Next Article in Journal
RETRACTED: Campos-Arteaga et al. Prediction of Consumption of Local Wine in Italian Consumers Based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14769
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Sustainability in Solution Projects through Social CRM: An Expansion of the Self-Efficacy Value Adoption Model
Previous Article in Journal
Does Rural Labor Transfer Impact Chinese Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency? A Substitution Perspective of Agricultural Machinery
Previous Article in Special Issue
Circular Economy Development in the Wood Construction Sector in Finland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 14
10.3390/su16145874
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Operationalizing the Circular Economy—A Longitudinal Study on Sustained Circular Action

by
Henrike Holwerda
*,
Willem Haanstra
and
Jan Braaksma
Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(14), 5874; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145874
Submission received: 21 May 2024 / Revised: 26 June 2024 / Accepted: 5 July 2024 / Published: 10 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Trends in Circular Economy, Innovation and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Circularity is becoming increasingly important for Distribution System Operators (DSOs) as their infrastructure ages and needs replacement, alongside compliance with stringent environmental regulations like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). However, implementing circular economy (CE) practices is challenging due to the fragmented nature of the current CE landscape and its limited interaction with practical application. A longitudinal case study at the Dutch DSO, Liander, focusing on the circularity of distribution transformers, was conducted to generate prescriptive knowledge on operationalizing circularity. This resulted in the formulation of six design propositions for circular action that suggest to (1) initiate small-scale circularity experiments; (2) involve technical and strategic experts; (3) synergize circularity with more urgent, primary goals; (4) translate circular initiatives bottom-up and top-down; (5) collaborate with other DSOs; and (6) create multidisciplinary teams. The propositions suggest to situationally select interventions and build upon the outcomes of previous interventions in order to incrementally contribute to circular change. Other DSOs could use these propositions to optimize their strategy toward circular action. Additionally, the findings contribute to advancing scientific knowledge to implementable actions in order to initiate and sustain circular change.

1. Introduction

Our current economic system is under pressure due to increasing resource scarcity, the reliance on non-renewable resources, and the crossing of planetary boundaries [1]. Given these pressures, there is a need for a system that balances economic, environmental, and societal development [2,3,4]. The circular economy (CE) is such an approach: it is “an economic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes” [5]. Thereby, a CE contributes to eliminating waste and pollution, circulating products and materials at their highest value, and regenerating nature [6].
The CE is currently receiving significant attention from academics, illustrated by the increasing number of articles that are published on this topic [7]. However, “the scientific and research basis of the CE approach seems to be only in its infancy” and it “seems to be a collection of vague and separate ideas from several fields and semi-scientific concepts” [4]. The CE “means many different things to different people”, as illustrated by the large number of definitions in use in the relevant literature alone [5]. Many efforts have been made to clarify the concept of CE, including the suggestion of design rules, processes, frameworks, and roadmaps [8,9]. Several of these frameworks and design philosophies have found widespread recognition outside of academia such, as the cradle-to-cradle philosophy [10] and the Butterfly Model [6]. Thanks to this, professionals increasingly regard circularity as a solution to resource scarcity, mitigating environmental impact and attaining economic benefits [6,11].
The CE is especially relevant to Distribution System Operators (DSOs) since they form the connecting link between the generation and consumption of energy by being responsible for managing the energy networks through which our society transports energy. Thereby, they “have a responsibility to uphold the environmental and sustainability values of society and [answer] to a [diverse group] of stakeholders” [12]. Additionally, the management of energy networks is resource intensive, and therefore, there is a need to close material loops and embed circularity into daily operations [13] rather than merely aiding in society becoming more sustainable. The activities of DSOs must therefore be systematically directed toward circularity and should take a life cycle perspective, which should include considering of ecological and economic targets [14].
Managing the energy networks extends beyond merely the technical care of individual assets, such as transformers, power lines, and switchgear. Rather, Asset Management (AM) is concerned with the functioning of the entire organization, which includes the creation of lasting value for different stakeholders, collaboration, and dealing with long-term change and uncertainty [15]. In fact, DSOs “plan and control the asset-related activities and their relationships to ensure the asset performance that meets the intended competitive strategy of the organization” [16]. Whilst managing the energy networks, DSOs take into account relevant prescriptive or regulatory conditions (governance, geo-political, economic, social, demographic, and technological) [17].
One of the currently relevant conditions is the energy transition, which provides a key challenge for DSOs since it requires important strategic technical decisions with long-lasting consequences [18]. The energy transition is characterized by the shift toward renewable and more sustainable energy sources [19], the liberalization of the energy sector, and changes in energy consumption patterns [20]. Furthermore, a broad range of distributed energy resources is emerging, such as distributed generation, local storage, electric vehicles, and demand response [21]. The shift toward renewable and more sustainable energy sources is crucial to moving from a linear to a CE [22], and therefore, operationalizing circularity is extremely relevant to DSOs.
Despite an increasing awareness of and discussion about the need for a transition toward a CE, decision-makers are lacking guidance on how to achieve this [23], and circularity has been implemented only limitedly [3,24]. Seamlessly integrating circularity into decision-making is a challenging task, since it needs to be balanced with other criteria [25], such as managing the energy transition. Therefore, Saidani et al. stress the need to translate CE indicators into implementable actions [26]. Scholars only marginally consider social and institutional implications [27]. A shared framework on how circularity should be operationalized is lacking [28], and it is not clear how business models should be adapted to the CE concept [29]. More research is needed to understand the “profound transformative change” that is required for increasing circularity [30]. “The move to a circular economy is inherently complex” [2], and therefore, strategies should be developed for the required social and institutional changes [31].
The current literature strongly focuses on technical barriers that need to be overcome when transitioning to a CE (e.g., the notable research of de Jesus and Mendonça [32]), while empirical research points out that various cultural barriers, such as a hesitant company culture, appear to be the main barrier [24]. Kirchherr et al. expect that discussions about a CE are limited to corporate social responsibility and environmental departments of companies, rather than more influential departments, such as operations or finance. They suggest an intervention strategy rather than a continuation of the ongoing research and development on circularity [24]. This “hesitant company culture” is also reflected in the barriers found by Ritzén and Sandström: an unclear distribution of responsibilities, varying perceptions of sustainability, an aversion to risk, and integration into current processes [33].
To conclude, the current CE landscape is not only highly fragmented and granular, but it also rarely interacts with the implementation level [11], which poses some significant challenges for DSOs. Therefore, this article aims to increase understanding of empirical success factors for circular action and generate prescriptive knowledge on the operationalization of circularity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Description

Liander is the largest DSO in the Netherlands, and its main objective is to distribute electricity and natural gas to its 5.9 million customers in a reliable, uninterrupted, and safe manner, at the lowest cost to society. Liander manages and owns the electricity grids in its catchment area, with assets ranging from low-voltage to 150/110-kilovolt (kV) transformers. The energy transition poses a significant challenge for Liander. In 2023 alone, it spent approximately EUR 1411 million on maintenance, replacement, and new construction of its energy infrastructure [34]. Given the resource-intensive nature of its operations, the CE is a means for Liander to maximize the life cycle, value, and reusability of resources and minimize waste and energy consumption. By means of circularity, Liander aims to responsibly operate its assets, so that these remain available, sustainable, and affordable, both now and in the future.
Liander started working on circularity in 2014 by means of the introduction of internal training and by establishing a key performance indicator for circular procurement. Real circular change started to be achieved once the proposal to reuse distribution transformers won an innovation contest internal to the organization. Since then, the circularity of distribution transformers (which this article from now on refers to as transformers) has grown into a mature and fully integrated circular project and is perceived as being the most successful circularity project by Liander’s employees. Thanks to this project, Liander saved EUR 9.3 million during the procurement of new transformers and avoided the emission of 1617 tons CO2-equivalents in 2023 alone. Moreover, this circular project has developed into an official team which is fully committed now to achieving the complete circularity of Liander’s asset portfolio. Therefore, this case was deemed valuable to research the operationalization of circularity in the energy sector.

2.2. Longitudinal Case Study

Case research is a powerful method since it offers a full understanding of the nature and complexity of a phenomenon [35,36]. Processes of organizational change are often lengthy, and therefore a longitudinal case study is particularly useful for researching the developments in the operationalization of circularity over a longer period [37,38]. As recommended by Eisenhardt, a case where the operationalization of circularity was successful and could be observed transparently was selected [39].
The starting point for the longitudinal case study was the start of 2014, when Liander started working on circularity. Around that time, the third author of this article started to collaborate with Liander on Asset Life Cycle Planning [40]. In 2016, the second author of this article joined the collaborative project, which then shifted focus toward Life Cycle Valuation [41]. Lastly, the first author of this article joined in 2020, at which point the collaborative project shifted focus toward the integration of sustainability in the field of AM, which is in part covered by this article. The fact that the researchers were embedded in the organization allowed for the identification of the circularity of transformers as a successful case and to retrospectively research it in detail over a longer period. Since the degree of circularity of transformers at Liander is still being optimized, the initial deadline for submitting this article was decisive for the endpoint of the longitudinal case (the end of 2023).
The authors aim to develop prescriptive knowledge that contributes to the further operationalization of circularity, rather than merely describing a process of change [42]. Therefore, the Design Science Research (DSR) approach of Denyer et al. was followed, which aims to generate design propositions to solve improvement problems [43]. DSR is complementary to case research [44] and is characterized by “research questions being driven by an interest in field problems; an emphasis on the production of prescriptive knowledge, linking it to interventions and systems to produce outcomes, providing the key to solving field problems; a justification of research products largely based on pragmatic validity” [45]. “Design propositions contain information on what to do, in which situations, to produce what effect and offer some understanding of why this happens” [43]. Denyer et al. suggests using CIMO logic to structure the findings by identifying problematic contexts (C), applied interventions (I), triggered mechanisms (M), and generated outcomes (O). These CIMO cycles were then translated into design propositions, which offer a general template for the creation of solutions for the operationalization of circularity when managing energy networks. A similar approach using CIMO-logic has successfully been applied by, among others, Akkermans et al. [46].

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

To perform the longitudinal case study, the approach in Figure 1 was followed. Various types of data were collected from Liander’s intranet and Microsoft Sharepoint (the online platform through which Liander shares internal documentation), as summarized in Table 1. This broad array of data from various organizational levels enabled the researchers to produce a vertical cross-section of the organization and to study the case from multiple perspectives, as recommended by Leonard-Barton [47]. In addition to Liander’s internal data, previously collected research data were used, as summarized in Table 1, as well: the daily journal kept by the first author as part of the research on sustainable AM, the daily journal kept by the second author as part of the research on Life Cycle Valuation, and data from previously conducted interviews with various employees on the status quo of circularity. Using different data sources and collection methods contributed to the triangulation of the evidence [48].
In order to analyze this large amount of retrospective data from Table 1, the documents were scanned for the following keywords: “distribution transformer”, “reuse”, “circularity”, “sustainability”, and “asset management”. The relevance of all hits was analyzed, and if relevant, it was categorized as a trend (influencing the case), action, or performance and connected to a specific date. In this way, a timeline of the longitudinal case was constructed, which contains the most important actions that positively or negatively affected the circularity of transformers, while paying particular attention to relevant trends within the organizational context [49] and the circularity performance of Liander as a result of these actions.
Next, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the manager and two (former) members of the circularity team. Additionally, a policy advisor from the Maintenance Department and a supply chain consultant from the Logistics Department were interviewed, both of whom have/had an important advisory role pertaining to the circularity of transformers. Lastly, a semi-structured interview was conducted with an innovation manager, who has sponsored the change process. By selecting these six individuals, the most knowledgeable members from various hierarchical levels were interviewed, as recommended by Schein and Van Maanen [50,51]. The interviews contributed to the generation of a rich and full understanding of the change process from the perspective of the people who personally initiated the most important events, as recommended by Leonard-Barton [47].
The aim of these interviews was twofold: Firstly, the interviewees were asked to complete and validate the constructed timeline. Secondly, semi-structured questions were asked about which generally recurring patterns contributed to the success of the case: The interviewees were asked what recurring interventions (I) were introduced in which problematic contexts (C), which mechanisms were triggered by these interventions, and which outcomes (O) were produced due to these interventions [43]. The results of each of the interviews were combined and compared to each other, which led to the identification of six CIMO cycles, following an approach similar to that of Akkermans et al. [46]. These CIMO cycles explain why certain interventions repeatedly contributed to the successful operationalization of circularity in the longitudinal case. To generalize the findings and generate prescriptive knowledge that is both useful to practitioners and academics, as recommended by Adler et al. [52], the CIMO cycles were translated into actionable design propositions and inductively compared to the relevant literature, as prescribed by Chandrasekaran et al. [53]. Table 2 summarizes the measures that were taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.

3. Results

Transformers reach their end of life when an asset fails or grid reinforcements occur. After removing it from the energy grid, a transformer is assessed in order to determine whether it is immediately reusable, and if so, the transformer is sent to Liander’s distribution center. If it is not immediately reusable, it is first sent to Liander’s revision partner, and only then to the distribution center, where the Logistics Department adds all incoming transformers to their stock. When the Operations Department orders a transformer, the transformers that do not need any revision are first in line to be sent out. If none is available, a revised transformer is delivered instead. Only if these are not available either, a newly procured transformer is put into service. This entire process is supervised by the Procurement Department and executed within the technical frameworks provided by the Maintenance Department.
The current reuse practice was built from the ground up over the timespan of the longitudinal case study and resulted in at least 2544 tons of avoided CO2 emissions and saved Liander at least EUR 41 million in regard to procurement so far. Despite the study coming to an end, the operationalization of circularity at Liander remains an ongoing process: Liander is working toward achieving increased circularity of other assets, such as cables and tools. Moreover, increased focus is being placed on other sustainability aspects, such as the circularity team becoming a place for the reintegration of incapacitated employees, and the retention of intellectual capital by means of the internal revision of assets.
Figure 2 describes the most important actions in the longitudinal case study, trends which were relevant to these actions, and the circularity improvements that were caused by them. With the help of the interviewees, the wide variety of actions that were executed during the timespan of the longitudinal case study could be formulated into six more general and recurring interventions. These interventions and how they contributed to the successful operationalization of circularity in the longitudinal case study are discussed below.

3.1. Intervention A: Initiate Small-Scale Circularity Experiments

Through the years, Liander has established a stable modus operandi for operating the energy grid, yet, in order to initiate circular change, deviation from this mode is required. However, employees often fear the risks involved with these deviations, and also, it is very difficult to change the direction of a large organization such as Liander all at once. Therefore, initiating small-scale circularity experiments such as actions 5, 19, and 28 mentioned in Figure 2, without requesting specific permission first was an important step. During action 19, for example, an employee of the workshop dismantled a used transformer just out of curiosity. This led to the knowledge needed for the internal revision of transformers, which made Liander less dependent on its revision partner. In executing these, the potential of circular initiatives was demonstrated, which would most likely have been difficult or impossible if specific permission would have to be obtained for each action first. Interviewees described this as acting like an entrepreneur and stated that these actions took a lot of courage to perform.

3.2. Intervention B: Involve Technical and Strategic Experts

According to the interviewees, it sometimes felt precarious to contradict colleagues with a good reputation. In order to deal with potential criticism, it was therefore important to collaborate with professionals who were firmly established within the old modus operandi. The expertise of colleagues with a technical background contributed to finding solutions that stretched the alleged boundaries, while still meeting the technical performance requirements of transformers. Additionally, the expertise of colleagues with a strategic background could ensure the right preconditions necessary for the circular solutions, such as through enacting actions 3 and 7. By involving these experts with high credibility, the circular solution became a shared initiative. The interviewees called this a sponsorship; it provided a stable basis for deviating from the modus operandi, and made it easier to convince others to cooperate with circularity initiatives.

3.3. Intervention C: Synergize Circularity with More Urgent, Primary Goals

Business objectives such as trends 10 and 13 were often prioritized over circularity, thus making it difficult to increase the scope of circular change. The development of a business case such as action 10 was, therefore, an important step in advancing circularity, since it demonstrated the synergies between circularity and more urgent primary goals. It allowed the initiators to provide a solution for challenges such as trend 21, which was urgent at that time. While the development of a business case required creativity and flexibility on the part of the circularity team, especially given the rapidly changing environment, it contributed to successfully pitching circular initiatives and demonstrating the urgency of implementation.

3.4. Intervention D: Translate Circular Initiatives Bottom-Up and Top-Down

During the process, several initiatives were running parallel, but a uniform approach was lacking. Formulating a shared definition of circularity, such as through action 7, and setting key performance indicators, such as action 4, contributed to guiding all initiatives toward the same objective. Setting and communicating standards regarding preferably deploying a reusable asset over a newly procured one, such as actions 11 and 22, contributed to reaching the objectives by means of a uniform approach. In order to ensure that the objectives were reached and reported on, work instructions were developed so that operations could be adjusted accordingly.

3.5. Intervention E: Collaborate with Other DSOs

Initially, it was very difficult for the circularity team to effect change, due to a lack of scale and inefficient methods. In order to overcome these challenges, Liander collaborated with other DSOs on many levels: it jointly committed to becoming more circular, shared knowledge on how to overcome certain challenges, and jointly anticipated societal developments, such as for action 8. During the later stages of the longitudinal case study, collaboration with other DSOs facilitated the exchange of reusable assets in order to match supply to demand, for example, in actions 16 and 20. Additionally, operations were aligned, and each DSO could establish its own area of expertise, while mutually outsourcing to the areas of other DSOs. It also increased their leverage toward supply chain partners, for example, during the procurement of circular assets.

3.6. Intervention F: Create Multi-Disciplinary Teams

During the scaling up of the reuse of transformers, the organizational structure was suboptimal for the newly adopted concept. Interviewees described the individual departments as “small kingdoms” which all have their own way of working. In order to address this, multidisciplinary teams were created, for example, in action 13, and certain responsibilities were reallocated, such as in actions 12, 15, 25, and 30. This all resulted in circularity becoming a shared concept that was propagated to and practiced by other parts of the organization as well. Despite these interventions, confusion concerning the distribution of responsibilities still occasionally occurs at Liander. However, the interventions have already contributed to promoting circular action.

4. Discussion

The interventions that are described in the Results section of this article were applied by the circularity team based on the contextual factors that were at play at that moment. By applying these interventions in these specific contexts, certain mechanisms were triggered, which in turn generated positive outcomes. As such, each of the discussed interventions was part of a full CIMO cycle that was repeatedly recognized during the timespan of the longitudinal case. These CIMO cycles result in a better understanding of how and why these interventions contributed to operationalizing circularity at Liander and are presented in Table 3. They are further discussed, compared to the relevant literature, and translated into generalizable design propositions below.

4.1. CIMO Cycle A: The Creation of a Precedent

Intervention A: Initiating small-scale circularity experiments allowed the initiators to demonstrate the potential of circularity and set examples for future circularity projects. In the relevant literature, experimentation is recognized to be crucial in initiating change, “as long as it is accomplished within an organization’s business context and strategic intent” [54]. However, just starting bottom-up is a surprising outcome, since the literature suggests to start with a vision and business model [2]. The experiments proved that desirable outcomes can be generated [55,56], and in the context of Liander, the experiments often functioned as precedents. Where doubt about scaling up the initiatives existed, the experiments could be used as examples and, as such, contributed to neutralizing criticism [57]. This resulted in the following design proposition:
Proposition 1.
When in a risk-averse environment, initiate small-scale experiments in order to create a precedent and thereby demonstrate the potential of circularity.

4.2. CIMO Cycle B: The Creation of a Supporting Team

During the initiation of small-scale experiments, technical and strategic experts were invited in in order to create a supporting team. Many authors recognize the importance of intervention B in similar situations, for example, in the implementation of Life Cycle Sustainability Management [58], the implementation of Sustainability Impact Assessment [59], and the governance of circular economies [60]. Notably, the seniority and expertise of the involved experts were stressed in the case of Liander, since it was chiefly Liander’s credibility that contributed to convincing higher management in cases of skepticism about circular change. This resulted in the following design proposition:
Proposition 2.
When criticism from higher management is anticipated, involve technical and strategic experts in order to create a supporting team, and in doing so, convince higher management to support circular change.

4.3. CIMO Cycle C: Circularity as a By-Catch to Core Business

By synergizing circularity with more urgent, primary goals, it no longer necessary to compete with core business objectives. Other authors recognize the need to identify synergies, conflicts, and trade-offs across impacts on different levels [59]. Considering the economic aspects of the initiatives was important, since profit objectives significantly influence strategic decision-making [61]. Thanks to intervention C, circularity became a by-catch to core business activities and sometimes even provided solutions for urgent matters that linear business activities could not address in a timely fashion. Moreover, creating a sense of urgency is an important step for initiating change [56]. Even though, ideally, circularity would be given higher priority in general, utilizing the priority status of primary goals contributed to increasing the incentive for circular change and, as such, promoted circularity, as demonstrated by the case of Liander. This resulted in the following design proposition:
Proposition 3.
When other business objectives are prioritized over circularity, synergize circularity with more urgent, primary goals in order to reframe circularity as a by-catch to core business, and in doing so, create an incentive for circular change.

4.4. CIMO Cycle D: Alignment of Strategy and Operations (Vertical Alignment)

As is common for AM activities, it was important to create alignment between circularity strategy and established operations [62] by means of intervention D. In doing so, all initiatives were guided toward the same objective, as is recommended for change management processes [56]. Gemechu et al. also recommend vertical alignment [58] and stress the importance of continuous improvement cycles in order to align strategy and operations, both bottom-up and top-down, depending on the current needs. This continuous vertical alignment is sometimes referred to as the Line of Sight [63]; however, regardless of terminology, it contributed to creating a shared language, as is recommended by Goedkoop et al. [64]. This resulted in the following design proposition:
Proposition 4.
When circular initiatives are fragmented and/or lack a uniform approach, translate circular initiatives bottom-up and top-down in order to vertically align strategy and operations, and thereby remove barriers for organizing circular change.

4.5. CIMO Cycle E: Scaling through Collaboration

Liander adopted a strategy of scaling through collaboration by means of intervention E, which is a “feasible route to tackle the challenges inherent to scaling” [65,66,67]. It collaborated with other DSOs on various functional levels in order to attain mutual gain, as described by Aisbett et al. [68]. Sharing knowledge within a collaborative network also appeared to be essential in a case study in Italy [69]. In the relevant literature, collaboration through, for example, networks and platforms is regarded as being critical for transitioning toward a CE [70,71], as well as enhancing organizational innovativeness in a CE [72]. In addition, the transition toward a circular economy has effects well beyond the company boundaries [2]. Overall, collaboration contributed to realizing economies of scale, with their associated benefits. This resulted in the following design proposition:
Proposition 5.
When a lack of scale exists, collaborate with other DSOs in order to scale through collaboration, and thereby benefit from economies of scale.

4.6. CIMO Cycle F: Improved Coordination between Silos (Horizontal Alignment)

Intervention F: The creation of multidisciplinary teams was necessary since the interdisciplinary nature of a CE requires a diversity of actors with various objectives and skills [73]. Furthermore, all parts of the organization need to work together in order to share and utilize information, provide transparency, and gain insight and vital answers [74]. The multidisciplinary teams, sometimes referred to as cross-functional teams, improved the coordination between silos by bringing together individuals from different departments. In the literature, unclear distribution of responsibilities is described as a barrier to the transition toward a CE [33], and therefore, the clear assignment of responsibilities and accountabilities is crucial for the establishment of a cross-functional team [75] and for circular action in general [58]. On the whole, intervention F contributed positively to the horizontal propagation of circularity and the adoption of a more circular mindset throughout Liander. This resulted in the following design proposition:
Proposition 6.
When silo mentality exists, create multidisciplinary teams in order to improve coordination between silos, and in doing so, horizontally propagate and manage circular practice.

5. Conclusions

DSOs have the responsibility to facilitate the transition toward a more sustainable society, but this requires a large number of resources. They are also increasingly motivated and required to consider circularity principles in the management of their energy networks. However, operationalizing circularity is perceived as a challenging task since there are many barriers, and current theory on CE is rarely translated into implementable actions.
A longitudinal case study at the Dutch DSO, Liander, led to the formulation of six generalizable design propositions, which suggest to (1) initiate small-scale circularity experiments; (2) involve technical and strategic experts; (3) synergize circularity with more urgent, primary AM goals; (4) translate circular initiatives bottom-up and top-down; (5) collaborate with other DSOs; and (6) create multidisciplinary teams. At Liander, these interventions contributed to at least 2544 tons of avoided CO2 emissions during the timespan of the longitudinal case study. Moreover, at least EUR 41 million of procurement costs were saved by Liander. Other DSOs can use these propositions to optimize their strategy toward circular action. Academics can use these insights to further advance scientific knowledge on circularity from descriptive theoretical models toward actionable and prescriptive knowledge on circular action and change. More quantitative research, for example, numerical methods, can be used to investigate the existence and magnitude of the relationships between the contexts, interventions, mechanisms, and outcomes that were at play in this longitudinal case or to investigate the effectiveness of the design propositions.
Our research suggests that the success of circular action strongly depends on contextual factors: a risk-averse environment, for example, requires another approach than a context in which other business objectives are prioritized over circularity. Therefore, it is recommended to carefully select the right circular interventions, based on the specific contextual factors at play at that moment. Only when the circular interventions are appropriate for the context, the right mechanisms are triggered that, in their turn, positively influence the circularity performance of a DSOs asset portfolio.
When the intervention is appropriate for the context, our findings suggest that persistence in incrementally building upon the outcomes of previous interventions is recommended. Even though it can be tempting for practitioners to stop after initial success, sustained circular change relies on continual and incremental interventions.
Lately, circularity is much less non-committal, due to, among other things, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) that has come in force recently. These types of regulations enforce organizations to make plans and report on their progress related to circular and other environmental performances. During the timespan of the longitudinal case, circularity was still a relatively non-committal theme and based on intrinsic motivation purely. Liander was intrinsically motivated to work on circularity and had the opportunity to wait for appropriate moments to introduce circular interventions and to optimize its strategy through trial and error. It remains to be seen to what extent these types of opportunities present themselves when extrinsic factors, such as compliance and reporting deadlines, are the main reason for initiating circular change. As such, it is advised to actively explore the applicability of the suggested interventions as early as possible to increase the chances of encountering and developing opportune moments for circular change.
Future research is recommended on testing to what extent the suggested design propositions can be generalized to other AM organizations and other resource-intensive sectors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.H., W.H. and J.B.; methodology, H.H., W.H. and J.B.; validation, H.H., W.H. and J.B.; formal analysis, H.H.; investigation, H.H.; resources, H.H. and W.H.; data curation, H.H.; writing—original draft preparation, H.H.; writing—review and editing, W.H. and J.B.; visualization, H.H.; supervision, W.H. and J.B.; project administration, J.B.; funding acquisition, J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was co-funded by LIANDER NV and HOLLAND HIGH TECH, with a PPP bonus for research and development in the top sector HTSM.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available due to confidentiality. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to sincerely thank Liander for providing the necessary data for the longitudinal case study, as well as its employees for participating in the interviews.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lacy, P.; Rutqvist, J. Waste to Wealth—The Circular Economy Advantage; Palgrave MacMillan: London, UK, 2015; Volume 91. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bocken, N.M.P.; de Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.; van der Grinten, B. Product Design and Business Model Strategies for a Circular Economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2016, 33, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and Its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Transitioning to a Circular Economy; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes Isle of Wight, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  7. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A New Sustainability Paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moreno, M.; De los Rios, C.; Rowe, Z.; Charnley, F. A Conceptual Framework for Circular Design. Sustainability 2016, 8, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bovea, M.D.; Pérez-Belis, V. Identifying Design Guidelines to Meet the Circular Economy Principles: A Case Study on Electric and Electronic Equipment. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 228, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. McDonough, W.; Braungart, M. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things; Rodale Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lieder, M.; Rashid, A. Towards Circular Economy Implementation: A Comprehensive Review in Context of Manufacturing Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lahti, T.; Wincent, J.; Parida, V. A Definition and Theoretical Review of the Circular Economy, Value Creation, and Sustainable Business Models: Where Are We Now and Where Should Research Move in the Future? Sustainability 2018, 10, 2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Marlow, D.R.; Beale, D.J.; Burn, S. A Pathway to a More Sustainable Water Sector: Sustainability-Based Asset Management. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 61, 1245–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Peças, P.; Götze, U.; Henriques, E.; Ribeiro, I.; Schmidt, A.; Symmank, C. Life Cycle Engineering—Taxonomy and State-of-the-Art. Procedia CIRP 2016, 48, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. ISO/TC 251; Asset Management—Managing Assets in the Context of Asset Management. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  16. El-Akruti, K.; Dwight, R.; Zhang, T. The Strategic Role of Engineering Asset Management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 146, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pudney, S. Asset Renewal Desicion Modelling with Application to the Water Utility Industry; Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane City, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  18. Förster, O.; Zdrallek, M. Efficient Decision Making Supported by ISO 55000. CIRED—Open Access Proc. J. 2017, 2017, 2711–2714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Markard, J. The next Phase of the Energy Transition and Its Implications for Research and Policy. Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Verbong, G.; Geels, F. The Ongoing Energy Transition: Lessons from a Socio-Technical, Multi-Level Analysis of the Dutch Electricity System (1960–2004). Energy Policy 2007, 35, 1025–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ruester, S.; Schwenen, S.; Batlle, C.; Pérez-Arriaga, I. From Distribution Networks to Smart Distribution Systems: Rethinking the Regulation of European Electricity DSOs. Util. Policy 2014, 31, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Haas, W.; Krausmann, F.; Wiedenhofer, D.; Heinz, M. How Circular Is the Global Economy? An Assessment of Material Flows, Waste Production, and Recycling in the European Union and the World in 2005. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 765–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Niekamp, S.; Bharadwaj, U.R.; Sadhukhan, J.; Chryssanthopoulos, M.K. A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Asset Management and Challenges in Its Application. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2015, 32, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kirchherr, J.; Piscicelli, L.; Bour, R.; Kostense-Smit, E.; Muller, J.; Huibrechtse-Truijens, A.; Hekkert, M. Barriers to the Circular Economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 2018, 150, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jääskä, E.; Aaltonen, K.; Kujala, J. Game-Based Learning in Project Sustainability Management Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Saidani, M.; Yannou, B.; Leroy, Y.; Cluzel, F.; Kendall, A. A Taxonomy of Circular Economy Indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 542–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. How Do Scholars Approach the Circular Economy? A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 178, 703–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Murray, A.; Skene, K.; Haynes, K. The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 140, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Urbinati, A.; Chiaroni, D.; Chiesa, V. Towards a New Taxonomy of Circular Economy Business Models. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 487–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hobson, K. Closing the Loop or Squaring the Circle? Locating Generative Spaces for the Circular Economy. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2016, 40, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bocken, N.M.P.; Ritala, P.; Huotari, P. The Circular Economy: Exploring the Introduction of the Concept Among S&P 500 Firms. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 487–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. de Jesus, A.; Mendonça, S. Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-Innovation Road to the Circular Economy. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ritzén, S.; Sandström, G.Ö. Barriers to the Circular Economy—Integration of Perspectives and Domains. Procedia Cirp 2017, 64, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alliander Annual Report 2023. 2024. Available online: https://www.alliander.com/content/uploads/dotcom/Alliander_Annual_Report_2023.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2024).
  35. Benbasat, I.; Goldstein, D.K.; Mead, M. The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Q. 1987, 11, 369–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; ISBN 9781412960991. [Google Scholar]
  37. Barley, S.R. Images of Imaging: Notes on Doing Longitudinal Field Work. Organ. Sci. 1990, 1, 220–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Van de Ven, A.H. An Assessment of Perspectives on Strategic Change. In Perspectives on Strategic Change; Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 313–325. [Google Scholar]
  39. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research; Academy of Management Stable: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 1989; Volume 14. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ruitenburg, R.J.; Braaksma, J.J.J.; Van Dongen, L.A.M. Asset Life Cycle Plans: Twelve Steps to Assist Strategic Decision-Making in Asset Life Cycle Management. In Optimum Decision Making in Asset Management; Business Science Reference: Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France, 2017; pp. 259–287. ISBN 9781522506522. [Google Scholar]
  41. Haanstra, W.; Braaksma, A.J.J.; van Dongen, L.A.M. Designing a Hybrid Methodology for the Life Cycle Valuation of Capital Goods. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2021, 32, 382–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Maestrini, V.; Luzzini, D.; Shani, A.B.; Canterino, F. The Action Research Cycle Reloaded: Conducting Action Research across Buyer-Supplier Relationships. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2016, 22, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D.; Van Aken, J.E. Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis. Organ. Stud. 2008, 29, 393–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kaipia, R.; Holmström, J.; Småros, J.; Rajala, R. Information Sharing for Sales and Operations Planning: Contextualized Solutions and Mechanisms. J. Oper. Manag. 2017, 52, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Van Aken, J.E. Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41, 219–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Akkermans, H.; Van Oppen, W.; Wynstra, F.; Voss, C. Contracting Outsourced Services with Collaborative Key Performance Indicators. J. Oper. Manag. 2019, 65, 22–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Leonard-barton, D. A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites. Organ. Sci. 1990, 1, 248–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jick, T.D. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 602–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pettigrew, A.M. Contextualist Research and the Study of Organizational Change Processes. In Doing Research That is Useful for Theory and Practice; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1985; pp. 53–72. [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Maanen, J. The Fact of Fiction in Organizational Ethnography. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 539–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schein, E.H. The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  52. Adler, N.; (Rami) Shani, A.B.; Styhre, A. Collaborative Research in Organizations: Foundations for Learning, Change and Theoretical Development; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  53. Chandrasekaran, A.; de Treville, S.; Browning, T. Editorial: Intervention-Based Research (IBR)—What, Where, and How to Use It in Operations Management. J. Oper. Manag. 2020, 66, 370–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kerber, K. Rethinking Organizational Change: Reframing the Challenge of Change Management. Organ. Dev. J. 2005, 23, 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ford, R.; Heisler, W.; Creary, W.M.C. Leading Change with the 5-P Model “Complexing” the Swan and Dolphin Hotels at Walt Disney World. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2008, 49, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kotter, J.P. Leading Change—Why Transformation Efforts Fail; ECON: Dusseldorf, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kotter, J.P.; Darius, B. Chaos, Wandel, Führung—Leading Change; ËCON: Dusseldorf, Germany, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gemechu, E.D.; Sonnemann, G.; Remmen, A.; Frydendal, J.; Jensen, A.A. How to Implement Life Cycle Management in Business? In Life Cycle Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 35–50. ISBN 9789401772211. [Google Scholar]
  59. OECD. Guidance on Sustainability Impact Assessment; OECD: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  60. Cramer, J. Effective Governance of Circular Economies: An International Comparison. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 343, 130874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Komonen, K.; Kortelainen, H.; Räikkönen, M. Corporate Asset Management for Industrial Companies: An Integrated Business-Driven Approach. In Asset Management the State of the Art in Europe from a Life Cycle Perspective Foreword; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 47–64. ISBN 9788578110796. [Google Scholar]
  62. ISO ISO 55000; Asset Management—Overview, Principles and Terminology. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
  63. Shah, R.K.; Mcmann, O.; Borthwick, F. Challenges and Prospects of Applying Asset Management Principles to Highway Maintenance: A Case Study of the UK. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 97, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Goedkoop, M.; Mieras, E.; Gaasbeek, A.; Contreras, S. How to Make the Life Cycle Assessment Team a Business Partner Introduction. In Life Cycle Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 105–115. ISBN 9789401772211. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ciulli, F.; Kolk, A.; Bidmon, C.M.; Sprong, N.; Hekkert, M.P. Sustainable Business Model Innovation and Scaling through Collaboration. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2022, 45, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. van Waes, A.; Farla, J.; Frenken, K.; de Jong, J.P.J.; Raven, R. Business Model Innovation and Socio-Technical Transitions. A New Prospective Framework with an Application to Bike Sharing. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1300–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bloom, P.N.; Chatterji, A.K.; Bloom, P.N.; Chatterji, A.K. Scaling Social Entrepreneurial Impact. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 114–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Aisbett, E.; Raynal, W.; Steinhauser, R.; Jones, B. International Green Economy Collaborations: Chasing Mutual Gains in the Energy Transition. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 104, 103249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cantele, S.; Moggi, S.; Campedelli, B. Spreading Sustainability Innovation through the Co-Evolution of Sustainable Business Models and Partnerships. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Palafox-alcantar, P.G.; Hunt, D.V.L.; Rogers, C.D.F. Current and Future Professional Insights on Cooperation towards Circular Economy Adoption. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Arsova, S.; Genovese, A.; Ketikidis, P.H.; Alberich, J.P.; Solomon, A. Implementing Regional Circular Economy Policies: A Proposed Living Constellation of Stakeholders. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yousaf, Z.; Mihai, D.; Tanveer, U. Organizational Innovativeness in the Circular Economy: The Interplay of Innovation Networks, Frugal Innovation, and Organizational Readiness. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tirado, R.; Aublet, A.; Laurenceau, S.; Habert, G. Challenges and Opportunities for Circular Economy Promotion in the Building Sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. ISO ISO 55010; Asset Management—Guidance on the Alignment of Financial and Non-Financial Functions in Asset Management. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  75. McDonough III, E.F. Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2000, 17, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05874 g001
Figure 1. Research methodology.
Figure 1. Research methodology.
Sustainability 16 05874 g001
Sustainability 16 05874 g002
Figure 2. Timeline of the longitudinal case.
Figure 2. Timeline of the longitudinal case.
Sustainability 16 05874 g002
Table 1. Sources of retrospective data.
Table 1. Sources of retrospective data.
SourceDataQuantityYear(s)
Liander’s
internal data 		Blog posts on the intranet582014–2023
Organization’s annual reports102014–2023
Internal accounting reports122016–2023
Policy documents4‘14, ‘15, ‘21, ‘22
Strategic Asset Management Plans72013–2023
Quality and Capacity Documents3‘13, ‘15, ‘17
Trend reports 82016–2023
Life Cycle Thinking studies4‘14, ‘18, ‘20, ‘21
Collaboration agreements32020, 2021
Other242014–2023
Research dataInterviews on circularity262020
Daily journal of 1st author12020–2023
Daily journal of 2nd author12016–2020
Table 2. Measures to ensure validity and reliability of the findings.
Table 2. Measures to ensure validity and reliability of the findings.
CriterionMeasures
Construct validityMultiple sources of evidence (Liander’s internal data, previously collected research data and interviews), chain of evidence, validation of draft article by key interviewee
Internal validityLong timespan of the case study to allow for tracking cause and effect, pattern matching using CIMO-logic (both theoretical and in interview protocol), careful attention to rival explanations
External validityAuthor’s expert opinions on uniqueness of the case, long timespan of the case study in order to allow for patterns to recur, inductive comparison of emerging patterns with relevant literature
ReliabilityStructured case study protocol, semi-structured interview questions, development of case-study database
Table 3. CIMO cycles detailing circular interventions.
Table 3. CIMO cycles detailing circular interventions.
ContextInterventionMechanismOutcome
ARisk-averse environmentInitiate small-scale
circularity experiments		The creation of a precedentThe potential of circularity is demonstrated
BFear of receiving criticism from higher managementInvolve technical and
strategic experts		The creation of a supporting team Higher management is convinced to continue circular change
COther business objectives being prioritized over circularity Synergize circularity with more urgent, primary goals Circularity as a by-catch to the core businessCircular change is incentivized
DFragmented circular initiatives that lack a uniform approachTranslate circular initiatives bottom-up and top-downAlignment of strategy and operations (vertical alignment) Barriers for organizing circular change are removed
ELack of scaleCollaborate with other DSOs Scaling through collaborationBenefit from economies of scale is gained
FSilo mentalityCreate multidisciplinary teamsImproved coordination
between silos (horizontal alignment)		Horizontal propagation and management of circular practices occurs
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Holwerda, H.; Haanstra, W.; Braaksma, J. Operationalizing the Circular Economy—A Longitudinal Study on Sustained Circular Action. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5874. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145874

AMA Style

Holwerda H, Haanstra W, Braaksma J. Operationalizing the Circular Economy—A Longitudinal Study on Sustained Circular Action. Sustainability. 2024; 16(14):5874. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145874

Chicago/Turabian Style

Holwerda, Henrike, Willem Haanstra, and Jan Braaksma. 2024. "Operationalizing the Circular Economy—A Longitudinal Study on Sustained Circular Action" Sustainability 16, no. 14: 5874. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145874

APA Style

Holwerda, H., Haanstra, W., & Braaksma, J. (2024). Operationalizing the Circular Economy—A Longitudinal Study on Sustained Circular Action. Sustainability, 16(14), 5874. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145874

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop