Barriers to circular economy adoption are diverse and some are business-model specific: Evidence from the Australian cheese manufacturing sector

Achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3, aimed at halving food loss and waste by 2030, requires private firms to adopt circular economy practices, which may include different types of circular business models (CBMs). This study examines four interchangeable CBMs–in-house (IH), third party (TP), joint venture (JV), and focal company (FC) models—focusing on the Australian cheese manufacturing sector and its liquid by-product, ‘whey’. Through semi-structured interviews with 43 participants from 42 firms, we analysed how barriers differ across CBMs. Some barriers are consistent across all CBMs, such as economies of scale and operational costs. Others are absent in one or two CBMs (e.g., capital costs in JV and competing priorities in TP), while some are unique (e.g., low or inconsistent demand in IH, payment expectations in TP, conflicting values or personalities in JV, and upstream product specifications in FC). Findings indicate that while IH models are feasible for all production scales with sufficient time and resources. TP models are suitable for firms with time constraints, provided there is agreement on compensation with the recipient. JV could work for firms lacking volumes or capital but require local collaboration and transparent business plans. Utilising existing infrastructure of firms already repurposing by-products can be effective but requires upstream firms meeting product specifications. By exploring multiple CBM options, the willingness to explore circular economy approaches increases markedly when considering multiple CBMs (79%) versus IH approaches alone (33%). This highlights the necessity for diverse strategies to achieve SDG 12.3, as a one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient. Firms may need to partner with others for repurposing, and those already repurposing can enhance efforts by enabling others to repurpose waste, though multiple pathways also increase potential barriers. • Promoting diverse business models to the circular economy is crucial to halving food loss and waste by 2030. • We examine four interchangeable circular business models and their respective barriers. • This is explored through thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with Australian cheese manufacturers. • Considering multiple business models expands firms' willingness to adopt circular practices. • Barriers to circular models are prevalent, including financial, supply chain, and technological challenges. Some models overcome common hurdles but introduce unique challenges.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Cleaner Production
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143879
Citations
11
Primary Topic
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.10
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Barriers to circular economy adoption are diverse and some are business-model specific: Evidence from the Australian cheese manufacturing sector

Adam Loch, Pablo Juliano, Wendy J. Umberger, Jack B. Hetherington
11 citations
Journal of Cleaner Production
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
6.10
article

Barriers to circular economy adoption are diverse and some are business-model specific: Evidence from the Australian cheese manufacturing sector

Adam Loch, Pablo Juliano, Wendy J. Umberger, Jack B. Hetherington
article en
11 citations

Abstract

Achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3, aimed at halving food loss and waste by 2030, requires private firms to adopt circular economy practices, which may include different types of circular business models (CBMs). This study examines four interchangeable CBMs–in-house (IH), third party (TP), joint venture (JV), and focal company (FC) models—focusing on the Australian cheese manufacturing sector and its liquid by-product, ‘whey’. Through semi-structured interviews with 43 participants from 42 firms, we analysed how barriers differ across CBMs. Some barriers are consistent across all CBMs, such as economies of scale and operational costs. Others are absent in one or two CBMs (e.g., capital costs in JV and competing priorities in TP), while some are unique (e.g., low or inconsistent demand in IH, payment expectations in TP, conflicting values or personalities in JV, and upstream product specifications in FC). Findings indicate that while IH models are feasible for all production scales with sufficient time and resources. TP models are suitable for firms with time constraints, provided there is agreement on compensation with the recipient. JV could work for firms lacking volumes or capital but require local collaboration and transparent business plans. Utilising existing infrastructure of firms already repurposing by-products can be effective but requires upstream firms meeting product specifications. By exploring multiple CBM options, the willingness to explore circular economy approaches increases markedly when considering multiple CBMs (79%) versus IH approaches alone (33%). This highlights the necessity for diverse strategies to achieve SDG 12.3, as a one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient. Firms may need to partner with others for repurposing, and those already repurposing can enhance efforts by enabling others to repurpose waste, though multiple pathways also increase potential barriers. • Promoting diverse business models to the circular economy is crucial to halving food loss and waste by 2030. • We examine four interchangeable circular business models and their respective barriers. • This is explored through thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with Australian cheese manufacturers. • Considering multiple business models expands firms' willingness to adopt circular practices. • Barriers to circular models are prevalent, including financial, supply chain, and technological challenges. Some models overcome common hurdles but introduce unique challenges.

Journal of Cleaner ProductionVol. 477
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), Agriculture and Food (AU), The University of Adelaide (AU), Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
6.10
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.