Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Please cite this article as: Roger Nyffenegger et al., Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2024.100906
Available online 3 March 20241478-4092/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Change agents’ cognitive maps of circular supply chain transition – An 
investigation of barriers, actions, and outcomes 
Roger Nyffenegger a,*, Axel Zehendner b, Anne M. Quarshie c, Rudolf Leuschner d 
a Management Science, Innovation, Sustainability and Entrepreneurship (MISE), School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 
Quellgasse 21, 2501, Biel, Switzerland 
b Business School, LUT University, P.O. Box 20, 53851, Lappeenranta, Finland 
c Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Turku School of Economics, 20014, University of Turku, Finland 
d Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, 1 Washington Park, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA   
A R T I C L E  I N F O   
Keywords: 
Circular economy 
Circular supply chains 
Managerial sensemaking 
Supply chain cooperation 
Circular business models 
Circular design 
Material choice 
A B S T R A C T   
Integrating circular principles into supply chains (SCs) is a significant challenge for many managers aiming to 
decouple their organizations’ activities from the use of natural resources and environmental degradation. Despite 
increasing research focusing on the circular economy (CE), little attention has been given to individuals’ in-
terpretations of the circular transition and their own transition strategies. This interpretivist qualitative study 
provides insights into the managerial sensemaking of the circular SC transition, including the barriers faced and 
the strategic actions taken to overcome the barriers and realize desired outcomes. Semi-structured interviews 
with 19 change agents were combined with a cognitive mapping approach. The individual cognitive structures 
were synthesized into an overarching sensemaking map that captured the informants’ perceptions and social 
construction of the circular SC transition. The findings reveal four shared cognitive frames (i.e., the most 
plausible schemes) held by change agents: (1) SC cooperation, (2) circular business models, (3) circular design, 
and (4) material choice. Moreover, we develop a framework that highlights how sensemaking contributes to the 
calibration of cognitive frames and the strategies pursued by individuals. We contribute to the literature by 
providing insights into change agents’ social construction and perceptions of the circular SC transition and 
propose key takeaways for practitioners and policymakers.   
1. Introduction 
Since the emergence of mass production during the Industrial Rev-
olution, the global economy has been dominated by linear systems 
following a ‘take-make-dispose’ pattern (Esposito et al., 2018). These 
systems operate under the assumption “that there is an unlimited supply 
of natural resources and that the environment has an unlimited capacity 
to absorb waste and pollution” (Cooper, 1999, p. 10). This careless 
consumption of natural resources and environmental pollution have 
contributed to many socio-ecological crises, such as climate change and 
biodiversity loss (Salmi et al., 2023; Wright and Nyberg, 2017). To 
respond to these grand challenges (Ferraro et al., 2015), a departure 
from linear to circular supply chains (SCs) is required (Tate et al., 2019). 
The circular economy (CE) is based on the idea that the economic system 
is embedded in the natural environment, emphasizing the need to 
minimize resource extraction and environmental harm to ensure the 
long-term health of both the ecosystem and the economy (Inigo and 
Blok, 2019; Montabon et al., 2016). Despite the clarity of these overall 
goals and strategies, questions about implementation remain, specif-
ically how individuals perceive actions and barriers. 
The extant literature on circular SCs has focused largely on barriers 
and enablers (e.g., Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Guldmann and 
Huulgaard, 2020; Vermunt et al., 2019). However, little attention has 
been paid to the interpretations and actions of individuals, who are often 
a driving force in transitions toward circularity. Consistent with the 
common understanding in the change management literature (By et al., 
2011), this study focuses on managers, who, as change agents, play a 
crucial role in developing, implementing, and selling circular initiatives 
within organizations and along SCs. Studying the sensemaking and in-
terpretations of these individuals is beneficial for understanding how 
* Corresponding author. 
E-mail addresses: roger.nyffenegger@bfh.ch (R. Nyffenegger), axel.zehendner@lut.fi (A. Zehendner), anne.quarshie@utu.fi (A.M. Quarshie), rleuschner@ 
business.rutgers.edu (R. Leuschner).  
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2024.100906 
Received 24 February 2023; Received in revised form 7 February 2024; Accepted 28 February 2024   
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
2
complex circular transitions can be conceptualized and put into practice 
in SC contexts (Bien and Sassen, 2020; Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Fiss 
and Hirsch, 2005; Kuhlmann et al., 2023). Individuals influence the 
overall strategies of organizations (Hahn et al., 2014) as well as the 
translation and implementation of specific strategic actions (Balogun 
et al., 2015; Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). A better understanding of 
individuals’ shared perceptions of the circular SC transition, including 
perceived barriers and corresponding actions, can help develop more 
holistic and effective management strategies. Many companies have 
made early attempts to integrate circular principles into their purchas-
ing practices, SC structures, and processes, but the overall trans-
formation of companies toward circularity is still in its infancy 
(Farooque et al., 2019; World Business Council for Sustainable Devel-
opment, 2021). Since change agents are critical in this transition, we 
believe it is important to study these individuals’ interpretations of the 
circular transition. Insights into these socially constructed transition 
processes may provide a better understanding of not only the main 
reasons but also the interpretations that hinder the larger societal shift 
toward more circularity, despite the popularity of CE as a concept. 
To provide a theoretical and practical understanding, our paper 
seeks to answer the following research question: How do change agents 
interpret the circular SC transition? Specifically, we are interested in the 
cognitively perceived barriers, corresponding actions to overcome these 
barriers, and outcomes of change agents with the responsibility of 
driving and translating the circular transition in organizations and SCs. 
In our interpretivist qualitative study (Gehman et al., 2018; Quarshie 
and Leuschner, 2020), we adopt a cognitive mapping approach (Eden 
et al., 1992; Richter and Arndt, 2018) to study the perceptions of 19 
Swiss individuals who are either directly or indirectly involved in the 
circular transition process of SCs. Building on insights and arguments 
from sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995), we develop a collective 
cognitive map that synthesizes four main shared interpretations. These 
can be understood as the most plausible schemes retained by the change 
agents as a result of their sensemaking. We then develop a theoretical 
framework that highlights how sensemaking influences the adoption of 
cognitive frames and related strategies that enable a transition toward 
circular SCs. 
The main contributions of our paper are as follows: First, we advance 
research on CE by providing insights into change agents’ cognitive 
perceptions and interpretations of circular SC transitions. This is visu-
alized in the form of a strategic cognitive map (Fig. 2) and a related 
theoretical framework (Fig. 3). We also provide insights into change 
agents’ perceived enabling actions and the resulting outcomes for 
overcoming barriers to the circular transition. Second, our study con-
tributes to the research at the intersection of sensemaking theory and 
sustainable SC management (SCM). Especially when phenomena are 
ambiguous and new, such as the circular SC transition, the in-
terpretations of individuals play a crucial role in the selection and 
implementation of presumably appropriate actions. However, most 
research on SCs in general or specifically on circularity has largely 
neglected the interpretations of individuals that influence the strategies 
and practices adopted in SCs. Finally, we make a contextual contribution 
by directing our focus toward Switzerland, a region where circular 
transformation processes have only been studied to a limited extent 
(Stucki and Worter, 2022). Studying the Swiss context is particularly 
compelling because of the impact of circularity on the competitiveness 
of Swiss companies, given their significant dependence on imported 
resources. 
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: First, we introduce the 
relevant theoretical background of the study. Next, we outline our 
methodology, including our research approach, data collection, and 
data analysis. Then, we present our results, including the cognitively 
perceived barriers, corresponding actions, and outcomes related to the 
circular transition in SCs. Subsequently, we discuss the results in light of 
the theoretical background and outline our study’s contributions and 
implications. Finally, we conclude the paper by outlining its limitations 
and suggestions for future research. 
2. Theoretical background 
2.1. Circular economy and supply chains 
CE is an integral part of today’s sustainability efforts (Murray et al., 
2017). It emerged from the definition of sustainable development pro-
posed in the Brundtland Commission report (World Commission on 
Environment and Development, 1987). The concept of CE has its origins 
in different schools of thought, such as industrial ecology or the 
cradle-to-cradle concept (Borrello et al., 2020; Homrich et al., 2018). CE 
remained a niche topic for some time, but it has now become an um-
brella term for these related schools of thought (Blomsma and Brennan, 
2017). The concept gained momentum through China’s national CE 
strategy and, later on, through those of European industry actors (Lieder 
and Rashid, 2016; Rosa et al., 2019). CE’s benefits are evident within all 
areas of sustainability: environmental, social, and economical. For 
instance, Renault committed early to CE strategies by leasing the bat-
teries of its newly launched electric cars (Urbinati et al., 2017). The 
French car manufacturer managed to recover 43 % of car parts for 
remanufacturing, and in doing so saved 80 % of energy, water, and 
chemical products while offering these parts 30–50 % cheaper to its 
customers (Saidani et al., 2018). Overall, the promises of CE include the 
creation of new jobs and business opportunities, the development of 
technological and organizational innovations, and the promotion of 
economic growth and increased competitiveness of companies and 
entire SCs (Rizos et al., 2016; Su et al., 2013). 
Both research and practice recognize that the actions of single 
companies cannot achieve the overall goal of CE (De Angelis et al., 2018; 
Zhang et al., 2021). Generally, more than 75 % of a company’s value 
added is created externally by suppliers and their subcontractors (World 
Trade Organization, 2021). This means that from the CE perspective, 
value creation often begins with the energy-consuming extraction of 
nonrenewable materials and ends with disposal of the product or recy-
cling into further use or reuse. The implementation of CE will not suc-
ceed without embedding the supply and demand sides of the SC (Ferasso 
et al., 2020). Therefore, supplier management and other purchasing 
activities play an important role in the transformation toward the CE 
(Münch et al., 2022; Neessen et al., 2021). Simultaneously, circularity 
has numerous implications for creating and managing SCs, which is why 
the term ‘circular SC’ has emerged (Batista et al., 2018). For example, 
circular SCs can form a part of sustainable SCM (Walker et al., 2021). 
The origins of the circular SC concept can be traced to ‘reverse logistics’ 
(Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Quarshie et al., 2016), and it has 
evolved further to incorporate ‘closed-loop SCs’ (Govindan et al., 2015; 
Suzanne et al., 2020). 
A circular SC represents the transition from a linear and sequential to 
a circular flow of resources and products from the ultimate source to the 
final and last possible consumption, including possible recycling and 
reuse (Bocken et al., 2016; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Tate et al., 2019). 
Through the establishment of circular SCs, the goal is to enable a 
regenerative economy that preserves existing resources and adds little 
‘primary’ resources to the stream of creating products and services 
(Howard et al., 2019; Salmi et al., 2023). The benefits derived from the 
revised flow of resources and products over the life cycle of a product 
include reduced material and energy consumption (Morseletto, 2020). 
Circular SCs stand for the ethical use of the earth’s resources and green 
inter-company value creation (Gonzalez-Sanchez et al., 2020). For 
example, a circular SC can involve creating value by integrating tradi-
tional SC activities into new types of business models (Geissdoerfer 
et al., 2018). Ultimately, circular SCs can be considered ethically 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
conscious choices that help support a sustainable future. 
2.1.1. Actors involved in the circular economy and supply chains 
Various actors are involved in CE and SCs (Batista et al., 2018). There 
is a consensus in the literature that the concept of CE must not stop at the 
boundaries of an individual company (e.g., De Angelis et al., 2018; 
Genovese et al., 2017; Masi et al., 2017). Instead, SCs must be explicitly 
included in this conceptualization (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Apart from 
the focal organization and its various functional areas, customers and 
suppliers must be considered during the circular transition (Govindan 
and Hasanagic, 2018; Leuschner et al., 2013). Nontraditional SC actors 
also influence the circular transition. These actors predominantly 
include governments, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society 
at large (Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014; Quarshie et al., 2016). 
Although the transition toward CE asks for changes from organiza-
tions and SCs as a whole, individuals are responsible for driving the 
circular transition in the organization (Koistinen et al., 2022). Managers 
and leaders, who serve as translators and planners of organizational 
change, have different impacts on the outcomes of strategic decisions 
and the directions that organizations and entire SCs take (Nordin et al., 
2018; Penttila et al., 2020). Whereas top management leadership is 
typically responsible for the formulation of corporate strategies, middle 
managers are usually the main actors who determine the quality of the 
implementation (Raes et al., 2011). Middle managers play a particularly 
important role during periods of change because they are often 
responsible for translating strategic objectives into actions and practices 
(Floyd and Wooldridge, 1994, 1997; Huy, 2011). Individuals are 
responsible for the interpretation and ‘selling’ of strategic change not 
only to themselves but to other actors as well (Rouleau, 2005). More-
over, it is commonplace for organizational changes to rely on a host of 
external service providers, such as consultants (By et al., 2011). Insights 
into the perceptions of relevant individuals are hence crucial for com-
prehending how CE can be achieved (Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Wade 
and Griffiths, 2021). However, the individuals responsible for devel-
oping and implementing circular strategies and actions have been 
largely neglected in prior research (for exceptions, see Bozkurt et al., 
2022; Koistinen et al., 2022). 
2.1.2. Circular economy drivers and barriers 
Many drivers provide incentives for companies and their SCs to 
adopt CE activities (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Hina et al., 2022). 
One group of drivers stems from the governmental policy domain. These 
cover guidelines and regulations, such as taxation, supporting funds, and 
subsidy policies promoting cleaner production, consumption, and 
end-of-life management (Hina et al., 2022; Ilic and Nikolic, 2016; 
Urbinati et al., 2021). In the social area, education is a driver for CE 
because people with higher education are more prone to buy products 
with recycled content (Neves and Marques, 2022). Similarly, increasing 
awareness and concerns among consumers about global sustainability 
trends also act as social enablers of CE (Baldassarre et al., 2020; D’Ag-
ostin et al., 2020). From an SC perspective, the geographical proximity 
of SC partners has been identified as an enabling factor for CE because it 
promotes open communication and cooperation, which subsequently 
improves the availability of resources (Calicchio Berardi and Peregrino 
de Brito, 2021; Urbinati et al., 2021). Moreover, stakeholder pressure 
plays a major role as a CE driver because stakeholders demand more 
responsible production and consumption (Russell et al., 2020). 
Beyond external drivers, the literature also identifies several 
company-internal factors that enable CE transitions. Good leadership, 
for example, is seen as the most important element for the successful 
implementation of (CE) business models (Hina et al., 2022; Moktadir 
et al., 2020). Moreover, knowledge as a resource can enable the 
implementation of CE business models (Ilic and Nikolic, 2016). There 
are also several drivers related to product and process development, 
which can be relevant in the areas of product longevity, waste recovery, 
and SC redesign, among others (Cui et al., 2017; Gusmerotti et al., 2019; 
Hussain and Malik, 2020). 
The slow progress in implementing and adopting CE principles re-
sults from numerous barriers preventing CE from flourishing (Werning 
and Spinler, 2020). CE barriers can be conceptualized in different ways. 
However, no single categorization has so far been adopted as the pre-
dominant framework in this area (e.g., Hina et al., 2022; Linder and 
Williander, 2017; Ormazabal et al., 2018; Rizos et al., 2016). Besides 
differentiating barriers along the system levels of micro, meso, and 
macro (Pheifer, 2017), the classification of cultural, regulatory, market, 
and technological barriers is commonly used (de Jesus and Mendonça, 
2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018). 
Several barriers are predominant from a company’s internal 
perspective. Lacking intra-company collaboration, characterized by 
uncoordinated objectives, processes, and budgets among departments, 
hampers the CE transition (Pheifer, 2017; Werning and Spinler, 2020). 
The literature also identifies non-holistic approaches within the com-
pany itself as an important barrier (Hina et al., 2022). This goes hand in 
hand with the lack of a long-term circular strategy that considers the 
necessary high upfront investments and long payback periods (Lacy and 
Rutqvist, 2015; Pheifer, 2017). Additionally, organizations are simply 
aligned on linearity, in which purchase activities, quality management 
systems, accounting rules, and internal policies, for example, prevent 
circularity (de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018). 
Companies may also fear the cannibalization of their existing linear 
business that secures profits in the short-term (Linder and Williander, 
2017; Werning and Spinler, 2020). The overall complexity of the 
product, non-suitability of its design for reuse, challenges with mainte-
nance and/or disassembly (Ghisellini et al., 2016), or lack of CE 
knowledge and skills (de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018) are the main 
barriers in (internal) operations. A barrier may also be that reverse SC 
infrastructures are not present (Dutta et al., 2021; Rizos and Bryhn, 
2022) or are unstable due to fragile return and collection systems 
(Werning and Spinler, 2020). Reuse and remanufacturing processes may 
also face lump demand and geographical dispersion of activities (Bres-
sanelli et al., 2017; Rizos and Bryhn, 2022). 
Overall, the extant literature has identified a broad range of CE 
drivers and barriers, but there remains little understanding of how in-
dividual CE change agents make sense of the various CE barriers that 
they face and especially how their perceptions influence their firms’ 
actions and the outcomes of those actions. 
2.2. Sensemaking literature 
Sensemaking is a procedure that individuals apply to process issues 
and circumstances that are new, confusing, or, in some way, violate their 
existing beliefs and expectations (Weick, 1995). For example, in an 
organizational context, individuals can try to clarify moments of un-
certainty, ambiguity, complexity, or equivocality by extracting and 
interpreting cues from their environment (Maitlis and Christianson, 
2014; Townsend et al., 2018). By engaging in a continuous process of 
seeking and making sense, actors develop assumptions, expectations, 
and understandings of an issue that further shape their actions (Groschl 
et al., 2019; Wade and Griffiths, 2021; Wang et al., 2019). This type of 
continuous and reflective interplay of actions and interpretations is 
especially crucial when organizational members are confronted with 
unanticipated phenomena or radical changes (Quarshie et al., 2021; 
Waddock, 2019). 
An almost infinite flow of events and experiences surrounds any 
organizational player (Chia, 2000; Weick et al., 2014). For example, 
companies and managers are increasingly pressured to transform SCs 
toward sustainability and circularity, leading to ambiguous situations 
(Kocabasoglu et al., 2007). Organizations may be expected to establish 
repair services, create reverse SCs, or introduce new materials and 
technologies. In response to such events and interruptions, managers 
generally ask themselves, “What is going on here?” and “What do I do 
next?” (Weick et al., 2005, p. 412). The so-called enactment phase 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
4
Fig. 1. Weick’s sensemaking model, own illustration adapted from Cristofaro (2022) and Weick et al. (2005).  
Fig. 2. Strategic map.  
Fig. 3. Theoretical CE sensemaking framework.  
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
(Fig. 1) entails, first, the filtering of the grouped cues on which sense-
making initially acts and, second, the extraction of new cues emerging 
from the ongoing situation (Cristofaro, 2022). In this context, sense-
making helps label and classify undifferentiated flows of sense impres-
sions that an individual is exposed to on an ongoing basis (Weick et al., 
2005). Thereby, the identity of the organizational agents but also the 
social situation within which they act influences the sensemaking pro-
cess (Cristofaro, 2022). Events and inputs around the circular SC tran-
sition may similarly be identified, categorized, and routinized to create a 
sense of stability, order, and predictability about them (Chia, 2000). 
As part of sensemaking, meaning is created by connecting observed 
events and inputs with existing frameworks (Wang et al., 2019). This 
second phase is called selection (Fig. 1), where ambiguity is reduced by 
making sense of a situation by drawing on schemata, mental maps, or 
representations (Cristofaro, 2022; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). For 
example, a procurement manager may start to observe materials that 
allow circularity, or a sales manager may begin to recognize the 
increasing demand for repair services. This type of enactment happens 
deliberatively and in recursive cycles. As managers interpret the gained 
understanding of the events and inputs with existing frameworks, the 
same frameworks are simultaneously questioned and tested, considering 
new frameworks and alternative interpretations (Weick et al., 2005). 
Finally, actors may develop a common understanding or view of things 
through discussions with others, with the most plausible schemes 
retained in the retention phase (Fig. 1) (Cristofaro, 2022; Quarshie et al., 
2021; Taylor and Van Every, 1999). In this paper, we integrate insights 
from sensemaking theory to theorize how CE change agents perceive the 
barriers they confront related to circular SC transitions and how these 
plausible schemes influence the actions and outcomes that they adopt in 
circular SC transitions (Ciulli et al., 2020; Esposito et al., 2018). 
3. Methodology 
3.1. Research approach and context 
We utilized an interpretivist qualitative research approach (Gehman 
et al., 2018) combined with a cognitive mapping approach to gain deep 
insights into the managerial perceptions of the transition toward circular 
SCs. Qualitative methods, including the chosen interpretivist episte-
mological perspective in this research, are suitable for understanding 
complex topics from the perspectives of relevant actors, such as change 
agents (Koistinen et al., 2022; Quarshie et al., 2021; Schwartz-Shea and 
Yanow, 2012). Although interpretivist research has traditionally been 
less common in the purchasing and SCM field than case-based qualita-
tive research, an increasing number of studies have recently started to 
employ interpretive grounded theory methodologies to build theory (e. 
g., Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020; Villena and Gioia, 2018). A particular 
strength of interpretive theories is that they typically seek to capture the 
sense given by research participants to a phenomenon (Gehman et al., 
2018). The cognitive mapping approach is an analytical technique that 
can be used to understand how managers perceive certain phenomena 
(Richter and Arndt, 2018). The findings of the research technique are 
generally summarized in cognitive maps that are typically derived 
through interviews, where the subjective, socially constructed world of 
an interviewee (or multiple interviewees) is presented (Eden, 2004; 
Eden and Ackermann, 1998). Since the CE research field is emerging 
(Murray et al., 2017; Ritala et al., 2018), we considered the combination 
of semi-structured interviews with a cognitive mapping approach as a 
suitable research strategy for understanding the individual and collec-
tive sensemaking of the core phenomenon. 
We chose Switzerland as the study’s empirical context for two main 
reasons. First, the country’s economy is mature, with a well-developed 
infrastructure, causing lock-in effects and barriers that may hamper 
the circular transition. Second, the country is largely dependent on 
imports, which has not yet led to a comprehensive shift to CE among 
companies and their SCs (Stucki and Worter, 2022). The closed-loop 
material utilization rate in the country is so far only 13 % (Bundesamt 
für Statistik, 2020), which suggests that there remains significant po-
tential to further develop CE activities. As such, we expected to have 
access to CE change agents from various industries that are actively 
seeking CE activities in their SCs. We consider change agents to be in-
dividuals who advance and work on CE-related issues in a company or a 
supporting organization. By interviewing change agents, we aimed to 
derive individual and collective cognitive maps that captured a range of 
perspectives and mental representations related to the barriers, enabling 
actions, and outcomes of transitioning toward circular SCs. 
3.2. Data collection 
We chose semi-structured interviews to generate data about the in-
sights of a diverse group of managers identified as change agents 
involved in the circular SC transition. The interpretivist research relied 
on semi-structured interviews due to their potential to generate deep- 
level contextual insights into how the circular transition is understood 
and interpreted by the selected experts (Bogner and Menz, 2009; Corbin 
and Strauss, 2015; Gehman et al., 2018). Expert interviewees enabled us 
to explore the complex core phenomenon and dissect the topic in all its 
facets (Scapolo and Miles, 2006; Wang et al., 2019). 
The pool of interviewees was based on pre-specified selection criteria 
(Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Pratt et al., 2020). These criteria concerned 
the following: (1) the track record of the change agents’ organizations, 
which manifests in aspects such as the proven realization of circular 
projects, the portfolio of circular products (e.g., with Cradle to Cradle 
certification), or membership in a CE network; (2) the significance and 
responsibility of the change agents’ role in driving the circular transi-
tion, which may or may not coincide with the hierarchical position; and 
(3) their willingness and availability to participate in the research. 
Managers who met these criteria were initially approached through cold 
calling. The sample of research participants was later expanded through 
snowball sampling. 
The change agents included in our final sample (Table 1) represented 
diverse industry backgrounds, job positions, and organizational sizes. At 
the time of our data collection, these individuals were directly or indi-
rectly involved in the circular SC transition and could be classified into 
two groups. The first group (eleven individuals) includes people in or-
ganizations transitioning to products and/or business models aligned 
with the CE concept. The second group (eight individuals) includes 
people in the organization who support its transition toward circular 
business models and SCs (e.g., consultancies, certifiers, and CE initia-
tives). Overall, we believe that this selection of change agents represents 
a suitable theoretical sample. The heterodox but purposefully selected 
interview sample helps us to provide rich and relevant insights into the 
circular SC transition by capturing the perspectives and understandings 
of change agents with diverse backgrounds and experiences. 
We continued conducting interviews until we gained diverse per-
spectives and were confident that we had reached theoretical saturation. 
This was evidenced by the limited added information surfacing in the 
new interviews. Toward the end of the data collection, we determined 
that we had enough data to fully develop and refine the constructs of our 
final theoretical model (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). A total of 19 
semi-structured interviews with the selected CE change agents were 
carried out by one researcher between September and October 2020. 
The interviews took place either in person or online and lasted between 
60 and 120 min. All interviews were recorded with the consent of the 
participants. An initial interview guide (see Appendix 1) was developed 
to trigger the sensemaking of the selected change agents prior to 
beginning the interviews. The first section concerned the interviewees’ 
organizations, positions, and primary responsibilities. The second sec-
tion sought to determine the interviewees’ definitions and general un-
derstandings of the CE concept. In addition, the interviewees were asked 
about their organizations’ motivations to transition toward circular SCs 
and about their stages of CE implementation. The third section focused 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
6
on the perceived barriers to circular SC transitions. It aimed to deter-
mine how the change agents identified, perceived, and evaluated the 
impacts of the barriers. Finally, in the fourth section, the interviewees 
were asked about the required actions to overcome these barriers and 
the expected outcomes of these actions. As the interview stage pro-
ceeded, the interview questions were slightly refined, especially 
regarding actions, and tailored more to the two groups: organizations 
transitioning toward CE and organizations supporting this transition. 
However, flexibility was ensured, and informants were always able to 
bring up new topics and perspectives. 
3.3. Data analysis and theorization 
A grounded theory approach, combined with cognitive mapping 
focused on the research participants’ cognitions and interpretations of 
key issues, was used for the data analysis (Gehman et al., 2018). 
Cognitive maps represent a person’s causal belief system about a prob-
lem or issue. In other words, they provide an overview of an individual’s 
mental landscape (Christopoulos et al., 2017; Furnari, 2015; Scherp, 
2013). Through nodes and arrows outlining (causal) relationships or 
links between concepts, cognitive mapping structures problems and is-
sues and their potential solutions into visual displays (Bagozzi et al., 
2009; Eden, 2004). Cognitive maps are usually characterized by a hi-
erarchical structure. Similar to other scholars, in developing the (visual) 
individual and collective cognitive maps, we located expected outcomes 
at the top, strategic directions and enabling actions in the middle, and 
barriers at the bottom of the maps (Eden, 2004; Wang et al., 2019). 
In the first phase of our analysis, one researcher (first author) coded 
the data (Corbin and Strauss, 2015) and created cognitive maps of the 
individual change agents based on multiple rounds of listening to the 
interview recordings to ensure their accuracy (see Appendix 2 for an 
example). Through the iterative process of listening and note-taking, a 
comprehensive table of 302 concise statements was built. These state-
ments were then coded according to barriers, enabling actions, and 
outcomes (i.e., sets of initial concepts) (Corbin and Strauss, 2015; 
Gehman et al., 2018). This table of key statements presented the in-
terviews’ details in an analyzable written format, and the audio re-
cordings provided emotional content, such as intonation and doubts, 
and were used as a key data source in creating the cognitive maps 
(Tessier, 2012). 
In the second phase, three researchers collaborated to refine the 
concepts and themes (Corbin and Strauss, 2015), as well as to merge the 
individual cognitive maps into a collective cognitive map. This merging 
process followed three rules: (1) overlapping concepts were combined 
and integrated, (2) new connections were established between concepts 
to capture synergies and causal relationships, and (3) the hierarchical 
structure of links in the individual maps was maintained (Wang et al., 
2019). Based on the structural properties of hierarchies and linkages, 
two cluster types were determined and evaluated within the consoli-
dated cognitive map. Islands of themes were clusters of nodes and arrows 
that were somewhat disconnected from the rest of the map (in extreme 
cases, only one connection). These themes indicated relatively separable 
issues of the main topic that could be described and addressed in 
isolation from other aspects. Networks of themes were single nodes that 
were supported by other nodes located at a lower hierarchical layer. 
These themes indicated central issues of the main topic that were 
descriptive or representative of different sub-aspects of the whole issue 
(Eden, 2004, p. 679–680). We then grouped the nodes according to their 
content. Importantly, our analysis of the synthesized cognitive map 
revealed four common cognitive frames (i.e., the most plausible schemes 
Table 1 
Change agent sample overview.  
No. Organization Position Industry Revenue Company size 
A. CE Certification and Consulting Companyb CEO and Owner Consulting N/A Small 11–50 
employees 
B Construction Company and Real Estate Developer a Project Leader CE Strategy Construction, Real 
Estate 
800 M 
CHF 
Large low 501–1′000 
employees 
C One of the largest Retail Companies in Switzerland a Team Leader Ecology Non-Food Retail 29.9 B 
CHF 
Large high ‡10′000 
employees 
D Foundation supporting Companies solving Environmental Tasksb Project Leader CE Nonprofit N/A Small 11–50 
employees 
E Startup producing Recyclable Bottles a CEO and Founder Consumer Goods N/A Micro 
1 employee 
F Family-owned Manufacturer of Printing Products and Marketing 
Service Provider a 
Managing Director Marketing & 
Advertisement 
N/A Mid-size low 51–200 
employees 
G Internationally active Swiss Furniture Manufacturer a Group Product Development 
Director 
Furniture 200 M 
CHF 
Mid-size high 201–500 
employees 
H Family-owned Swiss Baked Goods & Biscuits Producer a Head of Sustainability Food Manufacturing 110 M 
CHF 
Mid-size high 201–500 
employees 
I Knowledge and Network Platform for CE in Switzerlandb Project Manager Nonprofit N/A Micro 2–10 employees 
J One of the world’s largest Apparel, Footwear and Accessories 
Company a 
Senior Product Development 
Manager Sustainability 
Clothing and Fashion 10.5 B 
USD 
Large high ‡10′000 
employees 
K One of the world’s largest Service Providers of Management and 
Strategy Consultingb 
Strategy Manager Consulting 39.6 B 
USD 
Large high ‡10′000 
employees 
L Support Fund that identifies, enables, and accompanies Pioneering 
Projectsb 
Project Leader CE & Mobility Nonprofit N/A Small 11–50 
employees 
M Association to realize the CE for Packaging in Switzerlandb Managing Director Nonprofit N/A Micro 2–10 employees 
N Internationally active Swiss Parquet Flooring Manufacturer a Director Total Quality 
Management 
Furniture 145 M 
CHF 
Large low 1′001–5′000 
employees 
O Multinational Furnishings Group a Head of Sustainability 
Switzerland 
Retail 39.6 B 
EUR 
Large high ‡10′000 
employees 
P Startup producing Ethical Fashion a CEO and Co-Founder Fashion N/A Micro 2–10 employees 
Q Family-owned Construction Company active in Engineering, 
Demolition, Recycling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites a 
Division Head Development Construction 120 M 
CHF 
Large low 501–1′000 
employees 
R Knowledge and Network Platform for CE in Switzerlandb Innovation & Start-up Project 
Manager 
Nonprofit N/A Small 11–50 
employees 
S Leading Business Conference in Switzerlandb Project Leader CE2 Event Services N/A Small 11–50 
employees  
a managers in organizations transitioning to products and/or business models aligned with the CE concept. 
b supporters and facilitators of companies transitioning toward circular business models and SC. 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
retained by the change agents) highlighting relevant enabling actions: 
material choice, circular design, circular business models, and SC 
cooperation. 
During the theory development process, we repeatedly returned to 
the existing literature and theory (Gehman et al., 2018; Quarshie and 
Leuschner, 2020). Insights on sensemaking and retention by individuals 
(e.g., Cristofaro, 2022; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005) were especially 
relevant to our emerging theory, and they were integrated into our 
theorization effort. Specifically, the four cognitive frames (or the most 
plausible schemes held by change agents) derived from our empirical 
data were used as the basis for our final theoretical framework (Fig. 3). 
The framework proposes that sensemaking functions as an underlying 
mechanism that contributes to shifts in cognitive frames, which include 
different sets of enabling actions to overcome the encountered barriers 
and reach the desired outcomes. We refined the framework until it 
provided a plausible explanation of the core phenomenon of interest 
(Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Gehman et al., 2018 ). The study findings and 
contributions were also evaluated against common study trustworthi-
ness and grounded theory applicability criteria (Table 2) (Corbin and 
Strauss, 2015; Pratt et al., 2020). 
4. Results 
The transition from today’s linear ‘take-make-dispose’ SCs toward an 
economy organized around circularity is concurrently ambiguous and 
inevitable. There is a broad understanding among the 19 CE change 
agents that the linear economy is not a sustainable solution in the long 
run. How CE barriers are specifically perceived and overcome is illus-
trated in the strategic map (Fig. 2), which is a synthesis of the individual 
maps that emerged from the interviews with the 19 change agents 
operating in the context of CE transitions within the Swiss economy. 
Moreover, in the strategic map, we identified four main cognitive frames 
(i.e., plausible schemes), which illustrate shared perceptions of core 
barriers, actions, and outcomes retained as a result of sensemaking by 
(some of) the change makers. The frames are somewhat overlapping yet 
complementary, and each informant can rely on one or more of these 
frames. 
Specifically, the strategic map is a consolidation of the individual 
maps, all of which follow the same structure with three levels: outcomes 
at the top, enabling actions in the middle, and barriers at the bottom. In 
the middle, four strategic directions mark the top of four cognitive 
frames. Enablers reaching the strategic directions are direct enabling 
actions (underlined), while enablers that have multiple arrows reaching 
and exiting are key enabling actions (in bold). All three levels of the 
strategic map are elaborated on in this section. The circular SC barriers 
are briefly outlined in Section 4.1. We then conceptualize in greater 
detail the strategic directions and direct and key enabling actions for 
each cognitive frame in Section 4.2 and the circular SC outcomes in 
Section 4.3. 
Table 2 
Trustworthiness and applicability of study.  
Trustworthiness and applicability criteria 
Description of criteria 
Means of ensuring criteria in this study 
Validity 
Whether the constructs are truthful and represent precisely the aspects of the 
phenomenon to which they are intended and whether there is a relationship between 
the constructs  
 The study context was carefully chosen and suitable for studying CE to ensure that the 
data and constructs can capture the phenomenon of interest.  
 An initial literature review was conducted prior to data collection.  
 A large number of research participants from suitable organizations were interviewed to 
ensure sampling adequacy and theoretical saturation.  
 The constructs were carefully developed and refined by multiple researchers as part of 
developing individual and collective cognitive maps.  
 The relationships among the constructs were carefully examined during the data 
analysis and theory development, and the theoretical framework was refined several 
times by the research team.  
 A chain of evidence can be traced from the questions of the study to the data and the 
main theoretical contributions. 
Reliability 
Whether the data are adequately and consistently collected and reported, and whether 
the procedures can be replicated  
 All interviews were conducted by the same investigator (first author), guided by pre- 
specified sampling criteria and an interview protocol.  
 Sampling adequacy and theoretical sampling were ensured by including diverse 
viewpoints.  
 All interviews were coded by the same investigator (first author), closely following 
relevant methodological guidelines, while other investigators helped refine the 
constructs.  
 Analysis procedures are clearly described, and the results of the analyses (e.g., 
individual cognitive maps) are stored in the research database.  
 Further details on the analyses and an example of an individual cognitive map are 
provided in the appendix.  
 The main contributions were assessed to provide a plausible theoretical explanation of 
the data/phenomenon. 
Generality 
Whether the findings can be generalized to other groups and settings  
 Sampling of organizations and expert informants was guided by theoretical sampling 
criteria.  
 A large number of research participants representing different industries were included.  
 The main theoretical contribution synthesizes the perspectives of a broad range of 
participants and enables generalization to other domains. 
 A semi-structured interview format and sufficient interview length ensured that in-
formants could mention new themes.  
 Previous research and theoretical insights were integrated into the theoretical model. 
Fit 
Whether the collected data match the core phenomenon of interest  
 A large number of interviews were conducted.  
 The investigators were sensitive and responsive to the informants and the data.  
 The final theoretical contribution was evaluated by the research team and determined to 
provide a plausible explanation of the core phenomenon. 
Understanding 
Whether the findings and theory can be easily understood  
 Constructs were carefully developed and refined to allow understanding.  
 Example quotes were used to illustrate and support the developed constructs.  
 The constructs were complemented with further descriptions. 
Control 
Whether findings and theory can be used to influence practice/policy  
 The results and final theoretical model can be used to influence practice and 
policymaking.  
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
8
4.1. Circular supply chain barriers 
The bottom of the strategic map illustrates the perceived barriers 
that originate from different areas of the circular SC (Fig. 2). One barrier 
that seems particularly ambiguous and disorienting among the CE 
change agents is the predominant linear thinking along SCs. This man-
ifests itself in various functional areas in organizations, ranging from 
procurement and contract management to accounting and marketing. 
For example, one of the CE change agents explained that many circular 
business models tend to perform worse because their businesses are still 
evaluated according to linear paradigms. As circular business models 
often have different cash flow and cost structures, the challenges of 
companies evolving today’s linear evaluation methods toward circu-
larity are enormous. Linear thinking is also the reason for the lack of 
financial solutions supporting the transformation to circular products or 
business models. Similarly, financial incentives are often not strong 
enough to switch from primary to secondary materials. Moreover, some 
change agents mentioned rigid company structures as obstacles to cir-
cular transition. These structures promote silo mentalities and linear 
decision-making processes, preventing necessary cross-functional and 
cross-company collaborations. According to one CE change agent, 
functional silo thinking occurs very quickly at companies of a certain 
size because many of today’s management systems structurally promote 
this. Here, we again see how linear thinking and the measurement of 
team performance present a challenge to overcome. It was pointed out 
that procurement departments, which have a crucial role in the circular 
transition, especially need to overcome their silo mentality. Besides 
those organizational and cultural barriers, the strategic map of in-
terviewees also reveals barriers related to technological aspects. Spe-
cifically, material choices and the composition of products are 
noteworthy. One CE change agent remarked that non-organic materials 
are better explored in terms of their quality and durability than organic 
materials. Naturally, this causes risk aversity against new materials. 
Paired with the usage of chemicals and mixed materials, uncertainty 
regarding new materials and procedures leads to unsatisfying recovery 
processes and a preference for virgin materials. Therefore, it was argued 
that only healthy and separable materials should circulate, while 
problematic materials should be excluded. Another significant barrier is 
linked to predominantly linear SCs. The transparency of material, in-
formation, and financial flows often stops abruptly at the point of sales, 
hampering circularity aspects such as asset optimization through 
maintenance and repair, take-back programs, and recycling. It was also 
mentioned that managers fail to consider the return of products and 
their tracking during the use phase. Lacking transparency, reverse 
infrastructure, and bargaining power in SCs significantly hamper the 
circular transformation of many companies. One CE change agent 
reported that most companies are eventually confronted with the 
question of whether the responsibility lies with individual companies, 
entire industries, or society to ensure closed loops. This is an important 
question that needs to be answered to overcome these barriers. 
4.2. Circular supply chain enabling actions 
4.2.1. Cognitive frame a – supply chain cooperation 
Cognitive Frame A encompasses enabling actions related to the topic 
of strategic direction, SC cooperation (see the red frame in Fig. 2 and 
Table 3). Most interviewees considered cooperation with other com-
panies central to the circular transition because circular SCs demand 
more interorganizational collaboration than the current linear SCs. The 
importance of collaborations was especially emphasized for overcoming 
the lack of reverse SCs. The success of collaborations appears to depend 
on the commitment, trust, and open communication of all parties 
involved in the SC. 
These requirements are also reflected in the cognitive frames’ direct 
and key enabling actions, which aim to establish the prerequisites for 
fruitful cooperation. The only critical key enabling action belonging to 
this cognitive frame is increasing the visibility of material, information, and 
financial flows (Table 4). The visibility within the circular SC ecosystem 
was considered to be an important prerequisite for the traceability and 
measurability of relevant aspects of circular SCs. Regarding the circular 
transition, traceability and measurability were highlighted as crucial for 
enhancing the long-term decision-making of companies and entire SCs. 
Moreover, increased visibility of the material, information, and financial 
flows within circular SC ecosystems facilitates business model in-
novations by improving knowledge regarding materials and processes. 
Starting with the first direct enabling action of searching for suitable 
partners, the importance of building collaborations with like-minded 
actors to start the circular transition was emphasized (Table 5). The 
change agents noted that companies could improve their long-term 
competitive advantages by proactively engaging in the search for suit-
able partners (including suppliers and customers). Due to their lack of 
power and influence over the SC, smaller companies might benefit from 
bundling resources and capabilities with other organizations within the 
circular SC. 
The second direct enabling action is strengthening active communica-
tion (Table 5). Active communication contributes to transforming the 
linear thinking of partners in SCs. For instance, the CE change agents 
highlighted the importance of working on solutions together with sup-
pliers rather than imposing solutions on them. In this process, active 
communication is vital to convince suppliers to engage in new forms of 
circular-oriented collaboration. 
The last direct enabling action of this cognitive frame is building trust 
Table 3 
CE change agents’ quotes on strategic directions.  
Strategic direction Change agent quote 
SC cooperation D: “Only a network of companies can close the loop; for individual companies, this is practically impossible.” 
K: “(…) it is rarely possible to implement CE as an isolated solution.” 
J: “Building up a reverse supply chain is only possible by including all supply chain participants.” 
M: “It is a systemic problem that a company cannot solve alone.” 
Circular business 
models 
C: “Not only because of the initial investment but also to find a way to keep the existing business, which is making money and slowly switch to a new business 
model.” 
D: “You actually have to convert your entire company.” 
K: “Also regarding the existing business model, the risk is rather against innovations in terms of CE. (…) For most companies, the change to which form of CE 
is still a risk. The established business model is simply easier and easier to assess.” 
Circular design D: “If you want to close the loop sensibly, you actually always come back to design.” 
G: “On the one hand, we try to design a product in such a way that it can be adapted to changing conditions—some of which we do not even know about 
today— and on the other hand, we try to make it of such high quality that it can be in use for an extremely long time, if not forever, so that it almost never has 
to be recycled.” 
Material choice J: “Material comes first. In the past, it did not matter which components a product contained. The focus was on design and marketability. Now we first look at 
which materials can be circulated best and most easily.” 
Q: “Material choice involves questions such as how easy it is to disassemble and assemble products, how to use not too many materials or how easy it is to 
separate materials (…).” 
B: “In the past, we didn’t have the materials: No alternatives for plastics, no alternatives for colors and so on. We have that today—now we can start.”  
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
9
within SCs (Table 5). Interorganizational trust is essential because 
necessary visibility over the SC can hardly be achieved without it. Trust 
comes into play when visibility reaches its limits, especially when facing 
uncertainty. While standards and certifications can enhance trust by 
acting as unilateral safeguards and traders of knowledge for buying 
companies, inter-organizational trust can also be built through long- 
term relationships in SCs. 
4.2.2. Cognitive frame B – circular business models 
Cognitive Frame B covers enabling actions for establishing circular 
business models (see the blue frame in Fig. 2 and Table 3). According to 
many CE change agents, the current linear system and managerial 
thinking are significant barriers to the circular transition of organiza-
tions and entire markets. Transitioning toward a circular business model 
without cannibalizing the current linear business model is one of the 
biggest challenges for well-established companies during their transi-
tion. Not only individual organizations but also entire SCs are asked to 
align their business models with CE principles. The key and direct 
enabling actions belonging to this cognitive frame aim to drive business 
model transformation. 
Working toward top management support for change is the first key 
enabling action in Cognitive Frame B (Table 4). Nearly all change agents 
noted the importance of top management support, which is essential for 
successfully overturning existing linear business models within SCs. For 
Table 5 
CE change agents quotes on direct enabling actions.  
Direct enabling action Cognitive frame Change agent quote 
A B C D 
Searching for suitable partners x    C: “You talk to suppliers who are willing to go on a journey with you, then cooperation develops. (…) If you have one or 
two successful examples, the journey usually really starts.” 
E: “I have contacted over 80 plastic processing companies to find my current partner.” 
Strengthening active communication x    J: “Communication is very important; you have to fetch the supplier where he is and work out solutions together.” 
Building trust within SCs x    A: “(…) one must succeed in demonstrating the sense of collaboration in the supply chain.” 
G: “Ultimately, it is the work with the partners over decades that builds trust and enables improvements to be made in 
many small steps.” 
Changing the corporate culture  x   D: “Ultimately, accepting a change to a CE is also a question of corporate culture.” 
N: “A big issue is to let go of the old and do the new. This change is not easy to implement (…). You need to be willing to 
think about this transformation.” 
H: “The human factor is as it is, that is, it is difficult to change. The most important thing is to integrate and coach.” 
Gaining experience through 
experimentation  
x x  I: “You must start pragmatically with trial and error. The mindset must be right, and then you always get ahead. There 
will always be new solutions but also failures.” 
O:” In this innovation and design processes, you simply must try things out.” 
M: “Simply launch into something, try and error, without claiming to know how to do it. But at least tackle, find out, and 
see what works.” 
Establishing a long-term strategic 
orientation 
x x   P: “It needs people who have a long-term vision and who are willing to take risks and break new ground.” 
Working toward material and 
product innovations   
x x Q: “We all love to try new things and turn them into a business. That is also something very satisfying: turning an idea 
into a business that generates enough cash flow to trigger the next idea.” 
S: “Innovation doesn’t even require an innovation department but rather an innovative spirit throughout the company, 
including the employee at the machine.” 
Utilizing SC innovators    x E: “My supplier has been trying out the latest biological plastics for 20 years and therefore knows a lot.” 
Establishing quality control    x N: “If we take back foreign materials, quality assurance comes into play.” 
G: “Serving a second-hand market is a new business area, but we take care to maintain quality so that we only work with 
selected partners.” 
K: “Transparency is crucial again because you have to know who the product is from to be able to assess its quality.” 
Using mono material    x E: “Mono material is best of course because it allows 1:1 recycling without adding any new raw material, which is rarely 
possible with plastics.” 
J: “The changeover to the mono material polyamide 6 was a long process, which required a lot of development work.”  
Table 4 
CE change agents quotes on key enabling actions.  
Key enabling action Cognitive frame Change agent quote 
A B C D 
Increasing the visibility of material, 
information, and financial flows 
x   x B: “As long as sustainability and above all CE is not measured or cannot be measured, it is difficult to argue for 
it.” 
K: “The topic of material tracing is a big one too: You should know where, when, which material is on its way as 
well as when and in what condition it will come back.” 
Working toward top management support for 
change  
x x  M: “The moment top management is involved, it works.” 
O: “CE comes very much from above and is anchored in our strategy and vision.” 
J: “CE follows a top-down approach and is clearly at the top of the agenda in the top management.” 
Developing business model innovations  x x  R: “Often companies do not proceed innovatively enough but want to make the existing business model 
circular.” 
L: “It is always a risk to try out new circular business models, simply because you are often the first to do it.” 
Building up knowledge about material and 
product cycles   
x x L: “One person looks at this part of the process, someone else looks at another and no one looks at processes as a 
whole.” 
A: “People have to learn to think in cycles.” 
R: “Even companies that are well informed are often not aware of what exactly needs to be changed to make a 
product or business model circular.” 
Considering the entire life cycle    x S: “Taking a supply chain perspective is still exotic and unknown to many companies, because the responsibility 
in the linear system always ends when you have sold your product.” 
Q: “You always have to keep the whole cycle in mind and then apply your core skills in the right place in that 
cycle.”  
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
10
instance, boards of directors can anchor circular strategies and visions in 
organizations. Regarding their organizations, the CE change agents 
noted that precise top-down approaches are necessary to transition to-
ward circular business models. Although circular initiatives often 
emerge from middle management, top management support is needed to 
evolve into clear actions. 
Developing business model innovations is the other key enabling action 
in this cognitive frame (Table 4). Companies exhibit a disconnect be-
tween their innovativeness and their desire to make the existing business 
model circular. However, incremental organizational changes are usu-
ally insufficient to align the business model with CE demands. There-
fore, many interviewees emphasized that changing the current business 
model or creating new business models is fundamental for ensuring 
long-term organizational success. 
Considering direct enabling actions, changing the corporate culture 
directly affects the willingness of employees and managers to overturn 
the existing linear business model (Table 5). Since circular trans-
formation requires drastic changes that affect employees and their work, 
it is important to simultaneously change the corporate culture in orga-
nizations. The enabling action of education and training of employees 
were mentioned as specific strategies for fostering the necessary change 
in corporate cultures. 
Another direct enabling action is gaining experience through experi-
mentation (Table 5). Several change agents noted the importance of pilot 
projects for achieving experience within the transition toward a circular 
business model, especially when companies transition from a product- 
based to a service-based business model. The establishment of a circu-
lar business model requires some pragmatism because trial-and-error 
approaches are needed to determine the trajectories of organizational 
development and change. 
The third and final direct enabling action of this cognitive frame is 
establishing a long-term strategic orientation (Table 5). Contrary to today’s 
corporate structures and cultures, which are often characterized by a 
short-term orientation, a long-term approach is required for employee 
objectives, decision-making processes, key figures, and success mea-
surements. The change agents reported that a long-term strategic 
orientation can be particularly often found in family-owned companies. 
They noted that some family-owned companies established CE aspects in 
their business models years ago, which are now paying off financially. 
4.2.3. Cognitive frame C – circular design 
Cognitive Frame C contains enabling actions related to the devel-
opment of circular designs (see the green frame in Fig. 2 and Table 3). 
Product design is essential for ensuring the longevity of products and 
material circularity. However, various aspects need to be considered 
when aiming for circular products. While aspects such as purpose 
adaptability over time and quality influence the extent of the use phase, 
material separability and decomposability affect the end-of-life phase of 
products. 
The first key enabling action is working toward top management sup-
port for change (Table 4). Numerous CE change agents considered top 
management support essential for the design and development of cir-
cular products. Top management support is especially important in sit-
uations when design initiatives emerge from middle management, 
which often promotes only incremental innovations instead of disrup-
tive ones because of a lack of leadership support and decision-making 
authority for high investments or process changes. Top-down ap-
proaches can eliminate such blockages of product design innovations. 
Moreover, building up knowledge about material and product cycles 
represents another key enabling action to develop circular product de-
signs (Table 4). The interviewees noted that there is often an untapped 
potential for improvement because many managers only look at isolated 
processes and try to implement aspects of circularity without consid-
ering the entire life cycle. Even well-informed companies find it chal-
lenging to adopt more holistic views of the cycle during the product 
design phase. The change agents noted that companies should enhance 
their understanding of the product and material cycles to improve their 
product designs and rethink linear processes. 
Finally, developing business model innovations is the last key enabling 
action, depending on the previously outlined key enabling actions of this 
cognitive frame (Table 4). Since product development is strongly tied to 
the organizational business model, business model innovations and 
design process adaptations must be adjusted simultaneously. Some 
change agents pointed out that innovations ultimately turn new prod-
ucts and processes into successful business models. 
The first of the two direct enabling actions in Cognitive Frame C is 
working toward material and product innovations (Table 5). The develop-
ment of circular products requires an organizational mindset to inno-
vate. Specifically, one CE change agent explained that material and 
product innovations require an innovative spirit throughout the firm 
rather than having one team or department solely focusing on in-
novations. However, the development of innovative prototypes requires 
disruptive thinking, which might be a challenge for some designers and 
their organizations. In addition, the interviewees emphasized that 
staying power is essential when product innovation takes place because 
the development process often requires the long-term involvement of all 
partners in the SC. 
Gaining experience through experimentation is the other direct enabling 
action in this cognitive frame (Table 5). Change agents considered 
piloting as the best way to build up knowledge and determine possi-
bilities for circular product designs. Instead of working on incremental 
innovations, one informant mentioned that companies should tackle 
novel issues using a trial-and-error approach to see what works. Com-
panies need to not only overcome their risk aversion against new ex-
periments but also cope with the ambiguity and uncertainty related to 
new products and materials. 
4.2.4. Cognitive frame D – material choice 
Cognitive Frame D includes enabling actions concerning material 
choice (see the yellow frame in Fig. 2 and Table 3). Material selection is 
fundamental for circular transition because it determines, among other 
aspects, the recyclability and disposability of products. Materials should 
be the first thing to consider when aiming for more circularity. Material 
selection is closely related to design choices, including the separation of 
materials, number of used materials, or multipurpose products. Besides 
material circularity, material health is another vital aspect of material 
selection. For example, using ‘inappropriate’ or toxic materials con-
taminates the biological and technical aspects of the circular SC and 
thereby undermines the broader ambition for more circularity. 
The first key enabling action belonging to Cognitive Frame D is 
considering the whole product life cycle (Table 4). Since material lays the 
basis for circularity, companies need to consider the entire life cycle of 
materials used for their products or services. Too often, material de-
cisions are made based on an SC understanding that ends at the point of 
sale. This is especially problematic in industries with long product life 
cycles, where considerations such as reuse, repurposing, or recycling are 
decades away from the point of production. However, product life cycle 
thinking does not mean the loss of core competencies but rather a 
specialization of companies along the SC under consideration of the 
entire product life cycle. 
Another key enabling action for enhancing the use of circular ma-
terials is increasing the visibility of material, information, and financial flows 
(Table 4). Visibility is considered a key prerequisite for material circu-
larity. For example, material tracing generates knowledge about the 
location, status, and use of materials and their composition and, as such, 
facilitates circularity. In this context, the ownership of materials during 
the product life cycle needs to be clarified. 
The final key enabling action in Cognitive Frame D is building up 
knowledge about materials and product cycles (Table 4). This allows 
companies to improve the selection and coordination of materials along 
the SC. However, gaining knowledge is time-consuming and costly, so 
progress only happens in small steps. The support of certifications can 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
11
help with this process. Overall, the CE change agents noted that 
knowledge is best built up through cooperation across the entire SC. 
The first direct enabling action outlined is working toward material 
and product innovations (Table 5). Material selection improves the 
circularity of products. To have the option of using circulatable and 
healthy materials in their products, companies are often asked to engage 
in material and product innovations. This, however, brings along 
external dependencies, leading to difficulties and uncertainties. There-
fore, a supra-organizational mindset is crucial when aiming for material 
and product innovations. 
The second direct enabling action contributing to the use of more 
circulatable and healthier materials is utilizing SC innovators (Table 5). In 
addition to working on the development of innovations themselves, 
material and process innovations can also be realized with the help of SC 
partners. For example, one of the CE change agents referred to an or-
ganization that managed to transition toward biological plastics with the 
help of its innovative supplier. The supplier is now profiting from 
increased visibility and attractiveness through the collaboration. 
Moreover, change agents noted that bigger companies can facilitate 
material testing in collaboration with innovative start-ups. 
Another direct enabling action in Cognitive Frame D is establishing 
quality control, which is crucial for assessing the quality of external 
materials (Table 5). Although both the primary and secondary markets 
can be used for sourcing materials, secondary (repurposed) materials 
especially demand new quality control mechanisms. This is highly 
reliant on the transparency in the SC to ensure the quality of materials. 
Moreover, using mono material is a direct enabling action (Table 5). 
The use of mono materials is beneficial to achieve circularity because of 
their considerably better recyclability. Additionally, mono materials 
allow better scrutiny of material health and reverse SCs. However, the 
transition to mono materials can also be challenging because they often 
lack the qualities and features desired by many companies. 
4.3. Circular supply chain outcomes 
The goal statements at the top of the strategic map can be divided 
into expected circular SC outcomes and short-term goals for those ulti-
mate purposes. The outcomes are across the top, while short-term goals 
are situated above the four strategic directions. Short-term goals would 
be akin to what some managers would call ‘low-hanging fruits’. The four 
ultimate outcomes identified are minimized waste and pollution, less 
resource consumption, increased SC viability, and a lower total amount of 
capital investment. Whereas the barriers and enabling actions in the in-
dividual cognitive maps varied among the CE change agents, the out-
comes exhibited a high level of unity. This indicates an advanced stage 
in the sensemaking process, although discussions about a shared un-
derstanding of the middle and lower sections are only starting to gain 
momentum. One change agent summarized the overarching goal as 
maximizing the value an organization gets from resources by consuming 
as little as possible and using products and materials as long as possible. 
Generally, a string of goals must be achieved to reach the ultimate 
outcomes. For example, higher quality and improved modularity of 
products enable the increased longevity of those very products, elevate 
their circularity, and ultimately minimize waste and resource 
consumption. 
Another change agent explained that his company has started to 
internalize long-term thinking, which not only manifests in the quality 
and modularity of their products but also in employee thinking and 
establishing strategic partnerships. Similarly, the outcomes of new 
business models enable unique selling propositions and extend cost 
savings, which in turn create added value and ultimately increase SC 
viability. For example, one of the change agents referred to a 
manufacturing company building high-quality beds that could only 
financially profit from its circular transition by changing its business 
model. Rather than selling products, the manufacturer charges its cus-
tomers per usage, creating new selling propositions that include 
different revenue and cost structures. 
Another string of goals results in the ultimate outcome of improved 
SC viability. One of the CE change agents mentioned that common 
standards emerged in the network of an organization after establishing 
more collaborations with other SC partners. In addition, the incentive 
systems changed collaboration for the better, resulting in industry so-
lutions and increased SC viability upon which the network can build. 
Although financial benefits are not yet apparent, individual companies 
are willing to invest in circularity because of the shared vision and goals 
among SC partners. Specifically, an overall goal with regard to materials 
is independence from the primary material market. This leads to 
stronger secondary markets, elevating the circularity of materials, and 
ultimately the minimization of waste and resource consumption. Apart 
from political intervention, the secondary material market can be 
strengthened through SC collaborations. Another crucial goal is 
enhanced material health, which contributes to the ultimate goal of 
minimizing waste and pollution. One of the change agents explained 
that material health is essential for minimizing waste because toxic 
substances, such as the catalyst antimony in polyethylene terephthalate 
bottles, heavily constrain circular practices. 
5. Theoretical CE sensemaking framework 
In advancing circular transitions, change agents are in a continuous 
process of seeking, interpreting, and responding to information from 
their surrounding environment (Weick, 1995). To interpret and make 
sense of complex and ambiguous signals, individuals construct and rely 
on cognitive frames that not only help organize information but also 
support the development of appropriate strategies (Hahn et al., 2014). 
We integrated the empirical results and the strategic map (Fig. 2) 
developed based on them, as well as insights from the theoretical lens 
presented previously (Corbin and Strauss, 2015), to develop a theoret-
ical framework that illustrates the relationship between the adoption of 
cognitive frames and the sensemaking of individual change agents in 
response to information and feedback from their surrounding environ-
ments (Fig. 3). 
The framework puts forward four alternative, yet complementary 
and partially overlapping, cognitive frames (e.g., the most plausible 
schemes) for pursing the transition toward circularity in SC contexts: 
material choice, circular design, circular business models, and SC coopera-
tion. The four cognitive frames in Fig. 3 correspond to the frames iden-
tified in our research, which were derived by analyzing and synthesizing 
the cognitive maps of individual change agents. Sensemaking functions 
as an underlying mechanism that contributes to and helps to calibrate 
the cognitive frame(s) and strategies of individual change agents. The 
(initial) enactment, selection, and retention of a change agent’s cogni-
tive frame(s) may be influenced by personal (e.g., position, sphere of 
influence, and motivation) and organizational characteristics (e.g., 
sector) but can also be altered by the iterative interaction with the 
surrounding context and emerging events (Chia, 2000). Based on the 
perceived barriers, individuals may adjust their respective cognitive 
frames and the transition strategies they pursue in the hope of achieving 
their desired short-term goals and ultimate SC outcomes (e.g., minimized 
waste and pollution, less resource consumption, increased SC viability, and a 
lower total amount of capital investment). 
Pursuing a holistic circular SC strategy is likely to require the 
adoption of multiple, if not all four cognitive frames, which vary in their 
scope of implementation. Each frame represents a particular set of 
enabling actions that can be used individually or in combination for the 
circular SC transition. Individual change agents may not only pursue 
actions that belong to different sets of enabling actions but may also 
adopt multiple cognitive frames. As certain enabling actions belong to 
more than one set of actions, overlaps of neighboring cognitive frames 
can be found, for example, between material choice or circular design, 
where the enabling action of working toward material and product in-
novations overlaps (Fig. 2). These overlaps may facilitate changes in 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
12
cognitive frames, contributing to either frame switching or the addition 
of a complementary frame, as indicated by the arrows labeled A (Fig. 3). 
For example, after recognizing the limits of certain actions to achieve 
desired short-term goals, such as improving the company’s sales posi-
tion, change agents adopting a circular business model frame may move 
away from pure product sales toward more service-oriented offerings, 
leading them to embrace enabling actions in the realm of SC cooperation. 
Offering more services might require searching for new partners and 
ensuring greater SC traceability. The two arrows that are labeled B 
(Fig. 3), moving from barriers through enabling actions to outcomes, 
illustrate the transition strategies by the change agents. They develop 
premises, expectations, and an understanding of the circular transition 
and their larger context, influencing their enabling actions. The three 
curved arrows, labeled C (Fig. 3), symbolize sensemaking, or the po-
tential calibration of cognitive frames and actions relative to the 
perceived barriers and outcomes. When desired short-term goals are not 
achieved, individuals may encounter or become aware of new barriers to 
the circular transition, leading to a calibration of cognitive frames and 
strategies (C1). Failure to achieve ultimate outcomes has a similar effect. 
Change agents may perceive or proactively seek out new barriers, which 
may also lead to an adjustment of cognitive frames and related sets of 
actions (C2). Moreover, the pursuit or realization of ultimate outcomes 
may directly trigger the adoption of new cognitive frames and strategies, 
without new barriers being identified (C3). This iterative process of 
action and interpretation is essential for navigating the complex and 
uncertain transition toward circularity (Quarshie et al., 2021; Waddock, 
2019). 
6. Discussion 
The 19 individual cognitive maps of the CE change agents are 
snapshots of their mental models and provide insights into their un-
derstanding of the barriers, enabling actions, and outcomes of the cir-
cular SC transition. Based on the change agents’ interpretations of the 
core phenomenon of interest, the study identified four cognitive fra-
mes—SC cooperation, circular business models, circular design, and 
material choice—that are relevant for the holistic circular transition of 
SCs. Each cognitive frame corresponds with a set of enabling actions that 
contributes to circularity. 
6.1. Theoretical contributions 
Our paper makes several theoretical contributions. First, it advances 
our theoretical understanding of CE and circular SCs through the 
development of a strategic map and a theoretical framework. While 
prior research has focused largely on identifying and grouping barriers 
to and enablers of the circular transition (e.g., Govindan and Hasanagic, 
2018; Vermunt et al., 2019), our study goes beyond that to offer a 
theoretical explanation of how the perceived barriers (and sought out-
comes) may contribute to the adoption of cognitive frames and related 
actions and strategies (see Fig. 2). We theorize that when confronted 
with certain barriers found within their surrounding environments, 
change agents may adjust their adopted cognitive frames either by 
shifting or extending previous beliefs and expectations with new 
cognitive frames (see Fig. 3). Thus, our study differs from many previous 
studies that have tended to look at barriers and strategies in isolation 
(Hina et al., 2022; de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018). Moreover, our 
research adds to the literature exploring the sensemaking of the CE and 
the transition toward it (e.g., Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Kuhlmann 
et al., 2023). 
Besides contributing to CE and circular SC theory, our study also falls 
under the broad sustainable purchasing and SCM domain (Pagell and 
Shevchenko, 2014; Quarshie et al., 2016), and specifically joins dis-
cussions on circular SCs (e.g., Batista et al., 2018; Tate et al., 2019). 
Although individuals are responsible for driving sustainability in com-
panies and along SCs, the literature has tended to neglect the 
perspectives of change agents by focusing predominately on organiza-
tions and SCs as units of analysis (e.g., Hussain and Malik, 2020). We 
add to this broader circular SC conversation by providing insights into 
change agents’ sensemaking of circular SC transitions (see also Kuhl-
mann et al., 2023). Specifically, we present a collective cognitive map 
(see Fig. 2) that points to four cognitive frames for translating the cir-
cular SC transition and related strategies. Moreover, we provide a 
framework (see Fig. 3) that illustrates how sensemaking functions as an 
underlying mechanism that affects the cognitive frames of change agents 
and their pursued strategies. Many managers, as change agents, have a 
major influence on the formulation of circular strategies (Raes et al., 
2011; Koistinen et al., 2022). Gaining insights into their perceptions not 
only enhances our understanding of how a circular transition is trans-
lated and pursued but may also contribute to the identification and 
development of best practices for circular SC management. 
Third, we make a contextual contribution by focusing on 
Switzerland, where circular transformation processes have not yet been 
thoroughly examined (Stucki and Worter, 2022). The Swiss context is 
particularly interesting because Swiss companies and their SCs are 
largely dependent on imports due to Switzerland’s limited natural re-
sources. In addition, many Swiss companies’ wait-and-see attitude puts 
the country’s overall competitiveness at risk, as many resources become 
scarcer because of increases in demand (Stucki and Worter, 2022). Our 
study indicates how change agents understand the circular transition of 
SCs—a reduced resource dependency in the context of developed 
countries—a view that is also of interest to other European countries 
(European Commission, 2022). Although our results are derived from 
contextual knowledge and interpretation of a certain group of in-
dividuals in Switzerland (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2012), other 
scholars can explore other country-specific or cross-country studies on 
this topic. 
6.2. Practical contributions 
The findings of this study also have implications for individual 
managers and companies. For managers, our research not only high-
lights specific actions in the area of the circular SC transition but also 
synthesizes them into strategic sets of enabling actions that are related to 
four cognitive frames (i.e., plausible schemes). Realizing circularity in 
SCs requires holistic thinking and the implementation of actions from 
one or more of the enabling actions found in the cognitive frames. The 
key practical takeaways of this study for managers relate to four 
(alternative yet complementary) strategies: material choice, circular 
design, circular business models, and SC cooperation. Managers are pro-
vided with starting points on how circular actions in individual business 
areas affect other areas. This is of particular importance, as the success 
of circular SC implementation heavily depends on the ability of top 
managers to secure business profitability during the transition (Koisti-
nen et al., 2022). If the goals, strategies, plans, and resources of all 
business units are aligned, the probability of success of a CE transition 
increases, especially because fundamental changes, such as the shift to 
circular business models or the opening of new SC partnerships, must 
also be addressed. 
Companies could rely on one or more of these strategies as their 
launch points to formulate a strategy for the circular SC transition. Here, 
the four strategies can help position the organization and evaluate the 
next development steps. In this context, the practical contributions of 
this study also include the identification of a large number of enabling 
actions that can function as orientation aids and starting points, espe-
cially for organizations in the early CE transition stages. Typically, or-
ganizations start actions toward circularity in areas of the SC that are 
closest to the existing linear business model, often emerging from 
departmental or people-specific initiatives, which then remain incre-
mental and limited to the operational level because they neglect the 
required holistic approach (Prendeville et al., 2016). Further, organi-
zations, even those that are more advanced, can identify blind spots in 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
13
their CE transition measures by consulting the strategic map. 
7. Conclusion 
In this study, we adopted a qualitative research approach to examine 
how CE change agents make sense of and respond to the complexity of 
the circular SC transition. A strategic map was developed to synthesize 
and outline the perceptions observed across the data collected from a 
sample of Swiss managers involved in the circular SC transition. Build-
ing on this map, we developed a theoretical framework (see Fig. 3) that 
outlines how sensemaking affects the adoption of cognitive frames and 
the set of actions for transitioning toward circular SCs. Four cognitive 
frames were revealed: material choice, circular design, circular business 
models, and SC cooperation. These frames guide related strategies for 
overcoming CE barriers and achieving desired CE outcomes. 
As with all studies, our research has limitations. Our study was 
conducted in a limited number of sectors in the context of Switzerland. 
Although our findings can inform CE research and practice in other 
countries, the single-country setting can limit the generalizability of our 
results. Moreover, our research uses an interpretive qualitative approach 
to develop a theoretical framework—that is, a plausible explanation of 
the phenomenon of interest (Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Pratt et al., 
2020). As such, there is a need for further studies to extend and test our 
findings. For example, in-depth case studies can be carried out to 
examine the varying perceptions of different types of stakeholders. 
Greater focus could also be on the hitherto scarcely researched field of 
inter-personal CE sensemaking at the inter-organizational level (e.g., see 
Kuhlmann et al., 2023). In addition, our study could be replicated in 
other countries and sectors to reveal further enabling actions and their 
outcomes. It would be interesting to see how perceptions differ in larger 
countries, such as the USA, China, and India. Finally, the specific links 
between enabling actions and outcomes must be hypothesized and 
tested. This will help produce a more fine-grained understanding of the 
relationships between the perceived barriers, enabling actions, and 
outcomes of circular SC transitions. 
Funding 
The study nor its authors were supported by any grant or research 
project. 
Research involving human participants and/or animals 
All procedures performed in this research were in accordance with 
the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research 
committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later 
amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was 
obtained from all individual participants involved in the study. This 
research does not involve animals. 
CRediT authorship contribution statement 
Roger Nyffenegger: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investiga-
tion, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review 
& editing, Data curation. Axel Zehendner: Conceptualization, Formal 
analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – 
review & editing. Anne M. Quarshie: Conceptualization, Methodology, 
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Rudolf 
Leuschner: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – 
original draft, Writing – review & editing. 
Declaration of competing interest 
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence 
the work reported in this paper. 
Data availability 
Data will be made available on request. 
Acknowledgement 
This article is based on Roger Nyffenegger’s Master’s thesis, which he 
submitted to the University of St. Gallen (HSG). Roger Nyffenegger 
would like to thank his supervisors for their support. 
Anne Quarshie is thankful for funding provided by the Academy of 
Finland (Profi6/BIODIFORM/Biodiversity and systemic transformation) 
and the Strategic Research Council (BIODIFUL/Biodiversity Respectful 
Leadership, project number 345880).  
Appendix 
Appendix 1. Initial interview guide  
Interview guide 
Section Question 
Greeting of the interview partner; explanation of the topic as well as the background of the interview; not on publication and possibility of anonymization 
General 1) Briefly describe the company you work for (industry, number of employees, etc.). 
2) Briefly describe your position within this company (responsibilities, hierarchy level, activities). 
Circular Economy 1) How do you define CE? How does your company understand CE? 
2 Why does your company engage in CE? 
CE Barriers 1) What do you consider the biggest internal company barriers that prevent the introduction of CE in companies? 
2) Do you see any barriers regarding material, product design, or production processes? 
3) Can insufficient knowledge about material composition, modularity, etc. of supplier products be a blocker for CE? 
4) Is there a sense of urgency in your company to implement CE principles? 
5) Is there a willingness to increase cooperation in the value chain? 
6) To what extent does the existing linear system influence corporate decisions regarding CE? 
7) Do risk considerations have a negative influence on decisions in the direction of CE? 
8) Does top management have CE on its radar in your organization? Does the CE find mention in the strategy, vision, or KPIs of companies? 
9) To what extent does internal department silo thinking hinder circular solutions? 
10) How many times is the non-existence of a reverse supply chain a problem? 
11) Do fluctuating quantities of returned products, product parts, or raw materials prevent circularity? 
CE Enabler and outcomes 1) What facilitates/enables the promotion of the circular economy in your organization? 
2) How does it help if the company adopts a supply chain rather than a business perspective? 
3) Does more integration (between departments in the value chain) promote the circular economy? 
(continued on next page) 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
14
(continued ) 
Interview guide 
Section Question 
4) To what extent does greater visibility along the supply chain lead to the simplified introduction of CE approaches? 
5) How strongly do collaborations with other companies influence the implementation of CE approaches? 
6) Does increased collaboration within the company benefit the CE? 
7) How can innovative technologies support CE? 
8) Does increased risk awareness advance CE? 
9) Does openness and readiness for innovation stimulate CE? 
Thank you, farewell, open questions.  
Appendix 2. Example of an individual cognitive map (interviewee B)
References 
Bagozzi, R.P., Sekerka, L.E., Hill, V., 2009. Hierarchical motive structures and their role 
in moral choices. J. Bus. Ethics 90 (S4), 461–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 
010-0601-3. 
Baldassarre, B., Keskin, D., Diehl, J.C., Bocken, N., Calabretta, G., 2020. Implementing 
sustainable design theory in business practice: a call to action. J. Clean. Prod. 273, 
123113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123113. 
Balogun, J., Bartunek, J.M., Do, B., 2015. Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses 
to strategic change. Organ. Sci. 26 (4), 960–979. https://doi.org/10.1287/ 
orsc.2015.0985. 
Balogun, J., Johnson, G., 2004. Organizational restructuring and middle manager 
sensemaking. Acad. Manag. J. 47 (4), 523–549. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159600. 
Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P., Maull, R., 2018. In search of a circular supply chain 
archetype – a content-analysis-based literature review. Prod. Plann. Control 29 (6), 
438–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1343502. 
Bien, C., Sassen, R., 2020. Sensemaking of a sustainability transition by higher education 
institution leaders. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120299 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jclepro.2020.120299. 
Blomsma, F., Brennan, G., 2017. The emergence of circular economy: a new framing 
around prolonging resource productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 603–614. https://doi. 
org/10.1111/jiec.12603. 
Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., van der Grinten, B., 2016. Product design and 
business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and 
Production Engineering 33 (5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 
21681015.2016.1172124. 
Bogner, A., Menz, W., 2009. The theory-generating expert interview: epistemological 
interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. In: Bogner, A., Littig, B., Menz, W., Hrsg 
(Eds.), Interviewing Experts (S. 43–80). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/ 
10.1057/9780230244276_3. 
Borrello, M., Pascucci, S., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Cembalo, L., 2020. Consumers are 
willing to participate in circular business models: a practice theory perspective to 
food provisioning. J. Clean. Prod. 259, 121013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jclepro.2020.121013. 
Bozkurt, O., Xheneti, M., Vicky, 2022. On the front line of the circular economy: the 
entrepreneurial, identity and institutional work of a female entrepreneur towards the 
circular transition. Work. Employ. Soc. 36 (1), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
09500170211043005. 
Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., Saccani, N., 2017. Reshaping the washing machine industry 
through circular economy and product-service system business models. Procedia 
CIRP 64, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.065. 
Bundesamt für Statistik, 2020. Materialflusskonten - Ein erster Beitrag der Statistik zur 
Messung der Kreislaufwirtschaft. https://dam-api.bfs.admin.ch/hub/api/dam/assets 
/13487972/master. 
By, R.T., Burnes, B., Oswick, C., 2011. Change management: the road ahead. J. Change 
Manag. 11 (1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.548936. 
Calicchio Berardi, P., Peregrino de Brito, R., 2021. Supply chain collaboration for a 
circular economy—from transition to continuous improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 328 
(October), 129511 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129511. 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
15
Chia, R., 2000. Discourse analysis organizational analysis. Organization 7 (3), 513–518. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840073009. 
Christopoulos, G.I., Liu, X.-X., Hong, Y., 2017. Toward an understanding of dynamic 
moral decision making: model-free and model-based learning. J. Bus. Ethics 144 (4), 
699–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3058-1. 
Ciulli, F., Kolk, A., Boe-Lillegraven, S., 2020. Circularity brokers: digital platform 
organizations and waste recovery in food supply chains. J. Bus. Ethics 167 (2), 
299–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04160-5. 
Cooper, T., 1999. Creating an economic infrastructure for sustainable product design. 
J. Sustain. Prod. Des. 8, 7–17. 
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 2015. Basics of Qualitative Research—Techniques and Procedures 
for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc. 
Cristofaro, M., 2022. Organizational sensemaking: a systematic review and a co- 
evolutionary model. Eur. Manag. J. 40 (3), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
emj.2021.07.003. 
Cui, L., Wu, K.-J., Tseng, M.-L., 2017. Selecting a remanufacturing quality strategy based 
on consumer preferences. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 1308–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 
j.jclepro.2017.03.056. 
D’Agostin, A., de Medeiros, J.F., Vidor, G., Zulpo, M., Moretto, C.F., 2020. Drivers and 
barriers for the adoption of use-oriented product-service systems: a study with young 
consumers in medium and small cities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 21, 92–103. https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.11.002. 
De Angelis, R., Howard, M., Miemczyk, J., 2018. Supply chain management and the 
circular economy: towards the circular supply chain. Prod. Plann. Control 29 (6), 
425–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449244. 
de Jesus, A., Mendonça, S., 2018. Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco- 
innovation road to the circular economy. Ecol. Econ. 145 (September 2017), 75–89. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001. 
Dutta, P., Talaulikar, S., Xavier, V., Kapoor, S., 2021. Fostering reverse logistics in India 
by prominent barrier identification and strategy implementation to promote circular 
economy. J. Clean. Prod. 294, 126241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jclepro.2021.126241. 
Eden, C., 2004. Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur. J. 
Oper. Res. 159 (3), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00431-4. 
Eden, C., Ackermann, F., 1998. Analyzing and comparing idiographic causal maps. In: 
Eden, C., Spender, J.C., Hrsg (Eds.), Managerial And Organizational Cognition: Theory, 
Methods And Research (S. 192–209). SAGE Publications. 
Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Cropper, S., 1992. The analysis of cause maps. J. Manag. Stud. 
29 (3), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00667.x. 
Esposito, M., Tse, T., Soufani, K., 2018. Introducing a circular economy: new thinking 
with new managerial and policy implications. Calif. Manag. Rev. 60 (3), 5–19. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618764691. 
European Commission, 2022. EU Strategic Dependencies and Capabilities: Second Stage 
of In-Depth Reviews (Comission Staff Working Document). 
Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T., Huisingh, D., 2019. Circular supply chain 
management: A definition and structured literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 228, 
882–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.303. 
Ferasso, M., Beliaeva, T., Kraus, S., Clauss, T., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., 2020. Circular 
economy business models: the state of research and avenues ahead. Bus. Strat. 
Environ. 29 (8), 3006–3024. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2554. 
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., Gehman, J., 2015. Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: 
robust action revisited. Organ. Stud. 36 (3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
0170840614563742. 
Fiss, P.C., Hirsch, P.M., 2005. The discourse of globalization: framing and sensemaking of 
an emerging concept. Am. Socio. Rev. 70 (1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
000312240507000103. 
Floyd, S.W., Wooldridge, B., 1994. Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle 
management’s strategic role. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 8 (4), 47–57. https://doi.org/ 
10.5465/ame.1994.9412071702. 
Floyd, S.W., Wooldridge, B., 1997. Middle management’s strategic influence and 
organizational performance. J. Manag. Stud. 34 (3), 465–485. https://doi.org/ 
10.1111/1467-6486.00059. 
Furnari, S., 2015. A cognitive mapping approach to business models: representing causal 
structures and mechanisms. In: Business Models and Modelling (Advances in 
Strategic Management) (Bd. 33, S. 207–239). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220150000033025. 
Gehman, J., Glaser, V.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., Corley, K.G., 2018. 
Finding Theory–Method Fit: A Comparison of Three Qualitative Approaches to 
Theory Building. J. Manag. Inquiry 27 (3), 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1 
056492617706029. 
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., Evans, S., 2018. Sustainable business model 
innovation: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jclepro.2018.06.240. 
Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Figueroa, A., Koh, S.C.L., 2017. Sustainable supply chain 
management and the transition towards a circular economy: evidence and some 
applications. Omega 66, 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015. 
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected 
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. 
Prod. 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007. 
Gonzalez-Sanchez, R., Settembre-Blundo, D., Ferrari, A.M., García-Mui~na, F.E., 2020. 
Main dimensions in the building of the circular supply chain: a literature review. 
Sustainability 12 (6), 2459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062459. 
Govindan, K., Hasanagic, M., 2018. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and 
practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 
(1–2), 278–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141. 
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., Kannan, D., 2015. Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply 
chain: a comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 240 (3), 
603–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.012. 
Groschl, S., Gabaldon, P., Hahn, T., 2019. The Co-evolution of leaders’ cognitive 
complexity and corporate sustainability: the case of the CEO of puma. J. Bus. Ethics 
155 (3), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3508-4. 
Guldmann, E., Huulgaard, R.D., 2020. Barriers to circular business model innovation: a 
multiple-case study. J. Clean. Prod. 243, 118160 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jclepro.2019.118160. 
Gusmerotti, N.M., Testa, F., Corsini, F., Pretner, G., Iraldo, F., 2019. Drivers and 
approaches to the circular economy in manufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. 230, 
314–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.044. 
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., Figge, F., 2014. Cognitive frames in corporate 
sustainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. 
Acad. Manag. Rev. 39 (4), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341. 
Hina, M., Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Kraus, S., Dhir, A., 2022. Drivers and barriers of circular 
economy business models: where we are now, and where we are heading. J. Clean. 
Prod. 333 (July 2021), 130049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049. 
Homrich, A.S., Galv~ao, G., Abadia, L.G., Carvalho, M.M., 2018. The circular economy 
umbrella: trends and gaps on integrating pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 525–543. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064. 
Howard, M., Hopkinson, P., Miemczyk, J., 2019. The regenerative supply chain: a 
framework for developing circular economy indicators. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (23), 
7300–7318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1524166. 
Hussain, M., Malik, M., 2020. Organizational enablers for circular economy in the 
context of sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120375 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120375. 
Huy, Q.N., 2011. How middle managers’ group-focus emotions and social identities 
influence strategy implementation. Strat. Manag. J. 32 (13), 1387–1410. https://doi. 
org/10.1002/smj.961. 
Ilic, M., Nikolic, M., 2016. Drivers for development of circular economy – a case study of 
Serbia. Habitat Int. 56, 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.06.003. 
Inigo, E.A., Blok, V., 2019. Strengthening the socio-ethical foundations of the circular 
economy: lessons from responsible research and innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 233, 
280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.053. 
Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse- 
Truijens, A., Hekkert, M., 2018. Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the 
European union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 150 (April), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
ecolecon.2018.04.028. 
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an 
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127 (April), 221–232. https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005. 
Kocabasoglu, C., Prahinski, C., Klassen, R.D., 2007. Linking forward and reverse supply 
chain investments: the role of business uncertainty. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (6), 
1141–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.015. 
Koistinen, K., Onkila, T., Teerikangas, S., Makela, M., Sarja, M., Valkjarvi, M., 2022. Bold 
ambition, blunted agency? Examining top management perspectives on a circular 
economy transition in Finland. Energy Res. Social Sci. 86, 102451 https://doi.org/ 
10.1016/j.erss.2021.102451. 
Kuhlmann, M., Meuer, J., Bening, C.R., 2023. In: Interorganizational Sensemaking of the 
Transition toward a Circular Value Chain https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
10860266231162057. Organization & Environment, 108602662311620.  
Lacy, P., Rutqvist, J., 2015. Waste to Wealth. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/ 
10.1057/9781137530707. 
Leuschner, R., Rogers, D.S., Charvet, F.F., 2013. A meta-analysis of supply chain 
integration and firm performance. J. Supply Chain Manag. 49 (2), 34–57. https:// 
doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12013. 
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a 
comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115, 
36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042. 
Linder, M., Williander, M., 2017. Circular business model innovation: inherent 
uncertainties. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26 (2), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 
bse.1906. 
Maitlis, S., Christianson, M., 2014. Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and 
moving forward. Acad. Manag. Ann. 8 (1), 57–125. https://doi.org/10.5465/ 
19416520.2014.873177. 
Masi, D., Day, S., Godsell, J., 2017. Supply chain configurations in the circular economy: 
a systematic literature review. Sustainability 9 (9), 1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 
su9091602. 
Moktadir, M.A., Kumar, A., Ali, S.M., Paul, S.K., Sultana, R., Rezaei, J., 2020. Critical 
success factors for a circular economy: implications for business strategy and the 
environment. Bus. Strat. Environ. 29 (8), 3611–3635. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 
bse.2600. 
Montabon, F., Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2016. Making sustainability sustainable. J. Supply 
Chain Manag. 52 (2), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12103. 
Morseletto, P., 2020. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 153 
(October 2018), 104553 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553. 
Münch, C., Benz, L.A., Hartmann, E., 2022. Exploring the circular economy paradigm: a 
natural resource-based view on supplier selection criteria. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 
28 (4), 100793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2022.100793. 
Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2017. The circular economy: an interdisciplinary 
exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 140 (3), 
369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2. 
Neessen, P.C.M., Caniels, M.C.J., Vos, B., de Jong, J.P., 2021. How and when do 
purchasers successfully contribute to the implementation of circular purchasing: a 
R. Nyffenegger et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
16
comparative case-study. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 27 (3), 100669 https://doi.org/ 
10.1016/j.pursup.2020.100669. 
Neves, S.A., Marques, A.C., 2022. Drivers and barriers in the transition from a linear 
economy to a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 341 (April 2021), 130865 https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130865. 
Nordin, F., Ravald, A., Moller, K., Mohr, J.J., 2018. Network management in emergent 
high-tech business contexts: critical capabilities and activities. Ind. Market. Manag. 
74, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.024. 
Ormazabal, M., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Puga-Leal, R., Jaca, C., 2018. Circular economy in 
Spanish SMEs: challenges and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 157–167. https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.031. 
Pagell, M., Shevchenko, A., 2014. Why research in sustainable supply chain management 
should have no future. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (1), 44–55. https://doi.org/ 
10.1111/jscm.12037. 
Penttila, K., Ravald, A., Dahl, J., Bjork, P., 2020. Managerial sensemaking in a 
transforming business ecosystem: conditioning forces, moderating frames, and 
strategizing options. Ind. Market. Manag. 91, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
indmarman.2020.09.008. 
Pheifer, A.G., 2017. Barriers & Enablers to Circular Business Models (Nummer April). 
Pratt, M.G., Kaplan, S., Whittington, R., 2020. Editorial essay: the tumult over 
transparency: decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy 
qualitative research. Adm. Sci. Q. 65 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
0001839219887663. 
Prendeville, S., Hartung, G., Purvis, E., Brass, C., Hall, A., 2016. Makespaces: from 
redistributed manufacturing to a circular economy. In: Setchi, R., Howlett, R.J., 
Liu, Y., Theobald, P., Hrsg (Eds.), Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2016. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32098-4_49 (Bd. 52, S. 577–588). Springer.  
Quarshie, A.M., Leuschner, R., 2020. Interorganizational interaction in disaster response 
networks: a government perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag. 56 (3), 3–25. https:// 
doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12225. 
Quarshie, A.M., Salmi, A., Leuschner, R., 2016. Sustainability and corporate social 
responsibility in supply chains: the state of research in supply chain management 
and business ethics journals. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (2), 82–97. https://doi.org/ 
10.1016/j.pursup.2015.11.001. 
Quarshie, A., Salmi, A., Wu, Z., 2021. From equivocality to reflexivity in biodiversity 
protection. Organ. Environ. 34 (4), 530–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
1086026619837122. 
Raes, A.M.L., Heijltjes, M.G., Glunk, U., Roe, R.A., 2011. The interface of the top 
management team and middle managers: a process model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36 (1), 
102–126. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0088. 
Richter, U.H., Arndt, F.F., 2018. Cognitive processes in the csr decision-making process: a 
sensemaking perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 148 (3), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 
s10551-015-3011-8. 
Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N., Albareda, L., Puumalainen, K., 2018. Sustainable 
business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: a longitudinal content analysis 
study. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.159. 
Rizos, V., Behrens, A., van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T., 
Flamos, A., Rinaldi, R., Papadelis, S., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., Topi, C., 2016. 
Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs): barriers and enablers. Sustainability 8 (11), 1212. https://doi. 
org/10.3390/su8111212. 
Rizos, V., Bryhn, J., 2022. Implementation of circular economy approaches in the 
electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) sector: barriers, enablers and policy 
insights. J. Clean. Prod. 338 (January), 130617 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jclepro.2022.130617. 
Rogers, D.S., Tibben-Lembke, R., 2001. An examination of reverse logistics practices. 
J. Bus. Logist. 22 (2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001. 
tb00007.x. 
Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Terzi, S., 2019. Towards Circular Business Models: a systematic 
literature review on classification frameworks and archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 236, 
117696 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117696. 
Rouleau, L., 2005. Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: how middle 
managers interpret and sell change Every day. J. Manag. Stud. 42 (7), 1413–1441. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00549.x. 
Rouleau, L., Balogun, J., 2011. Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive 
competence. J. Manag. Stud. 48 (5), 953–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 
6486.2010.00941.x. 
Russell, M., Gianoli, A., Grafakos, S., 2020. Getting the ball rolling: an exploration of the 
drivers and barriers towards the implementation of bottom-up circular economy 
initiatives in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 63 (11), 
1903–1926. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1690435. 
Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., 2018. Heavy vehicles on the road towards 
the circular economy: analysis and comparison with the automotive industry. 
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135, 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
resconrec.2017.06.017. 
Salmi, A., Quarshie, A.M., Scott-Kennel, J., Kahkonen, A.K., 2023. Biodiversity 
management: A supply chain practice view. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 29 (4), 100865. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2023.100865. 
Scapolo, F., Miles, I., 2006. Eliciting experts’ knowledge: a comparison of two methods. 
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73 (6), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
techfore.2006.03.001. 
Scherp, H.-Å., 2013. Quantifying qualitative data using cognitive maps. Int. J. Res. 
Method Educ. 36 (1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2012.696244. 
Schwartz-Shea, P., Yanow, D., 2012. Interpretive research design: Concepts and 
processes. Routledge. 
Stucki, T., Worter, M., 2022. Statusbericht der Schweizer Kreislaufwirtschaft: Erste 
reprasentative Studie zur Umsetzung der Kreislaufwirtschaft auf 
Unternehmensebene. https://doi.org/10.3929/ETHZ-B-000523708 (S. 52 pp.) 
[Application/pdf]. ETH Zurich.  
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., Yu, X., 2013. A review of the circular economy in China: 
moving from rhetoric to implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 42, 215–227. https://doi. 
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020. 
Suzanne, E., Absi, N., Borodin, V., 2020. Towards circular economy in production 
planning: challenges and opportunities. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 287 (1), 168–190. https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.04.043. 
Tate, W.L., Bals, L., Bals, C., Foerstl, K., 2019. Seeing the forest and not the trees: learning 
from nature’s circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 115–129. https://doi. 
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.023. 
Taylor, J.R., Van Every, E.J., 1999. The emergent organization. In: The Emergent 
Organization. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602275. 
Tessier, S., 2012. From field notes, to transcripts, to tape recordings: evolution or 
combination? Int. J. Qual. Methods 11 (4), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
160940691201100410. 
Townsend, D.M., Hunt, R.A., McMullen, J.S., Sarasvathy, S.D., 2018. Uncertainty, 
knowledge problems, and entrepreneurial action. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12 (2), 
659–687. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0109. 
Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., 2017. Towards a new taxonomy of circular 
economy business models. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jclepro.2017.09.047. 
Urbinati, A., Franzo, S., Chiaroni, D., 2021. Enablers and barriers for circular business 
models: an empirical analysis in the Italian automotive industry. Sustain. Prod. 
Consum. 27, 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.022. 
Vermunt, D.A., Negro, S.O., Verweij, P.A., Kuppens, D.V., Hekkert, M.P., 2019. Exploring 
barriers to implementing different circular business models. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 
891–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.052. 
Villena, V.H., Gioia, D.A., 2018. On the riskines of lower-tier suppliers: Managing 
sustainability in supply networks. J. Oper. Manag. 64 (1), 65–87. https://doi. 
org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.09.004. 
Waddock, S., 2019. Shaping the shift: shamanic leadership, memes, and transformation. 
J. Bus. Ethics 155 (4), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3900-8. 
Wade, B., Griffiths, A., 2021. Exploring the cognitive foundations of managerial (climate) 
change decisions. J. Bus. Ethics 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04855- 
8. 
Walker, A.M., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Simboli, A., Raggi, A., 2021. Sustainability assessment 
in circular inter-firm networks: an integrated framework of industrial ecology and 
circular supply chain management approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 286, 125457 https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125457. 
Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J., Rit, M., 2019. Making sense of blockchain technology: 
how will it transform supply chains? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 211, 221–236. https://doi. 
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.002. 
Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE Publications. 
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D., 2005. Organizing and the process of 
sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 16 (4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133. 
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D., 2014. Organizing and the process of 
sensemaking. In: Shamiyeh, M. (Ed.), Driving Desired Futures: Turning Design Thinking 
Into Real Innovation (S. 216–235). Birkhauser. https://doi.org/10.1515/ 
9783038212843.216. 
Werning, J.P., Spinler, S., 2020. Transition to circular economy on firm level: barrier 
identification and prioritization along the value chain. J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118609 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118609. 
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2021. Vision 2050: Time to 
Transform. https://www.wbcsd.org/T2TV2050. 
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our common future. In: 
Our Common Future. 
World Trade Organization, 2021. Global Value Chain Development Report 2021: beyond 
Production. https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS210400-2. 
Wright, C., Nyberg, D., 2017. An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate 
change into business as usual. Acad. Manag. J. 60 (5), 1633–1661. https://doi.org/ 
10.5465/amj.2015.0718. 
Zhang, A., Wang, J.X., Farooque, M., Wang, Y., Choi, T.-M., 2021. Multi-dimensional 
circular supply chain management: a comparative review of the state-of-the-art 
practices and research. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 155 (October), 
102509 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102509. 
R. Nyffenegger et al.