3. Circular economy implementation Table 2: Opportunities of CE By the developments in environmental sciences and technologies, new concepts that aim at protecting nature have emerged, namely: eco-design, eco-label, cleaner production and life cycle assessment (Geng & Doberstein, 2008; Liu & Bai, 2014). As a result, the amounts of environmentally friendly and green products, which have minimum negative effects on environment, have become more common and preferred. Those products save energy and natural resources and reduce pollution generation (Zhu & Tian, 2016). Such environmentally sound management practices offer organisational and supply chain resilience and make it easier to penetrate into new markets and grow the business operations (Park et al., 2010). CE also improves the utilisation of waste and waste streams advance the availability of materials enabling protection of natural resources, water, energy and minerals. Correspondingly, the productivity of materials is increased by rework and recycling, their life cycles are extended and the need for landfill sites are reduced (Geng et al., 2012; Park et al., 2010; MacArthur, 2013b). Moreover, by the help of CE applications, the need for energy, chemical fertilisers and soil amendments are reduced. It results in a reduction of consumption of fossil fuels, the emission of greenhouse gases and toxic substances (MacArthur, 2013b; Geng et al., 2012). Therefore, the effects of climate change can be mitigated through CE practices. Table 2 summarises key opportunities of CE identified from literature. Table 3: Barriers to CE There is a growing interest in CE in the UK and EU. The Biffaward programme, which was practiced between 1999 and 2008, can be considered as one of the starting points of CE in the UK (Hill, 2015). Later the Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP) featured in 2013 as a CE strategy with similar targets with Biffaward programme (Skene & Murray, 2015). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation was established with a sole aim to promote CE in 2009 (Hobson, 2016). Since then a number of organisations across the UK, EU and rest of the world have successfully implemented CE strategy or are in process of CE implementation. In EU, European Commission has started to take actions to ensure the sustainability of the economy. The commission revealed the Sustainable Consumption and Production, and Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP) Action Plan in 2008 with the purpose of advancing the environmental performance of products and promoting sustainable production technologies (Commission, 2012). After that, in 2010, the Cradle- to-cradle (C2C) network, which provides sustainable solutions, economic development opportunities and social well-being was created (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). In 2015, European Commission prepared a CE package to encourage the change towards CE. These evidences show that CE has been at the focal point in the UK and EU. /, Findings and Discussion these were presented using descriptive analysis. sample size for this study as some users did not complete all questions, thus representing an effective response rate of 32%. The response rate of the study was between 30 to 35 percent, which is perceived by Cohen et al. (2007) and Watt et al. (2002) as acceptable. They survey response rate is higher than various studies (Bhasin, 2012; Belekoukias. Garza-Reyes, & Kumar, 2014), which have reported less than 25% response rate. The survey was mainly directed to companies in manufacturing sector. The participants mainly comprised supply chain managers or senior executives, since they are the ones who have the most critical roles in the implementation of CE in their organisations. The data was then analysed using SPSS. Due to the exploratory nature of the research findings. these were presented using descriptive analysis. Figure 1: CE Awareness and Benefits Furthermore, questions on the social, economic, environmental, technological and legislative opportunities/benefits of CE were directed to the participants. The findings show that improved public environmental awareness is the main social expectation linked to CE, which was also supported by Geng et al. (2012) and Park et al. (2010). CE requires the involvement of the public in the supply chains as well since it encourages the reuse of all products, even the ones which are at their end-of-life. For this reason, the contribution of conscious societies to CE is critical. Additionally, increased employment opportunities and better relationships between industry and public emerged as other major social benefits that CE provides. Economically, the main expectation arises as reduction on costs through sustainable supply chain and end-of-life managements. By the implementation of CE and its sustainable management practices, it is possible to reduce input prices, avoid from environmental penalties and minimise waste generation as suggested by Park et al. (2010), Geng et al. (2012) and MacArthur (2013b). From the Next section of the questionnaire aimed to find out what prevents companies to implement CE and how they differ according to their social, economic, environmental, technological and legislative characteristics. Analysis reveals that governments remain incapable to promote CE. They have failed to incentivise companies properly and provide adequate support as Geng & Doberstein (2008), Liu & Bai (2014), etc. have also pointed out in their studies. Besides, the required up-front investment for advanced machinery, risk- averse profiles of management and lack of availability of experts on CE put barriers against the implementation of CE (See Fig. 2). environmental perspective, the increase in availability of green and environmentally friendly products and reduction in environmental pollution emerged as the main opportunities that CE as also found by Zhu & Tian (2016). Increase in efficiency and productivity emerged as the main technological benefits of CE which is also supported by Young (2015), Park et al. (2010), Geng et al. (2012) and MacArthur (2013b). By reuse and recycling applications in parallel to CE, efficiency and productivity can be improved which, in turn can enhance the profitability of businesses. From legislative point of view, having adequate laws to protect environment and health emerged as key benefits of CE implementation. Thereby, all businesses need to operate in accordance with the regulations to avoid paying penalties. Table 5 summaries the key findings by ranking the responses from the survey. Participants were then asked about the CE barriers from the socio-economic, environmental, techno suggested that 41.4% ogical and legislative perspectives (See Fig. 3). The findings of the participants stated the lack of public awareness and understanding of its principles as the main social barrier to CE. Literature also supports this as various researc (2014), Winans et al. hers such as Benton et al. (2015), Su et al. (2013), Naustdalslid (2017) and Geng et al. (2009) align to this finding. From the economic barriers pers pective, the unavailability of appropriate partners in supply chains emerged as key barrier followed by lack of financial support mechanism as noted in the study of CE as Benton et al. (2015). From environmental barriers perspective, inadequate waste resource system emerged as key barrier which was followed by limited incentive to save energy, water and materials. As Li & Yu (2011) have mentioned, the existing systems are appropriate for linear economies and unable to satisfy the expectations of CE. Lack of advance technology and equipment and inadequate technical capabilities emerged as technical barriers. Finally, with regard to legal barriers, poor enforcement ability of legislations and lack of policy support emerged as a key barrier, which was followed by ineffective recycling policies and current tax regulations (See Fig. 3). Our study thus adds to the limited empirical literature on CE by providing a comprehensive review of CE barriers and opportunities in the manufacturing sector. The study looks at these barriers and opportunities from socio-political, economic, environmental and legal lens, thus adding valuable contribution to the CE literature from the theoretical perspective. Figure 3: Socio-economic, environmental, technological and legislative barriers
