Connecting consumption and production systems from the perspective of the product user: a foundational multilevel systems model of circularity realized at the economy-scale

The Circular Economy (CE) concept continues to garner significant attention from stakeholders. Yet, what a CE entails in its realized state remains insufficiently articulated, particularly for product users. This study introduces a multilevel systems model that conceptualizes an economy-wide, fully implemented CE from the perspective of the product user. The focus is on the foundational tenets of CE theory, namely the flows of materials, products, and components in the specific context of durable consumer products. The model's development follows a sequential method and is empirically tested and refined through a Delphi study involving 14 experts in CE and sufficiency. First, this model clarifies the composition, elements, and structure of the consumption system in a realized CE. Notably, elements often relegated to the background, such as contextual settings, are foregrounded to enable a more comprehensive analysis of factors involved in CE behaviors. The model provides a structured foundation for systematic exploration of potential implications for product users, which can be expanded in future research to include additional dimensions (e.g., social and ecological). Second, the multileveled nature of the model and mapping of the diverse flows and interactions shaping product users' reality in a realized CE allows for systematic integration of consumption (i.e., more concrete from the perspective of the product user) and production (i.e., more abstract) systems. As such, the model introduces an integrated product-system lens for bridging multi- and interdisciplinary areas of sustainable consumption and production. The paper concludes by outlining avenues for future research and potential applications of the model.

1 Introduction

The concept of a Circular Economy (CE) is gaining in popularity, due to its potential to foster more sustainable production and consumption (Hondroyiannis et al., 2024; Kirchherr et al., 2023). In the context of a CE, terms like “consumption” and “consumer” have been replaced with “CE Behaviors” (e.g., reuse, sharing and recycling) and “product user”, capturing how resources are no longer extinguished. Instead, products reaching their “end of use” are directed to other users or actors (e.g., remanufacturers or recyclers), thereby retaining the inherent value in products, components and/or materials via innovative business models and infrastructure designed to support such resource flows (International Resource Panel, 2018; Stahel, 2016; Camacho-Otero et al., 2018). However, product users' roles in realized CE systems (i.e., fully implemented at the economy-level) are under-researched (e.g., Arekrans et al., 2022) and there is a call for “person-centered perspective on circular behaviors” (Colley et al., 2024). In doing so, there is a need to take more systematic exploration of what a CE entails (Hassan and Faggian, 2023), including integrating the consumption system with that of production (Geels et al., 2023). To accomplish both goals, we propose a “multilevel systems model” (MLSM), organizing system components based on proximity to the product user. This model was tested, and refined via a Delphi study.

This model has many uses; for instance, product or service providers can employ it to map their ecosystem, spot gaps (e.g., missing consumer information or spare parts provisioning), and identify the need for collaborators in the value chain. Also, it can be further developed to depict CE systems as complex and open, which can allow for the mapping of implications of responses to transition challenges, primarily unintended consequences and policy incoherence (Davies et al., 2024), including a CE under the principles of decoupling (Voulvoulis, 2022) and degrowth principles (Calisto Friant et al., 2025). As such, the MLSM presented in this paper advances the understanding and application of CE principles.

1.1 The lacking product user perspective in Circular Economy research

In a CE, the economic system is structured to retain the value of products and reduce the environmental impact from economic activities (Ghisellini et al., 2016). However, CE research tends to favor the production side of such a system, focusing on business models, supply chains, engineering, and technological solutions. It often ignores the human dimension or social implications of a CE, such as the consumption system and people's daily lives in a circular “society” (Calisto Friant et al., 2024; Leipold et al., 2023; Corvellec et al., 2022; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021; Liu, 2025; Schröder et al., 2020). Despite the crucial role of product users in the uptake of CE strategies in the economy as a whole (Gomes et al., 2022), product user behavior aspects remain insufficiently understood (Macklin and Kaufman, 2023; Pasqualotto et al., 2023; Borrello et al., 2022).

Circularity realized at the economy-scale—in its ideal and fully-envisioned state (which depends on the pathway; e.g., Bauwens et al., 2020)—entails fundamental changes to the daily life of individuals in their role as, e.g., citizens and product users (Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar, 2019; Greene et al., 2024; Machado et al., 2019). Consumption in a CE is predominantly researched in the context of CE transitions, such as barriers and drivers to consumer adoption and influences of decision-making in the current linear system (Camacho-Otero et al., 2018; Pasqualotto et al., 2023; Santos-Corrada et al., 2023; Singh and Giacosa, 2019; Vidal-Ayuso et al., 2023). Accordingly, not only are we missing a comprehensive understanding of what a realized CE (i.e., fully implemented CE principles at the economy scale) might entail for individuals, but the research that is conducted is arguably taking a production-side lens to the study of consumption, focused on consumers' role in circular business models (e.g., Bücker et al., 2022). Given ongoing CE transitions worldwide (Campoli et al., 2024; Yamaguchi, 2021), and the many envisioned pathways and versions of a CE (Bauwens et al., 2020; Calisto Friant et al., 2025; Kirchherr et al., 2023), it is crucial to gain a better understanding of their respective implications, considering also the potential costs and benefits of normalized circular consumption, such as a high “consumer work” load (Hobson et al., 2021) under varying system conditions. Without such insights, the risks consist of: (1) CE transition strategies being incomplete and thereby potentially ineffective in bringing about the CE transition (e.g., Dupoux et al., 2025); (2) unintended negative consequences (i.e., that, if anticipated, could potentially be mitigated); and (3) a lack of mechanisms to ensure that the transition delivers positive outcomes for quality of life (e.g., Vollebregt et al., 2024).

1.2 Lacking integration between consumption and production systems

In addition to an incomplete understanding of the consumption system of a CE, a poor integration exists with its counterpart: the production system. This is a problem that is plaguing sustainability research at large; while production research focuses on technology, engineering, and business, consumption research looks to culture, norms and behaviors to drive structural changes (Marrucci et al., 2019; Bengtsson et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019). However, the transition to a CE and more-sustainable solutions are dependent on a range of actors, situated in both systems, which is why their integration enables a more comprehensive analysis of sustainability issues. To this end, and to capture the complex interactions between human societies, technologies, and natural environments, there is a need to consider ecological, technological, social, and institutional processes and dynamics together (Andersson et al., 2024). An effective integration of the two systems could enable, for example, product design interventions (e.g., for increased repairability) to be viable within the communities and economies they are planned for (e.g., adoption and socio-cultural appropriateness), and the achievement of the desired environmental and sustainability benefits (i.e., impactful). For this reason, the perspective of consumption-production systems (Tischner, 2024), especially for “faster and deeper [sustainability] transitions”, is crucial (Geels et al., 2023).

Existing approaches to integrate the two systems, such as participatory approaches (Amasawa et al., 2024), the Multi-Level Perspective (Geels, 2002) or socio-technical approaches (e.g., Hermann et al., 2022; Greene et al., 2024) focus on the transition to a CE and take fragmented perspectives, such as on specific technologies or system levels. As such, they are insufficient to create a comprehensive idea of what the consumption system consists of in a realized CE that clearly aligns with, and informs, the production system. For this task, systems models are helpful tools, especially for dealing with such complexity (Ke et al., 2023; Richert et al., 2017).

1.3 A Multilevel systems model

To systematically and transparently capture possible implications of the behaviors of higher system level components in a future state of a CE (e.g., economic principles and business operations) on individuals located at the lower levels of the system (e.g., cost of goods and personal values), a so-called “multilevel systems model” (MLSM) constitutes a useful tool. In these qualitative models, system components, such as places and actors, and their relations, such as resources or information flows, are organized into proximal (i.e., concreteness) vs. distal (i.e., more abstraction) locations based on the object of study at the center of the model (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Milfont and Markowitz, 2016) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. A Multilevel Systems Model (MLSM) from the perspective of the product user.

A multilevel systems perspective is necessary for fully understanding product users' experience and behaviors (Jensen, 2007; Hackman, 2003) as embedded in a larger system (Polanyi, 1944; Bronfenbrenner, 1992; van de Vijver et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2021). By using abstraction to deal with complexity (van Gigch, 1991, p. 3, 19), MLSMs are sometimes referred to as an interdisciplinary “system of systems” with the capacity to provide holistic information for policy and decision-makers (Iacovidou et al., 2017; Iwanaga et al., 2021).

While a CE is often represented as a multilevel model (e.g., Kirchherr et al., 2017; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018), such models have yet to put the individual product user at the center (Section 2.2), despite the potential benefits of doing so (Section 2.1).

The overarching aim of this paper is two-fold. First, we seek to clarify product users' role in a realized CE in terms of what system components (e.g., actors and objects) are necessary for engaging in CE Behaviors, thereby enabling circular resource flows from the perspective of the product user. Second, we aim to contribute to a more comprehensive view of consumption and production systems in sustainability research more generally, and in the CE field specifically. To accomplish this, we develop a “Foundational CE Multilevel Systems Model” (F-CE-MLSM), capturing the necessary system components (e.g., actors and settings) and relations (i.e., flows) within the interconnected consumption and production systems of a CE (“CE systems”) for durable consumer products. To manage the complexity of such systems, we adopt a strict material flow perspective, thus excluding economic, technical and social factors. However, the F-CE-MLSM is created with the intention of it being a foundation onto which these other dimensions may be added in future research (Section 6 and 7).

2 Background

2.1 The importance of MLSMs for a CE

MLSMs that take the perspective of the product user can provide a systematic and transparent concept of which, and how, higher system level actors and their activities impact the product user, such as how overarching culture and marketing efforts perpetuate personal norms and values (Boulet et al., 2021; van de Vijver et al., 2008). This effect can be referred to as the MLSM's verticality. The MLSM also captures horizontality in terms of the interaction between system components located at the same level, such as how the multitude of lower system level components (e.g., transportation options and social settings) provides context for the product user's experience and behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Zhijun and Nailing, 2007). “Multilevel studies […] are informative because they provide a broader perspective within which to situate individuals' decision-making” (Milfont and Markowitz, 2016, p. 113), as well as broader experiences—capturing how systems afford individuals with only limited agency.

Future-oriented MLSMs (i.e., those depicting yet-to-be states of an alternative economic system realized at the economic scale), such as that of a realized CE, can increase transparency. In futures studies, “transformation” refers to the process of discerning what higher system level information about an alternative economic system means for lower levels of that system at which the individual resides (Wangel et al., 2019). For this transformation, MLSMs provide structure, which can ensure completeness and thereby improve accuracy (Sale and Carlin, 2025; McIntyre, 2017; Ostrom, 2007; Hackman, 2003)—leading to enhanced quality of future-oriented sustainability research.

2.2 The multileveled nature of a Circular Economy

The conceptualization of a CE as being made up of systems levels, “scales” (e.g., Ghisellini et al., 2016) or “dimensions” (e.g., Feng and Lam, 2021) is well-established in CE research (e.g., Kirchherr et al., 2017; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Ahmed et al., 2022) and policy (Hartley et al., 2020). Reference to levels of a CE system can also be seen in the concept of circular businesses as “downstream” (i.e., consumer-interfacing) vs. “upstream” (i.e., business-internal and not involving the consumer) (e.g., Henry and Kirchherr, 2020). However, existing MLSMs of a CE tend to place either resources, process or product at the center (Oliveira et al., 2021) (c.f. Figure 1) and are inconsistent when it comes to what each vertical level consist of, such as where cities, businesses and supply chains are located (e.g., Merli et al., 2018; Alaerts et al., 2019; Chizaryfard et al., 2021; de Jesus et al., 2018). Yet, this placement should depend on the specific system and issue under study (Moraga et al., 2019; van Gigch, 1991). Current MLSMs of a CE do not account for consumption appropriately (Moraga et al., 2019), including only very limited factors, such as information and labeling (Ghisellini et al., 2016), need satisfaction (Alaerts et al., 2019), consumer acceptance and cost savings (Feng and Lam, 2021). Overall, existing CE MLSMs predominantly capture the production system. As for sustainable provisioning systems (i.e., elements related to the satisfaction of human needs; Fanning et al., 2020, p. 104), these have been depicted as multileveled, but without focusing on the individual (International Resource Panel, 2024).

2.3 The content of a CE system

Naturally, the specific components and flows that make up a CE system depends on the modeling tradition. For example, agent-based models focus on agents or entities (e.g., Walzberg et al., 2023), material flow analysis looks at stocks and flows (Makarichi et al., 2018), while dynamic systems models capture system behaviors and feedback (Valtere et al., 2025). Some CE conceptualizations also focus on specific CE activities or strategies (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

Existing qualitative MLSMs of sustainable consumption are limited and are rather rudimentary when it comes to capturing the system components (i.e., nouns, such as actors) involved from the perspective of the individual (Boulet et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2019; Akenji and Chen, 2016). They often fail to include more basic components in CE Behavior engagements, such as products themselves. Many such MLSMs focus on the link between consumer behavior and environmental objectives through intervening mechanisms, such as “trust”, and “moral values” (e.g., Grabs et al., 2016; Sheoran and Kumar, 2020). In contrast, MLSMs centered on individuals often include important contextual information absent in other CE models, including physical places and contexts, such as work and neighborhoods (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), ability (Akenji and Chen, 2016), awareness, and competencies (Grabs et al., 2016; Sheoran and Kumar, 2020). In our research, we failed to identify an MLSM that explicitly contain what is common in CE and sustainable consumption research, such as the necessity of having access to tools for repair (e.g., Nazli, 2021), the existence of unwanted products at end-of-use (Macklin and Kaufman, 2023), and optimal use of diverse sets of skills (see Buyukyazici and Quatraro, 2025).

In summary, although comprehensive considerations for system components and flows making up the experience of product users are crucial for optimizing the CE systems, models that consider and integrate such factors are largely lacking in the CE and sustainability literature. The Foundational CE Multilevel Systems Model (F-CE-MLSM) introduced in this paper contributes to filling this gap.

3 Methodology

A systematic modeling process was required to develop a foundational MLSM capable of effectively integrating and managing the complexity of diverse circularity activities realized at the economy-scale. The following sections introduce the 10 iterative steps, divided into two stages (Section 3.1), used to develop the F-CE-MLSM (Section 3.2), and to assess the quality of the F-CE-MLSM (Section 3.3).

3.1 Process overview

Multilevel systems modeling can be conducted in 10 iterative steps, divided into 4 parts (left hand-side; Figure 2) (Svensson-Hoglund et al., under review-c). This process of modeling is represented as two stages (right hand-side; Figure 2). In Stage 1, an initial F-CE-MLSM was developed (Parts 1-−3), and in Stage 2, this F-CE-MLSM was validated and refined via a Delphi study (Parts 4a, 4b, and 4c; right hand-side Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. The Simplified Modeling Process (see Section 1, Supplementary material 1, for more details), with the four parts of the 10 steps corresponding to the parts in the flow chart on the right hand-side. Green elements constitute actions in which the modeler is making decisions; pink/purple elements represent data gathering activities related to the literature, and orange elements represent model testing and refinement activities. Adapted from Svensson-Hoglund et al. (under review-c).

Below, we outline the execution of the two stages, as represented in Figure 2.

3.2 Model development (stage 1)

“Components” is an umbrella term used to represent nouns within the CE system, such as actors and objects. Relations between these components are represented as “flows” (e.g., transfers, transactions, or movements) of physical and nonphysical resources which are necessary for CE Behavior engagements to take place (Step 1; Figure 2).

To define circular material flows (Part 1, Step 2; Figure 2) in a realized CE, flows and components were organized based on a framework of the five CE loop strategies: (1) simplifying (i.e., reduce the total amount of materials in the economic system, aligned with sufficiency); (2) dematerializing/narrowing (i.e., reduce the amount of materials used in product units, aligned with efficiency); (3) slowing (e.g., reuse, repair, and remanufacturing); (4) intensifying (i.e., PSS model and sharing), and; (5) closing (i.e., recycling and replacing of primary materials with secondary materials) (Svensson-Hoglund et al., under review-a), influenced by Reike et al. (2018). These loop strategies have been used to conceptualize CE Behaviors as a multi-process stage “CE Behavior Process Framework” (Svensson-Hoglund et al., under review-b), contextualizing product users' CE Behaviors as part of different loop strategies and in different situations (e.g., Macklin and Kaufman, 2023) (Figure 3). The method behind the development of these two frameworks and their validations are described in Section 2 of the Supplementary material 1.

Figure 3

Figure 3. The Seven-Stage CE Behavior Process Framework, with the CE Loop Strategies on the left hand-side.

The identification of components and flows was initiated at the innermost system level, referred to as the “micro level” (Part 2, Step 4 and 5; Figure 2). For this, four tabular-formats of the CE Behavior Process Framework (Figure 3) were created (the CE Behavior Process Pathway Tables; see Supplementary material 2) for each of the four pathways in Figure 3. These were critically evaluated to identify system components and flows necessary for the CE activities to take place (e.g., tools or physical places) and for the CE loop strategies to be realized. See Supplementary materials 1, 2 for more details.

The resulting system components were then assessed and synthesized into component categories and the flows outlined in the initial F-CE-MLSM (Part 2, Step 5 and 6; Figure 2).

The outer system level of the F-CE-MLSM is referred to as the “meso level”. To identify the components at this level (Part 3, Step 7 and 8; Figure 2), the identified micro level components and flows were assessed to discern essential components and flows needed for these components to be available, and, therefore, for the product user to be able to perform CE Behavior process activities, such as there being a provider of Necessities (Supplementary material 2). Components at the meso level were not directly experienced by the product user (i.e., beyond their direct experience). In these steps, we identified actors (providers) based on activities or operations that they would need to undertake to enable the CE activities at the micro level. Again, the focus was not on facilitating activities (i.e., reducing friction, such as time and effort), but on what was needed to make the CE Behavior possible.

3.3 Model validation (stage 2)

In Stage 2 (Figure 2), a Delphi survey, consisting of two rounds, was used to gather feedback and data on the F-CE-MLSM, and reach consensus (Beiderbeck et al., 2021; Skulmoski et al., 2007). Comprehensive details regarding our complete method and process (Figure 2), including the expert selection process and survey document are provided in Supplementary material 2.

In total, 14 experts based in the E.U., U.K., and U.S., and possessing backgrounds and expertise primarily in academia, business/industry, non-profit, and policy/government (Figure 4), took part in a two-round Delphi survey that lasted 30 days (see Survey Document in Section 4, Supplementary material 1).

Figure 4

Figure 4. The primary background of the 14 Delphi survey participants.

The core task of the expert group consisted of providing critical feedback and commentary about the accuracy and level of detail of the F-CE-MLSM and accompanying Table. To support expert participation, the Model was presented through a video. In addition, participants were invited to co-author the manuscript and contribute feedback on draft versions, establishing a collaborative review process similar to a “peer check” (Belk et al., 2013).

The survey consisted of two rounds, in which the micro level (the innermost system level at which the product user is residing) was introduced in the first round and meso level considerations (outer system elements, not directly experienced by the product user) were added in the second round (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Figure 5. The Delphi survey structure and content.

Acceptance rates were calculated using a Likert-type scale representing average acceptance, which was measured on a scale of one—seven, with seven meaning strong agreement and one meaning strong disagreement. These ratings were analyzed as an average percentage of participant ratings to capture the spread.

Feedback from Delphi study participants was coded and characterized based on the implications of the specific feedback into three categories: clarifications, remedies, or changes. Participant feedback was categorized as a clarification if it consisted of suggested alterations to the F-CE-MLSM that would serve to increase understanding of its existing elements. Clarifications were automatically incorporated into the F-CE-MLSM unless they added significant details, in which case Delphi participants were asked to vote (requiring a majority decision) in the subsequent review round. Participant feedback was categorized as a remedy if it consisted of suggested alterations that would serve to address an omission or misrepresentation. Remedies were always incorporated into the F-CE-MLSM. Lastly, participant feedback was categorized as a change if it consisted of suggestions to alter the main idea of the Framework. Such changes, if suggested by >50% of participants, would be automatically incorporated into the revised Framework; changes suggested by 25-−49 % of participants would go to a Delphi participant vote in the subsequent round, and be decided via a majority vote in the subsequent round.

Due to the minor nature of the alternations incorporated at the Meso level following the Delphi survey round 2 feedback, and the already high acceptance rate, a third survey round was not considered necessary (see Figure 5).

It is important to acknowledge that the Delphi study results could have been different had the participants had more access to each other's feedback (i.e., a modified Delphi) and/or worked in more of a co-creation process. As such, the resulting F-CE-MLSM presented herein should be regarded as a basic conceptual model for future research, which may focus on further development and validation, e.g., through stakeholder workshops (c.f., Macklin and Kaufman, 2023).

The final F-CE-MLSM and Table with definitions are presented separately in Section 4, with the Delphi study findings summarized in Section 5.

4 The foundational CE multilevel systems model

The Foundational CE Multilevel Systems Model (F-CE-MLSM) comprises the components and flows required for engaging in CE behaviors within a fully realized CE. For example, repairing a hand mixer (i.e., a CE Behavior) requires tools, knowledge, manuals, and other resources (Figure 6). “Components” constitute an umbrella term for the relevant actors, objects, settings, data, and structural components (identified by letter in Figure 6). “Flows” or relations (identified by numbers in Figure 6) is an umbrella term for transfers, transactions, or movements of resources through, between, and/or by the different components. Both components and flows can be physical, such as the movement of a tangible product or tool, as well as intangible (i.e., non-physical), such as digitized products and transfer of knowledge.

Figure 6

Figure 6. The foundational CE multilevel systems model (F-CE-MLSM), consisting of Key Micro Components (i.e., system components closest to the product user), with so-called “micro level determinants”, stretching into the meso level (i.e., has aspects that are not directly experienced by the product user, such as the operations “behind the scenes” of an organization or business), as well as further removed Meso level determinants needed for the activities in CE Behaviors to be possible. Components (i.e., actors, objects, settings, data, etc.) are represented by letters; flows or relations (i.e., transfers, transactions, movement of resources, etc.) are represented by numbers; and alternative components or functions are denoted with roman numerals. Dotted lines of components indicate partial or full intangibility, such as digital. Possible alternative arrangements are depicted in purple roman numerals to capture potential varieties of the system. Use of previously acquired resources (e.g., the product user already has access to a tool needed for the repair in question), which eliminates the need to acquire it, is denoted with green asterix. Overlaps are denoted in orange asterix.

In the F-CE-MLSM, the components and flows are organized according to proximity vs. distance to the product user; while the micro level captures product user “interfaces” (i.e., what/who the product user is interacting with directly), the meso level consists of the “hidden side” of the relevant flows, actors and their activities that operate beyond the direct experience of product users (see Henry and Kirchherr, 2020; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A macro level was not included due to the delimitations to material flows.

Within the F-CE-MLSM, “micro level components” (i.e., directly experienced by the individual product user) are identified by capitalized letters A—F in Figure 6. “Micro-meso determinants” exist at the interface between micro- and meso-levels and are capitalized letters G—N in Figure 6. The Micro-Meso determinants represent actors, objects, settings, data and structural components that are at least partially directly experienced by the individual product user. For example, a reuse store (e.g., Transfer Setting Provider, or determinant “J”; Figure 6) connects the product user with the meso-level system of reused product provisioning. In this example, the “storefront” is a Transfer Setting Provider component (determinant “J”) that is directly experienced by the product user when they enter the store. “Store management”, on the other hand, is an aspect of the same component (determinant) that affects the product user's experience, but which is likely not directly experienced by the product user, hence that aspect is located at the meso level.

Importantly, the F-CE-MSLM is neutral to the type of CE Behaviors (e.g., commercial and non-commercial); the components and flows depict system functions, such as the function of a product necessity (which may consist of a sophisticated, high-tech repair tool or home-made, low-tech tool) or product provider (who may be a multinational company or the neighbor who lent the product to the product user).

The components (letters) and relations (numbers) in the F-CE-MLSM (Figure 6) are further clarified and defined in Table 1. To facilitate the simultaneous processing and use of the F-CE-MLSM (Figure 6) and Table 1, they are both included as Figure 6 and Table 1. Hereafter, we use the term “F-CE-MLSM” to refer to both Figure 6 and Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1. Codes for Figure 6.

Starting with the content of the micro level, the F-CE-MLSM (Figure 6 and Table 1) suggests that the ability to perform CE Behaviors and move forward in the CE Behavior process, such as acquire a product or conduct a repair (Figure 3), relies on the presence of the following so-called “Micro Key Components” (i.e., the system content closest to the product user): (A) the Product (e.g., a cell phone, sweater or sofa); (B) Transfer Settings (i.e., physical places where micro key components are picked up or dropped off, such as a store front, recycling station or mailbox of the product user); (C) Enabling Technologies (e.g., platforms for resale and communication); (D) Product Necessities (e.g., physical and digital tools, manuals and spare parts for repair, refurbishing, cleaning and usage); (E) Knowledge and Skills (e.g., how to locate a product or conduct a repair), and; (F) Transportation (e.g., public transport, private, rental).

Importantly, Enabling Technology (C), such as a computer for searching for a reused item, constitutes another Product (A), apart from the one the product user is searching for (e.g., a bike for rent) and thereby comes from a Product Provider (G), which may be a library with computers for temporary use, or a traditional transaction provider. For simplicity, aligned with the CE Behavior Process Framework (Figure 3), the acquisition of such an enabling technology entails, or entailed if already acquired, a separate CE Behavior Process (i.e., problem identification, search, etc.) and also F-CE-MLSM.

Product Necessities (C) refers to tools and information related to product-related services or activities, such as maintenance and repair. Enabling Technology (E) consist of tools and resources for engaging in e.g., searches and putting a product up for resale at the EOU (Figure 3). Knowledge and Skills (E) are non-product specific, while Product Necessities (D) are more applied to specific brands and even models. However, Product Necessities (D) in the form of information may translate into more generalizable knowledge and skills, i.e., the product user's Knowledge and Skills (E).

Next, at the intersection between the micro and meso levels are the “Micro-Meso Determinants”. Certain aspects of the micro-meso determinants are experienced directly by the product user (e.g., storefront and staff interactions), while other aspects (e.g., store management and supply chains) are only indirectly experienced (blue and gray; Figure 6). These components determine the existence of the Micro Key Components and consist of providers. The F-CE-MLSM (Figure 6 and Table 1) is neutral regarding the type of CE Behaviors, whether they are commercial or non-commercial, or related to citizenship, such as sharing and giving, or the objects involved are high- or low-tech. As such, all system components, including object and providers, denote functions in the CE system, such as to provide products (component G), which can be anyone from a neighbor to a multinational corporation, or constitute a necessity (component D), which may consist of a high-tech, sophisticated diagnostic tool or a piece of duct tape.

Lastly, located the furthest away, and only indirectly experienced by the product user, are the “Meso Determinants” and flows (i.e., gray; Figure 6). These components are necessary for the micro-meso level functions to exist, such as refurbishers/remanufacturers (P; Figure 6) supplying product for the product provider (component G); in essence, the meso determinants constitute the sources or recipient of the Micro Key Components (i.e., where the component is coming from or where the product ends up).

In the F-CE-MLSM, purple roman numbers denote alternative arrangements and relevance of components or flows, to capture the possible variety of a realized CE, depending on the characteristics of the same. For example, purple “i)” denotes that the transfer setting (component B) is not applicable in case product (component A) can be obtained through enabling technology (component C) and transport (component F), such as online order and shopping, or if the Enabling technology can receive the virtual/digitized) Product (e.g., Ereader).

Green asteria denotes how the product users may use previously acquired for example product (component A) or product necessities (component D), corresponding with the Reduce Pathway in the CE Behavior Process Framework (i.e., making do with what they have) (Figure 3)—eliminating the need for flow (4) and (9) (Table 1) in the specific situation modeled. This assumes that these components (e.g., the tool) were obtained through these flows at an earlier point in time.

Lastly, orange asteria in the F-CE-MLSM denotes overlaps, such as how enabling technology (component C), such as a phone or internet, is used to connect the Product User to all providers (components G-N), which again may be non-commercial entities.

5 Results and analysis

In this section, the results from the Delphi survey used to develop and refine the F-CE-MLSM (Stage 2; Figure 2) are presented and analyzed. For the survey document assessed by the Delphi study participants, see Section 4, Supplementary material 1. In Section 5.1, we present the agreement rates and alterations made to the F-CE-MLSM. In Section 5.2, we summarize the participants' feedback regarding the use of a material flow perspective as a starting point for developing the F-CE-MLSM, as well as their thoughts on insights from the C-CE-MSLM and its usefulness and limitations.

5.1 Agreement rates and implemented feedback

In survey round 1, the participants assessed and refined a F-CE-MLSM of only the micro level, resulting in several clarifications to Table 1 and one minor change to the F-CE-MLSM (see Section 5.1.2); the enabling technology provider (K; Table 1) was moved closer to the Meso level as this provider is likely an actor with whom the product user has very limited direct contact with.

In survey round, after the first assessment of the Micro level of the F-CE-MLSM, the participants were invited to review the four CE Behavior Process Pathway Tables (Supplementary material 2), which were used to identify the components (i.e., data mining and analysis; Step 4 and 5 in Figure 2). One participant expressed that “The additional ‘underlying' logic, actions, decisions, and details outlined in the [pathway] Tables were helpful for assuaging concerns regarding examples/details” (academic). When re-measuring their level of agreement with the Micro Level of the F-CE-MLSM, following the review of the CE Behavior Process Pathway Table on which the F-CE-MLSM was built, the results showed that it did not impact the average level of agreement with the Micro Level. Only four participants changed their rating; for two, the review of the Tables increased their confidence in the F-CE-MLSM, while it led two others to discover gaps in the F-CE-MLSM, leading them to decrease their agreement rating. One practitioner admitted that “trying to process/comprehend [the Tables] was a lot for my brain to handle,” indicating that the cognitive load may have led some participants to not fully consider the Tables.

In round 2, the refined Micro Level of the F-CE-MLSM and Table were presented, earning a final agreement rate of 99 %. Next in this round, the Meso Level and Table was added, forming the complete F-CE-MLSM, earning an agreement rate of 90 % (Figure 5).

5.1.1 Implemented remedies

Remedies, or comments from Delphi participants intended to address an omission or misrepresentation in the initial F-CE-MLSM and Table, were incorporated into the final F-CE-MLSM.

Remedy #1—Definition of Knowledge and Skills: Knowledge and skills (component E) were initially defined as knowledge relating to “what” to do, while skills referred to “how” to do something. This was changed to knowledge relating to familiarity and awareness, with skills referring to ability.

Remedy #2—Distinguishing Education and Infrastructure: Education (component U) and Infrastructure (component V) were found to be conceptually different from other Meso-level components; “It's a bit like putting oranges, pears, apples and birds in the same group.” (academic). On that note, these components are also in an “indirect relation with all the rest” or having a “horizontal effect” on the other components (e.g., actors) (academic) in that all actors rely on education for their workforce and infrastructure for their operation, making these components pertain to a higher system level. In total, this was brought up by four academics and two practitioners. To this end, these components were moved up and colored in a darker blue to denote a higher level of abstraction. In addition, it was noted in Table 1 that all actors in the system rely on these components.

5.1.2 Implemented clarifications

Several clarifications, intended to increase understanding, were incorporated into Table 1. The main ones consisted of the following clarifications:

• Product (A) is either completely physical (e.g., a printed book), partially digital (e.g., a phone with software) or completely digital (e.g., an Ebook).

• The Transfer Setting (B) can be a mailbox, the Product User's home, or another place where the Micro Key Components (e.g., a repair tool) are received or sent from.

• Enabling Technologies (C) exist in the form of digital devices (e.g., phone, DVD player, eReader, and Wifi router,), as well as resources, which can be intangible (i.e., virtual marketplace) or physical (e.g., phone or internet connectivity).

• The difference between Product Necessities (D) and Enabling Technology (C) is that the latter is used for managing the CE Behavior engagement (e.g., searching, acquiring and sharing), while Product Necessities are for activities, such as maintenance, repair, refurbishing and repurposing.

• Product Necessities (D) can feed into Knowledge and Skills (E) (flow [3]), but the latter is not brand or model-specific, unlike Product Necessities (e.g., a repair manual for a specific product model).

• Transport (F) also concerns the physical movement of Product Necessities (D), and/or Enabling Technology (C) (e.g., physical resources, such as a printed provider directory), not just the physical product.

• Examples of Information and Training Providers (M) were provided (e.g., schools).

• The Product Recipient (H) can also manage direct reuse (to Q Redistributor [17], refurbishing/remanufacturing (P) [15]) and EOL (EOL Processing, recycling or waste management (R) [18]).

• The Manufacturer of New Products can also take the role of Refurbisher/Remanufacturer (P).

5.2 Comments on insights, usefulness, and limitations of the model

The participants' feedback on the F-CE-MLSM (Figure 6 and Table 1) is summarized in Table 2, and presented in more detail in the following sections.

Table 2

Table 2. Summary of delphi study participant feedback regarding the material flow delimitation, insights derived, usefulness, and limitations of the F-CE-MLSM.

5.2.1 Taking a material flow perspective as a starting point

Regarding the delimitation of the F-CE-MLSM to material flows in a CE, the majority of the participants agreed (Table 2), saying, e.g., that “The material flow perspective is foundational for considering CE solutions” (academic), and; “In my opinion, the socio-cultural, financial, and technical elements need a starting point or anchor for thought experiments and discussion” even if alterations to the same may be necessary later on (practitioner). However, this delimitation may lead to the product user being credited with an unrealistic amount of agency, particularly given that both current-state and future product manufacturers employ marketing and product design efforts intended to steer and stimulate demand (academic).

In terms of additional dimension being added to this foundational model in future research, one practitioner expressed that, given how “culture is a different beast”, it would be strategic to model the material flows and cultural factors separately, and then “try to layer them together later.” One academic expressed that they: “cannot envision how social, financial and environmental aspects will be added to the [F-CE-MLSM]” (academic), especially given increased complexity that may defeat usefulness (academic)—identifying a challenge for future research and use of this F-CE-MLSM (Section 7).

5.2.2 Insights

The majority of the participants commented on the comprehensiveness of the F-CE-MLSM: “This is an extremely complex breakdown of product flow. I have never seen anything like it” (practitioner). One academic found that, while the F-CE-MLSM is complex, “we need to do this difficult mental work to avoid continued oversimplification and misunderstandings that are currently rampant in CE literature and research.” To this point, in terms of insights, the F-CE-MLSM made five participants (two academics and three practitioners) realize the “enormity” in material flows in a CE, especially the many elements needed “to support a user in their use/maintenance/return/disposable of a durable consumer good” (practitioner) and the large number of actors that are involved (i.e. the complexity of the ecosystem) (academic). To this point, one academic found that the F-CE-MLSM captures how the further away one gets from the product user in the F-CE-MLSM, the higher the complexity. Another academic found that: “[the F-CE-MLSM] helps me think in detail about all the bits and pieces and players and parts. It helps identify all of the parts of the system”. A practitioner expressed that, with the F-CE-MLSM, “we're finally visualizing pathways, which we lack so much in reuse/repair”.

Two academics commented on the distinction between system elements that the product user experiences directly and those that remain indirect, external, or outside the product user's awareness. As one noted, “… the [F-CE-MLSM] is more useful to the Product User for elements that are directly affecting their direct behavioral impacts, while the more the distance grows (away from the User) the perspectives identified refer to larger socio-technical configurations outside of the direct experience of the user.” (academic). In other words, while a policy may ultimately influence the product user, the user often perceives only its proximate effects, such as changes in the product or retailer, rather than the policy itself or its broader systemic implications. Thus, if the product user does not recognize the impact or influence of a particular system component, the utility of the F-CE-MLSM for informing or influencing the product user's behavior may be diminished, regardless of whether the F-CE-MLSM is employed by the product user themselves or by another actor seeking to affect user behavior. However, we note that a key purpose of the F-CE-MLSM is to convey and expand Product User understanding that such indirect components are still relevant and impactful, even if they were not originally perceived as such.

A practitioner speculated that: “In a realized CE, we will likely see a lot of competition in how providers can offer all or most of those elements in the most convenient/seamless way as that will be a competitive advantage and perhaps even command a premium price.” While this may result in an enhanced product user experience, it likely comes with premium pricing, and the risk of market distortions.

5.2.3 Usefulness

The F-CE-MLSM defines “what needs to be in place and go ‘right' for a CE to happen”—hence the goal of a CE (practitioner). To this end, a “primary importance” of the F-CE-MLSM lies in how it can capture pathways for the transition to CE, not necessarily that it depicts what a realized CE entails (academic).

As to specific types of uses, the F-CE-MLSM can facilitate a strategic understanding of the diverse linkages that can exist between material flows and environmental impact in a manner that allows for discussion about trade-offs and rebound effects (academic). To this end, the F-CE-MLSM: “allows for detailed assessment of the sustainability potential of different consumption behaviors”, such as carbon emissions and water use (academic). In particular, the micro-level aspect of the F-CE-MLSM can be useful for identifying “barriers and bottlenecks” and potential intervention points in the system, meaning that “… the CE process experience can be improved in a way to make the CE action the ‘default' or the preferable option”, thus further enabling the operationalization of CE (one academic, supported by another academic and one practitioner).

Academia and education may benefit from the F-CE-MLSM as it offers as a more comprehensive research framework (two academics); it “… clarifies system details (e.g., skills, information, spaces, options, access, supporting infrastructure and actors), which has the potential to provoke much more clear and helpful research questions going forward…” (academic). Also, the F-CE-MLSM effectively: “… clarifies ‘the system' for students” (academic), which may also benefit practitioners and their understanding of the CE system and product user's “CE experience” (academic and practitioner), including “…if/how to intervene in the system to support an efficient CE” (practitioner).

The system-level knowledge generated from the F-CE-MLSM can facilitate the emergence of business disruptors in the market (practitioner), particularly as it can be used by new business actors to model the costs and benefits of circular flows (practitioner). Businesses and other providers may also use the F-CE-MLSM to assess their current business model and areas of future development (two practitioners) in terms of becoming a “one-stop-shop” and meeting the comprehensive needs of their customers, “…from the product itself, to information, to transportation, to end-of-life management”, while considering “optimal actor configurations to deliver superior user experiences at the lower costs (for competitive purposes)” (practitioner). Lastly, speaking to all the uses outlined, the model “… can help inform an effective policy mix.” (academic).

5.2.4 Limitations

Five participants raised the problem of some components being conceptually divergent from other components at their level, suggesting that “Knowledge and Skills” should be considered an inherent capability of the individual, not a system component (academic). Similarly, Infrastructure and Education, which are not actors, are too different compared to other meso determinants (i.e., actual actors in the system) (four academics and one practitioner). This was, however, partially remedied by noting the difference of these two components (Section 5.1.1).

While comprehensive, three participants indicated the need for further applications of the F-CE-MLSM. To this end, in terms of usefulness, one academic expressed that: “I'm not sure about the usefulness because I am not sure of who the user may be,” presumably because, as expressed by one academic: “it all feels quite complicated to me” (academic). One academic pointed out that these types of models are likely dependent on video explanations (as was provided as part of the survey) for optimal accessibility. See section 5.1.2 on how some saw the value in the complexity. A practitioner found that: “It would probably take me many hours to identify any gaps or missing connections”—indicating a limitation of the method used in this paper. Additional limitations of the FS-ML-CESM are presented in Table 2.

Next, we discuss the flexibility and future applicability of the F-CE-MSLM.

6 Discussion

The flexibility and adaptability of future-oriented models, such as the F-CE-MLSM, is essential given the rapidly evolving nature of industries, economies, and understandings of CE concepts, both academically and in practice. To this end, it is unrealistic to expect any group of experts to predict every future development or behavioral shift in CE systems. Therefore, flexibility is a core design principle for the F-CE-MLSM, ensuring it remains relevant and applicable across diverse and changing contexts. In this section, we elaborate on the distinct flexibility features of the F-CE-MLSM that enable future applicability and adaptability and thus support the model's stated goals: clarifying product user roles; and integrating CE consumption-production systems.

The F-CE-MLSM captures key system functions by delineating components and flows necessary in realized CE systems to enable circular material flows. Per design, these functions are not rigidly defined in the model; for example, the Product Provider (G; Table 1 and Figure 6) could be anyone from an individual neighbor engaged in informal, non-commercial exchange to a large multinational corporation operating formal, commercial value chains. Similarly, Product Necessities (D) span a broad spectrum, from sophisticated medical diagnostic devices to everyday items, such as duct tape. This agnostic quality of the model makes it capable of capturing a range of CE behaviors; commercial or non-commercial and individual or collective, including citizenship-related activities, such as product sharing or gifting. In addition, the model is also able to accommodate various technological contexts, including both high- and low-tech environments.

Further reinforcing its adaptability, the model explicitly incorporates overlapping functions via the concept of “alternative components taking on function” (purple roman numerals; Table 1 and Figure 6). This means that roles typically assigned to specific actors may be performed by others; for example, product users may undertake refurbishment activities themselves (i.e., “do-it-yourself”), effectively taking on the function of a product-service provider (I). This capability to capture fluid boundaries and role-shifting reflects the real-world complexity and dynamic nature of CE systems, where new actors, technologies, policies, and behaviors emerge over time.

Another important aspect of the model's flexibility is its deliberate delimitation to material flows. This boundary was broadly endorsed by Delphi study participants (Table 2) as a suitable and manageable foundation for mapping CE systems. This provides a clear foundational layer, designed to be extended to also capture social, governance, policy, or ecological dimensions in future research. By avoiding assumptions tied to, e.g., specific policy architectures or ideological frameworks, the F-CE-MLSM remains applicable across diverse organizational and economic configurations – including capitalist market economies, socialist state-organized systems, indigenous community economies, and other potential CE models.

In summary, the model's flexibility in mapping evolving CE systems arrangements and characteristics enables an effective understanding of product users' roles in circular material flows.

The delimitation to material flows also serves the model's second goal: integrating consumption and production systems. This boundary provides clarity on the systems' interface and interdependencies, while—as mentioned—allowing additional dimensions to be “layered” atop this foundation in future iterations (see Section 5.2.1). For example, governance and policy mechanisms, such as taxes, subsidies, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, and international treaties, may be applied to the model to examine how these external drivers influence the interconnected CE systems and reshape conditions. Thus, the F-CE-MLSM opens pathways for a modular and progressive approach to comprehensive CE systems analysis.

Nonetheless, it is essential to recognize the limitations in confining the CE systems to material flows. While this boundary reduces complexity and thus enhances manageability, it also restricts the model's ability to provide a fully holistic view of CE systems. Social, institutional, behavioral, governance, and ecological factors interact closely with material flows to shape CE outcomes. Focusing solely on physical material flows inevitably implies that, e.g., consumer behavior, cultural norms, power relations, and ecological impacts (e.g., biodiversity loss), are not captured, or only indirectly so. As such, their omissions from the F-CE-MLSM mean that critical drivers, barriers, and feedback loops are overlooked or underexplored, failing to capture emergent systemic properties and interdependencies crucial to effective circular transitions.

To address these inherent limitations, future research must incorporate additional systems dimensions alongside material flows, to reveal deeper interrelations and better inform policy and practice. Such an approach aligns with evolving frameworks regarding CE systems as socio-technical and socio-ecological in nature, requiring comprehensive integration of multiple factors for sustainability transitions to succeed.

In summary, the F-CE-MLSM adeptly balances specificity, manageability, and flexibility by combining a clear material flow foundation with the capacity for accommodating unforeseen changes and variations over time. The model serves both as a practical instrument for clarifying product user roles in diverse CE configurations and as a foundation for progressively integrating production and consumption systems as knowledge and contexts evolve. This flexible and modular design positions the model to remain relevant amid ongoing academic and practical advancements in the CE field and offers promising avenues for future research and application.

Practical applications and future research opportunities building on this flexible foundation are outlined in the following section.

7 Concluding remarks

7.1 The scientific contribution

The scientific contribution of the Foundational CE Multilevel Systems Model (F-CE-MLSM) (Figure 6 and Table 1), which takes the perspective of the individual product user (Figure 6 and Table 1), consists of a clarification and exploration of the CE from a consumption perspective. Specifically, we contribute both insights and methods to address a gap in the literature in terms of what CE and sustainable consumption entails for individuals in the context of durable consumer products. “Since the CE behavior of the [product] user is critical for the uptake of CE strategies in the economy as a whole” it is crucial to understand the context of the product user (one academic in the Delphi Study). However, “…a detailed picture of the micro-environment is largely missing from the CE literature” despite it being crucial for “gaining a better understanding of the potential costs and benefits of circular consumption” (academic in Delphi Study). The F-CE-MLSM brings to the foreground what is usually mere context in other models, such as actors, physical settings, tools, larger infrastructure and knowledge. To optimize the system for users, and thereby also for their providers, it is crucial to know the role of these components; if the impact of, e.g., the physical setting is unknown, it will not be adequately and strategically considered in business models, product design, and policy, etc.

In addition, this work complements the existing, abundant body of research on the CE production system by incorporating the perspective of the product user and broader components and relations that extend beyond the engineered product-focused system. As such, the F-CE-MLSM serves as a bridge-concept between the two often separated production-focused vs. consumption-focused areas of research and innovation—providing a larger context for practitioners and decision-makers in the CE transition.

The F-CE-MLSM is deliberately designed to be both foundational and adaptable, enabling it to accommodate shifting conditions of the future for two key reasons. First, it depicts essential functions needed to bring about circular resource flows, without specifying what or who is holding or serving these systems functions. As such, the F-CE-MLSM remains relevant and adaptable across different and evolving contexts (i.e., model neutrality that leads to flexibility). Second, the model is delimited only to material flows, which allows for systematic introduction of additional system dimensions and factors, such as policy, in future research. Together, we argue that these features enable the F-CE-MLSM to be applied across varied systemic contexts, including as a tool for exploring different configurations of a CE. This adaptability strengthens the model's ability to clarify the user's role in a dynamic and emerging CE, as well as meaningfully capture the integration of CE consumption-production systems.

7.2 Societal and practical significance

The societal and practical significance of the F-CE-MLSM lies in its ability to visually clarify the interconnected CE systems of production and consumption, breaking down disciplinary silos. This enables researchers and practitioners to identify and address system-level interventions for enhanced circularity and sustainability. To this end, the model can allow for the systematically mapping of trade-offs and rebound effects between material flows and environmental impacts, supporting the design of more circular and sustainable systems.

The application of the F-CE-MLSM can empowers systems stakeholders, such as designers, industry leaders, policymakers, and product users, to identify their loci of control within the system and act as agents in a transitioning economy. For example, product or service providers can use the model to map their ecosystem, uncovering gaps, such as insufficient consumer information or missing enabling technologies. This can also lead to the identification of collaborative opportunities along the value chain. As for product users, although the model initially frames individuals primarily as product users constrained by the systems, the model also increases their systems awareness, thus encouraging individuals in their role as citizens to participate in democratic processes of reimagining and transitioning interconnected consumption-production systems. As to policymakers, they can leverage the F-CE-MLSM to visualize circular material flows across product lifecycles, design and test CE policies through scenario analyses, and identify product ecosystem gaps and enablers—supporting comprehensive circular transitions. On this note, through its clarification of actor roles and control points within the system, the F-CE-MLSM can facilitate actor coordination and support participatory and systemic governance for circular transitions.

7.3 Future research

The F-CE-MLSM provides a foundational yet adaptable framework for future research into product users' roles in a realized CE, as well as consumption-production system integration. The F-CE-MLSM's flexibility across diverse systems, along with its capacity for integration of additional dimensions, makes it a robust platform for both research and practical application in CE transitions. Future research should continue to explore how to incorporate governance, policy, and broader socio-ecological dimensions to enrich the model's explanatory power, preferably without sacrificing the F-CE-MLSM's flexibility. In this context, it may be helpful to distinguish between further development of the F-CE-MLSM (i.e., preserving model flexibility) and its targeted applications (i.e., which seek greater specificity regarding particular states or conditions).

Delphi study feedback highlighted that, while the model makes the micro level (i.e., consumption system) more concrete, the meso level (i.e., production system) may be oversimplified and could therefore benefit from a more nuanced representation, without losing manageability in terms of model complexity. The model's current design also shows a slight bias toward the structural features of capitalist market economies, such as referring to actors as “providers” at the micro-meso intersection. This limitation should be acknowledged and addressed in future research. Further, future research should focus on adapting the F-CE-MLSM for use by specific stakeholders, such as policymakers, product designers, and marketing managers, and test its applicability to cases where the product user is not a private individual but, for example, a company employee or a group of employees with varying authority levels. The foundational approach of the F-CE-MLSM may also be extended beyond durable consumer goods to areas, such as consumables, broader resource management, or to more specific product categories, such as clothing vs. electronics.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the patients/participants or patients/participants legal guardian/next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

SS-H: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Project administration, Investigation. JDR: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Validation. JLR: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Writing – original draft, Supervision. MK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Validation. AV: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Writing – original draft. RG: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Writing – original draft. LM: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation. SG: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Validation. MC: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. AG-S: Writing – original draft, Validation, Writing – review & editing. LN: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. PD: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Open access funding was provided by Lund University. Sahra Svensson-Hoglund was funded by the Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Sciences (ICTAS) at Virginia Tech.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author disclaimer

LM confirms the responsibility of the authors for the choice and presentation of information contained in this paper as well as for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit this Organization.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2025.1698624/full#supplementary-material

References

Ahmed, A. A., Nazzal, M. A., Darras, B. M., and Deiab, I. M. (2022). A comprehensive multi-level circular economy assessment framework. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 32, 700–717. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.05.025

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Akenji, L., and Chen, H. (2016). A Framework for Shaping Sustainable Lifestyles. United Nations Environmental Programme. Available online at: https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/a_framework_for_shaping_sustainable_lifestyles_determinants_and_strategies_0.pdf (Accessed April 3, 2025).

Google Scholar

Alaerts, L., Van Acker, K., Rousseau, S., De Jaeger, S., Moraga, G., Dewulf, J., et al. (2019). Towards a more direct policy feedback in circular economy monitoring via a societal needs perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 363–371. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amasawa, E., Kishita, Y., Mohamed, A. F., McLellan, B., and Kojima, M. (2024). Envisioning the linkages between consumption and production for sustainability: outcomes from expert workshops in Malaysia. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 4, 733–753. doi: 10.1007/s43615-023-00308-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Andersson, J., Lennerfors, T. T., and Fornstedt, H. (2024). Towards a socio-techno-ecological approach to sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 51:100846. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2024.100846

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arekrans, J., Sopjani, L., Laurenti, R., and Ritzén, S. (2022). Barriers to access-based consumption in the circular transition: a systematic review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 184:106364. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106364

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., and Kirchherr, J. (2020). Circular futures: what will they look like? Ecol. Econ. 175:106703. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106703

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Beiderbeck, D., Frevel, N., Von Der Gracht, H. A., Schmidt, S. L., and Schweitzer, V. M. (2021). Preparing, conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys: cross-disciplinary practices, new directions, and advancements. MethodsX 8:101401. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101401

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Belk, R. W., Fischer, E., and Kozinets, R. V. (2013). Qualitative Consumer & Marketing Research, 1st Edn. London, UK: Sage.

Google Scholar

Bengtsson, M., Alfredsson, E., Cohen, M., Lorek, S., and Schroeder, P. (2018). Transforming systems of consumption and production for achieving the sustainable development goals: moving beyond efficiency. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1533–1547. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0582-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Borrello, M., Cembalo, L., and D'Amico, V. (2022). Redefining wellbeing and normality: circular consumption beyond the low hanging fruit. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 179:106034. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106034

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boulet, M., Hoek, A. C., and Raven, R. (2021). Towards a multi-level framework of household food waste and consumer behaviour: untangling spaghetti soup. Appetite 156:104856. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104856

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am. Psychol. 32, 513–531. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.4159/9780674028845

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). “Ecological systems theory,” in Six Theories of Child Development: Revised Formulations and Current Issues, Ed. R. Vasta (London: J Kingsley), 187–249.

Google Scholar

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Bücker, C., Geissdoerfer, M., and Kumar, M. (2022). 100 Practices to Foster Consumer Acceptance in the Circular Economy. Cambridge: Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository.

Google Scholar

Buyukyazici, D., and Quatraro, F. (2025). The skill requirements of the circular economy. Ecol. Econ. 232:108559. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108559

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V., and Salomone, R. (2024). Transition to a sustainable circular society: more than just resource efficiency. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 4, 23–42. doi: 10.1007/s43615-023-00272-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V., and Salomone, R. (2025). Degrowth or barbarism? An exploration of four circular futures for 2050. Front. Sustain. 6:1527052. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2025.1527052

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Camacho-Otero, J., Boks, C., and Pettersen, I. N. (2018). Consumption in the circular economy: a literature review. Sustainability 10:2758. doi: 10.3390/su10082758

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campoli, J. S., Alves Junior, P. N., Kodama, T. K., Nagano, M. S., and Burnquist, H. L. (2024). G20 countries' progress on the 7th SDG under circular economy DEA model. Environ. Sci. Policy 160:103839. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103839

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, L., Zheng, H., and Shah, V. (2021). Consuming to conserve: a multilevel investigation of sustainable consumption. Sustainability 14:223. doi: 10.3390/su14010223

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chizaryfard, A., Trucco, P., and Nuur, C. (2021). The transformation to a circular economy: framing an evolutionary view. J. Evol. Econ. 31, 475–504. doi: 10.1007/s00191-020-00709-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Colley, K., Hague, A., Chen, J., Lorenzo-Arribas, A., Wooldridge, T., Somervail, P., et al. (2024). Putting people at the centre of the circle: an agenda for behavioural research on the circular economy. Front. Sustain. 5:1423912. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2024.1423912

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Corvellec, H., Stowell, A. F., and Johansson, N. (2022). Critiques of the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 26, 421–432. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13187

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Davies, T., Loghmani-Khouzani, T., and Fath, B. D. (2024). “Solutions” are not the answer. Front. Sustain. 5:1509972. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2024.1509972

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

de Jesus, A., Antunes, P., Santos, R., and Mendonça, S. (2018). Eco-innovation in the transition to a circular economy: an analytical literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2999–3018. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.111

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dupoux, M., Gaudeul, A., Baggio, M., Bruns, H., Ciriolo, E., Krawczyk, M., et al. (2025). Unlocking the Full Potential of Behavioural Insights for Policy. JRC Publications Repository.

Google Scholar

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition Vol. 1. Available online at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf (Accessed June 30, 2025).

Google Scholar

Fanning, A. L., O'Neill, D. W., and Büchs, M. (2020). Provisioning systems for a good life within planetary boundaries. Glob. Environ. Change 64:102–135. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102135

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Feng, K., and Lam, C.-Y. (2021). An overview of circular economy in China: how the current challenges shape the plans for the future. Chin. Econ. 54, 355–371. doi: 10.1080/10971475.2021.1875156

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Geels, F. W., Kern, F., and Clark, W. C. (2023). Sustainability transitions in consumption-production systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 120:e2310070120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2310070120

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., and 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gomes, G. M., Moreira, N., and Ometto, A. R. (2022). Role of consumer mindsets, behaviour, and influencing factors in circular consumption systems: a systematic review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 32, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.04.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grabs, J., Langen, N., Maschkowski, G., and Schäpke, N. (2016). Understanding role models for change: a multilevel analysis of success factors of grassroots initiatives for sustainable consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 98–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.061

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Greene, M., Hobson, K., and Jaeger-Erben, M. (2024). Bringing the circular economy home – insights from socio-technical perspectives on everyday consumption. Clean. Responsible Consum. 12:100157. doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100157

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. J. Organ. Behav. 24, 905–922. doi: 10.1002/job.226

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hartley, K., van Santen, R., and Kirchherr, J. (2020). Policies for transitioning towards a circular economy: expectations from the European Union (EU). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155:104634. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104634

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hassan, H., and Faggian, R. (2023). System thinking approaches for circular economy: enabling inclusive, synergistic, and eco-effective pathways for sustainable development. Front. Sustain. 4:1267282. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1267282

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Henry, M., and Kirchherr, J. (2020). “Conceptualising circular start-ups,” in The Routledge Handbook of Waste, Resources and the Circular Economy, Eds. T. Tudor and C. J. C. Dutra (London: Routledge), 104–117.

Google Scholar

Hermann, R. R., Pansera, M., Nogueira, L. A., and Monteiro, M. (2022). Socio-technical imaginaries of a circular economy in governmental discourse and among science, technology, and innovation actors: a Norwegian case study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 183:121903. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121903

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hobson, K., Holmes, H., Welch, D., Wheeler, K., and Wieser, H. (2021). Consumption work in the circular economy: a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 321:128969. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128969

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hondroyiannis, G., Sardianou, E., Nikou, V., Evangelinos, K., and Nikolaou, I. (2024). Circular economy and macroeconomic performance: evidence across 28 European countries. Ecol. Econ. 215:108002. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Iacovidou, E., Millward-Hopkins, J., Busch, J., Purnell, P., Velis, C. A., Hahladakis, J. N., et al. (2017). A pathway to circular economy: developing a conceptual framework for complex value assessment of resources recovered from waste. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 1279–1288. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

International Resource Panel (2018). Re-defining Value – The Manufacturing Revolution. Remanufacturing, Refurbishment, Repair and Direct Reuse in the Circular Economy. Nairobi: International Resource Panel, United Nations Environment Programme.

Google Scholar

International Resource Panel (2024). Global Resource Outlook 2024: Bend the Trend—Pathways to a Livable Planet as Resource Use Spikes. Available online at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4042287?ln=ru&v=pdf (Accessed November 24, 2025).

Google Scholar

Iwanaga, T., Wang, H.-H., Hamilton, S. H., Grimm, V., Koralewski, T. E., Salado, A., et al. (2021). Socio-technical scales in socio-environmental modeling: managing a system-of-systems modeling approach. Environ. Model. Softw. 135:104885. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104885

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jaeger-Erben, M., Jensen, C., Hofmann, F., and Zwiers, J. (2021). There is no sustainable circular economy without a circular society. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 168:105476. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105476

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jensen, M. (2007). Defining lifestyle. Environ. Sci. 4, 63–73. doi: 10.1080/15693430701472747

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ke, L., Kirk, E., Lesnefsky, R., and Sadler, T. D. (2023). Exploring system dynamics of complex societal issues through socio-scientific models. Front. Educ. 8:1219224. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1219224

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., and Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kirchherr, J., Yang, N.-H. N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M. J., and Hartley, K. (2023). Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): an analysis of 221 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 194:107001. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leipold, S., Petit-Boix, A., Luo, A., Helander, H., Simoens, M., Ashton, W. S., et al. (2023). Lessons, narratives, and research directions for a sustainable circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 27, 6–18. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13346

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, K. (2025). Contested circular economy and mixed social implications from practice: a scoping review. Sustain. Dev. 33, 2154–2170. doi: 10.1002/sd.3229

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Machado, M. A. D., Almeida, S. O. D., Bollick, L. C., and Bragagnolo, G. (2019). Second-hand fashion market: consumer role in circular economy. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 23, 382–395. doi: 10.1108/JFMM-07-2018-0099

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Macklin, J., and Kaufman, S. (2023). How do we change what we cannot describe? A comprehensive framework of user behaviours in a materials' circular economy. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 4, 387–412. doi: 10.1007/s43615-023-00289-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maitre-Ekern, E., and Dalhammar, C. (2019). Towards a hierarchy of consumption behaviour in the circular economy. Maastricht J. Eur. Comp. Law 26, 394–420. doi: 10.1177/1023263X19840943

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Makarichi, L., Techato, K., and Jutidamrongphan, W. (2018). Material flow analysis as a support tool for multi-criteria analysis in solid waste management decision-making. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 139, 351–365. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marrucci, L., Daddi, T., and Iraldo, F. (2019). The integration of circular economy with sustainable consumption and production tools: systematic review and future research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 240:118268. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118268

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McIntyre, M. E. (2017). On multi-level thinking and scientific understanding. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 34, 1150–1158. doi: 10.1007/s00376-017-6283-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Merli, R., Preziosi, M., and Acampora, A. (2018). How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 703–722. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Milfont, T. L., and Markowitz, E. (2016). Sustainable consumer behavior: a multilevel perspective. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 10, 112–117. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moraga, G., Huysveld, S., Mathieux, F., Blengini, G. A., Alaerts, L., Van Acker, K., et al. (2019). Circular economy indicators: what do they measure? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 146, 452–461. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nazli, T. (2021). Repair motivation and barriers model: investigating user perspectives related to product repair towards a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 289:125644. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125644

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oliveira, M., Miguel, M., van Langen, S. K., Ncube, A., Zucaro, A., Fiorentino, G., et al. (2021). Circular economy and the transition to a sustainable society: integrated assessment methods for a new paradigm. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 1, 99–113. doi: 10.1007/s43615-021-00019-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 15181–15187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pasqualotto, C., Hoffmann Sampaio, C., and Callegaro De Menezes, D. (2023). Drivers and barriers towards circular economy: a systematic review on consumer perspective in the consumer journey. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 18:36. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v18n6p36

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. New York, NY: Rinehart & Company Inc.

Google Scholar

Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., and Ormazabal, M. (2018). Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 605–615. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.224

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J. V., and Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: new or refurbished as CE 3.0? — exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135, 246–264. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Richert, C., Boschetti, F., Walker, I., Price, J., and Grigg, N. (2017). Testing the consistency between goals and policies for sustainable development: mental models of how the world works today are inconsistent with mental models of how the world will work in the future. Sustain. Sci. 12, 45–64. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0384-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sale, J. E. M., and Carlin, L. (2025). The reliance on conceptual frameworks in qualitative research – a way forward. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 25:36. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02461-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Santos-Corrada, M. D. L. M., Méndez-Tejeda, R., Flecha-Ortiz, J. A., and Lopez, E. (2023). An analysis of sustainable consumption practices through the role of the consumer behavior in the circular economy. J. Consum. Behav. 22, 1304–1318.

Google Scholar

Schröder, P., Lemille, A., and Desmond, P. (2020). Making the circular economy work for human development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 156:104686. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104686

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheoran, M., and Kumar, D. (2020). Modelling the enablers of sustainable consumer behaviour towards electronic products. J. Model. Manag. 15, 1543–1565. doi: 10.1108/JM2-12-2018-0205

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, P., and Giacosa, E. (2019). Cognitive biases of consumers as barriers in transition towards circular economy. Manag. Decis. 57, 921–936. doi: 10.1108/MD-08-2018-0951

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Skulmoski, G., Hartman, F., and Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 6, 1–21. doi: 10.28945/199

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stahel, W. R. (2016). The circular economy. Nature 531, 435–438. doi: 10.1038/531435a

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sun, Y., Liu, N., and Zhao, M. (2019). Factors and mechanisms affecting green consumption in China: a multilevel analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 481–493. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.241

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Svensson-Hoglund, S., Russell, J. D., Guzzo, D., and Richter, J. L. (under review-c). A Qualitative Multilevel System Modeling Method: 10 Steps for Capturing Future-Oriented Alternative Economic Models from the Perspective of Individuals.

Google Scholar

Svensson-Hoglund, S., Russell, J. D., Richter, J. L., Dewick, P., Milios, L., and Calisto Friant, M. (under review-a). Advancing Our Understanding of CE Loop Strategies: A Synthesizing Framework for Durable Consumer Products.

Google Scholar

Svensson-Hoglund, S., Russell, J. D., Richter, J. L., Dewick, P., Milios, L., and Kambanou, L. M. (under review-b). Capturing the Human Side of the Product Lifecycle: A Behavior Process Framework for Product Users within a Realized Circular Economy.

Google Scholar

Tischner, U. (2024). “Beyond eco-design towards designing sustainable circular production-consumption systems,” in Design for a Sustainable Circular Economy, Eds. G. B. Melles and C. Wölfel (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 5–37. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-7532-7_2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Valtere, M., Bezrucko, T., Lauka, D., Blumberga, A., and Blumberga, D. (2025). What drives the circular economy? Textile sorting or consumption reduction. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 5, 2725–2749. doi: 10.1007/s43615-025-00584-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van de Vijver, F. J. R., van Hemert, D. A., and Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.). (2008). Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar

van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System Design Modeling and Metamodeling. New York, NY: Springer US.

Google Scholar

Vidal-Ayuso, F., Akhmedova, A., and Jaca, C. (2023). The circular economy and consumer behaviour: literature review and research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 418:137824. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137824

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vollebregt, M., Mugge, R., Thürridl, C., and van Dolen, W. (2024). Reducing without losing: reduced consumption and its implications for well-being. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 45, 91–103. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2023.12.023

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Voulvoulis, N. (2022). Transitioning to a sustainable circular economy: the transformation required to decouple growth from environmental degradation. Front. Sustain. 3:859896. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2022.859896

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Walzberg, J., Frayret, J., Eberle, A. L., Carpenter, A., and Heath, G. (2023). Agent-based modeling and simulation for the circular economy: lessons learned and path forward. J. Ind. Ecol. 27, 1227–1238. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13423

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, C., Ghadimi, P., Lim, M. K., and Tseng, M.-L. (2019). A literature review of sustainable consumption and production: a comparative analysis in developed and developing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 741–754. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.172

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wangel, J., Hesselgren, M., Eriksson, E., Broms, L., Kanulf, G., and Ljunggren, A. (2019). Vitiden: Transforming a policy-orienting scenario to a practice-oriented energy fiction. Futures 112:102440. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2019.102440

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yamaguchi, S. (2021). International Trade and Circular Economy—Policy Alignment. OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers, Vol. 2021/02. Paris: OECD.

Google Scholar

Zhijun, F., and Nailing, Y. (2007). Putting a Circular Economy into practice in China. Sustain. Sci. 2, 95–101. doi: 10.1007/s11625-006-0018-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar