustainability approach and create greater internal engagement. Company C states that all employees are aware of the sustainability aims of the case company and that company-wide implementation has been ongoing for a long time. However, employees within various departments such as R&D also engage their colleagues to jointly develop a CE understanding guiding their work and share ideas with other departments.

The results show that the case companies extended their internal stakeholder engagement from being instigated by the sustainability department, to sustainability and CE ambassadors and networks involving employees in different positions and functions. This enabled the case companies to develop a better CE understanding and by doing so implement CE in organizational practices. Based on these results, the following is proposed:

From a downstream perspective, all three companies aim to close knowledge gaps and have started to engage more with waste companies to better understand CE and assess the CE potential of their products, such as their recyclability. For example, Company A plans to develop training in product development together with a waste company, as well as to jointly develop more circular products together, aiming to reduce waste disposal and increase the recycling and reusing of products and product components in the long term. Companies B and C also explain that most resource use, emissions and waste occur in the use phase of their products in which they have traditionally not been involved and to which they have had no access, ownership or knowledge. Both Companies B and C, therefore, focus increasingly on communicating with users and educating them on the topic. Further, both companies discuss how to establish better recycling options for users, as well as developing product components that allow for better product use, reducing waste and extending product life within the supply chain. Company A also aims to distribute more information about their products and sustainability work to external actors and to educate product users.

From an upstream perspective, Companies A and B state that there has been limited knowledge regarding their supply chain outside Europe and what material is really in a product, which makes it difficult to develop reuse or recycling strategies. Therefore, the companies have started to engage more with their suppliers as well as their sub-suppliers and help them implement sustainability and circularity thinking in their organization more strategically. All three companies have also started interaction projects with suppliers, sharing knowledge and developing and testing ideas on how to increase circularity and they plan to involve suppliers more in the future. For example, Company A started a project to reduce waste together with suppliers. However, Company B also mentions that it can be difficult to find a supplier that has time to test new material beyond the usual production timeframe.

The results show that the case companies extended their external stakeholder engagement beyond their direct supply chain stakeholders to also include stakeholders such as sub-suppliers, waste companies and users and also aimed to create higher levels of engagement among these stakeholders, even though there was little or no engagement previously. This allowed the case companies to develop a better CE understanding and as a result, implement CE in organizational practices. Based on these results, the following is proposed:

All three companies extended their stakeholder engagement beyond their supply chain. Companies B and C point out that to implement CE in organizational practice and supply chains, start-ups and consultants that bring new, innovative ideas into the market play an increasing role. For example, Company C started a partnership with a consultant to learn about circular business opportunities and how to put them into practice. In addition, engagement with academia plays an important role for the companies. Company B is part of a university board overseeing various engagement projects. Company C established an innovation hub together with various academic institutions, governmental institutions and other organizations so as to create possibilities for developing innovative sustainable and circular products and product components. Company C is also involved in giving workshops and lectures at universities to spread knowledge and open the door for future joint projects. All three companies also participate in networks both related and unrelated to the industry to discuss issues on a broader level and to learn about and share ideas regarding sustainability and CE. The organizational shareholders, civil society groups, business and governmental institutions organize these networks. In some, even competitors are present, but engagement with competitors is mainly limited to benchmarking the sustainability and CE efforts. The case companies were also engaged with local communities and NGOs that had a sustainability and CE background. However, these projects were not focused on the companies' particular practices or supply chain.

The results show that the case companies extended their external stakeholder engagement by considering new engagement options and stakeholder relationships such as with governmental institutions, consultants, academia and sustainability and CE networks. This allowed the case companies to develop a better CE understanding and with that, implement CE in organizational practices. Based on these results, the following is proposed:

4.2 Expanding stakeholder engagement

The results showed that all three companies expanded the focus on what they engage with stakeholders to enable the implementation of CE in organizational practices. Companies A and B employed consultants when they started to work strategically with sustainability, due to a lack of internal knowledge on the issue. The consultant helped the companies to establish the internal and external structure for working with sustainability, for example data gathering to publish a sustainability report, as well as conducting a materiality analysis to assess which sustainability topics are the most relevant for them, such as circularity. In addition, Companies A and B conducted a materiality analysis in conjunction with a stakeholder dialog. Company A included a broad number of stakeholders such as employees and owners, as well as suppliers, customers and even considered the environment as a stakeholder. Company B mainly focused on employees and management in different functions, as well as the board of directors and customers. Company C developed their sustainability strategy through an internal process. The results helped to shape sustainability vision and strategies and led to positioning CE as a key element of the sustainability approach of Companies A and B. Company C also engages with other stakeholders such as consultants, to assess opportunities for positioning CE within the business.

Nevertheless, respondents from Companies A and B mentioned that not all employees are equally interested in the topic and that there are different perspectives in different departments, as well as different levels of implementation of sustainability and circularity, depending on production facility location. In particular, in Company B, the differences between CE and sustainability thinking became clear, when interviewees outside the sustainability department did not connect circular activities with the company sustainability efforts. All three case companies, therefore, emphasize explicitly considering CE as part of the sustainability efforts and in their internal and external stakeholder engagement activities.

The results show that the case companies expanded their stakeholder engagement from engaging stakeholders on sustainability topics to explicitly considering CE. This allowed the case companies to position CE as part of the sustainability efforts and implement it in their organizational practices. Based on these results, the following is proposed:

All three companies highlighted differences in understanding sustainability and circularity in the different geographical regions in which they operate, for example what recycling encompasses. Respondents from Company A and B referred to the risk that in other countries, CE and recyclability can mean different things. In addition, all three companies point out that it is still difficult to define and implement CE in their organizational practices. Companies A and C highlight that they are in a phase of learning about what CE encompasses and that circularity is difficult to measure, which makes it difficult to establish specific goals. To deal with these issues, Companies A and B have employed personnel that focusses specifically on sustainability engineering and modularity in product development. Company A also expresses its aim to develop training programs for employees, and particularly for R&D, so as to learn about modularity and circularity to secure the effective implementation of CE in product design. A respondent from Company C explained that when they started to work with the topic in R&D, they had a workshop on understanding CE principles. These employees can develop and innovate product and services by engaging colleagues, suppliers and customers in the process.

The results show that the case companies expanded their stakeholder engagement by moving from knowledge dissemination by the sustainability department to fostering CE experts within various organizational functions. This allowed the case companies to establish a CE knowledge structure throughout the organization and implement CE. Based on these results, the following is proposed:

The sustainability department of the case companies not only aimed for disseminating CE knowledge and implementing a CE knowledge structure within the company, but also expanded their engagement approach by participating in initiatives that foster and shape CE approaches for the whole industry. For example, Companies B and C are involved in developing circularity standards for products and for the whole industry, led by governmental and non-governmental institutions. By participating in such initiatives, the case companies influence the implementation of CE beyond their organizational focus and their supply chain. Based on these results, the following is proposed:

4.3 Leveling up stakeholder engagement

The results showed that all three companies leveled up how they engaged with stakeholders, moving from focusing mainly on the management of specific stakeholders' needs to simultaneously initiating interaction projects and enabling learning with and from different stakeholders. This allowed the case companies to advance their CE approach as part of their sustainability efforts. For example, all three companies described how they started to work with sustainability systematically, based on pressures from shareholders and governmental institutions, for example to publish a sustainability report. All three companies stated that they are also feeling increasing pressure from their customers to work on sustainability and CE topics. For example, respondents from Companies B and C said that customers now impose more requirements regarding product and material performance. Company A also mentioned that customers and users increasingly ask for sustainability certifications. On the other hand, all three organizations perceive that their customers do not want to pay a higher price for more sustainable and circular products, such as products with higher recyclability, which inevitably makes changes difficult. From an upstream perspective, all three companies stated that suppliers have been traditionally chosen on economic considerations, while sustainability played a minor role. Sustainability and CE requirements from customers were mainly passed down as part of the selection criteria.

The case companies highlighted that they have started to approach customers proactively to propose more sustainable and circular options for product components. For example, a respondent from Company B highlighted a workshop they had organized with a customer to develop ideas for product development, and a pilot project they had started for a new product based on recycled materials. Companies A and C stated that they are increasingly focusing on customer-oriented innovation by investing in more modular product development. In addition, R&D in Company B focuses on product development that is easier for the end user to take apart, proactively responding to customer and user needs.

When starting to work strategically with sustainability, Company A also began to focus more on its supply chain, defining its boundaries and impact and assessing suppliers regarding their sustainability efforts and which materials they use in their products. Further, with the increased focus on sustainability and CE, Companies A and C started more in-depth stakeholder dialogs and surveys with suppliers along the whole supply chain and developed a code of conduct for suppliers that integrates CE and other environmental issues. In addition, all three companies refer to joint learning on the topic with their suppliers and sub-suppliers, encompassing training, development and testing CE-oriented material and products to enable the development of more sustainable and circular products and product components.

In addition, all case companies established engagement activities with users, waste management companies and other stakeholders such as consultants, academia and governmental institutions on different levels: to communicate better recycling approaches, to learn about CE potential such as recycling options and to establish interaction approaches to innovate the organizational practices and supply chain toward CE. This encompasses both short-term product component innovation to increase modularity and lower resource use and enhance long-term product innovation with a greater focus on reuse and redesign.

The results show that it is necessary to simultaneously consider managing needs and proactively start interaction projects and jointly learn with the same stakeholders so as to develop CE solutions and implement CE in the organizational practices and supply chain. Based on these results, the following is proposed: