Erik Hansen ↻

The circular economy is a new sustainability paradigm and a major driver of innovation in industrial firms. Digital servitization, enabled through smart products and their embeddedness in Internet of Things networks, represents a significant lever to generate product life cycle information and achieve collaboration between actors in the value cycle. Empirical studies on how product-service system business models enable smart circularity are bourgeoning, but a gap exists regarding their… Mehr anzeigen

The circular economy is a new sustainability paradigm and a major driver of innovation in industrial firms. Digital servitization, enabled through smart products and their embeddedness in Internet of Things networks, represents a significant lever to generate product life cycle information and achieve collaboration between actors in the value cycle. Empirical studies on how product-service system business models enable smart circularity are bourgeoning, but a gap exists regarding their microfoundations. Against this background, we adopt an activity system perspective to explore boundary-spanning and interdependent business model activities. We conducted a qualitative interview study in business-to-business industries, from which we derived a funnel framework of smart circular systems (SCS) that spans three layers of the activity system. This contributes to theory in three ways: First, we identify 20 distinct microlevel activities. Second, we explain their interdependencies by classifying them based on the product life cycle into smart use, smart circular, and cross-strategy activity sets. We also order these activity sets by their data transaction frequency, environmental and economic value, and a firm's typical learning pathway, as well as link them back into circular product design. Third, we highlight increasing servitization to develop the activity system across multiple circular activity sets. Managers can use the funnel as a template to drive circular business models on multiple levels, from adopting individual activities to redesigning the entire activity system. Weniger anzeigen

Slowing and closing product and related material loops in a circular economy (CE) requires circular service operations such as take-back, repair, and recycling. However, it remains open whether these are coordinated by OEMs, retailers, or third-party loop operators (e.g., refurbishers). Literature rooted in the classic make-or-buy concept proposes four generic coordination mechanisms and related value creation architectures: vertical integration, network, outsourcing, or doing nothing… Mehr anzeigen

Slowing and closing product and related material loops in a circular economy (CE) requires circular service operations such as take-back, repair, and recycling. However, it remains open whether these are coordinated by OEMs, retailers, or third-party loop operators (e.g., refurbishers). Literature rooted in the classic make-or-buy concept proposes four generic coordination mechanisms and related value creation architectures: vertical integration, network, outsourcing, or doing nothing (laissez-faire). For each of these existing architectures, we conducted an embedded case study in the domain of smartphones with the aim to better understand how central coordinators align with actors in the value chain to offer voluntary circular service operations. Based on the above coordination mechanisms, our central contribution is the development of a typology of circular value creation architectures (CVCAs) and its elaboration regarding circular coordination, loop configuration, and ambition levels. We find that firms following slowing strategies (i.e., repair, reuse, and remanufacturing) pursue higher degrees of vertical integration than those following closing strategies (i.e., recycling) because of the specificity of the assets involved and their greater strategic relevance. The typology also shows that higher degrees of vertical integration enable higher degrees of loop closure (i.e., from open to closed loops) and better feedbacks into product design. Furthermore, we differentiate the understanding on third-party actors by distinguishing between independent and autonomous loop operators. Overall, we strengthen the actor perspective in product circularity literature by clarifying the actor set, their interrelationships, and how they form value creation architectures. Weniger anzeigen

The circular economy (CE) aims at cycling products and materials in closed technical and biological loops. Cradle to cradle (C2C) operationalizes the CE with a product design concept rooted in the circulation of “healthy” materials because contamination of materials with substances of concern hampers cycling and may pose risks to people in contact with them. Extant research shows that barriers often hinder organizations from successfully pursuing cradle-to-cradle product innovation (CPI)… Mehr anzeigen

The circular economy (CE) aims at cycling products and materials in closed technical and biological loops. Cradle to cradle (C2C) operationalizes the CE with a product design concept rooted in the circulation of “healthy” materials because contamination of materials with substances of concern hampers cycling and may pose risks to people in contact with them. Extant research shows that barriers often hinder organizations from successfully pursuing cradle-to-cradle product innovation (CPI). Innovation community theory helps to explain how to overcome barriers and further the innovation process by taking a microlevel perspective on intra- and interorganizational collaboration of individual promotors (or champions). We elaborate innovation community theory with a longitudinal embedded case study of a C2C frontrunner company with the goal to get a precise understanding of how promotors collaborate in the CPI process. Our contribution is threefold:We identify eight collaboration mechanisms used between promotors to sequentially overcome a hub firm’s individual, organizational, value chain, and institutional level barriers to circularity. Second,wedifferentiate these mechanisms according to their cooperative and coordinative facets and put emphasis on the coordinative functions of those mechanisms linked to the C2C standard. Third, we highlight the importance of promotors at the linking level who facilitate the CPI process as intermediaries. Weniger anzeigen

This paper examines how established firms use their core competences to diversify their business by exploring and ultimately developing green technologies. In contrast to start‐ups dedicated to a green mission, diversifying into green markets by developing new products based on existing core competences has proven to be challenging. This is because the exploration processes to find a match between green technology opportunities and internal competences is complex and new to most established… Mehr anzeigen

This paper examines how established firms use their core competences to diversify their business by exploring and ultimately developing green technologies. In contrast to start‐ups dedicated to a green mission, diversifying into green markets by developing new products based on existing core competences has proven to be challenging. This is because the exploration processes to find a match between green technology opportunities and internal competences is complex and new to most established firms. This paper gains insights into exploration processes for green technologies and the learning modes and outcomes linked to these processes. We examined exploration processes at the microlevel in an embedded case study of an engineering firm using a combination of the “fireworks” innovation process model and organizational learning theory. First, we found that developing green technologies involves a longterm exploratory process without guarantee of (quick) success and likely involves many exploration failures. Second, as exploration unfolds along multiple technology trajectories, learning occurs in individual exploration paths (on‐path), when new paths are pursued (path‐initiation), and when knowledge from one path is spilled over to subsequent paths (across‐paths). Third, to increase their chances for success, firms can increase the efficiency of exploration by fostering a failure‐friendly organizational culture, deliberately experimenting, and purposefully learning from failures. Weniger anzeigen

Corporations increasingly subscribe to the principles of corporate sustainability, which is generally described as the integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions. Concerning innovation management, this emphasises the role of sustainability-oriented innovations (SOI). SOI is considered a tool both to address sustainability issues and to tap into new customer segments and markets. Yet SOI are very risky: both their market success and non-economic sustainability are uncertain… Mehr anzeigen

Corporations increasingly subscribe to the principles of corporate sustainability, which is generally described as the integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions. Concerning innovation management, this emphasises the role of sustainability-oriented innovations (SOI). SOI is considered a tool both to address sustainability issues and to tap into new customer segments and markets. Yet SOI are very risky: both their market success and non-economic sustainability are uncertain. This paper presents a generic model termed the “Sustainability InnovationCube” (SIC) for structuring innovations’ sustainability effects in order to better inform corporate decision-makers about how to minimize the directional risk of SOI. The model includes the three dimensions: target, life cycle and innovation type. A qualitative expert study reveals the opportunities and challenges related to the developed model. Finally, practical implications are derived, limitations are discussed and a brief outlook is given. Weniger anzeigen

In order to overcome the exploration–exploitation paradox, structural ambidexterity literature suggests establishing differentiated units for exploitation and exploration with a carefully managed exploration–exploitation interface supporting cross-fertilization without cross-contamination. Recent research demonstrates the crucial role of integration mechanisms (i.e. how knowledge exchange between exploratory and exploitative units can be organized) to deal with this challenge. However, a… Mehr anzeigen

In order to overcome the exploration–exploitation paradox, structural ambidexterity literature suggests establishing differentiated units for exploitation and exploration with a carefully managed exploration–exploitation interface supporting cross-fertilization without cross-contamination. Recent research demonstrates the crucial role of integration mechanisms (i.e. how knowledge exchange between exploratory and exploitative units can be organized) to deal with this challenge. However, a systematic account of the diverse tensions, risks, and trade-offs associated with integration which may ultimately cause exploration failure is missing, so far. This paper presents a longitudinal process study uncovering the anatomy of an unsuccessful exploration of (green) technologies by a medium-sized entrepreneurial firm. We investigated their transition processes to understand how the managers dynamically configured and reconfigured the exploration–exploitation interface over time. Our theoretical contribution lies in providing a framework of six integration trade-offs (Exploratory-complementary linking vs. contamination; Seeking legitimacy early on vs. frustration at discontinuation of innovation; Boundary spanning through job rotation vs. carrying over of old culture; Early vs. premature transfer; Reorganization vs. capability mutation; and Improved access to core business resources vs. resource starvation) linked to three phases in the transition process (before, at, and after transfer). We also highlight mechanism, pulling-forward, and streamlining-related failures linked to integration trade-offs in resource-constrained contexts. Our implication for R&D and top management is that the use of integration mechanisms for structural ambidexterity bears the risk of cross-contamination between the exploitative and exploratory structures and are therefore inevitably linked to trade-offs. Weniger anzeigen