










































 

 

16 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

 

 

 

Circular Strategies to Improve Consumer Goods Returns 

Katia C. Chaban, DBA | Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA 

Janice P. Tucker, PhD | Columbia Southern University, Orange Beach, AL, USA 

Contact: katchaban@gmail.com 

 

Abstract 
As the importance of sustainability as a business strategy continues to grow, U.S. consumer goods 
companies must incorporate sustainability goals for critical business processes such as the product return 
process to minimize profit and waste. A general business problem is that leaders in the U.S. consumer 
goods industry have faced significant challenges in implementing sustainable solutions to reduce 
consumer product returns' economic and environmental impact. The circular economy (CE) is an 
approach to transition from the traditional take-make-waste linear business model to a closed-loop 
model focused on regenerating natural resources and extending the value of materials and goods. A gap 
in business practice is that leaders responsible for the product return process for consumer product 
companies across the U.S. have been slow to adopt circular business models. The purpose of this 
qualitative inquiry research was to explore the perspectives of thirteen circular economy (CE) experts 
with at least three years of CE experience to discover innovative strategies for the returns process to 
improve the adoption of a CE business model.  The framework for this study was an adapted CE 
framework based on the butterfly diagram from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The expert data 
collected through semi-structured interviews was analyzed using thematic analysis. Five themes 
emerged from the analysis, including supply chain, business model disruption, reverse logistics, design, 
and CE enablers.   

 

Keywords: Circular economy, Triple Bottom Line, Sustainability, Consumer product returns, Strategic 
planning, Business model 



 

 

 

17 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Introduction 
The current linear business model, which focuses on resource extraction and promotes high consumption 
of goods, is unsustainable for the long term (Baden & Frei, 2022; Rodriguez et al., 2020). With current 
business models in place, there will be a need for two planets equivalent to the size of the earth to 
provide resources for consumer consumption and store waste in 2030 (The World Counts, 2022). 
Business leaders need to focus on sustainable innovation by balancing the concerns about the 
degradation of the environment and inequalities in society while still enjoying economic prosperity 
(Weidner et al., 2021). The triple bottom line (TBL) was introduced in 1994 as a way for business 
leaders to think about capitalism differently and encourage leaders to examine a company's social, 
environmental, and economic impact based on the growing focus on sustainability (Elkington, 2018). 
The circular economy (CE) is recognized as an opportunity for prosperity without compromising the 
planet (Circle Economy, 2021). The CE is a solution that supports redesigning business practices 
through the extended life of products to achieve sustainable business models (Bocken et al., 2019).   

The consumer product returns process is a vital component of the business model for the consumer 
goods industry that needs to become more sustainable. Consumer product companies in the United 
States spend $100 billion annually handling returns (Zhang et al., 2021) and contribute negatively to the 
environment due to waste created by the process, with an estimated 10% of all returns going to landfills 
(Ader et al., 2021). Managing product returns is complex and based on customer expectations regarding 
convenience, low cost, and sustainability. For example, poor practices such as having the consumer pay 
for returns would decrease expenditures with the same company (Espinosa et al., 2019). Baden and Frei 
(2022) indicated that customers who can return their products for free increase their spending by up to 
450%. However, there are growing customer expectations related to the importance of environmental, 
social, and governance (ESG); 25% of consumers indicated they would focus on environmental issues 
related to their shopping habits (Gatzer & Magnin, 2021). 

This study focused on exploring how the CE can improve managing returns in U.S. consumer products 
companies to address the TBL. The results of the study could assist company leaders in transitioning 
from their current linear business models to a circular business model. This transformation could create 
value for the company and positively impact the environment.  

Problem of Practice 

The general business problem is that U.S. consumer goods leaders have faced significant challenges in 
implementing sustainable solutions to meet their consumers' social, environmental, and financial 
concerns. For instance, the economic impact of consumer product returns results in an average annual 
lost revenue of 3.8% annually (Zhang et al., 2021). Zhang et al. (2021) estimated that in the United 
States in 2020, retail return rates were 5-10% in physical stores and up to 40% for online purchases 
worth an estimated value of $428 billion of products returned each year costing companies billions of 
dollars (Zhang et al., 2021).  



 

 

18 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

The specific business problem is many consumer goods companies are using outdated strategies for the 
returns process. Leaders of consumer goods companies in the U.S. have been slow to adopt new 
business models such as the CE (Rodriguez et al., 2020), to address the 6 billion pounds of returned 
goods waste in the United States annually (Hartmans, 2022; Hautala, 2022). Manufacturers and retailers 
spend $100 million annually to handle product returns and $550 billion on returns deliveries emitting 16 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually (Hartmans, 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). Because of the 
slow adaptation to the circular economy, consumer goods companies are not able to obtain components 
of the TBL, including economic benefits of up to $2 trillion (by 2030), productivity improvements, and 
cost savings in manufacturing up to 24%, and the reduction of resource dependence and waste (Karman 
& Pawlowski, 2022). 

Purpose of Study 

The purpose of this qualitative inquiry study was to explore sustainable innovative strategies regarding 
sustainability for the returns process to overcome the high physical and financial costs of consumer 
goods returns. There are negative impacts on consumer product companies based on the cost of 
processing returns. In addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars it costs companies to handle product 
returns, only 5% of products returned are defective (Zhang et al., 2021). However, 10% of all returns 
end up in landfill sites (Ader et al., 2021), suggesting millions of dollars of usable product is wasted. 

To address sustainable innovation and transform current business models to the CE, consumer product 
leaders need more information on transforming their business models. Changing from the current linear 
business models to the CE is complex as firms must innovate for profitability while balancing 
sustainable development (Ardito et al., 2018; Jain et al., 2020). The intent of the study was to create 
practical strategies for sustainable innovation regarding product returns by exploring the opinions of CE 
experts. The gap in practice is that leaders responsible for the product return process for consumer 
product companies across the United States have been slow to adopt circular business models 
(Rodriguez et al., 2020).  Frei et al. (2020) stated that the returns management process had been an 
overlooked business process even though it affected a company’s profitability. They also found limited 
alignment between the current practice of handling product returns with the CE. 

Research Question  

This generic qualitative inquiry study explored the knowledge and experience of CE experts. The study 
was guided by a single research question (R.Q.) designed to close the gaps in practice and address the 
specific problem to support the adoption of the CE for the returns process.  

R.Q.: What are the perspectives of CE experts of consumer goods companies in the United States to 
discover innovative strategies for the returns process to improve the adoption of a CE business model? 

  



 

 

 

19 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Summary of the Literature 
Background 

This study was focused on the consumer goods industry. A consumer good, known as a final good or 
product, is a product ready for consumption by a consumer and can be broken out further into durable 
goods intended to last longer than three years (Boyce, 2022). Durable products are fast-moving 
consumer goods purchased more frequently and have a shorter life than durable consumer goods and 
account for 35% of resource inputs into the economy and 75% of waste globally (Ellen MacArthur 
Foundation, 2013).  

Consumer spending is how personal consumption is measured. Spending in the United States is 
estimated to be over $14 billion in 2023 (IBISWorld, 2022a). The estimated retail sales value in 2022 in 
the U.S. was $5,788 billion and is expected to grow by an annualized 1.6% over the next five years 
(IBISWorld, 2022b). In 2002, the percentage of business performed online was 8.98%, but by 2027, the 
estimated future rate of online purchasing will be 34.99% (IBISWorld, 2021). The growth of spending 
and online shopping will increase returns, creating more cost and complexity for companies (Zhang et 
al., 2021).   

Circle Economy (2021) labeled the consumer goods industry as consumables and defined it as one of 
society’s seven needs and wants. This industry is diverse, including products across multiple industries, 
such as clothing, food, electronics, and textiles (Circle Economy, 2021). The report indicated that 
consumables account for 5.6 billion tons of the 59.1 billion tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted in 
2019 (Circle Economy, 2021). Such environmental impact is measured throughout the value chain and 
includes the phases of take, process, produce, provide and end of use. Each value chain step has a 
component of waste in addition to the end-of-use phase of a consumable or product use (Circle 
Economy, 2021). The other critical process in the consumer goods value chain that occurs before the end 
of life and is central to this study is the returns process which includes the management of the return that 
needs to ensure a positive customer experience with the intent of value recovery of the product (PAT 
Research, n.d.).  

The product returns process has not had a strategic focus (Ader et al., 2021; Frei et al., 2020). However, 
the product returns process is worth $428 billion in the United States (Zhang et al., 2021) and causes 
significant waste issues (Hartmans, 2022; Hautala, 2022). Consumer online consumption grew by 27%, 
while brick-and-mortar stores grew by 8% from March 2021 to March 2022 (Alldredge et al., 2022). 
Consumers care about and are influenced by environmental, social, and governance (ESG) behaviors by 
the companies they purchase from (Alldredge et al., 2022). The returns process needs to have a strategic 
focus on sustainability based on the growth of consumption, the focus on ESG, the generation of waste, 
and lost profitability.  

The following sections will help acquaint the reader with sustainability, the CE, the triple bottom line, 
and trends related to the consumer product industry. Research utilizing scholarly and practitioner 
literature will illustrate the challenges businesses have had transforming current business models to the 
CE that demonstrated the need for this study.  



 

 

20 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Sustainability in Business 

Since the industrial revolution, the population of the world has continued to grow, the amount of 
material flowing through the economy has tripled, and instead of using what is already available, the 
extraction of natural material continues to occur (Circle Economy, 2022). According to Salguero-Puerta 
et al. (2019), the linear economic model evolved during the industrial revolution. Product creation 
started with resource extraction of natural resources and ended with product waste. Since then, several 
drivers have forced the convergence of environmental concerns with the corporate agenda, including the 
impacts of globalization in business related to sustainable development (Elkington, 2006). The linear 
model is unsustainable as the linear economy has caused a waste management issue affecting current 
and future world populations (Jaeger & Upadhyay, 2020; Salguero-Puerta et al., 2019). Addressing more 
than just economics in a business model has become necessary. 

Companies have taken small steps to incorporate sustainability into their business strategy (Hatami & 
Segel, 2021). The term sustainability was defined in 1987 as "meeting the needs of the present without 
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (United Nations, n.d., para. 2). 
Introduced at the 2005 World Summit, sustainable development was a way for society to create 
strategies related to economics, society, and the protection of the environment. However, this triple 
bottom line approach has still not been widely adopted (Ardito et al., 2018).  

Sustainability, the principle of producing goods and services while conducting minimal environmental 
damage, is fundamental to business (Hatami & Segel, 2021). Sustainable development is an approach 
that considers both economic development and ecological concerns. Sustainable innovation, which 
improves products or processes and focuses on ecological integrity and social equity without 
compromising profits, is still a new but steadily emerging research topic (Weidner et al., 2021). Ardito 
et al. (2018) described that companies should design growth strategies based on social inclusion, 
economic development, and the protection of the environment. There is growing pressure from 
consumers and governments to reevaluate organizations' business models to determine where they may 
be insufficient to meet such pressures (Jain et al., 2020). Over 80% of the executives surveyed indicated 
that they are increasing transparency in sustainability as sustainability plays a role in consumers' 
decision-making, impacting consumption and profits (Deloitte, 2022). Companies must think 
innovatively about their value chain to reduce environmental impacts, such as improving waste, 
reducing energy and water consumption, attracting new consumers, meeting profit goals, and growing 
market share (Jain et al., 2020).  

The Circular Economy  

The CE was created to address sustainability. The CE enables sustainability by reducing waste and 
pollution by using fewer products, using products for longer, regenerating them, and recycling them 
(Circle Economy, 2022). The CE works on three principles: taking out waste and pollution, extending 
the life of products and materials, and ensuring natural systems are being restored (Ellen MacArthur 
Foundation, n.d-a.). According to Prieto et al. (2018), the CE is a globally accepted solution to prevent 
pollution, protect the environment, and create economic wealth. The CE has seen legal and financial 



 

 

 

21 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

support in the United Kingdom, China, the European Union, South Korea, and the United States (Prieto 
et al., 2018).  

According to Kalmykova et al. (2018), stock optimization (or the looping structure of the CE for reuse 
and recycling) has been seen in economic theories discussed by scholars since the 1980s. The spaceman 
economy was structured as a cyclical system with the reproduction of materials, and the steady-state 
economy sought to balance growth and environmental integrity. Industrial ecology was the idea of 
integrating industrial systems with biological systems, and lastly, a concept using a closed resource flow 
system was known as cradle-to-cradle (Kalmykova et al., 2018). However, it is the CE that has gained 
the most traction. In China, a law to promote the CE was introduced in 2009, and the European Union 
introduced a CE package focused on waste reduction in 2015 (Moreau et al., 2017). In addition, 
practitioners globally, such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, started promoting awareness of the CE. 
The definition from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation became the most widely cited one, adopted by both 
academia and governments to drive consistent dialogue about the topic.  

The CE is based on building resilience by diversity, shifting to renewable energy, thinking in terms of 
systems instead of just the parts, and thinking in circles to identify opportunities for value creation 
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). The CE framework is also referred to as the butterfly diagram and 
has become compelling based on the opportunities business may have in a closed-loop or circular model 
(Howard et al., 2019). The CE framework includes two material cycles, biological and technical, and the 
material flow for each represents the wings in the butterfly model. The biological flow focuses on 
nutrients and their return to the biosphere, including composting processes that help regenerate natural 
capital. The technical cycle involves materials that neither degrade nor provide any nutrients, such as 
plastics, wood, and metals, so they do not naturally cascade. In the technical cycle, the intent is to 
prolong the optimal value of that material by maintaining, reusing, redistributing, refurbishing, 
remanufacturing, and recycling.  

The CE model is different from the current linear model. The CE model focuses on the cascading 
materials and their reuse, treating each resource as valuable, versus the linear model, which is dependent 
on accessing resources in large quantities (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). The linear economy has 
provided great prosperity, as the global gross domestic product (GDP) has grown significantly between 
1900 and 2000. Still, the linear economy is material and energy-intensive (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 
2013). Thinking circularly when innovating can provide benefits related to technological innovation, 
improved materials use, energy efficiency, and different profit opportunities for business and reduce 
environmental impact.  

For a business to design circularly, it needs to understand where waste or leakage occurs in its supply 
chains (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). The cost of managing returns impacts profitability(Zhang 
et al., 2021),  and is a source of waste creation for a company (Hartmans, 2022), so addressing the 
business practices of the consumer goods industry by evaluating the use of the CE as a business model is 
strategically necessary. 



 

 

22 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

The Importance of the Triple Bottom Line  

The term triple bottom line (TBL) was introduced in 1994 when there was a need to integrate the 
environmental topic with social and economic agendas. The intent was to demonstrate to companies that 
there were methods to create value in multiple dimensions (Elkington, 2006). The TBL created new 
questions related to the purpose of the business, the appropriate balance between shareholders and 
stakeholders, and what balance there should be with the components of the TBL. According to 
Elkington, three significant waves occurred from the 1960s to 2006, highlighting the need for an 
environmental agenda. These waves included environmental legislation in regions governed by the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) regions, the impact of acid rain on 
politics, issues like ozone depletion and rainforest destruction, and the impacts of the Chernobyl 
disaster. Sustainable development governance was introduced in 2002 by the U.N. World Summit with 
the advent of globalization in business. However, the challenge with the TBL was that the three 
components conflicted as they were not all measured in the same way (Elkington, 2018). In addition, 
there were challenges related to simultaneously enjoying the rewards for all three components (Weidner 
et al., 2021). 

Ardito et al. (2018) indicated that since World Summit discussions in 2005 focused on the three pillars 
of the TBL, it was far from a dominant business model. The difficulty of aligning stakeholder goals and 
focusing only on short-term gains has caused challenges in moving to sustainable business models. The 
need to mitigate trade-offs between the three pillars of the TBL requires a strategic shift in firms, leading 
to restructuring, new supply chains, and a redefinition of the innovation value chain (Ardito et al., 2018). 
In addition, because there was a requirement for stakeholders to all agree to make changes, stakeholders’ 
goals may not be aligned, making it hard to gain consensus. The fact that there has not been a standard 
approach to the implementation and measurement of TBL made it challenging to see Elkington's vision 
of reconciling economic, social, and environmental aspects (Ardito et al., 2018).  

Industry Trends 

Consumer spending for personal consumption on goods and services has seen steady growth. Consumer 
goods include clothing, electronics, sporting goods, kitchenware, hobby and craft supplies, office 
stationery, perfume, and fragrance (IBISWorld, 2022a). After the coronavirus, there was an expectation 
for increased spending due to profoundly ingrained spending habits and government financial injections 
in conjunction with wage growth. In 2002, consumer spending was worth $9,088.7 billion, and in 2027, 
consumer spending is expected to be worth $15,907.1 billion (IBISWorld, 2022a), of which the retail 
environment is worth $6,252.9 billion (IBISWorld, 2022b). In 2013, the consumer goods industry 
globally was estimated to be responsible for 75% of solid waste and drove a significant loss of natural 
resources based on a rise in consumers (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). If not addressed, the 
increased purchasing of manufactured goods would create significant issues related to the depletion of 
natural resources and waste (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).  

E-commerce became an important channel for retailers during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, 
contributing to the challenge of returns and waste. As shoppers stayed indoors, online sales increased by 
50.5% in 2019 (Young, 2022). Online spending as part of retailed sales has continued to increase since 



 

 

 

23 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

2012 as the comfort of spending online and the experience of convenience made online shopping 
attractive. In 2012, e-commerce sales as a total percentage of retail spending were at 8%, and in 2021, 
the number doubled to 19.1%, worth $4.55 trillion in the United States (Young, 2022). De Leeuw et al. 
(2016) reported that the return percentage of online apparel purchased in the United States was 30% in 
2013. In 2020, just over 10% of online purchases were returned, with an estimated cost of returns to 
businesses equating to $101 billion (Dopson, 2021). Up to 50% of returned products are sold again, 
returned to the manufacturers, or sold at significantly discounted prices to other companies. The rest 
equated to five billion pounds of garbage in landfill sites, and the transport alone created an estimated 
fifteen million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions (Calma, 2019).  

Challenges to adapting to the CE 

Significant research has occurred related to the challenges of the transition from the linear business 
model to the circular model, including the lack of practical guidance on how to make the transition 
(Bocken et al., 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2020; Prieto et al. 2018). Bocken et al. (2019) analyzed tools for 
CE business model innovation. The researchers recognized a need to adapt the business model to 
become circular based on pressures for sustainability and found several published tools. Bocken et al. 
(2019) attributed the speed of adoption to the fact that literature supporting the transformation was still 
surfacing. 

Similarly, Gonzalez et al. (2020) indicated that the process of circular business model innovation 
(CBMI) remained under-explored, resulting in a lack of guidelines for firms as most of the literature was 
theoretical, and further insight was required. Bocken et al. (2019) found that tools were not in use for a 
few reasons, including their complexity or, conversely, that they were too generic, for instance, the use 
of Osterwalder’s business model canvas to use as a transformation tool. The CE adoption has been slow 
because the process is complex. Innovation challenges due to CBMI are iterative, not sequential, and 
implementing would require the organization to enter unchartered business practices requiring changes 
to supply chain partnerships and the development of new organizational capabilities (Gonzalez et al., 
2020).  

Transformation uncertainties are related to going against how the business performs today (Bocken et 
al., 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2020; Linder & Williander, 2017). The change is complex, as firms must 
innovate for profitability while balancing sustainable development (Ardito et al., 2018; Jain et al., 2021). 
Businesses do not have organizational structures that treat sustainability as a material business issue 
(DeSmet et al., 2021) or ownership or leadership for the process of returns (Ader et al., 2021; Frei et al., 
2020). There is a need to implement critical success factors to make better decisions (Julianelli et al., 
2020; Sehnem et al., 2019). Linder and Williander (2017) identified an issue with a lack of supporting 
regulation. According to Lahti et al. (2018), legislation had been introduced in various countries to 
stimulate an economy to be circular, but such legislation also drove uncertainty.To support more 
accurate decision-making, improved use of digital technology to gather and analyze informative data is 
necessary (Ader et al., 2021; Subramoniam et al., 2021). In addition, it is difficult for shareholders to 
agree to change due to a lack of metrics and short-term gain (Ardito et al., 2018; Sehnem et al., 2019). 

Researchers Frei et al. (2020) and de Leeuw et al. (2016) cited significant challenges specific to the 
returns process and how the process impacted profitability. However, while de Leeuw et al. focused on 



 

 

24 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

understanding the effects of operational practices on the returns process and how to improve 
profitability, Frei et al. focused more specifically on the barriers to implementing the CE to deal with 
returns. De Leeuw et al. found several challenges, including simple returns policies and refunds for 
online retail where a consumer had no opportunity to inspect a product before purchase, were even more 
costly. De Leeuw et al. analysis focused on consumer behavior factors such as determining consumer 
justifications for product returns, including defective products, products that were not a fit, and products 
that consumers regretted purchasing, suggested that the more accessible retailers make it to perform 
returns to bolster customer satisfaction, the more returns they will experience. Frei et al. (2020) 
identified in their research that there existed a belief that returns were just a cost of doing business. 

The Adapted CE Framework 

The CE framework (butterfly diagram) from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has been adapted 
specifically for this study. The framework focuses on the business practice of consumer product returns 
due to profit and waste leakage and highlights where the problem occurs with the red arrow. The 
adapted CE framework also includes the challenges related to the gap in practice. The adapted 
framework will only utilize the CE’s technical flow as this study does not look at biological flows. The 
technical wing focuses on retaining the value of a product for as long as possible. This technical cycle 
applies to this study as the cycle aims to minimize the products going to landfills, eliminate waste and 
pollution, and circulate products and materials longer (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, n.d.-b, Definitions).  

Figure 1 is an adaptation of the butterfly diagram representing the circular framework. The left side of 
Figure 1 highlights the study problem that consumer product company leaders have not taken advantage 
of CE business models to improve the product return process impacting the company’s profitability and 
the environment (Ader et al., 2021). The red arrow points to when the consumer returns something to 
where they purchased it. The center of the framework includes the spine of the butterfly representing a 
condensed product lifecycle from what is contained in the original diagram. The portion of the spine 
utilized for this framework excluded the components of natural materials being extracted from the earth 
and then processed. The spine now includes the product manufacturer providing the product to the 
retailer that sells it to the consumer, who can return the product to where it was initially purchased. 
Zhang et al. (2021) stated that the retail returns rate exceeded 10% in the United States in 2020, valued 
at $428 billion of products returned. The circles in the diagram illustrate that the intent is to maintain, 
reuse, redistribute, remanufacture, and refurbish products in the CE, which are critical concepts in 
creating the interview questions. The last desire is to recycle as it is a minor value activity, and in a well-
designed CE, the focus is on preventing waste (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, n.d.-b). 

Figure 1  
The Adapted Circular Economy Framework 



 

 

 

25 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

 

Note. From The butterfly diagram: visualising the circular economy, Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2021 https://ellenmacar-
thurfoundation.org/circular-economy-diagram. 2019 Copyright@ Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Adapted with permission.  

The literature review revealed many challenges that caused the gap in practice, including leaders being 
slow to adapt to the CE business model and not using the circular economy to improve the product re-
turn process. These challenges are outlined on the right side of the framework and include transfor-
mation uncertainties related to going against dominant business practices (Bocken et al., 2019; Gonzalez 
et al., 2020; Linder & Williander, 2017) and change complexity associated with the balance of invest-
ment and profits (Ardito et al., 2018; Jain et al., 2020). Businesses do not have organizational structures 
that treat sustainability as a material business issue (DeSmet et al., 2021) or ownership or leadership of 
returns management (Ader et al., 2021; Frei et al., 2020). There needs to be improved technology (Ader 
et al., 2021; Subramoniam et al., 2021), and there are challenges related to shareholders (Ardito et al., 
2018; Sehnem et al., 2019). For the returns process specifically, there are challenges due to the impact of 
packaging (Frei et al., 2020; Sehnem et al., 2019), consumer behavior or expectations (Ader et al., 2021; 
de Leeuw et al., 2016; Frei et al., 2020) and the diversity of products (Frei et al., 2020). Overcoming 
these challenges will be critical in advancing a CE business model. 

Product Manufacturer

Provider/Retailer

Landfill

Remanuf
acturer/

Refurbish

Recycle

Provider/Retailer

MaintainConsumer
Leaders not using
Circular Economy
to improve
product returns
process

Problem

Waste
Leakage

Profit
Leakage

Circular Economy (Technical Cycle)

Gap

Leaders slow
to adapt to
CE Business
Model

Lenient Return Policies

Lack of collaboration in
supply chain

Product packaging

Lack of leadership/org
structure

Short term view of
Economics

Disposal Decisions

Third
parties/competitors

Inadequate Data/Metrics

Consumer Behavior

Shareholders not
aligned

Challenges

Reuse/Re
distribute

Product diversity

Against dominant
business practices

about:blank
about:blank


 

 

26 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

 

Methodology 
Summary of Methodology 

A general inquiry qualitative methodology was used to explore CE expert professional opinions. Expert 
sampling with interview questions were the research instrument.  Ten open ended interview questions, 
listed in the appendix, were designed to explore experts' perspectives on the CE and answer the research 
question of what are the perspectives of CE experts of consumer goods companies in the United States 
to discover innovative strategies for the returns process to improve the adoption of a CE business 
model? The study approach included a field test to test the reliability and validity of the interview 
questions and help ensure the questions yielded the intended results. 

Participant Information 

Prior to scheduling the interviews, participants were asked to complete the informed consent document 
and a screening questionnaire using a Google Docs form. The screening form collected qualification in-
formation on years of CE experience, industry experience, education level, and location to ensure partic-
ipants met the CE expert criteria and for descriptive statistical analysis. If a respondent showed interest 
but did not meet expert participant requirements, they were thanked for their time and excluded from the 
study. 

Consumer goods companies are often multinational so having the global experience of the participants 
provided broad perspectives. The overall participant experience in the CE averaged 5.46 years, with an 
average of 3.15 years working in the consumer product goods industry. The participants' locations were 
in eight countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, India, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United 
Kingdom, with the highest number sourced from the United States. The years of CE experience ranged 
from the United States with an average of 4.8 years, and the rest of the participants had an average of 6 
years. Table 1 includes the participant data, including years of CE experience, interview duration, and 
overall industry experience. 

Table 1  
Participation Information 
 

Participant 
Years of CE 
Experience 

 Interview 
Duration Industry Experience 

1 5+  54:40 Consulting across multiple industries 

2 3+  55:38 Manufacturing, Consumer Product Industry, Information 
Technology 

3 5+  56:33 Financial/Investment, Healthcare/Pharmaceutical, 
Manufacturing, Electronics, Consumer Product Industry, 



 

 

 

27 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Travel & Hospitality, Mining & Energy, Information 
Technology, Education 

4 3+  59:07 Financial/Investment, Consumer Product Industry, NGO 

5 3+  69:55 Manufacturing, Information Technology, NGO 

6 3+  59:06 Consulting across multiple industries 

7 3+  54:07 Mining & Energy, NGO, Manufacturing, Consumer 
Product Industry 

8 5+  55:48 Financial/Investment, Manufacturing, Electronics, Policies 
Development 

9 3+  52:31 Financial/Investment, Healthcare/Pharmaceutical, 
Manufacturing, Electronics, Consumer Product Industry, 
Information Technology 

10 20+  54:07 Healthcare/Pharmaceutical, Manufacturing, Consumer 
Product Industry, Consulting, NGO 

11 10+  52:48 Electronics; Information Technology, NGO Consulting 

12 5+  68:54 Healthcare/Pharmaceutical, Manufacturing, Consulting, 
Consumer Products Industry 

13 5+  57:29 Consumer Product Industry 

 
Data Collection Process 
Data collection for this study occurred through semi-structured interviews, which began on July 18, 
2022, ending with the final interview on September 15, 2022. LinkedIn was the source for recruiting. 
Recruitment occurred using the LinkedIn InMail feature to email directly to LinkedIn members with the 
necessary CE experience and through LinkedIn groups focused on the circular economy.  

In this study, expert sampling was used to target a population of knowledgeable CE participants. In total, 
151 individual emails were sent via LinkedIn. There were 13 interviewees who met the expert CE crite-
ria and were willing to participate in the study. The semi-structured interviews occurred through Zoom 
conferencing and were recorded as per the informed consent that each participant signed. Each interview 
included introductions, a review of the information provided in the recruitment communication, and the 
ability to ask clarifying questions. After the completion of the interview, the audio recording was con-
verted to a transcript utilizing the transcription services available on Zoom. Once the transcripts were 
available, the transcript was downloaded into a .doc format and saved to a password-protected and en-
crypted hard drive. A transcript review was performed by listening to the interview audio while editing 



 

 

28 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

any issues and deidentifying any personal information related to the participant or organizations men-
tioned in the document. Participants were sent a copy of their transcript and asked to verify the content's 
accuracy and reply within five business days with any changes which needed to be made.  

Data Analysis 
Analysis for this study was based on inductive thematic analysis, which focused on the data collected in 
the interviews. The process included three cycles with multiple iterations within each cycle. The first 
cycle included the initialization and construction phases. The second cycle included rectification and 
finalization, where themes were validated to ensure they answered the study question. The final cycle 
was the creation of the final report.  

Initialization and Construction Phases 
The initialization phase included both manual coding as well as the use of automation. The importance 
of this phase was to become acquainted with the data collected to adequately move to the subsequent 
phases of the construction process, which was to assemble data into categories. 

Initialization 

In cycle one, initialization was used to understand the data collected from the 13 interviews from the 
transcripts and field notes and create initial codes. The initial manual coding began with organizing the 
field notes collected during the interviews, highlighting the data on printed transcripts, and making any 
memos on the transcripts manually. Based on this initial data collection, a manual codebook was created 
in an excel spreadsheet. The codebook provided the first view of all codes created and a way to 
determine if there were any initial patterns. A review was performed to ensure alignment with the 
adapted CE framework for critical terms such as maintain, reuse/redistribute, remanufacture/refurbish, 
and recycle and any synergies with the identified challenges. Several more codes related to design, 
incentives, supply chain, consumer, and reverse logistics emerged that aligned with the literature review. 
The initial manual codebook included 42 codes and was the basis of creating the code framework in the 
Dedoose software for further iterations of analysis.  

The subsequent iterations of coding in this cycle were performed in the Dedoose software. The use of 
automation supported understanding the data in more depth and understanding if there were any 
dependencies within the codes. The qualitative data analysis software Dedoose enabled assigning 
descriptors to participant data, including location and years of CE experience, uploading the interview 
transcripts, creating the code tree from the initial manual codebook, and performing document 
excerpting. The results of a systemic and in-depth review throughout the entire dataset using Dedoose 
resulted in 454 excerpts meaning how many highlights were created, 59 codes, and a total of 1202 code 
applications, which is the total number of times the codes were used across the excerpts.  



 

 

 

29 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Construction Phase 

The construction phase commenced by organizing the codes in a systematic order. The Dedoose 
software offered multiple qualitative analysis tools to identify trends in the codes across the participants, 
the frequency of use of the code across all the excerpts, and the pairing of codes. Reviewing these 
reports and data helped to understand the codebook's framework further and assisted with categorizing 
the codes.  

The code presence report determined the top codes across all participants, indicating a significant trend 
of importance. The code that was present across all the participants was the supply chain. While this 
code did not have the highest code count, it is considered important due to its presence across all 
participants. Codes that were present across 12 participants were strategy, reuse, government 
legislation/regulation, consumer behavior, and CE values. Understanding frequencies helped to 
understand the importance and usage of the codes and assisted with the categorization process.  

The code application chart was another analysis tool that demonstrated the codes' importance by 
understanding how often they applied to an excerpt. The top 10 code usage across all excerpts were CE 
values, material composition, reuse, consumer behavior, strategy, government legislation/regulation, 
service models, collaboration, financial incentives, and new partners/markets. Lastly, the code co-
occurrence report provided the frequency of code pairings across all the excerpts, demonstrating 
interdependencies. The highest code pairing of 13 times was service models and asset ownership 
showing a solid relationship, like strategy and CE values paired ten times, and recycling ecosystem and 
collections ecosystem paired nine times. Lastly, the top 5 codes paired with other codes were CE Values 
paired 150 times, material composition paired 127 times, reuse paired 121 times, strategy paired 105 
times, and recycling paired 86 times, demonstrating a connection across all codes.   

Categories were created after multiple reviews of the data and understanding the perspectives of the CE 
experts. Understanding frequencies, total code counts, code pairing, and a logical review of the data and 
the codes, both manually and automated, yielded 11 categories moving towards the final steps of 
defining the themes to answer the study question.  

Rectification and Finalization Phases 
After the first cycle of initialization and construction was complete, the second cycle commenced. This 
phase was used to validate any emerging themes against the literature review and ensure that it did not 
show researcher bias. This cycle included reviewing the relationships and similarities of the categories. 
The logical organization of the categories produced the final five themes used to address the study 
question. Each theme is critical to change. However, in most cases, there are dependencies among the 
themes. Only one will not completely transform a business to solve the problem of returns but using all 
five as a framework and thinking as a business ecosystem will enable leaders to progress. Table 2 
demonstrates the progress of the 59 final codes to the 11 categories that comprise the final five themes. 

 



 

 

30 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Table 2 
Codes to Categories to Themes 
Codes Categories Theme 

Cradle-to-cradle design, derive value, design for 
durability, material composition, product 
design, product traceability, and transparency 

Design Rethinking the entire product design 
lifecycle, including strategies related to 
product returns and the material used in 
products, is critical to enabling a circular 
business model.  

Collections ecosystem, recycling ecosystem, 
reverse logistics, waste management 

Reverse Logistics A comprehensive strategic focus on 
reverse logistics operations is vital to 
address collections and recycling 
ecosystems to improve the returns 
process 

New partners/markets, smart contracts, supply 
chain, supply chain transparency 

Supply Chain Ensuring transparency and innovation 
with new partners in the supply chain is 
critical to improvements to the returns 
process and the adoption of a circular 
business model 

Asset ownership, business model, service 
models, brand reputation, common definition of 
CE, competition, the definition of future 
consumer behavior and consumption, financials, 
global, patient capital/investment, strategy, 
business education and awareness, consumer 
behavior, consumer confidence/relationship, 
culture, mindset, new skills/roles, 
transformation 

Circular Business 
Models, Strategy, 
Transformation, 
Consumer 
Relationships 

Transforming to circular business models 
to improve profit and waste leakage of 
the returns process requires rethinking the 
entire ethos, with disruption related to 
revenue streams, investment strategies, 
and changes to customer behavior and 
relationships 

Enablers, metrics, environmental impacts, 
financial incentives, volumes of waste, 
innovation, technology, collaboration, 
disruption, government legislation/regulation, 
knowledgeable and supportive leadership, CE 
values, closed loop, recycling, refurbishment, 
repair, repurpose, reuse, upcycling 

Enablers, 
Innovation, CE 
Values 

CE business model transformation will 
require the use of a multitude of 
enablers, including understanding and 
utilizing CE values and principles to 
promote, facilitate, and support the 
change 

Note. The category of challenges is found throughout all the themes.  

 

 

 



 

 

 

31 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Results 

Theme Narrative 
The last cycle of data analysis was to present the story of the data and connect it to the study question of 
what are the perspectives of CE experts of consumer goods companies in the United States to discover 
innovative strategies for the returns process to improve the adoption of a CE business model? The 
gravity of the impact of the linear business model, confirmed by the CE experts, was an affirmation of 
the importance and the criticality of assisting leaders in consumer goods companies to transform into a 
CE business model using CE expert recommendations and strategies from the five themes. The 
following sections describe the themes in more detail and provide actionable strategies identified by the 
experts to support each theme. 

Theme 1. Rethinking the entire product design lifecycle  

The first theme identified included strategies related to product design and the material used in products 
which are critical to enabling improvements in the returns process based on the significant code usage 
for design methods and material composition of products. P5 indicated, “The design stage is critical as 
today's business focuses on the products they produce and waste management, but it must start with the 
raw materials and the product design.” Jaeger and Upadhyay (2020) and Sehnem et al. (2019) also 
highlighted the lack of circular design in products. P3 indicated, “Product companies are not incented 
today to include the circular impact in their design. The intent of the design was for function, and there 
was no consideration that the product would return.”  

P3 offered, “The sweet spot is in the product's design, research, and development to ensure a positive 
impact.” P2 also said, “The product's design, including defining the material specification, has been a 
primary requirement contributing to the CE Not only is designing products to focus on renewably 
sourced or compostable types of materials, but it is also designing away from materials detrimental to 
the environment, such as petroleum-based products.” P1 indicated:  

It is imperative to look at the value of raw materials differently and rethink the purpose of that material 
to be profitable. The material specification is critical in the design, and today, materials are chosen based 
on what is cheap and what is easy, but specifying materials based on what can be recycled, refurbished, 
or reused is also a requirement for a CE business model.  

P12 offered, “Product design needs to be different. Product designers need to consider the entire 
lifecycle of a product and look forward and understand what materials will not be available through the 
supply chain in the future.” Adding the returns process as a part of the design process would address the 
concern that the returns management process had been an overlooked business process even though it 
affected a company’s profitability (Frei et al., 2020).  P8 also suggested “A cradle-to-cradle approach to 
design, essential elements were the increased use of collaboration and CE education.” The participants 
offered several suggestions on how to design in addition to including circular materials within the 



 

 

32 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

product. P2 suggested, “Thinking in a modular fashion. If the product is made modular, it can be broken 
into subsystems.”  

Theme 1 aligns with the findings in the literature review related to the challenge of how products are 
designed. The lack of circular design in products was highlighted by Jaeger and Upadhyay (2020 and 
Sehnem et al. (2019). However, the strategies identified by the various CE experts provide broader 
thinking on addressing the design issues. P2 said: 

The product's design, including defining the material specification, has been a primary requirement 
contributing to the CE Not only is designing products to focus on renewably sourced or compostable 
types of materials, but it is also designing away from materials detrimental to the environment, such as 
petroleum-based products. 

A summary of the strategies for theme one that participants discussed and dependencies on other themes 
are included in Table 3. 

 
Table 3 
Theme 1 Strategy 
 
Strategies PSource Dependent Themes 

Design from a cradle-to-cradle perspective, including the returns 
process 

P12, P8, P10 2 

Design for durability to ensure extended use of the product or materials P1 3 

Use environmentally friendly materials in the design P2, P10 3 

Design for modularity P2 2, 3, 4 

Design for disassembly P10 2, 3, 4 

Design based on user cycles  P6 2, 3, 4 

Include technology within the product to allow for traceability P2, P7 5 

Note. PSource indicates the participant who discussed the strategy. 
 

Theme 2. Viewing reverse logistics strategically 

The second theme focused on having a comprehensive strategic focus on reverse logistics operations 
which is vital to address collections and recycling ecosystems to improve the returns process. P3 
indicated that in their experience, “If a company is not encouraged or incented to take a product back, 



 

 

 

33 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

they will not design a process to take the product back, which is critical to improving the returns 
process.” The returns process is logistics, and P7 indicated: 

If a consumer product company has the logistics to sell and distribute a product, there is a need to have 
the same level of logistics to bring that product back properly. The design of a returns process needs to 
consider taking things from multiple locations and centralizing them again in an efficient manner.  

The data also showed that a high code co-occurrence with collections ecosystems and recycling systems 
makes the ability to collect and recycle returns a vital component of a strategy. 

The challenge of lenient return policies can be reduced with traceability and clear ownership in a well-
organized collections ecosystem. P1 suggested, “There needs to be a strategy related to how to get the 
product back from the consumer and offered that there are exciting start-ups to consider that are 
focusing on the packaging component of the returns process.” Javed et al. (2021) suggested using 
reverse logistics to improve disposition decisions. P1 echoed that suggestion and said, “Consider new 
start-ups driving transparency in the supply chain using blockchain technology and other digital 
technologies, which could apply to a reverse supply chain and the returns process.” P7 offered, 
“Traceability helps to understand the material composition's purpose and how the product should be 
handled, not disposed of.” P4 posed a question “is it better or worse for a company to invest in their 
reverse logistics and the extra cost burden more than the negative publicity they get?” and to further that 
suggestion, P12 suggested changing the landfill is cheaper mindset “What if instead of being a cost 
center, reverse logistics became a revenue center?” P7 also offered, “Clear ownership was essential to 
discourage the easy decisions of sending returns to landfill.” Asset ownership will be discussed further 
in theme 4, but a change in the ownership of a product is essential to change the detrimental decisions 
made when products are returned. 

A summary of the strategies for theme two that various participants discussed and dependencies on other 
themes are included in Table 4. 

Table 4  
Theme 2 Strategy Summary 

 

Strategies PSource Dependent Themes 

Implement easy collections systems with the use of incentives to ensure 
products are returned 

P1 4 

Improve disposition decisions for product and material composition with the 
use of new technologies 

P1, P7 5 

Leverage new partners to design reverse logistics ecosystems  P1, P9 3, 5 

Define asset ownership to enable standards for disposition decisions and ensure 
products are returned 

P7 4 



 

 

34 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Collaborate internally and externally with the industry to drive government 
incentives and regulations for standard waste and recycling management  

P4, P9, 
P11 

5 

Consider reverse logistics as a reverse supply chain and ensure that suppliers 
are aligned with CE values 

P7 3 

Ensure the reverse logistics operation is revenue generating, not just a cost of 
doing business 

P12 4 

Note. PSource indicates the participant who discussed the strategy. 

Theme 3.  Ensuring transparency and innovation and new partners in the supply chain  
The third theme identified the supply chain as critical to improving the returns process and adopting a 
circular business model. This theme was identified due to the agreement of all participants in the data 
analysis that the supply chain must be addressed and that the need for new partnerships is vital for 
change. To start to plan a transformation to the CE, P1 recommended, “Because every company buys 
from other companies, the supply chain is the place to start, including widening the vision of whom they 
will need to engage with for the transformation.” P11 estimated that “75% to 85% of a company's 
carbon footprint is in the supply chain and that the company is just a piece of that supply chain,” making 
it a critical item to look at for business model transformation. P4 recommended: 

First, a business should look at the supply chain and understand how circular it is. Then understand how 
it impacts the product, procurement, how circular the material comes back, and whether there is an 
infrastructure to take that product material back to stay in place. 

Identifying new types of partners or collaborating with the grey or secondary markets can help to 
facilitate the movement of returned products for a low cost and allow for traceability. P3 spoke about 
grey markets, “A market that offers unwanted or surplus product,” and P6 talked about how furniture 
manufacturers now own second-hand furniture stores where “When people don’t want their furniture, 
they can bring it back.” Frei et al. (2020) identified that companies feared reuse competitors selling their 
products inexpensively, making it essential to ensure that a consumer products company has secondary 
markets such as online auctions within their supply chain. P2 said, “The supply chain is an ecosystem, 
and other smaller ecosystems, like a recycling ecosystem, could be important for business model 
transformation. Limiting the number of actors needed in that ecosystem will improve cost.” 

P7 indicated, “Every company in the material supply chain that buys product needs to understand 
circular economy concepts and interiorize those in the purchasing process.” P9 recommended, “You 
need to make sure you design it in such a way and collaborate in such a way and create a supply chain in 
a way that it's 100% reuse.” P1 echoed the need for suppliers' targets but added, “Ensure very high 
standards regarding social responsibilities on how suppliers manage their waste and maximize the 
efficiency of their resources and the importance of including these in contracts with suppliers.” Lastly, 
P5 offered, “Look outside the comfort zone of the current business and look at smaller innovative 
companies that may even be in the same industry to take on new partnerships with a common goal of 
becoming more circular.”  



 

 

 

35 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

P7 suggested, “To start asking our suppliers to ask your providers or clients even what happens with the 
materials.” Transparency in the supply chain is essential as P6 indicated that you could have “blind 
spots” in the supply chain, which means that “you can have a business model that’s more circular, but 
that does not respect human rights.” P5 also offered, “we want to know about the footprint of our 
suppliers in order to understand our own carbon footprint.”  

A summary of the strategies for theme three that were discussed by various participants and the theme’s 
dependencies on other themes are included in Table 5. 

Table 5  
Theme 3 Strategy Summary 

Strategies PSource Dependent Themes 

Create a baseline for circularity in the supply chain in the company  P1, P2, P4, 
P10, P11 

4, 5 

Ensure that the purchasing process includes CE concepts and validate 
contract alignment to corporate CE goals 

P1, P7, P8 4, 5 

Investigate and consider new and different partners, particularly 
entrepreneurial companies focused on sustainability 

P5 2, 5 

Drive transparency throughout the supply chain  P5, P7 2, 5 

Keep the reselling of products internal to the company to manage 
competition related to secondary markets 

P2, P6 2, 4 

Determine future material requirements  P10 1 

Note: PSource indicates the participant who discussed the strategy. 

Theme 4. Rethinking the ethos of the business model  
 
The fourth theme suggests that transforming to circular business models to improve profit and waste 
leakage of the returns process requires rethinking the entire ethos, with disruption related to revenue 
streams, investment strategies, and changes to customer behavior and relationships. This theme emerged 
based on high usage of the various codes within this theme.  

When analyzing various models discussed across all the interviews, a service model code was created 
and referred to a shift from current transactional to service-based. Baden and Frei (2020) referred to 
these models as access-based approaches that provide access to products instead of ownership. P5 said, 
“When you change business models to a circular business model, you usually servitize products; instead 
of selling the product, you sell the service.” Various service models mentioned in the data were 
subscription, leasing, rental, sharing, and product-as-service models. Service models differ from a 
financial perspective as they look at long-term profits rather than quicker profits. P10 said, “It makes 
sense to ensure that products are returned to get materials back. Companies will make money because 



 

 

36 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

they will need to spend less on materials, and there will be a continuous customer relationship.” If 
service models are enabled, this will change multiple components, including the ownership of the 
product and how items such as insurance play a role. P10 indicated, “A business could be secured by 
controlling the materials needed to make a new product coupled with a design based on cycles, ensuring 
the product has a higher residual value and can drive a different transactional model.”  

Changing asset ownership is essential in a service model. The significant pairing of the codes service 
models and asset ownership makes it a critical concept in a very different business model from today for 
consumer goods companies. When using circular models, there is a need for the business to retain the 
ownership of that product to get it back. Service models make obvious disposition decisions when 
something comes back, resolving the challenges identified by de Leeuw et al. (2016). P10 said, “In these 
models, companies do not transfer the economic ownership of the product.” P5 indicated, “This allows 
the company to repurpose, remake and rethink the product and minimize its waste.” New competencies 
may be required for service models. P12 shared the importance of insurance regarding products as 
services and said: 

When you are used to just selling products forward, you have a manufacturer warranty, but when things 
start coming back, insurance becomes a critical competence and a critical understanding that 99% of 
companies in the exciting business model does not have. 

There are different elements of a strategy to be considered. One is changing the business context. P12 
recommended “Change the definition of success by just profit” and “Genuinely broaden the definition of 
value to include social and environmental impacts.” Another element is viewing the strategy from a 
global perspective. P8 noted that globalization is both a challenge and an opportunity and said, “The 
world is all connected and should facilitate and contribute to innovative discussions if everyone can 
relax and think on how to contribute to having a better and more sustainable world.” There are also 
challenges related to the local context, as P3 offered, “The conditions triggering a successful CE 
economy in the E.U. may offer no benefit to a community in Africa, South America, or North America. 
The concept of circularity may offer global benefits but is subject to local conditions.” P3 suggested the 
following: 

There must be a consideration of the impact of actions or programs at the local or manufacturing plant 
level. If a business is attempting to optimize its operations through new programs or training, local level 
impacts to the operation must be considered.   

Another consideration is to have an unambiguous definition of the CE  

P5 suggested “Strategizing what long-term consumption means for the company.” P12 explained, “The 
definition of success must change to a broader definition than just financial value and include that of 
social and environmental impact,” which echoed the work of Elkington (2006) but also demonstrates 
that since its inception in 1994, it has still not been widely adopted. 

There is a potential to use CE concepts for new revenue streams. P9 offered that “Shareholders want to 
know how to make or save money by improving the return process. However, they will also get excited 



 

 

 

37 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

if they can create new revenue by non-linear means”, including creating a business with products that 
can be used in multiple cycles instead of just one. As indicated by P9, “If the shareholders are excited 
about making money nonlinearly, they will support continuous change.” P2 recommended “Ensuring 
that the reverse logistics organization was transformed from a cost center to a revenue stream.” P9 
recommended, “Rethinking repair services to ensure that broken returns can be repaired and keep 
products in place longer.” However, circular business models are new territory, and as P5 said, “There 
must be sacrifices for the change to happen.” P6 offered: 

Two things grab shareholders' attention when presenting a circular economy. One is cost savings, so if 
you tell them it will be cheaper, and sometimes with some circular economy strategies, you have a big 
upfront investment, and then over time, that solution will be cheaper. The second is the social aspect. 
Not only becoming greener, but you are also educating people and creating new jobs. 

Multiple participants mentioned the upfront costs and the need for and change in how investment is 
viewed, P1 offered, “The amount of money generated is not going to be immediate and up from, but 
more steady over time, and I think there’s a lot of talk about reframing investors thinking into more 
patient capital.” P5 said that support from the board was necessary as “The decisions they are taking for 
the business is a very long investment for the future.” P4 offered: 

The first start in circularity is operations internally. Identify where you can save money by circular 
inputs like renewable energy or reuse of materials which gets your finance department aboard. You start 
to build out the platform to look at all of your expenses. 

New players or organizations may be necessary to drive change. P10 proposed: 

When you are a large company and you want to innovate and create a circular economy ecosystem, an 
ecosystem is dependent on multiple variables, then you need an emerging team. This emerging team of 
different people developing new technology is placed outside the organization, so they are not limited by 
standard operating procedures because that kills what is needed, and that is passion, and that is drive. If 
you outplace them, you can outpace as an organization your market growth, so when it goes out of an 
incubator stage, you can include them in the company.  

Similarly, P12 offered: 

In order for one organization to become circular, ultimately, what you need is a troublemaker working 
from outside, but in the same industry, from a small enough and nimble enough organization, that will 
disrupt the industry because from inside, you cannot do it fast enough.  

Consumer behavior was identified as a challenge to transforming to the CE by de Leeuw et al. (2016) 
and Frei et al. (2020). However, P10 said, “Consumer behavior would also be a force for change as there 
will be a point where they will not accept the current approach to consumer goods handling.” P12 
provided a similar thought,” Consumer expectations and awareness were changing, and it will be critical 
for consumer goods companies to consider their actions and behaviors.” P12 indicated, "The best 
motivation to move to the CE is that the competition is doing it, and customers are asking for it.”  



 

 

38 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

P6 suggested that “The company must understand the market, but an important strategy is to define the 
consumption requirements for the future and meet those needs.” P5 also suggested, “We need to start 
changing, starting with every individual and how we look at consumption.” P7 suggested, 
“Understanding global consumption patterns as developed countries have higher purchasing power than 
less developed countries.” As business models change, it is essential to understand how consumers will 
accept the concept. P12 highlighted, “When companies change business models to service models, the 
ongoing relationships with the customer become extended, so the customer support model also needs to 
change.” A summary of the strategies for theme four that were discussed by various participants and the 
theme’s dependencies on other themes are included in Table 6. 

Table 6 
Theme 4 Strategy Summary 

Strategies PSource Dependent Themes 

Determine what circular means to a business and when determining strategy 
consider the local context and the impacts of circular activities 

P5, P8, P3 1, 2, 3, 5 

Evaluate the business from an entire lifecycle process design perspective and 
determine what circular means to that business. 

P4, P12, 
P3 

1, 2, 3, 5 

Evaluate a change to service models, including impacts of asset ownership P10 1, 2, 3, 5 

Determine what new competencies or capabilities are essential in a new 
model, such as insurance 

P5 1, 2, 3, 5 

Identify new revenue streams that can be created with a change to the 
business model. 

P9, P2 1, 2, 3, 5 

To manage shareholder expectations, determine a hybrid revenue model 
using linear and circular strategies. 

P5 1, 2, 3, 5 

Define a portion of the business to move to circular such as packaging or 
operations to start.  

P13 1, 2, 3, 5 

Invest in a team to focus on circular innovation for the company with limited 
traditional restrictions. 

P10, P12 1, 2, 3, 5 

Create returns processes that are easy and compatible with consumer needs 
and behaviors 

P12, P9, 
P13 

1, 2 

Use social media and influencers to provide education and awareness on the 
importance of the CE and how consumers can support the CE 

P8, P11 5 

Use appropriate incentives for consumers to return products appropriately P10 5 

Provide reporting related to sustainability practices to create consumer 
confidence 

P11 5 



 

 

 

39 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Define what consumption looks like in the future P6, P5, P7 5 

Create long-term customer relationship models to align with service-based 
models 

P10 1 

Note. PSource indicates the participant who discussed the strategy. 

 
Theme 5. Multiple enablers are necessary to support change 

The fifth theme identified is CE business model transformation will require using several enablers, 
including understanding and utilizing CE values and principles to promote, facilitate, and support the 
change due to very high code presence in the data analysis for several of the codes within this theme. P4 
suggested, “The CE is the most significant enabling environment for moving to a CE business model.” 
The significant application of the codes CE values, reuse, and recycling throughout the data supported 
this statement.  
Utilizing the CE principles to define what sustainability means to the business is essential, and just as 
important is defining what consumption means in the future to that specific business. P4 offered “The 
importance of defining what the CE means to a particular company and helping their H.R. and business 
units define what it means to them to ensure acceptance.” P7 offered, “To do this requires knowledge of 
the CE and new capabilities,” P8 stated: 

The circular economy model might be something that is simple to understand, it could be easy to 
comprehend, but they will own a process, and all the connections and all the phases for the product from 
the material to the end of the lifecycle. 

Thinking about closing the loop and how to incorporate critical components such as reuse, repair, 
refurbishment, and recycling within the business is critical. An example of this comes from P10, who 
said, “I’m not going to sell you a chair anymore. I’m going to provide you the service of comfortable 
seating”. Another example is from P2, who mentioned a company that manufactures water pumps to 
ensure fresh drinking water, however “they don’t claim themselves to be a pump manufacturer, they are 
a water solutions company.” Lastly, P3 encouraged “The CE to be a well-understood concept through 
the supply chain and procurement and become second nature throughout the entire business lifecycle.” 
P12 stated: 

In order to change, I ended up working and collaborating with every single function of the company. In 
a company that produces a product, more time creating enlightenment is in the supply chain, and more 
specifically in logistics will be important.  

P8 offered, “Collaboration with those on the same journey is essential at the beginning of a company's 
journey to a circular model.” P8 continued, “Start from trusting other partners, other companies, and 
they should start sharing anything, which is a circular mindset.” P5 indicated that “about half of the 
innovative small companies out there actually have a solution, but it is just about looking outside your 
comfort zone and understanding what we need to take on new partnerships.” P1 suggested, “Going 
circular requires the internal collaboration amongst teams as well as external collaboration even with 



 

 

40 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

competitors who may become really good allies when turning circular because they may be facing the 
same problem.” P6 discussed the importance of multidisciplinary thinking and said, “Look at industrial 
symbiosis, and you cannot think in your silo of what your business does, think outside the box of this 
industry to who also uses this product that we use, or they waste that product we use.”  

Government legislation and regulation had a high code application frequency and were present in 12 of 
the 13 participants. Participants 3, 4, 6, and 9 suggested that most companies will not change unless 
legally required. P7 also stated the importance of government attention to companies' waste 
management. P13 also cited drivers for CE change our customers and competition but added that it was 
also regulation. Based on the experience of P4, they suggested focusing on ensuring that businesses look 
wisely at what can be done and find the appropriate incentives to mitigate any risk. P2 also 
recommended identifying incentives, such as financial incentives offered by the government, to move to 
a circular model.  

There is a need for new leadership with the accountability and support of stakeholders that can inspire 
and enable the redefinition of the business model, including leadership open to external collaboration. 
P4 indicated that a position, such as a Chief Sustainability Officer, must have business unit 
responsibility to move forward, and it cannot be part of a communications or public relations group. P1 
identified, “Business needs to infuse solid leadership that understands all of the circular economy's 
dimensions.” P5 was aligned and indicated:  

Businesses need something new from a leadership perspective. Leaders need to go beyond the 
traditional way of working and are knowledgeable about the CE. These leaders are the influencers inside 
the company who implemented the right policies and procedures to ensure a circular system.  

Subramoniam et al. (2021) recommended using digital technology such as (A.I.) and blockchain to 
improve analytics and decision-making. P2 also offered “I.T. systems must be enabled enough to 
capture material specifications in their products, and there is an opportunity for companies to focus on 
this as part of their strategy.” P13 furthered the technology discussion and offered, “There are many 
opportunities to improve current data infrastructures to capture the material composition of products 
aligned with the supply chain.” P3 said, “relevant sustainability information is collected and stored, but 
departments perform work on multitudes of different platforms that are unable to speak with each 
other,” supporting improved transparency and traceability. P2 offered, “In the IoT economy, because of 
the connected world, it is possible actually to embed software and tools to improve traceability of 
products.” Multiple participants recommended that technology was imperative to enable transparency 
and traceability in the supply chain. P12 recommended product passports and material passports, which 
store essential information related to the product “To know what is in the products,” which was like 
Participants 2 and 13 when they addressed using barcodes to capture data. P6 provided insight into a 
digital watermark technology that can be used on plastics to improve collections and recycling 
ecosystems. 

P6 said, “A company needs to have broader metrics for recycling, removing pollution,” and, like P10, 
P6 said, “you want to have an economic system that improves the lives of people, removes pollution, 
improves health what different benefits that the circular economy could offer are.” P12 offered, “This is 



 

 

 

41 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

where technology such as product passports can help monitor usage and track materials, enabling better 
decision-making for executives and leaders responsible for returns decisions.” P7 offered:  

The concept of neutrality as a measurement. If the business puts one ton of plastic in the market, the 
business must figure out how to recycle one ton, and there must be measurements for everything a 
company puts in the market, including packaging.  

Another important measurement is quantifying potential liabilities based on not following regulations or 
not adhering to commitments to consumers related to environmental goals, which is an important metric 
to use in a business case. P10 offered, “The shareholder does not want to find that the company they 
invested in finds itself in legal suits, quarrels with customers, so liabilities is a topic to quantify.” A 
summary of the enabler strategies that the various participants discussed, and the theme dependencies 
are included in Table 7. 

Table 7  
Theme 5 Strategy Summary 

Strategies PSource Dependent Themes 

Collaborate with companies that are on a CE journey P8 3, 4 

Collaborate with new and different groups internally and externally P1, P6, P5, 
P8, P12 

3 

Through collaboration, force appropriate legislation P6 
 

Investigate financial incentives from the government P2, P4 4 

Infuse solid leadership that understands the CE and are influencers internally 
and externally 

P1, P4, P7, 
P6 

4 

Utilize the concepts of maintain/repair, reuse/redistribute, 
refurbish/repurpose, and recycle in the company and think of solutions 
instead of products 

P2, P10 1, 2, 3, 4 

Use digital technologies to improve analytics and decision-making P2, P6, 
P12, P13 

1, 3, 4 

Measure business commitments regarding CE, including the concept of 
neutrality 

P6, P7, 
P10, P12 

4 

Drive shared understanding of what the circular economy means to the 
specific business across the value chain 

P4, P7, P6 4 

Supporting CE requires new capabilities and can create new roles across the 
entire value chain 

P7 1, 2, 3, 4 



 

 

42 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Force CE conversations from the highest level of the organization and 
provide awareness and education throughout to create a CE culture and 
mindset. 

P3, P12 4 

Note. PSource indicates the participant who discussed the strategy. 

The category of challenges is found throughout all five themes. The participants mirrored several 
challenges identified in the literature review, such as consumer behavior (de Leeuw et al., 2016; Frei et 
al., 2020; Javed et al., 2021), product and packaging diversity (Frei et al., 2020; Jaeger & Upadhyay, 
2020; Linder & Williander, 2017), linear business model inertia and the desire for a quick return on 
investment (Jaeger & Upadhyay, 2020; Jain et al., 2020; Linder & Williander, 2017), as well as the lack 
of supporting legislation (Lahti et al., 2018; Linder and Williander (2017). In addition, P11 added 
challenges of cheap products when they said, "We are always in this mindset of making and selling the 
cheapest thing, and the cheapest thing is not the most sustainable," as well as a challenge related to 
collaborating globally and "Looking at the complexity of transboundary movements" related to the 
global movement of materials and products.  

Research Question Revisited 
The research question was, what are the perspectives of CE experts of consumer goods companies in the 
United States to discover innovative strategies for the returns process to improve the adoption of a CE 
business model? The answer to that question requires rethinking the current business model. In the 
interview with P4, when asked what business model components needed to change to improve the 
returns process by adopting a CE business model, they responded, "Well, everything because it's moving 
from linear to circular. Change requires thinking and an ethos that changes from top to bottom." P5 said, 
"If you want to look at circular business models, you have to look at two perspectives, inside and 
outside. What is coming into the business in terms of supply chain and how you design products. 
Rethinking the lifecycle of selling the product from ideation to retirement will drive rethinking the 
quality of raw and secondary materials utilized in the process.” Using creative collaboration and 
introducing new types of partnerships into the supply chain is critical. Reframing investor thinking from 
quick return on investment to "patient capital" is necessary in business cases that will be more long-term 
and advocate selling services instead of products or where products are designed to retain their value for 
longer. Using technology to make the product smarter to trace and monitor the materials is a critical 
enabler. Having knowledgeable and supportive leadership driving a culture of CE awareness internally 
and externally is vital and having the financial incentives, and legislation in place to force an entire 
business ecosystem redesign is essential.  

Contribution to the Adapted Framework 
This study adapted the original CE framework (butterfly diagram) from the Ellen MacArthur 
Foundation, which did not specifically consider the consumer products returns process. The adapted 
model demonstrated a problem with significant profit and waste leakage and a gap in the practice of the 
slow adoption of the CE, as shown in the adapted CE framework in Figure 1. The principles of the 
framework were to keep the value of a product for as long as possible and to minimize the products 



 

 

 

43 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

going to landfills, eliminate waste and pollution, and circulate products and materials longer (Ellen 
MacArthur Foundation, n.d.-b, Definitions). The themes identified in the study align with those 
principles. 

The data analysis results have advanced that framework to the Circular Business Model Transformation 
Framework (CBMTF). By viewing the framework as a circular business model with essential 
capabilities that reflect the five themes, the CBMTF is now a workable tool that includes the necessary 
strategic components to address CE transformation. The CBMTF shown in Figure 2 includes the spine 
showing the product lifecycle of the product manufacturer providing the product to the retailer that sells 
it to the consumer, who can return the product to where it was initially purchased. It also includes the 
closed loop values shown in blue as the study findings confirmed the essential circular concepts of the 
CE, such as maintain, reuse/redistribute, remanufacture/refurbish, and recycle. However, the framework 
in Figure 2 now includes the five themes in green. The entire green circle represents theme 4 (circular 
business model) and theme 3 (supply chain), which primarily focused on the manufacturing spine but 
included the whole portfolio of suppliers in the model. Theme 1 (design) includes the CE values and the 
consumer shown in blue, and it is dependent on the supply chain. The framework shows the importance 
of theme 2 (reverse logistics) and focuses on the return of products from the consumer to reduce waste. 
Lastly, the framework illustrates the importance of theme 5 with internal and external enablers necessary 
to support the transformation throughout the entire circular business model. The modifications to this 
framework provide visibility throughout the whole value chain of what must be addressed in a circular 
business model to resolve profit and waste leakage of the returns process and the slow adoption of the 
CE business model to implement sustainable business practices.  

Leaders of U.S. consumer product companies and practitioners with the goals of moving business to a 
CE business model can utilize the CBMTF as a guide in conjunction with the strategies from the CE 
experts described throughout the five themes to strategize the business model transformation of 
consumer product goods companies and improve the returns process.  

  



 

 

44 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Figure 2  

Circular Business Model Transformation Framework (CBMTF) 

 

 

Summary and Recommendations  
The insights from this study can provide business leaders and practitioners strategies to advance the 
movement of the CE business model and address profit and waste leakage areas such as the returns 
process. Participants 3 and 11 offered suggestions of foresight as two final recommendations to the 
leaders of consumer goods companies in the United States. P3 suggested, “Businesses should watch 
what is happening in Europe concerning legislation and adopting the CE business model.” P11 offered, 
“Material may not derive value today to recycle to make a product, so understand what that means to the 
business when that material is no longer available.” 

Applications 
The study findings can provide critical insight to business leaders, consultants, and strategists interested 
in progressing the transformation to the CE and improving the progress of the consumer products 
industry in incorporating sustainable innovation into their strategies. The strategies identified in the 
study findings can be used to develop strategic roadmaps for changes to business policies or processes, 

Consumer

Theme 4 Circular Business Model

Provider/Retailer

Product Manufacturer

Landfill

Provider/Retailer

Reuse/Re
distribute

Refurbish/
Repurpose

Recycle

Maintain
/Repair

Theme 3Theme
3

Supply
Chain Theme

2
Reverse
Logistic

s

Theme
1

Design

Theme
5

Enablers



 

 

 

45 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

assess the current business model's circularity, and formulate recommendations for related initiative 
planning for established and new companies.  

Each theme within the CBMTF can be assessed individually, where leaders and strategists can identify 
actions necessary to start the CE transformation process. For instance, business leaders could use theme 
5, having knowledgeable and supportive leadership to create a circular culture and mindset across the 
value chain, to define what circular means to their business, and determine future consumption 
requirements. Creating a baseline of theme 3 to determine the circularity of the supply chain would 
enable an understanding of what new partnerships and collaboration are necessary. This baseline would 
support both tactical and strategic changes in the supply chain. To focus on improving returns 
specifically, looking within reverse logistics and determining exactly how decisions are made related to 
products and the partners that need to improve them. Alternatively, leaders and practitioners can start 
with theme 1 to determine what is needed in product and process design to become more circular and 
what materials will be required in the future, which will then dictate what changes will be necessary for 
the supply chain. Individually reviewing the themes begins with an evaluation of the appropriate 
transformation initiatives. However, reviewing the themes together will create a cohesive long-term 
strategy based on their dependencies. Whatever methodology is employed, consideration of consumer 
behavior and buying patterns need to be incorporated. As well, measurements are vital to measure 
progress, improve the volumes of global waste reported by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and 
address that less than 9% of businesses are utilizing a circular model (Circle Economy, 2022).  

Recommendations 
This study looked broadly at the consumer goods industry, where product diversity and industry 
diversity are challenges. A recommendation for future qualitative research is to limit the business model 
transformation research to a specific industry segment where profit and waste leakage need considerable 
attention and address how to balance the TBL for that specific segment or industry. As noted by P7, “It 
is essential to understand what products can move to circular business models.” Another future research 
recommendation is to perform exploratory research to examine the relationship between consumer 
behavior and business change to service-based models. Because consumer behavior plays a significant 
role in business transformation, future research, including CE, behavioral, and marketing experts, to 
determine how best to change business models from ownership to a service model is vital to support CE 
transformation. 

Conclusion 
Amplifying the sustainable innovation challenge is that consumer spending is expected to increase in the 
United States (Alldredge et al., 2022; IBISWorld, 2022b), resulting in higher returns. An estimated 20% 
of returns from online shopping alone (Shehu et al., 2020) will add to the already five billion pounds of 
garbage in landfill sites resulting from product returns (Calma, 2019). Managing customer expectations, 
making a profit, and managing the environmental impact make addressing sustainable innovation 
imperative for consumer product companies (Alsayegh et al., 2020). 



 

 

46 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

This research explored innovative strategies to improve the returns process for consumer product 
companies in the United States with CE experts. Currently, business leaders utilize outdated strategies 
and are slow to adopt the CE to address the millions of dollars needed to manage the returns process and 
the millions of pounds of waste that the process creates. This study progressed previous knowledge on 
CE and advanced the applied framework that grounded the study into a valuable tool to improve the 
consumer products return process. Five themes were identified related to the strategies needed for 
transformation. To move to the CE, companies need to consider a move to service models which alter 
asset ownership, rethink the design of products in conjunction with a change in source materials, and 
enable traceability throughout a product's lifecycle with innovative technology. It is critical to drive 
transparency in the supply chain, reevaluate the importance of reverse logistics with the appropriate 
collections and recycling ecosystems, and increase collaboration with new partners, all with the infusion 
of CE values throughout the value chain. These strategies can further leaders' and practitioners' pursuit 
of circular economy business model transformation. However, no immediate strategy will break any 
barriers and dramatically change the returns process's current financial and environmental impacts. P6 
said, “Creating products and then asking how to improve the returns process is asking the wrong 
question in the wrong order.”  

With problems with natural resource shortages occurring faster than the ability of humanity to resolve 
them (Rodriguez et al., 2020), the pressure for sustainable innovation continues. Companies will need to 
make significant changes to their business models and experience external incentives and consistent 
global regulations on the extraction and processing of materials to move forward on CE adaptation. 
Transformation to the CE in the United States will be challenging to achieve but a goal very much worth 
pursuing. 

 

  



 

 

 

47 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

References 
Ader, J., Adhi, P., Chai, J., Singer, M., Touse, S., & Yankelevich, H. (2021). Returning to order: 

Improving returns management for apparel companies. McKinsey & Company. 
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/returning-to-order-improving-returns-
management-for-apparel-companies 

Alldredge, K., Charm, T., Falardeau, E., & Robinson, K. (2022, May). How U.S. consumers are feeling, 
shopping, and spending-what it means for companies. McKinsey & Company. 
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/how-us-
consumers-are-feeling-shopping-and-spending-and-what-it-means-for-companies  

Ardito, L., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del Río, P., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2018). Corporate social responsibility 
and environmental management invite contributions for a special issue on 'Sustainable 
innovation: Processes, strategies, and outcomes'. Corporate Social-Responsibility and 
Environmental Management, 25(1), 106-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1487 

Baden, D., & Frei, R. (2022). Product returns: An opportunity to shift towards an access-based 
economy? Sustainability, 14(1), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010410  

Bocken, N. M. P., Strupeit, L., Whalen, K., & Nußholz, J. (2019). A review and evaluation of circular 
business model innovation tools. Sustainability, 11(8), 2210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082210 

Boyce, P. (2022, March 11). Consumer goods definition. BoyceWire. https://boycewire.com/consumer-
goods-definition-types-and-examples/  

Calma, J. (2019, December 26). Free returns come with an environmental cost. The Verge. 
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/26/21031855/free-returns-environmental-cost-holiday-
online-shopping-amazon  

Circle Economy. (2021). The circularity gap report. https://www.circularity-gap.world/2021 

Circle Economy. (2022). The circularity gap report. https://www.circularity-gap.world/2022 

de Leeuw, S., Minguela-Rata, B., Sabet, E., Boter, J., & Sigurðardóttir, R. (2016). Trade-offs in 
managing commercial consumer returns for online apparel retailer. International Journal of 
Operations & Production Management, 36(6), 710-731. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2015-
0010   

Deloitte. (2022). 2022 Consumer products industry outlook. 
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/consumer-business/articles/consumer-products-industry-
outlook.html  

DeSmet, A., Gao, W., Henderson, K., & Hundertmark, T. (2021). Organizing for sustainability success: 
Where, and how, leaders can start. McKinsey & Company. 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


 

 

48 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/organizing-for-
sustainability-success-where-and-how-leaders-can-start 

Dopson, E. (2021). The plague of ecommerce return rates and how to maintain profitability. 
Shopifyplus. https://www.shopify.com/enterprise/ecommerce-returns 

Elkington, J. (2006). Governance for sustainability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 
14(6), 522-529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2006.00527.x  

Elkington, J. (2018, June 25). 25 years ago, I coined the phrase 'triple bottom line', here's why it's time to 
rethink it. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-
i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it 

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (n.d.-a). The circular economy in detail. 
https://archive.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/the-circular-economy-in-detail  

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (n.d.-b). Glossary. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-
economy-introduction/glossary  

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy. 
https://emf.thirdlight.com/link/coj8yt1jogq8-hkhkq2/@/preview/1?o  

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Circular economy diagram. 
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy-diagram  

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2020). The global commitment 2020 progress report. 
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/news/global-commitment-2020-progress-report-published 

Espinosa, J. A., Davis, D., Stock, J., & Monahan, L. (2019). Exploring the processing of product returns 
from a complex adaptive system perspective. International Journal of Logistics Management, 
30(3), 699-722. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-08-2018-0216 

Frei, R., Jack, L., & Krzyzaniak, S. (2020). Sustainable reverse supply chains and circular economy in 
multichannel retail returns. Business Strategy & the Environment, 29(5), 1925–1940. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2479 

Gatzer, S., & Magnin, C. (2021). Prioritizing sustainability in the consumer sector. The Daily Read; 
McKenzie & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/prioritizing-
sustainability-in-the-consumer-sector?cid=other-eml-dre-mip-
mck&hlkid=b9933480617f4070a8e7356a3a6fa384&hctky=12955670&hdpid=00f50589-63af-
47a8-b39b-11cad68a66ab  

Gonzalez, T. S. M., Walter, J. V., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2020). Business model 
innovation for the circular economy: An empirical exploration of best practices. Paper presented 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


 

 

 

49 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

at the ISPIM Conference; Manchester, U.K. 1-10. 
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2424115665 

Hartmans, A. (2022, January 8). Shoppers are expected to return up to $120 billion worth of holiday 
gifts this year – the process is costly to retailers, annoying to customers, and harmful to the 
planet. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-to-returned-products-
restock-resale-landfill-2022-
1#:~:text=Retailers%20spend%20as%20much%20as,returns%20ends%20up%20in%20landfills.  

Hatami, H., & Segel, L. H. (2021, September 8). What matters most? Five priorities for CEOs in the 
next normal. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-
and-corporate-finance/our-insights/what-matters-most-five-priorities-for-ceos-in-the-next-
normal?cid=other-eml-ofl-mip-
mck&hlkid=ef98eb64fb0247a281181b45f4b98ce7&hctky=12955670&hdpid=a93837d9-6eaf-
40d1-86fa-d1c33c4a2a28 

Hautala, L. (2022, January 25). Returned online buys burn fuel and fill the dump. Here’s what could 
change. CNET. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/returned-online-buys-burn-
fuel-and-fill-the-dump-heres-what-could-change/  

Howard, M., Hopkinson, P., & Miemczyk, J. (2019). The regenerative supply chain: a framework for 
developing circular economy indicators. International Journal of Production Research, 57(23), 
7300–7318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1524166 

IBISWorld. (2021). Percentage of business conducted online: Business environment report F320. 
IBISWorld. https://my-ibisworld-com.library.capella.edu/us/en/business-environment-
profiles/f320/business-environment-profile 

IBISWorld. (2022a). Consumer spending: Business environment report B201. IBISWorld. https://my-
ibisworld-com.library.capella.edu/us/en/business-environment-profiles/b201/business-
environment-profile 

IBISWorld. (2022b). Total retail sales: Business environment report B308. IBISWorld. https://my-
ibisworld-com.library.capella.edu/us/en/business-environment-profiles/b308/business-
environment-profile   

Jaeger, B., & Upadhyay, A. (2020). Understanding barriers to circular economy: Cases from the 
manufacturing industry. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(4), 729-745. 
http://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2019-0047 

Jain, P., Chou, M. C., Fan, F., & Michelle, P. S. (2020). Embedding sustainability in the consumer 
goods innovation cycle and enabling tools to measure progress and capabilities. Sustainability, 
13(12), 6662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126662  

about:blank
about:blank#:%7E:text=Retailers%20spend%20as%20much%20as,returns%20ends%20up%20in%20landfills
about:blank#:%7E:text=Retailers%20spend%20as%20much%20as,returns%20ends%20up%20in%20landfills
about:blank#:%7E:text=Retailers%20spend%20as%20much%20as,returns%20ends%20up%20in%20landfills
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


 

 

50 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Javed, H., Firdousi, S. F., Murad, M., Jiatong, W., & Abrar, M. (2021). Exploring disposition decision 
for sustainable reverse logistics in the era of A circular economy: Applying the triple bottom line 
approach in the manufacturing industry. International Journal of Supply and Operations 
Management, 8(1), 53-68. http://doi.org/10.22034/IJSOM.2021.1.5 

Julianelli, V., Caiado, R. G. G., Scavarda, L. F., & Cruz, S. P. (2020). Interplay between reverse 
logistics and circular economy: Critical success factors-based taxonomy and framework. 
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 158, 104784.  HYPERLINK "about:blank" 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104784 

Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., & Rosado, L. (2018). Circular economy: From review of theories and 
practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 
190-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034 

Karman, A., & Pawlowski, M. (2022). Circular economy competitiveness evaluation model based on the 
catastrophe progression method. Journal of Environmental Management, 303, 114223-114223. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114223  

Lahti, T., Wincent, J., & Parida, V. (2018). 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, 10(8), 2799.  HYPERLINK "about:blank" 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10082799  

Linder, M., & Williander, M. (2017). Circular business model innovation: Inherent uncertainties. 
Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 182-196. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1906  

Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., Griethuysen, P., & Vuille, F. (2017). Coming full circle: Why social and 
institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 
497-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12598  

PAT Research. (n.d.). All about consumer product industry: Key segments, value chain and competitive 
advantage. https://www.predictiveanalyticstoday.com/what-is-consumer-products-industry/ 

Prieto, S. V., Ormazabal, M., Jaca, C., & Viles, E. (2018). Key elements in assessing circular economy 
implementation in small and medium‐sized enterprises. Business Strategy & the Environment, 
27(8), 1525–1534. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2210  

Rodriguez, R. W., Pomponi, F., Webster, K., & D'Amico, B. (2020). The future of the circular economy 
and the circular economy of the future. Emerald Insight. https://doi.org/10.1108/bepam-07-2019-
0063 

Salguero-Puerta, L., Leyva-Díaz, J. C., Cortés-García, F. J., & Molina-Moreno, V. (2019). Sustainability 
indicators concerning waste management for implementation of the circular economy model on 
the University of Lome (Togo) campus. International Journal of Environmental Research and 
Public Health, 16(12), 2234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122234 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


 

 

 

51 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Sehnem, S., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J.,  Farias Pereira, S. C., & de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., (2019). 
Improving sustainable supply chains performance through operational excellence: Circular 
economy approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 236-248. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.021 

Shehu, E., Papies, D., & Neslin, S. A. (2020). Free shipping promotions and product returns. Journal of 
Marketing Research, 57(4), 640-658.  HYPERLINK "about:blank" 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720921812 

Subramoniam, R., Sundin, E., Subramoniam, S., & Huisingh, D. (2021). Riding the digital product life 
cycle waves towards a circular economy. Sustainability, 13(16), 8960. 
http://doi.org/10.3390/su13168960 

The World Counts. (2022). The Consumer Economy. 
https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/consumption  

United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainability. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability  

Weidner, K., Nakata, C., & Zhu, Z. (2021). Sustainable innovation and the triple-bottom-line: A market-
based capabilities and stakeholder perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 29(2), 
141-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1798253  

Wilson, J. P. (2015). The triple bottom line. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 
43(4), 432-447. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijrdm-11-2013-0210 

Young, J. (2022, February 18). U.S. ecommerce grows 14.2% in 2021. 
https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/us-ecommerce-sales/  

Zhang, Q., Chen, J., & Chen, B. (2021). Information strategy in a supply chain under asymmetric 
customer returns information. Transportation Research. Part E, Logistics and Transportation 
Review, 155, 102511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102511 

  

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


 

 

52 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Appendix 
Interview Questions 

Q# Interview Questions Framework/Literature 
Alignment 

Probing Questions 

1 What business chal-
lenges or lessons 
learned can you 
share related to tran-
sitioning companies 
to the circular econ-
omy? 

Addresses the gap in 
practice by understanding 
what needs to change in a 
company to improve the 
adoption of the CE over-
all and overcome domi-
nant practices. 

What types of skills are 
needed to transform? 
How were specific met-
rics utilized? What 
would you consider to 
be best practices?  

2 What business model 
components do com-
panies need to have 
in place to transition 
to the circular econ-
omy more quickly? 

Addresses general the 
problem related to the 
slow adoption of the CE 
to establish context and 
understand best prac-
tices overall 

How was staff retrained 
to change to the new 
competencies? How was 
technology considered? 
How did the business re-
organize to support the 
CE? What considera-
tions to shareholders 
needed to be made? 
What support mecha-
nisms (processes, re-
sources, technologies, 
or capabilities) needed 
to be implemented? 

3 What opportunities 
are there for con-
sumer product com-
panies to immedi-
ately start to imple-
ment CE principles 
in their business? 

Address the gap in prac-
tice specific to the in-
dustry and continue the 
discussion on innovative 
strategies related to tak-
ing out waste and pollu-
tion, extending the life 
of products and ensure 
natural system restora-
tion. 

How do companies need 
to reconsider their sup-
ply chain and vendors? 
What new competencies 
or processes would need 
to be introduced? How 
do reverse logistics need 
to be adapted? 

  



 

 

 

53 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

11:31 
– 

13:00 

4 How must consumer 
product companies 
rethink the product 
returns process to 
make it circular? 

Address the specific 
problem of moving to 
circular for the returns 
process, introduce inno-
vation for product com-
panies, and meet the 
TBL. 

What considerations 
need to be made for con-
sumer expectations? 
What considerations 
need to be made to man-
age shareholders? What 
changes need to be made 
in the supply chain and 
for product selection, or 
how products are sold? 

13:01 
– 

15:30 

5 With the focus on re-
taining the value of a 
product for as long 
as possible in the 
CE, what needs to be 
included in the prod-
uct return process to 
achieve that goal? 

Addresses how to utilize 
the circles in the frame-
work to promote this ac-
tivity centered on the 
circular economy. 

How does a company 
maintain the value of the 
product for longer? 
What are the options re-
lated to the reuse and the 
redistribution of a prod-
uct? What options are 
there for remanufactur-
ing or refurbishing the 
product or its packag-
ing? How was technol-
ogy considered? 

15:31 
– 

18:00 

6 What new services 
or profit opportuni-
ties can be created 
by aligning the re-
turns process with 
circular economy 
principles? 

Value creation is a com-
ponent of the CE, so this 
question is relevant to un-
derstanding how that can 
happen in the returns pro-
cess to address profit 
leakage. 

How were the profit op-
portunities identified? 
What cost cutting initia-
tives can be identified? 
Were all shareholders in 
agreement that they 
were positive for the 
company? If any invest-
ment was required, how 
long was the ROI? 

  



 

 

54 
 

January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

18:01 
– 

20:30 

7 What do leaders in 
consumer product 
companies need to 
have in order to 
make better deci-
sions about how to 
handle products dur-
ing the returns pro-
cess to reduce the 
amount of waste? 

This question addresses a 
critical barrier causing 
significant leakage and 
impacting the ability to 
achieve the TBL. 

What processes, skills, 
or resources would need 
to be introduced into the 
business? What changes 
in leadership were 
made? What changes 
were made to third-party 
vendors or the types of 
products that are sold? 

20:31 
– 

23:00 

8 What activities do 
leaders need to con-
sider to deal with the 
product returns chal-
lenges caused by 
product packaging? 

Critical to understand 
how these barriers were 
addressed in a CE. 

How was redesign in-
corporated? How should 
vendors be chosen? 
What must occur in re-
verse logistics opera-
tions to support this? 

23:01 
– 

25:30 

9 What would it take 
to successfully man-
age consumer expec-
tations when imple-
menting the circular 
economy? 

Critical to understanding 
how consumer-specific 
barriers were addressed 
in a CE. 

How do product compa-
nies balance retaining 
the customer with leni-
ent returns but also 
adopting more sustaina-
ble business practices? 
What challenges have 
you faced managing 
customer expectations? 

25:31 
– 

28:00 

10 How would you be 
able to tell if the 
changes for the re-
turns process moving 
to the CE worked? 

Critical to understand 
success and establish re-
peatable measurements 
for leaders to use. 

What were critical suc-
cess factors measured? 
What technology or pro-
cesses were used to cap-
ture data for measure-
ments? How were the 
various shareholder's 
needs addressed in the 
measurements? 

 

 

  



 

 

 

55 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Register and submit your work to  

Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 
(columbiasouthern.edu) 

Business Management Research and Applications: A 
Cross-Disciplinary Journal (BMRA) (ISSN 2769-4666) is 
an open-access (CC BY-ND 4.0), peer-reviewed journal 
that publishes original research as well as works that ex-
plore the applied implications of others’ research, concep-
tual papers, and case studies (including teaching notes for 
review) that have a business administration and manage-
ment slant. BMRA welcomes original submissions from 
researchers, practitioners, and Master’s/doctoral students 
from the following disciplines: business management, oc-
cupational safety, cybersecurity, finance, marketing, en-
trepreneurship, public administration, health services, fire 
safety, human resources, project management, healthcare 
management, and information technology. Master’s de-
gree-level student authors must be co-authors with faculty 
or professional researchers in the field. BMRA is a partici-
pant with the LOCKSS archival system,  
Alabama Digital Preservation Network | ADPNet.  

 
This work is licensed under a  

Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0  
International License. 

 

https://bmrajournal.columbiasouthern.edu/index.php/bmra/index
https://bmrajournal.columbiasouthern.edu/index.php/bmra/index
http://www.adpn.org/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

	Abstract
	Introduction
	Summary of the Literature
	Background
	Sustainability in Business
	The Circular Economy
	The Importance of the Triple Bottom Line
	Industry Trends
	Challenges to adapting to the CE
	The Adapted CE Framework
	Methodology
	Summary of Methodology
	Participant Information
	Data Collection Process

	Data Analysis
	Initialization and Construction Phases
	Initialization
	Construction Phase

	Rectification and Finalization Phases
	Theme Narrative
	Theme 1. Rethinking the entire product design lifecycle
	Theme 2. Viewing reverse logistics strategically
	Theme 3.  Ensuring transparency and innovation and new partners in the supply chain
	Theme 4. Rethinking the ethos of the business model
	Theme 5. Multiple enablers are necessary to support change
	The fifth theme identified is CE business model transformation will require using several enablers, including understanding and utilizing CE values and principles to promote, facilitate, and support the change due to very high code presence in the dat...

	Research Question Revisited

	Contribution to the Adapted Framework
	Summary and Recommendations
	Applications
	Recommendations


