Cooperation of Manufacturing Companies with Business-to-Business Stakeholders in Poland in the Field of Circular Activities

Abstract

The paper aims to identify areas and forms of cooperation between manufacturing companies and their business-to-business (B2B) stakeholders in CE. The paper includes a theoretical part (the literature review) and an empirical part (a survey of 200 manufacturing enterprises in Poland, in 2024). The study found that (1) companies that declared the inclusion of CE in their business strategy were statistically more likely to declare cooperation in the scopes analysed; (2) cooperation of business partners in one area intensifies and encourages action in other areas, increasing the chances of achieving jointly agreed goals; and (3) the implementation of CE in companies requires appropriate management of B2B relationship capital, which is a strong catalyst for the development of innovation in supply chains. Involving suppliers in the co-creation of CE innovations through partnerships in different areas has a positive impact on the value and competitive advantage of these actors. In Poland, there are publications available on the general condition of the SME sector and studies on the principles and examples of CE implementation—including in the SME sector—but there is a lack of targeted studies and reports on the activities of these entities in the field of CE—the proposed study fills this research gap.

1. Introduction

In 2020, the European Commission published the European Union’s (EU) goal of becoming the first climate-neutral economy and society by 2050. The main and urgent challenges identified on the way to this goal are climate change, resource scarcity, and environmental degradation. The development of the circular economy (CE) supported by Industry 4.0 (I4.0) was adopted as a key strategy [1]. CE is a new emerging paradigm of sustainable development [2,3] and a key sustainability framework covering the global challenges of environmental degradation, generation of waste, resource depletion [4], and gas emissions [2]. CE is also a conscious, forward-looking, long-term, and holistic approach, based on sustainability, vision and systemic transformation, and disruptive innovation [5]. CE is an alternative to the still dominant linear model of production and consumption. It aims to keep products and materials in the value chain for a longer period and to recover raw materials for reuse at the end of the products’ life. In a circular economy, waste must be treated as a secondary raw material. All pre-waste activities are intended to serve this purpose. At the same time, the circular economy approach, based on, e.g., the design of products and production processes, aims to increase the innovation and competitiveness of companies. By pursuing the goals of CE, companies have the opportunity to grow in collaboration with different stakeholders. Sustained, long-term cooperation based on trust facilitates the realisation of innovations that benefit producers (mainly cost and image) and their stakeholders. The effectiveness of their actions depends on the following: (1) the approach to the CE concept itself and its integration into business practices, i.e., actions taken by companies in the area of the circular economy, should be an integral part of the company’s strategy at every stage of its development. CE at the company level is determined by cooperation, business-to-business (B2B). However, B2B cooperation is not an end in itself, but should be properly used by companies as a specific strategic tool to achieve their goals, including finding and implementing innovative solutions that strengthen their competitive position and serve the long-term development of their business relationship partners.

“Stakeholder expectations are referred to as optimism that the organisation should achieve” [6] (p. 2045). A stakeholder is any entity (person, group, organisation) that can influence an enterprise or is affected by the achievement of its goals [7]. Cooperation in the field of CE, undertaken between companies and their stakeholders, is nowadays an important and widely discussed research topic in the economic and social sciences. It brings numerous benefits to businesses, their partners, and society as a whole, as well as to numerous ecosystems and the natural environment. Due to the ongoing adverse climate change and environmental degradation, the rapid and sustainable implementation of CE demands is a pressing issue for humanity. This provides the rationale for the choice of work and research topic.

The areas of cooperation between manufacturing companies and their stakeholders analysed in this article are primarily as follows: common norms and standards of operation [8,9]; exchange of information, joint training, consultancy, and exchange and sharing of equipment [6,10,11,12]; and cooperation in the acquisition of new technological and innovative solutions; as well as agreement of partners to unannounced internal and external audits [12].

This study is in line with the strong need to transform the economy towards a circular economy. The proposed research responds to the challenges posed by the EU to its member states for the coming years to launch models and activities that increase the innovativeness of European companies and raise their competitiveness with those in other parts of the world [13]. In Poland, the preparation of the Roadmap for Transformation to a Closed-Circle Economy (CE Roadmap) is one of the adaptation projects to the EU Circular Economy Action Plan [13]. The document in question draws attention, among other things, to the important role of industry in the Polish economy and the new opportunities for its development. It also points to the possibility of reorganising the ways of functioning of various market participants based on the idea of CE. However, the proposed tools (legislative and otherwise) require diagnosing the realities of circular activities (including in B2B relations), including the barriers to their implementation in the group of micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (the dominant group of companies operating in Poland). In this area, a certain information gap can be identified in Poland, which is typical of countries that have relatively recently aligned their waste management and recycling legislation with global standards [13].

In Poland, there are publications available on the general condition of the SME sector and studies on the principles and examples of CE implementation, including in the SME sector. But there is a lack of targeted studies and reports on the activities of these entities in the field of CE—the proposed study fills this information and research gap.

The paper covers the results of theoretical (Section 2: Literature review) and empirical research (Section 4: Results).

The theoretical part of the paper is a review of the state of research on the topic of CE (definition, objectives, benefits, producers and their stakeholders, and cooperation) based on current scientific articles on the topic of CE.

The empirical part of the paper presents the findings of a national survey conducted in 2024 on 200 manufacturing enterprises in Poland. The research focused exclusively on B2B stakeholders, mainly from the SME sector, who are cooperatively implementing CE demands and reaping the benefits.

The paper aims to identify areas and forms of cooperation between manufacturing companies and their B2B stakeholders in CE.

The paper focuses attention on finding answers to the following research questions:

• What is CE and what are its objectives, and what are the social, economic and environmental benefits of implementing its demands for the economy and enterprises?
• What are the forms and areas of CE cooperation between manufacturing companies and their B2B stakeholders?

Responses to the above questions made it possible to assess the attitudes of manufacturing companies in Poland (mainly micro and small companies) and their B2B stakeholders toward cooperation with the implementation of CE practices, as well as to identify the numerous benefits of cooperation between manufacturers and their B2B stakeholders.

Empirical research has been dedicated to the B2B sector. It would be interesting to extend this research to include the cooperation of manufacturing companies with stakeholders other than supply chain companies. This is a limitation of the empirical part of the paper. A strength of the research is its national coverage of Poland.

The audiences who may potentially be interested in the research results presented in this paper are researchers and managers working in the field of CE, sustainability, and sustainable management.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Goals and Benefits of a Circular Economy

At the beginning of 2025, CE goals were defined in the literature as follows:

• Restoring the highest value and usability of materials, components, and products [2] as a result of methods: comprehensive rethinking of current production and consumption systems, increasingly better design of systems, business models, and durable products (long-lasting design), as well as their maintenance and wear assessment [2,4], and, as a result of the implementation of the R-strategies, the following: refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle, recover, redesign, resilience, and regulate [4,14];
• To have a positive impact on the economy, the environment, and global geopolitics [4,5] by inducing changes in resource-intensive sectors (e.g., mining, manufacturing) and the development of service sectors (repair, maintenance, rental, and leasing), thus shifting from a linear economic model (extract, produce, use and discard) to a circular economy (produce, use, service, reuse) [15];
• Building a network of sustainability links between different stakeholders [16] (suppliers, customers, clients, competitors, owners, co-owners, investors, strategic allies, regulators, R&D institutions and consortia, and representatives of administrations at different levels), focused on the following: shared sustainable goals, collaboration, synergies and economies of scale, knowledge creation and exchange, research and development, open innovation (OI), technological innovation, and development of sustainable strategies and practices [3,15,17,18,19];
• Reducing the following: dependence on fossil fuels (decarbonisation), resource consumption, waste (moving towards waste-free production), gas emissions, energy leakage, and environmental degradation by increasing the sustainable use of resources (including waste as a renewable resource) and renewable energy [2,4,20,21,22,23,24,25,26], thus slowing down, narrowing, and closing material and energy loops [27];
• Strengthening the energy security of states and the security of NATO, the EU, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) [21];
• Restoring resilience, protecting and conserving the unique natural resources of ecosystems, prioritising the restoration of climate system stability [16,17], and strengthening the resilience of sustainably managed businesses, business networks, and the circular economy [24,28,29,30,31];
• Developing new sustainable consumption habits and patterns in societies [32].

The objectives of the circular economy set out the needs and trends that businesses need to meet in order to operate in line with changing legislation, pressing environmental needs, limited availability of natural resources, and the increasing demands placed on them by the social environment—including customers. There is a strong awareness in Europe of the need to implement CE demands—both the effort and the benefits involved.

The conscious and long-term application of CE and sustainable management postulates by companies benefits countries, societies, and the companies themselves.

According to calculations, with CE, a 1% reduction in material and energy consumption across all sectors in Poland could result in an economic growth of PLN 19.5 billion [32]. Furthermore, if the reduction in material and energy consumption in Poland exceeded 1%, and 20% of the savings (PLN 92 billion per year) were invested in the bioeconomy, construction and transport sectors, Poland’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could reach PLN 167 billion [32]. Shifting taxation from labour to natural resources and consumption could lead to a 7.7% increase in Poland’s GDP, and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions would decrease by 5.7% to the baseline scenario [32].

It is estimated that the implementation of CE demands by companies will result in multi-faceted and synergistic increases in economic, environmental, and social performance [4,14]: increased innovation and productivity of national economies, significant material savings, reduced operating and maintenance costs, reduced resource-intensity of production industries, improved profitability of enterprises, increased resilience, creation of a positive image of producers applying extended responsibility, development of integrated value and supply chains, growth of effective and profitable business models and networks, reduced prices for customers, safe and stable environmental conditions, rapid macro-regional development, and increased social welfare [31,32].

The benefits of CE are contingent on cooperation and industrial symbiosis in entrepreneurial ecosystems, i.e., networks of companies and their stakeholders. The sustainability of these networks requires congruence between the values, goals, and needs of the partners that make up the network [28]. This has been confirmed by numerous studies.

2.2. Cooperation of Manufacturing Companies with Business-to-Business Stakeholders—European Research Review

2.2.1. Cooperation on Common Norms and Performance Standards

Research from the Universities of Birmingham and Oxford (United Kingdom) has revealed that stakeholder collaboration is a key factor in the transition to CE. The main categories for exploring the CE concept according to the different stakeholders were as follows: design to eliminate waste, sharing resources and increasing exchange, and building resilience. The following stakeholders were identified as important for the development of CE: local politicians, local policymakers, technology suppliers, external consultants, waste management operators, and entrepreneurs. The research results revealed, among other things, that among the surveyed entrepreneurs and students (future entrepreneurs), there was a positive attitude and interest in the development of CE, despite the lack of obvious benefits and costs for the cooperation partners [8].

Research in Belgium has indicated that the development of sustainable partnerships is crucial and timely in order to promote stakeholder-fair development of CE [9].

2.2.2. Cooperation in the Field of Information Exchange, Joint Training, Consulting, and Exchange and Sharing of Equipment

It is emphasised that the stakeholders that are important for the development of CE are not only suppliers, companies, recipients of products, and customers. In the process described there are also stakeholders of great importance such as institutions, the EU, and the governments of the member states, international organisations worldwide, and also international legislation organisations. Areas of collaboration between stakeholders can include the following: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing material consumption, developing full CE practices, renting, sharing, and repairing machinery and equipment, promoting CE at the consumption level, designing durable and functional products and extending their life cycles, and implementing product take-back legislation and regulations [6].

The CE development research carried out on 27 stakeholders in the Romanian textile and clothing sector drew the following conclusions and recommendations for cooperation between these stakeholders: the existing isolation preventing cooperation needs to be broken, there is a lack of collaborative spaces (joint meetings, exploring different opportunities for cooperation), and there is a lack of general awareness of closing the loop and CE mechanisms in the textile and clothing industry [10].

A study of 128 international and non-international micro-enterprises in Finland, operating in various manufacturing sectors, reached conclusions on the factors shaping CE practices. These factors are (1) environmental awareness, (2) stakeholder pressure, (3) CE orientation, and (4) internal barriers. In multinational companies, stakeholder pressure to develop CE is greater than in non-international companies. This pressure stems from the need to comply with international regulations on innovative environmental practices (e.g., life cycle assessment and eco-design). Multinationals can furthermore benefit from access to external knowledge networks, which can be important in process design and technological innovation. The internationalisation of a company, therefore, accelerates its development in the area of CE [11].

Research and development (R&D) consortia are of strategic importance for implementing large-scale sustainable systemic change that coincides with CE goals, as their role is to share knowledge and responsibility. The risk of implementing change is spread across multiple stakeholders with consistent goals. This makes networks catalysts for solving CE problems [16].

In addition to the cooperation of the internal stakeholders of manufacturing companies (managers and employees), multifaceted cooperation with the external stakeholders of these companies (suppliers, customers, clients, competitors, owners, co-owners, investors, strategic allies, regulators, R&D institutions, and consortia, and representatives of various levels of government is also important. For the development of CE, the important role of researchers in developing new, unconventional methodologies that should enhance trust, security, and the resilience of sustainability efforts to adverse populist narratives [29].

2.2.3. Cooperation for the Acquisition of New Technological and Innovative Solutions, and Consent of Partners for Unannounced Internal and External Audits

In a study of 300 enterprises in Hungary, the aim of which was to show the relationship between the development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and environmental performance, preliminary results were obtained that enterprises that used advanced and diverse ICT tools—compared to those less advanced in the area of ICT—placed significantly more emphasis on auditing environmental activities, assessing environmental protection expenditures by introducing an accounting system, and defining environmental requirements for suppliers [12].

Transparency of controls and audits of processes carried out in European CE-oriented manufacturing companies is the area of management for which the fewest research findings can be found.

One of the studies presented focused on collaboration between local and international stakeholders (companies, industry consortia, suppliers, customers, research and training institutions, and investors) based on OI practices. A core practice of OI is to engage audiences and customers in designing products that meet needs and increase the satisfaction and loyalty of those audiences and customers. This and other OI practices were intended to help network partners overcome the barriers to transitioning from a linear economy to a CE—with numerous benefits achieved, such as a culture of collaboration, exchange of expertise, skills development, access to and integration of technology, development of closed-loop products and processes, significant economic and technical performance, and the ability of the largest and most resourceful network partners to pressure external stakeholders to leverage investor resources for CE initiatives [33].

Another study involved textile and clothing companies. These included the introduction of a digital product passport (DPP), which is a tool that enables textile and apparel stakeholders (manufacturers, suppliers, customers, clients, government organisations, and public institutions) to process such as follows [34]:

• Product traceability—storing and making available comparable information about a product and tracking its life cycle phases, characteristics, and environmental impacts;
• Informed decision-making;
• Promotion of transparency, sustainability, and CE.

Product lifecycle management (PLM) is a process of tracking and coordinating all stages of the product lifecycle, such as design, production, use, and disposal. The following indicators and approaches are used in this process [22]:

• Index of repairability (IoR);
• Repair score system (RSS);
• Ease of disassembly metric (eDIM);
• Design for repairability (DfR);
• Repair-oriented design (RoD).

Two factors are estimated to be particularly important for CE: controlling the take-back channels of products, at the end of their useful (operational) life, and encouraging consumers to use products for as long as possible [24].

Numerous research studies address the stimulation of CE by I4.0 and Industry 5.0 (I5.0) technologies [23]. It is even believed that the implementation of sustainability-oriented technologies and innovations determines the CE [35].

Technology collaboration between companies can include practices that support CE, such as backwards and forward vertical integration, automation, virtualisation, increased traceability, energy management, increased flexibility, process optimisation, reduced material and energy consumption, data collection and processing, production planning, monitoring, system failure prediction, decision-making, and others [3].

The results of a study of six manufacturing companies operating with I4.0 technologies, lean production (LP) practices, and CE strategies confirmed the existence of a synergistic interaction—I4.0 technologies and LP practices support each other and enable the implementation of CE strategies [18].

2.3. Business-to-Business Cooperation on a Circular Economy

In today’s market environment, the cooperation of economic players plays a key role in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of operations. This is particularly reflected in the development strategies of companies whose competition takes place within supply chains (value chains). It can be said that competition nowadays takes place between groups (networks of companies) that are in a deliberate and purposeful relationship with each other. The network relationships of entities can refer to different levels of cooperation (collaboration), considered from the perspective of industries or even the entire economy [35], and can concern both the capital group (so-called network organisation—intra-organisational) as well as independent enterprises (enterprise network—inter-organisational network).

Networks of relationships exist and develop because of the motives of companies, which take the form of individual and shared goals. Effective feedback between companies determines the position of these companies in the market and, ultimately, the success of a given network. However, it should be noted that not all inter-organisational ties (interactions) between firms can be treated as networks; exchange, commitment, and reciprocity are three obligatory attributes of relationships [36]. Exchange is relational, and fundamental to this process is the effective flow of information within the individual network links. In contrast, commitment in a networked relationship is multidimensional and should be reciprocal (operational, informational, social, and investment commitment)—then it becomes an effective mechanism to safeguard against partner opportunism [36].

Resources and skills are a fundamental source of competition for networks of cooperating actors. These resources can be divided into active resources, which include technological and IT infrastructure, and intangible resources, which include the knowledge of employees and the image of specific actors. The latter also includes organisational and cooperative culture, R&D facilities, information systems, and customer loyalty. The value of intangible resources is of particular importance to entities, as they can be used in different places at the same time, usually gaining in value. Their ownership is a key area of success—winning strategic partners and loyal customers is based precisely on the market value of these resources [37].

The above-mentioned network resources are in the form of assets whose value depends on their possession of durable (difficult to copy), unique, and strategically oriented competencies to manage them [38]. These competencies are derived from the knowledge, skills, and organisational experience of the managers and other employees of a given network. Such competencies enable better or faster exploitation of opportunities and mitigation of risks arising in the environment. These include, among others, solving consumer problems uniquely adapted to new social needs, motivating and developing the qualifications of employees, creating and developing relationships with partners, the correct application of systems, e.g., in logistics, or the ability to anticipate and introduce necessary improvements in the operation of these systems. The case of the Biedronka chain is worth mentioning here, where errors in the application of the SAP system in logistics led to gaps in information and, as a result, a lack of continuity in the supply of shops [38].

Within the network structure of entities, there is a specific coordination mechanism in place for which the lead entity is responsible [39]. The flagship company, usually the main commissioner of services, has strategic control over the network. The role of such an entity is to shape the relationships in the network arrangement. In practice, it can fulfil at least one of three roles: architect (bringing about the establishment of the rules of the system), gatekeeper (exercising oversight of the established rules), and operator (coordinating activities to achieve the established goal) [40].

The specialisation of the companies and their close cooperation make each of the network partners dependent on the benefits of the joint action. The emerging interdependencies between the actors determine the necessity for continuous coordination of activities and network links of the companies.

Synergy, the cooperative surplus of resource productivity, contributes to strengthening the competitive advantage of individual enterprises and, ultimately, constitutes the market power of a specific network of actors.

The essence of effective organisational networks presupposes relatively sustainable cooperation between partners based on set standards and values. Therefore, it is possible to reduce the network by entities that do not meet the established standards and to expand it by additional companies that have the appropriate resources and attributes [41,42].

The most important reference and justification for the network structure of companies should be the creation of value for the network entities themselves and their key stakeholders. The Creating Shared Value (CSV) concept points to such a goal and reference point [43]. The creators of the concept, M. Porter and M. Kramer, define it as “operational procedures and practices that increase the competitiveness of a company and, at the same time, have a positive impact on the economic and social conditions of the people among whom that company operates. The production of economic and social value is a process aimed at identifying and extending the links between social development and economic progress” [44].

M. Porter and M. Kramer, based on their consulting practice, have identified three possible CSV strategies that companies around the world are adopting [44,45]:

• Developing new markets by seeing the problems of local communities and developing innovative products to solve them;
• Redefining productivity in the value chain by introducing organisational and technological solutions to reduce negative environmental and/or social impacts. Most often, this comes down to optimising supply chains and building distribution networks based on local suppliers;
• Enabling the development of local clusters involving the creation and development of inclusive local networks built on resources and values, a shared vision and goals, and the development of technical infrastructure giving access to skills and knowledge.

The aforementioned strategies require the development of sustainable, committed collaboration and, as a result, the activation of one’s own and key stakeholders’ competitive potential to create shared value. This is linked to a greater ability to generate innovation—innovation competence—and the drive to reduce costs, including transaction costs.

The realisation of the CSV concept is increasingly documented in the economic literature as examples of shared value-creation practices among companies in the CE supply chain [32].

3. Materials and Methods

The results of the overall survey (answers to the questions in the survey) were sent to Katarzyna Kowalska’s (the author of the survey) university e-mail address. Questions on cooperation were one of eight questions addressed to entrepreneurs in Section C in Poland.

The research adopted a research question and hypothesis closely correlated with the research questions adopted in the introduction to the thesis.

The research question is as follows: what are the areas of cooperation within the circular economy between manufacturing companies in section C in Poland and their business stakeholders, taking into account the link between the company’s business strategy and the idea in question? The research hypothesis, on the other hand, is that, in Polish conditions, Section C companies, which are dominated by micro-enterprises, undertake circular activities to a limited extent.

The software used during the research was Windows 10 and Statistica 13.3. The following analysis methods were used to verify the hypothesis: Spearman’s rank correlation, Mann–Whitney U test, nonparametric version of Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA (hereinafter referred to as H test), and factor analysis.

The survey was conducted by BioStat Centrum Badawczo-Rozwojowe (CBR—Rybnik, Poland), which is among 61 commercial research units with CBR (Research and Development Centre) status in the register kept by the Minister of Development and Technology in Poland. The survey was conducted using the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview method (CATI) from 19 February to 26 April 2024. CATI is a type of declarative research, conducted by an interviewer by telephone, according to an accepted interview scenario; it is a computer-assisted telephone interview.

The target group for the survey was private enterprises operating in Section C (Manufacturing) in Poland (

Table 1. Distribution of entities by number of employees [own study based on research results].

	0–9	10–49	50–249	≥250
	Section C
REGON database	313,730	20,897	5210	1253
Percentage share [%]	92.0	6.1	1.5	0.4
Number of questionnaires, sum n = 200	184	12	3	1

).

The sampling was randomised and stratified to ensure that the survey was representative. The sample size was calculated using the following parameters (Table 1):

• Population size—341,090;
• Fraction size—0.5;
• Confidence level—0.95.

In order to select the sampling frame, the GNI Hoovers database, which includes all companies registered with the CSO, was used. Only companies whose main activity profile was in line with section C of the survey were taken into account. Before randomisation, companies with discontinued operations and entities in liquidation or bankruptcy were excluded from the set. Based on such prepared data, a random draw was made with the use of a random number generator implemented in MS Excel, taking into account the section and size of employment, so that the number of entities selected for the study in each assumed quantitative element exceeded 10 times the number assumed in the sample. If the available entities were exhausted, additional ones were drawn from the identified frame. The response rate was 11.1%.

Thus, the number of questionnaires in each group of entities (the dominance of questionnaires addressed to micro enterprises—92%) is due to the data found, i.e., the REGON database, and the percentage of enterprises by employment in the section in question, as well as the method described above for selecting the survey subjects.

Ninety-two per cent of companies constitute the structure of enterprises in the section. Ninety-two per cent reflects the same share in reality; the proportions were maintained in the study. The sample on which the study was conducted has the same structure as the share of enterprises in the population.

The various stages of implementation of the CATI quantitative survey (preparation and testing of the application in the CATI System for the implementation of CATI surveys; training of interviewers and implementation of the survey proper) were completed with a survey control. The inspection was carried out by experienced employees of the contractor, properly trained for this purpose. The persons performing the inspection did not combine the function of an inspector with the position of interviewer or moderator; they performed organisational and expert functions. The control included the ongoing progress of the survey, and the correctness of the survey proceedings, along with control of the data collection process and the work of the interviewers.

Typical problems encountered during the survey included the following:

• Difficulties in establishing contact with respondents and starting the survey (refusal to participate in the survey due to lack of time or motivation, unsuccessful connection, respondent unavailable);
• Low level of usefulness of re-contacting respondents who requested that the interview be postponed to another date;
• Difficulties in conducting the study, including completing the survey (connection quality, unfavourable circumstances, e.g., urgent work duties, mood, and impatience of the respondent);
• Difficulties in obtaining certain data (the issue of data completeness, mainly due to respondents’ reluctance to disclose information which they believe is subject to personal data protection, or due to concerns about the security of personal data).

These issues were resolved as needed, in the following ways:

• Making an appropriate number of attempts to contact the relevant respondent;
• Repeating contact to minimise disruptions;
• Scheduling the interview at a different time convenient for the respondent;
• Using techniques to maintain the respondent’s attention;
• Explaining and clarifying issues that raise doubts or concerns;
• Assuring the respondent of the reliability and anonymity of the study;
• Reanalysing statements to remove any inaccuracies.

The activities described brought positive results from the point of view of research methodology.

4. Results

In this study, a survey was conducted to identify behaviours related to the implementation of the circular economy by manufacturing companies in Poland to analyse the extent of their cooperation in the area of circular activities with their business partners/co-operators.

The survey was conducted in 2024. The surveyed companies (200 companies located in Poland) were dominated by companies with Polish capital, employing up to nine people (micro companies), companies running a sole proprietorship or a limited liability company, and companies with a long-standing presence on the market (10 or more years) (

Table 2. Number and percentage of companies participating in the survey by selected criteria [own study based on research results].

Characteristics		Number	Percentage
Company size	1 to 9	184	92.0
	10 to 49	12	6.0
	50 to 249	3	1.5
	250 and over	1	0.5
Form of business	sole trader	74	37
	partnership	38	19
	general partnership	18	9
	limited partnership	2	1
	limited liability company, limited partnership	1	0.5
	limited liability company	63	31.5
	joint stock company	2	1
	cooperative	1	0.5
	state organisational unit without legal personality	1	0.5
Time of operation of the company	less than one year	1	0.5
	1 to 3 years	5	2.5
	4 to 9 years	13	6.5
	10 years and over	181	90.5
Ownership of company capital	100% Polish capital	188	94
	predominantly Polish capital (over 50%)	4	2
	predominantly foreign capital (over 50%)	1	0.5
	100% foreign-owned enterprise	7	3.5
Combining business strategy with the idea of CE	yes	132	66
	not	68	34

).

The survey analysed forms of cooperation in circular activities with partners/cooperators of the surveyed enterprises. The analysed forms of cooperation (C) are as follows:

• C1—common norms and standards of operation;
• C2—exchange of information;
• C3—joint training;
• C4—consulting;
• C5—exchange/sharing of equipment;
• C6—cooperation in acquiring new technological and innovative solutions (e.g., joint R&D expenditures);
• C7—consent of partners to unannounced internal audits;
• C8—consent of partners to unannounced external audits.

The survey used a five-point anchored scale, in which extreme values were marked (1—completely disagree, 5—completely agree). This made it possible to examine the strength of the intensity of agreement with a given statement and allowed us to calculate a synthetic index of cooperation for each respondent, which was the average of the indications in each category [Figure 1].

The largest share of responses was indicated by “1-I completely disagree”, which meant the absence of cooperation in the forms analysed. Among the surveyed enterprises, the lack of such cooperation was declared by, respectively, the following:

• C1—common norms and standards of operation—36% of respondents;
• C2—exchange of information—27%;
• C3—joint training—45%;
• C4—consulting—35%;
• C5—exchange/sharing of equipment—44%;
• C6—cooperation in acquiring new technological and innovative solutions—42%;
• C7—partners’ agreement to unannounced internal audits—59%;
• C8—partners’ consent to unannounced external audits—69%.

Full declaration of cooperation in the aforementioned areas was indicated by, respectively, the following: 21% (common norms and standards of operation); 22% (exchange of information); 12% (joint training); 12% (consulting); 10% (exchange/sharing of equipment); 14% (cooperation in acquiring new technological and innovative solutions); 10% (agreement of partners to unannounced internal audits); and 7% (agreement of partners not to unannounced external audits). In the remaining cases, it can be concluded that the indicated scopes of cooperation were only partially implemented.

Based on the evaluation of the intensity of respondents’ compliance with a given form of cooperation, the average value was calculated for each form of cooperation (Figure 2). The highest was found for the 2nd form of cooperation (3.03—information exchange), which is one of the easiest forms to implement. The second highest (2.83) was for Form 1—common norms and performance standards. The lowest score of average intensity was obtained for cooperation No. 8 (1.92)—partners’ agreement to unannounced external audits, which could be due to the lack of making such a proposal and the parties’ reluctance to control processes [Figure 2].

Detailed descriptive statistics for each category of cooperation are presented in

Table 3. Detailed descriptive statistics of variables relating to forms of cooperation [own study based on research results].

	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	−95.0 CI	+95.0 CI	Me	Q1	Q3	SD	V	S	K	Cron. α
C1	2.83	2.61	3.04	3.00	1.00	4.00	1.57	55.60	0.07	−1.52	0.888
C2	3.03	2.82	3.23	3.00	1.00	4.00	1.51	49.76	−0.14	−1.41	0.881
C3	2.34	2.14	2.55	2.00	1.00	4.00	1.45	61.89	0.58	−1.12	0.883
C4	2.65	2.44	2.85	3.00	1.00	4.00	1.44	54.25	0.18	−1.35	0.876
C5	2.25	2.05	2.44	2.00	1.00	3.00	1.37	60.98	0.72	−0.78	0.894
C6	2.49	2.28	2.70	2.00	1.00	4.00	1.49	59.85	0.40	−1.31	0.894
C7	2.02	1.82	2.21	1.00	1.00	3.00	1.41	69.74	1.05	−0.37	0.898
C8	1.92	1.74	2.10	1.00	1.00	3.00	1.30	67.75	1.12	−0.09	0.894

Notes: $\overline{x}$—mean, CI—confidence interval, Me—median, Q1—lower quartile, Q3—upper quartile, SD—standard deviation, V—Coefficient of Variation, S—Skewness; K—Kurtosis; and Cron. α—Cronbach’s Alpha; it was decided not to include the minimum and maximum values in the table because for each form of cooperation, they were 1 and 5, respectively.

.

Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation of polychoric correlations was used to verify the validity of the measurement instrument. In the first step, Cronbach’s α coefficient was calculated, which was 0.9012 for the entire instrument, while for each statement used in the questionnaire, the values were greater than 0.87, which proves the validity of the scale used and allows for factor analysis to be performed. The analysis identified two groups of factors [the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (KMO) = 0.835; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ² = 1149.34, df = 28, p-value = 0.0000—which means that the variables are correlated with each other and are suitable for further analysis]. The analysis was then performed, entering the estimated polychoric correlation matrix into Statistica 13.3. The first group (Factor 1) included variables C1–C5, while the second (Factor 2) included C7 and C8. Variable C6 was more correlated with some elements belonging to Factor 1, which was also confirmed by the correlation analysis of variables. The results of the factor analysis are presented in

Table 4. Factor loadings for forms of cooperation [own study based on research results].

	Factor 1	Factor 2
C1	0.780471	0.319864
C2	0.844776	0.314422
C3	0.895793	0.239006
C4	0.923654	0.247403
C5	0.787609	0.236280
C6	0.634838	0.465653
C7	0.265932	0.946898
C8	0.313256	0.921260
Explained Variance	4.170559	2.337502
Proportion of Total Variance	0.521320	0.292188

Notes: Rotation: Varimax normalised; Extraction Method: Principal Components.

.

The following also assesses the variation in the forms of cooperation between an enterprise and its business partners towards selected enterprise characteristics. For this purpose, non-parametric Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis H tests were used (

Table 5. Assessment of the diversity of forms of cooperation of the company with its partners/cooperators towards the characteristics of the company (Kruskal–Wallis H test and Mann–Whitney U test) [own study based on research results].

Tests	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8
Grouping variable: Company size
Kruskal–Wallis H test	3.1699	2.3143	3.1406	2.4664	1.4827	2.4309	0.9093	2.0618
p	0.3662	0.5098	0.3704	0.4814	0.6863	0.4879	0.8232	0.5597
η2	0.016	0.011	0.016	0.012	0.007	0.012	0.005	0.010
Grouping variable: Form of enterprise operation
Kruskal–Wallis H test	7.5262	5.7236	4.7200	5.3478	3.7314	3.9657	5.4440	4.5195
p	0.4811	0.6782	0.7870	0.7198	0.8805	0.8602	0.7092	0.8075
η2	0.036	0.028	0.023	0.026	0.018	0.020	0.027	0.022
Grouping variable: Time of company operation
Kruskal–Wallis H test	1.4616	0.5159	2.9879	2.2133	0.2133	5.5469	3.1069	3.1679
p	0.6912	0.9154	0.3935	0.5293	0.9754	0.1359	0.3754	0.3665
η2	0.007	0.003	0.015	0.011	0.001	0.027	0.015	0.016
Grouping variable: Ownership of company capital
Kruskal–Wallis H test	2.4563	0.4971	3.0395	2.7236	1.9374	1.3772	1.2119	1.1267
p	0.4832	0.9195	0.3856	0.4362	0.5855	0.7109	0.7501	0.7706
η2	0.012	0.002	0.015	0.014	0.010	0.007	0.006	0.006
Grouping variable: Linking business strategy to the idea of CE
Mann–Whitney U Test	3310.5	3327.5	3467.0	3278.5	3661.0	3317.0	3392.5	3495.0
Z for Mann–Whitney U Test	3.1448	3.0689	2.7776	3.2217	2.2447	3.1619	3.1668	2.9001
p	0.0016 **	0.0021 **	0.0054 **	0.0012 **	0.0247 *	0.0015 **	0.0015 **	0.0037 **
r	234.088	235.290	245.154	231.825	258.872	234.547	239.886	247.134
Grouping variable: Industry
Kruskal–Wallis H test	12.0573	15.9446	19.5169	16.0037	20.7346	19.0324	22.5945	20.4210
p	0.7400	0.4568	0.2428	0.4527	0.1889	0.2670	0.1250	0.2019
η2	0.057	0.074	0.089	0.074	0.094	0.087	0.102	0.093

Level of significance: α = 0.05. For p < 0.05, the following levels of statistical significance were adopted: p < 0.05—occurs (*); p < 0.01—high (**).

).

Based on the above data, statistically significant differences were found between the indications of the forms of cooperation used, the declared combination of business strategy, and the idea of CE in the surveyed companies (Figure 3). Companies that declared the integration of the CE idea into their business strategy were statistically more likely to declare cooperation in the analysed scopes.

Spearman’s rank correlation was used to analyse statements describing the strength of cooperation intensity by type.

According to

Table 6. Values of Spearman rank correlation coefficients for the different types of cooperation [own study based on research results].

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8
C1	1
C2	0.760127 *	1
C3	0.6364 *	0.645831 *	1
C4	0.691141 *	0.743549 *	0.794658 *	1
C5	0.381253 *	0.521079 *	0.624589 *	0.652695 *	1
C6	0.416113 *	0.493883 *	0.527043 *	0.614849 *	0.526843 *	1
C7	0.407228 *	0.421025 *	0.383688 *	0.407328 *	0.357367 *	0.462181 *	1
C8	0.400894 *	0.39633 *	0.453358 *	0.437149 *	0.417829 *	0.466199 *	0.89889 *	1

Notes: *—Level of significance α = 0.05, p < 0.05.

and Figure 4, all variables are statistically significantly positively correlated with each other. In most cases, the correlation is average (0.3–0.5). In nine cases, high (0.5–0.7), and in four cases, very high (0.7–0.9). In the latter case, the following can be stated:

• The higher the declared undertaking of common norms and standards of operation, the higher the declared undertaking of information exchange;
• The higher the declared undertaking of counselling, the higher the declared undertaking of information exchange and joint training;
• The higher the partners’ agreement to unannounced internal audits is declared, the higher the partners’ agreement not to unannounced external audits is declared.

The data contained in Table 6 are reflected in the form of a graphical heat map, which reflects the results of factor analysis (showing two main clusters).

The study also calculated the value of the synthetic cooperation index (

Table 7. U Mann–Whitney test and H Kruskal–Wallis test—company characteristics vs. synthetic cooperation index [own study based on research results].

	Value Test Statistic *	p
Size of the company	3.1407	0.3704
The form of operation of the enterprise	4.6757	0.7916
Time of operation of the enterprise	2.4130	0.4912
Ownership of the company’s capital	1.6312	0.6523
Combining business strategy with CE practices	3.8031	0.0001 ***

Notes: *—For “Combination of business strategy and CE practices”—Mann–Whitney U Test; for the others—Kruskal–Wallis H Test. ***—Level of statistical significance α = 0.05, p < 0.05 (p< 0.001—very high).

), which is the average value of the strength of the intensity of compliance with a given statement [$\overline{x}$ = 2.438; (−95.0 CI) = 2.284; (+95.0 CI) = 2.593; Me = 2.375; Q1 = 1.375; Q3 = 3.25; SD = 1.109; V = 45.503; S = 0.239; K = −0.982]. The average was calculated for each case (enterprise), so its analysis was possible only in the arrangement of the characteristics of the enterprises taken for analysis (Table 5).

Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the value of the cooperation index did not differ significantly either by the size of the enterprise or by the form of operation, duration of operation, or ownership of capital. However, a statistically significant difference was found between the value of the cooperation index and the declared integration of the CE idea into the company’s business strategies (Table 7). For companies declaring the inclusion of the CE idea in their business strategy, the value of the cooperation index was higher (2.641) than for companies not declaring it (2.046).

This is one of the key findings of the study, which shows that the extent of CE cooperation depends on the approach of entrepreneurs to the CE concept itself and its integration into business practices. Responsible business concepts (CE is one of them) do not have to involve spending additional (or oversized) money but should be closely linked to building competitive advantage and creating added value by stimulating innovation [46]. Achieving this goal requires embedding responsibility in the environmental and social spheres in the company’s development strategies. Otherwise, we have to deal with conducting temporary initiatives often “detached” from the strategy, i.e., marketing campaigns, philanthropy, or charitable actions, and treat expenses for these purposes in the category of costs. Porter and Kramer argued in this regard that ad hoc social and environmental involvement in the form of sundry initiatives often means juxtaposing business and social goals, and thus missing opportunities and market opportunities, making these activities ineffective [44].

The implementation of the CE concept in business supply chains additionally requires mutual dialogue, clearly defined goals of action, and partnership in shared responsibility, searching for innovative solutions evaluated in a broader perspective and bringing benefits in the long term. As the research results presented in the paper show, cooperation in one area of business partnership intensifies and encourages action in other areas, increasing the chances of achieving jointly agreed goals (e.g., cooperation on norms and standards of operation—assuming consistency of messages between declared values and action—will stimulate cooperation in other areas, such as in the exchange of knowledge and information). Thus, we are talking about the appropriate management of relational capital with suppliers (B2B relationships), which is a strong catalyst for the development of innovation in supply chains. Involving suppliers in the co-creation of innovations (including in the area of CE) has a positive impact on the value and competitive advantage of those involved, and increases the commitment and effects of the activities carried out [47,48].

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Summary of Research and Conclusions

This article presents the essence and objectives of CE and the multidimensional economic, social, and environmental benefits that result from the application of its demands by manufacturing companies. A review of the recent literature has concluded the objectives that are now shaping future CE development trends—these include the following:

The essence of CE is explained by its objectives, which are defined as follows:

• To restore the highest value and usability of materials, components, and products;
• To have a positive impact on the economy, the environment, and global geopolitics by moving from a linear economic model to a circular economy;
• Building a network of sustainability links between different stakeholders, oriented towards common sustainable goals, cooperation, synergies and scale effects, knowledge creation and exchange, R&D, IO, technological innovation, and development of sustainable strategies and practices;
• Reducing fossil fuel dependency (decarbonisation), resource consumption, de-waste (moving towards zero-waste production), gas emissions, energy leakage, and environmental degradation, by slowing, narrowing, and closing material and energy loops;
• Strengthening the energy security of countries and the security of NATO, the EU, and the OECD;
• Restoring resilience, protecting and conserving the unique natural resources of ecosystems, prioritising the restoration of climate system stability, and strengthening the resilience of businesses, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and the circular economy;
• Developing new sustainable consumption habits and patterns in societies.

The cooperation of companies has been important in shaping their competitive advantage in the market and in implementing circular activities in supply chains. Sustainable innovation significantly and positively enhances the capabilities in the circular activities of companies. According to the research, the collaboration of manufacturing companies with stakeholders in a network focused on closing circularity and sustainability resulted in the following benefits:

• Effective learning, flow of information, knowledge, and best practices;
• Increased technical, organisational, and business capabilities;
• System improvements, process innovations, resource optimisation, and waste reduction;
• The emergence of network leaders with advanced digital technologies;
• Implementation of IOs that resulted in a culture of collaboration, sharing of expertise, skills development, access to and integration of technology, development of closed-loop products and processes, significant economic and technical performance, and the ability to pressure external stakeholders to leverage resources for CE initiatives;
• Sharing knowledge, risks, and responsibilities in R&D consortia;
• Tracking and coordinating all stages of the product life cycle (design, production, use, and disposal) [14], thus ensuring product traceability and informed decision-making, promoting transparency, sustainability, and CE;
• Controlling the channels of product uptake, at the end of their life, and encouraging consumers to use the products for as long as possible;
• Implementing I4.0 and I5.0 technologies and sustainability-oriented innovations, and making progress through, e.g., automation, virtualisation, flexibility, and process optimisation, reduction in material and energy consumption, data collection and processing, production planning, monitoring, system failure prediction, and decision-making;
• Achieving synergistic interaction between I4.0 technologies and LP practices, enabling the implementation of CE strategies;
• Obtaining an increase in the impact of I4.0 on CE performance through economies of scale, managerial support, operational efficiency, and investment cost;
• Accelerate the implementation of CE in the producer supply chain as follows: involvement of top management, collaboration of different stakeholders, and an increase in the knowledge and skills of employees;
• Support of companies in the sustainable management and development of CE by policymakers and researchers.

The study found that (1) companies that declared the inclusion of CE in their business strategy were statistically more likely to declare cooperation in the scopes analysed; (2) cooperation in one area of business partnership intensifies and encourages action in other areas, increasing the chances of achieving jointly agreed goals; and (3) the implementation of CE in companies requires appropriate management of relationship capital—B2B, which is a strong catalyst for the development of innovation in supply chains. Involving suppliers in the co-creation of CE innovations through partnerships in different areas has a positive impact on the value and competitive advantage of these actors.

Business cooperation is crucial in the implementation and development of CE. In this context, there is an urgent need to define the type of relationship that exists between corporate strategy and the concept of CE. Activities undertaken by companies in the area of circular economy should be an integral part of the companies’ strategy (CE should be an element of the strategy). CE should be visible at every stage of the creation of a company’s strategy—starting with the vision and mission, which are the reference points for the created strategy, and ending with operational activities [49] (p. 283).

It is important to take into account the needs of the company’s stakeholders in the process of designing the strategy, as part of the strategic orientation of building shared value (CSV). Such an approach, conditioned by partnership and close cooperation between stakeholders, can (and often does) result in innovative solutions that reduce operating costs and other resources, minimise waste, and increase efficiency in the use of materials. The superstructure of such a situation is not infrequently an improvement in reputation and corporate image, and, ultimately, the financial performance of the contracting company and its business partners.

The paper presents a survey in which responses from micro companies predominated. Micro companies often have less knowledge and experience of responsible business and the circular economy, and the effectiveness of implementing these concepts and their benefits. This is evidenced, among other things, by the survey results in question, in which the largest share of responses was an indication denoting a lack of cooperation in the forms/areas analysed (Figure 1). This indicates an urgent need for education in CE, especially among micro and small enterprises. One of the programmes, under the European Funds for Eastern Poland, supporting entrepreneurs, may be an answer to this is the “Academy of Circular Transformation for Business”, organised by the Polish Academy for Enterprise Development (PARP). The programme offers access to knowledge, tools, and experts to help effectively implement CE solutions. However, it should be noted that this type of training (and not just competitions and subsidy programmes for CE projects for small- and medium-sized enterprises) should be widely implemented and available to a comparable extent throughout the country, bearing in mind that micro companies dominate the structure of enterprises throughout the country, as well as bearing in mind that the enterprises in question in Poland are characterised by significant resource (including human resource) limitations and time constraints, making it difficult to access up-to-date market knowledge, including in the area of CE.

5.2. Comparison of Areas and Forms of Cooperation of Manufacturing Companies with Business-to-Business Stakeholders with Previous and Next Studies

In the presented results of the research in Poland, full declaration of cooperation in numerous areas was indicated by, respectively, the following:

• Common norms and standards of operation (21%);
• Exchange of information (22%), joint training (12%), consulting (12%), and exchange and sharing of equipment (10%);
• Cooperation in acquiring new technological and innovative solutions (14%), as well as agreement of partners to unannounced internal (10%) and external audits (7%).

Companies that declared the integration of the CE idea into their business strategy were statistically more likely to declare cooperation in the analysed scopes. It was statistically confirmed that manufacturing companies that declared the integration of CE ideas in their business strategy obtained a higher value for the cooperation index than for the companies that did not declare such cooperation. The results of a study in Portugal show that internalising pro-environmental norms increases people’s commitment to pro-environmental behaviour (e.g., supporting actions for sustainable development and implementing CE practices). This is also true for the beliefs of manufacturing companies and their stakeholders, who align business strategies with their values. This promotes a culture of sustainability in the socio-economic environment [50].

There are no studies in Poland to which the findings presented in this research paper can be directly related. In contrast, it is possible to relate the areas of cooperation between manufacturing companies and their stakeholders presented here to the areas of European research (before research, up to 2024, and after research, i.e., in the first half of 2025):

• Common norms and standards of operation [8,9];
• Exchange of information, joint training, consultancy, and exchange and sharing of equipment [6,10,11,12,16,29,50];
• Cooperation in the acquisition of new technological and innovative solutions, as well as agreement of partners to unannounced internal and external audits [3,12,18,22,23,24,33,34,35].

Transparency of controls and audits of processes carried out in European CE-oriented manufacturing companies is the area of management for which the fewest research findings can be found. However, a number of sources emphasise the importance for manufacturing companies and their B2B stakeholders of the high importance of ethical values, transparency of operations, traceability of product lifecycle stages, transparent sourcing of raw materials from legitimate sources, building trust, loyalty and credibility, and clear leadership [34,37,50].

The areas and forms of cooperation of manufacturing companies with B2B stakeholders of the studies conducted in Poland are consistent with the areas and forms of cooperation in European studies. The overall conclusions of the Polish study are analogous to the findings of the German manufacturing companies, which are not yet ready to close the loop, and their knowledge of CE is still insufficient [51].

5.3. Practical Implications

There are important practical conclusions from the research presented in this thesis. The collaboration of companies with stakeholders—not only in the B2B sector—in the development of CE, leads to increased awareness, knowledge, and interest in sustainable management. As a consequence of this, there is peer pressure from stakeholders to raise pro-environmental standards and increase their commitment to closing the loop in the management process. The pressure of cooperation between companies and stakeholders for CE increases when these stakeholders incorporate CE demands into their business strategies. An inverse relationship can also be inferred—namely, manufacturing companies that have incorporated CE demands into their business strategies have de-acclimated the increase in activity in collaboration with stakeholders to obtain CE development. Factors that significantly accelerated and intensified cooperation between manufacturing companies and their stakeholders were internationalisation, and the implementation of the IO, ICT, DPP, PLM, and LP. The variety of tools used (e.g., ICT) was also beneficial in achieving progress towards CE goals. It can be assumed that this description represents a set of recommendations for stakeholders in CE development.

The audiences who may potentially be interested in the research results presented in this paper are researchers and managers working in the field of CE, sustainability, and sustainable management.

5.4. Summary of Research Limitations and Directions for Further Research

The presented survey research, concerning the cooperation of enterprises in circular activities with their cooperators, is one of the necessary areas for a comprehensive analysis of the circularity of these entities in Poland. Diagnosing the level of knowledge, especially of micro and small enterprises, and determining the areas of circular activities, their specifics, the motives for undertaking them, and, above all, the barriers that hinder their implementation, are essential activities for the effective implementation of current legislative solutions. In this area, however, one must conclude that there is an information gap in the Polish market. When it comes to the dominant group of micro and small enterprises on the Polish market, their circularity in reports is treated piecemeal (there are no comprehensive reports on the circularity of the entities in question), and in scientific studies it is presented through qualitative research (studies of example), rather than quantitative, showing certain regularities in circular behaviour in the group of enterprises in question. Therefore, there is an urgent need to continue such research for a proper diagnosis of the situation and effective measures taken for the successful transformation of the economy towards a circular economy.

Empirical research has been dedicated to the B2B sector. In line with current trends in the literature, it would be interesting to extend this research to include the cooperation of manufacturing companies with stakeholders other than supply chain companies. This is a limitation of the empirical part and, at the same time, a future research direction. A strength of the research is its national coverage of Poland.