Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 775 – 780

25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference, 30 April – 2 May 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark

Circular economy through objectives – Development of a proceeding to

understand and shape a circular economy using value-focused thinking
Christoph J. Veltea,*, Katharina Schellerb, Rolf Steinhilpera,b
a
Fraunhofer IPA - Project Group Regenerative Production, Universitaetsstr. 9, Bayreuth D-95447, Germany
b
Chair Manufacturing and Remanufacturing Technology, University of Bayreuth, Universitaetsstr. 30, Bayreuth D-95447, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-921-78516-422; fax: +49-921-78516-105. E-mail address: christoph.velte@ipa.fraunhofer.de

Abstract

The circular economy is a framework that sets into a relationship different ways of value creation and conservation, e.g. through reuse,
refurbishment, remanufacturing or recycling. It origins from different schools of thought and makes use of concepts developed independently,
adding a systemic perspective of joint actions with the potential to harmonize economic, environmental and societal objectives. The richness of
possibilities and the absence of a comprehensive definition of the circular economy however makes is hard for companies new to this concept
to find an approach suitable for their situation and values. This paper presents an analysis of the elements and objectives of the circular
economy and condenses knowledge from both literature and practice to a framework of goals using the methods of value-focused thinking. The
results presented make the circular economy tangible and help companies to find their angle towards the CE, thus promoting the broad
acceptance of the concept.

© 201 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference

Keywords: Objectives, Circular Economy, Structure, Value-focused thinking

1. Introduction comment on the circular economy written by Walter Stahel

In recent years, the research towards a successful system
design of a circular economy (CE) has been endowed with
many financial and intellectual resources. In this vein, the
European Commission in 2015 started a circular economy
package including an EU action plan for the circular economy
with funding of research projects with a volume of €650
million [1]. A result of this momentum that the circular
economy paradigm gained, various recent scientific
publications deal with aspects, enables and boundary
conditions of succeeding circular economies. These include
contributions towards business models for the circular
economy [2, 3], system design for the circular economy [4,
5], circular product design [3, 6, 7], circular supply chains [8–
10], indicators for circularity [7, 11–13], the underlying
schools of thought and the overall concept of a circular
economy [5, 14, 15], complexity in a circular economy [16]
and many more detail analyses. Even Nature published a
[17].
These scientific contributions towards understanding and
shaping our current economy to a circular economy naturally
take an explanatory approach from an external position as to
the daily business within such an economy. From a bottom-up
perspective, the literature is trying to understand the circular
economy from a less systemic position as well, conducting
case study analyses that show how approaches from an
individual position constitute elements of a working circular
economy. Among those are the case studies conducted by the
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) [18] and those conducted
during the European Remanufacturing Network (ERN) [19]
with a special focus on remanufacturing, but concentrating on
business model, product design and process individually.
In effect, the circular economy paradigm is widely
discussed, while there is no clear understanding of the
possible constituting elements or boundaries that define the
term and whether a certain approach is included or excluded

2212-8271 © 201 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.031
776 Christoph J. Velte et al. / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 775 – 780
when talking about the circular economy. The term “[…] has
been linked with a range of meanings and associations by
different authors […]” [15] and can best be understood as
opposed to the linear economy present in many industries
today, that is characterized by the so-called take-make-
dispose production and consumption logic [20].
A subsuming definition of the circular economy is missing
because it is hard to give in a tension between manifold
possible setups of a CE that call for a generic definition on the
one hand, and individual approaches with a call for
applicability on the other hand. Those individual approaches
call for detailed definitions in order to be applicable in the
individual shift towards a circular economy.
While the approach to describe the circular economy
through a systems design perspective on the one hand, and
understanding it through practical case studies on the other
hand helps to describe and develop this paradigm, one
possible hindrance is the unclear situation of the objectives of
a circular economy. There can be a difference between
individual and system-wide optimal approach, while the
circular economy aims at designing better systems [15].
The hypothesis of this paper is that the potential conflict
between the systemic economy-perspective and the
individual, company-specific perspective can be traced in the
objectives that a system designer or an individual company
follow. In this context, the circular economy is often seen as a
possibility to conciliate the competing objectives of
economic, environmental and social benefits [16] that are
known as three-pillar-concept, magic triangle [21, 22] or
triple-bottom-line [23].
As the circular economy as a paradigm can hardly be
captured in a short definition, in this paper, we take the
approach of defining the circular economy based on the
objectives that are described in the literature and that are
implicit in the schools of thought that the circular economy
paradigm emerged from. Applying the method of value-
focused thinking [24, 25] to analyze the literature, objectives
of different actors in a circular economy are reasoned in their
values building a fundamental objectives hierarchy for the
circular economy. With the use of such a hierarchy,
individual objectives and their interdependencies are studied
on a systemic level, making it possible to highlight tradeoffs.
Making use of those tradeoffs individual, utility-specific
objectives hierarchies taking into account both systemic goals
of the CE as well as individual situations of users, can be
developed in a second step.
2. Construction of this paper
The question that is answered in this paper is: How can the
circular economy be described with a hierarchy of objectives,
taking into account the several influences and interests from
different schools of thought (compare chapter 4) as well as
the generic interdependencies and influences that each of the
primary or secondary goals of different categories have.
To answer this question, this paper analyses different
schools of thought, such as the cradle-to-cradle approach [26],
for their objectives in a first step. The objectives afterwards
are concluded to an objectives hierarchy. Chapter 3
introduces the methodology of value-focused thinking and
develops the approach to use this methodology in the context
of the circular economy. Chapter 4 uses the methodology to
analyze several sources concerning the circular economy to
uncover the objectives that are hidden within the descriptions
and visions and creates a list of objectives. Chapter 5 brings
together the insights from chapter 4 to a coherent objectives
hierarchy of the circular economy from a systemic point of
view. Chapter 6 concludes the results and gives an outlook on
how those can be used in a second step to create a process
where trade-offs can be constructed and rated by users.
3. The concept of value-focused thinking
We choose the concept of value-focused thinking to
analyze the objectives of the circular economy as a means of
qualitative data analyses (compare [27]) to interpret texts as
to what they implicitly or explicitly imply [28] or mean as a
result of reading between the lines [29]. In this context, value-
focused thinking is a technique that helps to distinguish
between alternatives and values, stating that “alternatives are
the means to achieve the more fundamental values” [24]
while the other way round, “values are principles used for
evaluation” [24]. Thinking about values helps uncover hidden
or unconscious objectives [24].
A decision situation in this context consists of the situation
in which a decision is to be taken (the decision frame), and
the fundamental objectives that motivate choosing one of the
possible alternatives. Objectives make values explicit in this
context.
Value-focused thinking calls for widening the decision
context from a narrow alternatives-thinking (in means-
objectives) towards the consideration of fundamental
objectives. Those fundamental objectives of a decision maker
need to be coherent with the strategic objectives of the
decision maker and the strategic decision context. Uncovering
these strategic objectives of the circular economy and relating
them to fundamental objectives is the reason for using the
technique of value-focused thinking in this paper. For a
decision maker in a circular economy, this means that
context-specific alternatives need to be evaluated based on his
fundamental objectives (e.g. to own as much of the value
chain as possible), which are based on the strategic objectives
of the circular economy (e.g. to increase the intensity of
resource use) (compare Fig. 1).
To analyze the objectives of the circular economy, it is
important to develop a hierarchy of fundamental objectives
consistent with the strategic objectives stated within the
literature, but specific enough to be usable in specific decision
contexts to decide on alternatives with a strategic background.
Fig. 1 represents the relation between strategic objectives of
the circular economy, fundamental objectives of decision
makers and decision context of the decision maker with
alternatives.
 Christoph J. Velte et al. / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 775 – 780
Decision context of the Fundamental objectives Strategic objectives of
decision maker with of decision makers the circular economy
alternatives
Value judgements /
Factual information
trade-offs
From the strategic objectives of the circular economy via tradeoff-judgements
to a specific fundamental objectives that are the basis for decisions
in the decision context of the decision maker
Fig. 1. Value-focused thinking framework for the circular economy based on
[24]
Based on this framework, this paper aims at clarifying the
strategic objectives of the circular economy based on the
various schools of thought and the literature available. In a
first step, these strategic objectives are structured to a
fundamental objectives hierarchy of the circular economy.
This fundamental objectives hierarchy makes it possible to
design value-judgement guidelines with trade-off questions
for users to reach a fundamental objectives hierarchy of
specific decision makers in a second step. The specific
fundamental objectives hierarchy can then be used to navigate
a specific decision context and value alternatives enriched by
factual information, as indicated in Fig. 1.
3.1. Fundamental objectives hierarchy and means-ends
objectives network
To structure objectives, value-focused thinking
distinguishes between the fundamental objectives hierarchy
and means-ends objectives in a network. Staying with the
graphic representation of Fig. 1, fundamental objectives are
represented in the frame in the middle and consist of
objectives that cannot be related to another objective they
origin from. They are a means to reach. Means objectives,
indicating those objectives that in fact can be related to a
‘higher’ fundamental objective, can be imagined as being
situated in a narrower square in-between the decision context
and the fundamental objectives in Fig. 1. Not thinking about
the fundamental objectives, a decision maker would decide
based on a narrower set of means objectives [24].
As the name indicates, means-ends objective networks
structure objectives asking why a specific objective A is
important, answering those questions until a chain of answers
of the type “A is important to reach B, B is important to reach
C…” leads to an ends-objective. This results in a tree-like
structure, while means-objectives can influence more than
one ‘higher’ objective (i.e. A can be important both to reach B
and C, B and C being on the same rank/level).
For the circular economy, answering these questions is
important to structure different stated purposes and objectives
777
in the literature and relate them to other sources’ objectives
into a consistent network. In such a network of means-ends
objectives, the connections that indicate relationships are
directional, always pointing from one objective to another.
For the case of a fundamental objectives hierarchy, this is
different as the connections between objectives on different
ranks are not directional. Rather than constructing such a
hierarchy by asking ‘why’ an objective is important, from
bottom to top, the fundamental objectives hierarchy
represents a specification of higher-ranked objectives, from
top to bottom or from the stem of the tree into the forked
roots. They specify “what aspects of the higher-level
objective are important” [24].
Ends-objectives can be reasoned with means-objectives in
a means-ends-objectives-network and represent fundamental
objectives in the objectives hierarchy. Even though both
means-ends-network and fundamental hierarchy can be
constructed in both ways, top down and bottom up, the
described difference helps to understand the purposes
followed in the presented approach.
3.2. Value-focused thinking approach to uncover objectives of
the CE in the literature
In the case of the circular economy, value focused thinking
is an adequate tool to construct the fundamental objectives
hierarchy for the purpose of later specification by individual
users as described in subchapter 3. However, in this paper we
expand the basic framework of value-focused thinking to the
approach of the triple bottom line. In the framework as
proposed by Keeney, it is easy to imagine axes that define the
space containing the strategic objectives, the fundamental
objectives and the decision context. Fig. 2 shows this
connection between the original value-focused thinking
framework and the triple-bottom-line paradigm. Accordingly,
a fundamental objectives hierarchy for the circular economy
with the ‘dimensions’ of social, economic and ecologic
sustainability is developed.
Decision context of the Fundamental objectives Strategic objectives of
decision maker with of decision makers the circular economy
alternatives
Economic
Expansion of the
Social objectives space to a
volume of triple-
bottom-line dimensions
Fig. 2. Triple-bottom-line framework for value-focused thinking in the
circular economy, based on [24]
Based on this insight, in chapter 4 we present the analysis
of objectives of the circular economy conducted in a literature
review approach. Subsequently, chapter 5 contains the
778 Christoph J. Velte et al. / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 775 – 780
development of a generic fundamental objectives hierarchy
for the circular economy following this framework. Chapter 6
sets the results into the context of developing a proceeding for
the individual determination of a fundamental objectives
hierarchy for the circular economy and the relative
importance of these objectives towards a strategically
grounded, sound individual decision capability for specific
decision contexts.
4. Analysis of circular economy objectives
To describe the objectives of the circular economy, a
literature review with a threefold focus is conducted. Firstly,
the schools of thought that the circular economy evolved from
or in parallel with are analyzed. Secondly, the definitions of a
circular economy as they can be found in differently focused
literature contributions are investigated. Thirdly, the view of
politics on the objectives of the circular economy is included
to get an impression of the framework-setting external
influences to circular economy solutions. Instead of doing
expert interviews as proposed in the original concept, we
conduct a literature review to uncover objectives in line with
the value-focused thinking as done by Keeney and von
Winterfeld [30].
The analyzed schools of thought leading to the current
understanding of the circular economy (compare e.g. [14],
[31]) are collected in Table 1 and are represented by
individual sources. One of those is e.g. the Cradle-to-cradle
approach, that is “perhaps the main conceptual pillar of
Circular Economy” [14] as it “champions eco-effectiveness
(and dismisses eco-efficiency) through an approach based on
cycling technical and biological nutrients” [14]. For more
details on the specific angles and history of the concepts, see
the cited sources.
Table 1. Analyzed schools of thought of the circular economy
School of thought Sources
Industrial ecology [32, 32–34]
Environmental economics [35, 36]
Ecologic economy [37]
Biomimicry [38]
Regenerative design [39]
Cradle-to-cradle [40, 40]
Blue economy [41]
Performance economy [42]
Those concepts and sources are analyzed for economic,
ecologic and social objectives, following the basic
subdivision of the triple-bottom-line. Additional definitions
analyzed include academic contributions from sources that
define what they understand as the circular economy (such as
[43], [44], [45]).
In the process of analysis, two main operations in
collecting and sorting the objectives are followed: Firstly,
objectives are rephrased so that they have a tendency to either
increase or decrease an item where possible. As an example,
the objective of converting waste to resources [26] is
rephrased to “increase the use of waste as a resource”.
Secondly, descriptions of a linear economy (where they are
stated to define the circular economy as their antipode) are
taken into consideration with the opposite tendency. Coopers
criticism of the concept of a linear economy that builds on the
believe of unlimited resources on the supply side and an
infinite absorption capacity for environmental pollution [43]
can e.g. be understood as objectives for the circular economy
to reduce energy consumption and the consumption of non-
renewable resources.
To reflect the European Union’s ambitions with the
circular economy, the press release of the European
Commission (EC) concerning the circular economy package
2015 [46] is analyzed for objectives that the EC follows from
systemic political point of view.
The analysis of these sources resulted in an initial list of 86
objectives of the circular economy. Those have been
condensed to 39 objectives in the objectives hierarchy in
chapter 5 through summarizing similar or synonymous terms
and in consideration of the context of the objectives, such as
increase sparing of the environment [8] and decrease
environmental problems [44].
5. Objectives hierarchy and means-ends network
To analyze the objectives collected in the literature, a
means-ends-network of the objectives is created that takes
into account the causal dependencies of objectives as far as
they are indicated in the literature. While this process often
results in complex interconnections and a network that is not
transparent or easy to interpret [24], building this means-ends
network through asking why an objective is important and
thereby relying it to other objectives already fosters a good
understanding of the different levels of objectives. On the top
level, this reasoning leads to an end objective that is
important for its own sake.
In this paper, the ends-objectives are predefined to the
economic, ecologic and social performance of the system.
Consequently, they are indicated as increase the economic
performance of the system, increase the ecologic performance
of the system and increase human welfare. This means-ends-
network is taken as an input to the construction of the
fundamental objectives hierarchy in a second step. In this
hierarchy, the fundamental objectives are predefined again as
increase the economic performance of the system, increase
the ecologic performance of the system and increase human
welfare. In a top-down approach, the 86 objectives detected in
the literature are analyzed for their uniqueness and
unambiguity, following a sorting into the predefined
fundamental objectives’ categories. Through the introduction
of sub-categories, an objectives hierarchy for the circular
economy is constructed that consists of 6 hierarchy-levels.
The first level is increase the sustainable creation of value,
consisting of the triple-bottom-line subdivision on the second
hierarchy level and afterwards unfolding down to level 6. The
sorting in this hierarchy is unambiguous, meaning that each
objective has only one relation going out to the next hierarchy
level and there are no relations within a hierarchy level.
 Christoph J. Velte et al. / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 775 – 780 779

Increase sustainable creation of value

Increase the economic performance of the system Increase the ecologic performance of the system Increase human welfare

Increase sustainable performance of Increase environmental friendliness Increase the number of jobs
locations and companies
Increase the social standard

Increase conservation of resources

Increase creation of value
Increase the quality of life
Decrease negative impacts on the environment
Increase the standard of life
Decrease production costs through value
conservation / valorization
Increase social fairness
Decrease climate change
Increase new turnover streams
Decrease environmental pollution

Increase competitive advantages

Decrease dumping of waste in landfills

Increase competitiveness
Decrease waste

Increase the decoupling of economic

growth and the use of scarce resources
Decrease waste in production

Decrease waste in production-supporting areas

Decrease use of scarce resources

Increase the use of waste as a resource

Decrease dependency on primary resources

Increase use of self-produced waste as a resource

Decrease risk from high and volatile resource prices Increase use of external waste as a resource

Decrease other purchasing risks Decrease emissions

Increase the use of secondary resources Increase regeneration / valorization of

products, parts and material
Decrease use of primary resources

Increase intensity of resource use

Increase intensity of energy use

Increase intensity of resource use

Fig. 3. Overview of the fundamental objectives hierarchy of the circular economy

Nevertheless, this sorting is subject to personal and paradigm or that already attempt a definition of the CE. In the
subjective categorizations and highly dependent on the second case, those definitions were analyzed for the
context the specific objective is cited from. Based on the objectives they comprise. The means-ends-network of how
literature review, the increase of the economic performance of those objectives influence each other has been spared due to
the system can be subdivided into increase sustainable the limited maximum length of this paper, but gives an
performance of locations and companies and increase the impression of what possible trade-offs will need to be
decoupling of economic growth and the use of scarce considered when highlighting aspects in the hierarchy (Fig.
resources as third-level objectives. The second-level goal to 3).
increase the ecologic performance of the system is subdivided The fundamental objectives hierarchy reveals the relative
into increase the environmental friendliness, decrease importance and better subdivision of economic objectives in
negative impacts on the environment and increase comparison to ecologic objectives and human/social welfare.
regeneration/valorization of products, parts and material. Objectives, such as “economic performance of the system”
The second-level objective to increase human welfare are rather generic, while the subdivision into an increase of
consists of increase the number of jobs, the increase the locations’ and companies’ performance, an increase of the
social standard and increase social fairness. What competitive advantage of the system/location and the
decoupling of economic growth and resource use represents
6. Conclusion and outlook the general understanding and goals of the circular economy
in an economic and systemic perspective, well.
The fundamental objectives hierarchy presented in Fig. 3 is The analysis of the circular economy objectives through
the result of a literature review concerning the objectives of the fundamental objectives hierarchy has been done as the
the circular economy in sources that either influenced one of first step in the approach presented in this paper, which
the underlying schools of thought of the circular economy proposes to make use of the methodology of value-focused
780 Christoph J. Velte et al. / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 775 – 780
thinking to uncover objectives of the circular economy.
Uncovering and sorting the objectives is presented as a way to
frame the definition of the CE via its values and value-
reasoned objectives to bridge gaps between systemic
objectives associated with the CE and individual company-
objectives in a decision-context.
The resulting hierarchy depicts a generic understanding of
the values the circular economy follows based on the
literature and is meant as a first step towards an individual
evaluation of these objectives (and inbuilt trade-offs) in order
to personalize these fundamental objectives in a second step.
In subsequent research, this overview will be enriched and a
process of individual trade-off decisions will be developed to
result in a fundamental objectives hierarchy per user, coupled
with the utility of following different objectives. This will
allow for educated decisions towards and within a circular
economy based on both the generic goals as well as the
specific company context and lead to a more conscious
development of circular economy solutions.
Acknowledgements
This paper is made possible through the work on the
research project ResCoM at Fraunhofer IPA’s Project Group
Sustainable Manufacturing. The project has received funding
from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research,
technological development and demonstration under grant
agreement No 603843.
References
[1] European Commission, 2015. Closing the loop - An EU action plan
for the Circular Economy, Brussels.
[2] Antikainen, M., Valkokari, K., 2016. A Framework for Sustainable
Circular Business Model Innovation 6, p. 5.
[3] Bocken, N.M.P., Pauw, I. de, Bakker, C., van der Grinten, B., 2016.
Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy
33, p. 308.
[4] Farazee M.A. Asif, 2017. Circular Manufacturing Systems: A
development framework with analysis methods and tools for
implementation, Stockholm.
[5] Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular
economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of
environmental and economic systems 114, p. 11.
[6] Andrews, D., 2015. The circular economy, design thinking and
education for sustainability 30, p. 305.
[7] Vogtlander, J.G., Scheepens, A.E., Bocken, N.M.P., Peck, D., 2017.
Combined analyses of costs, market value and eco-costs in circular
business models: Eco-efficient value creation in remanufacturing 7,
p. 1.
[8] Lehmacher, W., 2016. Globale Supply Chain: Technischer
Fortschritt, Transformation und Circular Economy, 12016th edn.
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden.
[9] Guide, V. Daniel R., van Wassenhove, L.N., 2009. OR FORUM—The
Evolution of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Research 57, p. 10.
[10] Geyer, R., van Wassenhove, L.N., Atasu, A., 2007. The Economics of
Remanufacturing Under Limited Component Durability and Finite
Product Life Cycles 53, p. 88.
[11] Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G., Tornese, F. Measuring circular economy
strategies through index methods: A critical analysis.
[12] Verberne, J., 2016. Building Circularity Indicators, Eindhoven.
[13] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Granta Design Ltd., 2015. Circularity
Indicators: An Approach to Measuring Circularity.
[14] Beaulieu, L., van Durme, G., Arpin, M.-L., 2016. Circular economy:
A critical literature review of concepts. CIRAIG; Canadian Electronic
Library, Montréal, Québec, Ottawa, Ontario.
[15] Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2017. The Circular Economy: An
Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a
Global Context 140, p. 369.
[16] Velte, C.J., Steinhilper, R., 2016. Complexity in a Circular Economy:
A Need for Rethinking Complexity Management Strategies, in
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2016: WCE 2016,
June 29 - July 1, 2016, London, U.K., Newswood Limited, Hong
Kong, p. 763.
[17] Stahel, W.R., 2016. The circular economy. Nature 531, p. 435.
[18] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Case Studies.
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/case-studies. Accessed 2
October 2017.
[19] European Remanufacturing Network. Case studies.
https://www.remanufacturing.eu/tool-kit/. Accessed 2 October 2017.
[20] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company. Towards the
circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition.
[21] Hauff, M.v., Kleine, A., 2009. Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Grundlagen
und Umsetzung. Oldenbourg, München.
[22] Huber, J., 2011. Allgemeine Umweltsoziologie, 2nd edn. VS Verl. für
Sozialwiss, Wiesbaden.
[23] Elkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of
21st century business, 1st edn. Capstone Publ, Oxford.
[24] Keeney, R.L., 1992. Value-focused thinking: A path to creative
decisionmaking. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
[25] Keeney, R.L., 1996. Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision
opportunities and creating alternatives 92, p. 537.
[26] Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle-to-cradle
design: Creating healthy emissions – a strategy for eco-effective
product and system design 15, p. 1337.
[27] Yin, R.K., 2011. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. The
Guilford Press, New York.
[28] Flick, U., 2014. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis.
Sage, London.
[29] Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H.P., Newcomer, K.E., 2004. Handbook of
practical program evaluation, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.
[30] Keeney, R.L., Winterfeldt, D. von, 2011. A value model for
evaluating homeland security decisions. Risk Anal 31, p. 1470.
[31] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Schools Of Thought.
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/schools-
of-thought/. Accessed 7 November 2017.
[32] Frosch, R.A., 1992. Industrial Ecology: A Philosophical Introduction.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89, p. 800.
[33] Jelinski, L.W., Graedel, T.E., Laudise, R.A., McCall, D.W. et al.,
1992. Industrial ecology: Concepts and approaches 89, p. 793.
[34] Lifset, R., Graedel, T.E., 2002. Industrial ecology: goals and
definitions, in A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Massachusetts, p. 3.
[35] Pearce, D.W., Turner, R.K., 1990. Economics of natural resources
and the environment. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
[36] Turner, R.K., Pearce, D.W., Bateman, I., 1993. Environmental
economics: An elementary introduction. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
[37] Boulding, K.E., 1966. The economics of the coming spaceship earth.
[38] Benyus, J.M., 2002. Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature.
Harper Perennial, New York.
[39] Lyle, J.T., 1994. Regenerative design for sustainable development.
John Wiley, New York.
[40] Braungart, M., 2008. Cradle to cradle - die nächste industrielle
Revolution, in Gemacht für die Zukunft: Kreislaufwirtschaft in der
Unternehmenspraxis, Murmann, Hamburg, p. 13.
[41] Pauli, G., 2010. The blue economy: 10 years 100 innovations 100
million jobs. Paradigm Publications, Taos, NM.
[42] Stahel, W.R., 2010. The performance economy, 2nd edn. Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke, England, New York.
[43] Cooper, T., 1994. Beyond Recycling: The longer life option. New
Economics Foundation, London.
[44] Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., Sloan, P., 2016. Environmental sciences,
sustainable development and circular economy: Alternative concepts
for trans-disciplinary research 17, p. 48.
[45] Lacy, P., Rutqvist, J., 2015. Waste to wealth: The circular economy
advantage. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
[46] European Commission, 2015. Closing the loop: Commission adopts
ambitious new Circular Economy Package to boost competitiveness,
create jobs and generate sustainable growth, Brussels.