Bus Strat Env - 2021 - Pinheiro - Circular economy‐based new products and company performance The role of stakeholders and

Received: 30 June 2021 Revised: 23 August 2021 Accepted: 8 September 2021
DOI: 10.1002/bse.2905
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Circular economy-based new products and company

performance: The role of stakeholders and Industry 4.0
technologies
Marco Antonio Paula Pinheiro1 | Daniel Jugend1 |

Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour | Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour3
2
|
Hengky Latan4
1
UNESP – S~ao Paulo State University,
Production Engineering Department, Bauru, Abstract
Brazil While the circular economy (CE) attracts attention from scholars and practitioners,
2
EM Normandie Business School, Metis Lab,
the concept has been challenged by claims that the CE may be seen as a vague con-
Paris, France
3
Emlyon Business School, Ecully, France cept, or a new label for old green management practices. We propose a new approach
4
HLC Consulting, Department of Statistics, to study the effects of the CE on company performance: circular product design
Economics and Management, Semarang,
(CPD). Consequently, this work investigates how Industry 4.0 technologies and stake-
Indonesia
holder pressure influence CPD and, in turn, impact on company performance. Data
Correspondence
were obtained from firms which develop products in the electric–electronic and
Daniel Jugend, UNESP – S~ao Paulo State
University, Production Engineering equipment (EEE) sectors in Brazil. Our research results indicate that (i) the application
Department, Av. Engenheiro Luiz Edmundo
of Industry 4.0 technologies favors CPD, in particular artificial intelligence and big
Carrijo Coube 14-01, Bauru, SP, Brazil.
Email: [email protected] data analytics; (ii) pressure from stakeholders can encourage the adoption of circular
strategies, specially from suppliers because they are responsible for developing and
delivering smart components; and (iii) although the literature may be seen as contro-
versial, there is a positive relationship with regard to the impacts of CE adoption on
market performance. Among its main implications, the article also suggests a set of
design strategies oriented towards the development of products for the CE.
KEYWORDS
circular economy, emerging technologies, new product development, performance,
stakeholders, sustainable design
1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N Anchored in the need for more systemic research on how the CE

may be further utilized (Kirchherr et al., 2018), this research considers
The circular economy (CE) and its effects on company performance that Industry 4.0 technologies and stakeholders pressure play a rele-
and the sustainability of society is an emerging topic, which has vant role in the CE literature (Jakhar et al., 2019; Rosa et al., 2020).
attracted significant attention from both scholars and policymakers. However, no studies have been found covering their interplay with
While a number of scholars point out that the CE may be a limited circular product design (CPD). This study contributes to the state of
concept (e.g., Barreiro-Gen & Lozano, 2020; Gandolfo & Lupi, 2021; the art in the fields of sustainability and the ecological transformation
Korhonen et al., 2018), which is not fulfilling its promises (Clube & of society, providing evidence addressed to CPD. We investigated the
Tennant, 2020), it is clear that more systemic research should be con- emerging Industry 4.0 technologies and stakeholder pressure on CPD
ducted on the relationships between the CE, emerging economies, and, in turn, their impact on company performance. Moreover, we
stakeholder pressure, and company performance. empirically tested the relationship between CPD and company
Bus Strat Env. 2022;31:483–499. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse © 2021 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 483
10990836, 2022, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.2905 by National Taiwan University, Wiley Online Library on [21/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
484 PINHEIRO ET AL.
performance through a quantitative approach, which adds to the liter- Does the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies and pressure from
ature on the CE. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no stakeholders influence on the adoption of CPD? Does the CPD adoption
previous studies testing the relationship of these themes empirically. affect environmental and market performance?
Since CPD has been pointed out as one of the key movements To address these questions, we proposed and then developed a
towards the CE, it has been the subject of many recent studies quantitative research model, which integrates the constructs: Industry
(e.g., Arroyabe et al., 2021; Bocken et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2021). 4.0, stakeholder pressure, CPD, and environmental and market
CPD aims to develop products that have multiple cycles (Selvefors performance.
et al., 2019) while preserving the quality of materials and avoiding Although CPD can contribute to the development of sustainable
waste (Franco, 2019). In this regard, several circular strategies, also products and it is recognized as a field of study in the CE (Bocken
known as design-for-X (DfX) approaches, have become the standard: et al., 2016; Mestre & Cooper, 2017), no studies have been found
such as product life extension, modularization, upgrading, and durabil- addressing this topic by means of quantitative surveys, especially in
ity (Moreno et al., 2016). Moreover, products approaching the emerging markets such as Brazil. Therefore, it is relevant to contribute
servitization and product-service-system (PSS) business have also to this field and fill this gap, since the relationship between Industry
been proposed as circular business models (Halstenberg et al., 2019; 4.0 technologies, stakeholder pressure, and CPD is unclear, as well as
Okorie et al., 2021). the influence that CPD may have on the environment or market per-
Firms looking towards less-polluting energy sources and for bet- formance. For instance, the lack of market demand has still been iden-
ter input consumption have adopted Industry 4.0 technologies (Tiwari tified as a relevant barrier to the adoption of design for sustainability
et al., 2015). However, the adoption of these technologies has chan- and eco-design (Boks, 2006; Küçüksayraç, 2015); thus, it is relevant to
ged companies' operations (Rajput & Singh, 2019), affecting different investigate whether this also occurs in relation to CPD.
areas, such as supply chain management, manufacturing, and waste Companies from the electric–electronic and equipment (EEE) sec-
management (Bag et al., 2021; Shahbazi & Jönbrink, 2020). Some tors were chosen to participate in this research, since (i) their compo-
studies have also suggested the importance of Industry 4.0 technolo- nents are highly polluting (Bovea & Pérez-Belis, 2018; Sassanelli
gies for the adoption of CPD (e.g., Halstenberg et al., 2019; Lin, 2018), et al., 2020); (ii) several challenges related to the reuse and
since Industry 4.0 technologies can drive the development of smart remanufacturing of EEE have been identified in the CPD literature
products (Halstenberg et al., 2019) as well as facilitate the adoption of et al., 2017); and
(e.g., Bovea & Pérez-Belis, 2018; Talens Peiro
additive manufacturing in companies (Sauerwein et al., 2019). (iii) companies in these sectors have been pursuing the development
Furthermore, the adoption of Industry 4.0 may require efforts of more connected and smart products with technologies, such as the
from stakeholders such as governments and policymakers in coopera- internet of things (IoT) and sensors, cloud computing, data analysis,
tion with industries and end-users (Despeisse et al., 2017; Modgil big data, and artificial intelligence (AI) (Kahle et al., 2020).
et al., 2021). In the context of emerging markets, stakeholders' inter- The structure of the article is as follows. Section 2 presents the
est in the CE is growing, since stakeholders have greater power and theoretical framework and hypotheses; Section 3 contains the
influence on corporate environmental practices (e.g., Gupta research methodology; Section 4 addresses the research results;
et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019), and especially when considering the Section 5 presents a discussion; and Section 6 encapsulates the
recent efforts of firms towards adopting the CE (e.g., Jakhar conclusions.
et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Subramanian et al., 2019), and currently
even to the CPD (Hapuwatte & Jawahir, 2021). It is important to high-
light that in countries like Brazil that still have an institutional void in 2 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND
relation to the CE, the role of stakeholders is even more relevant HY P O T H E S E S
when considering the adoption of circular practices (Jabbour
et al., 2020). Thus, the theory of stakeholders deserves to be exten- 2.1 | Circular product design
sively investigated in the CE and in CPD, especially when considering
an environment of an institutional void. The CE proposes an approach to energy and materials that can pro-
This article aims to contribute to the fields of the CE by investi- vide economic, environmental, and social benefits when companies
gating the impact of the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies and replace the traditional perspective of “take, make, use, and dispose,”
stakeholder pressure on CPD and the impact of adopting CPD princi- also known as the linear economy, with the CE (Sauvé et al., 2016). In
ples on company performance. Due to the relevance of operations a linear system, value creation is based on material flow, where virgin
management, sustainability, and innovation technology (Sousa materials enter the upstream value chain. The entire product value,
Jabbour et al., 2019); the scarcity of empirical studies in developing except for the raw material value, is added through manufacturing
countries (Goyal et al., 2016); and company performance with respect processes (Ghisellini et al., 2016). Seeking to overcome this system,
to CPD, this study aims to answer the following questions which still CPD aims to decouple value creation from the consumption of finite
need further clarification in companies operating in an emerging mar- resources by enabling multiple life cycles in which products, compo-
ket, such as Brazil: nents, and materials have extended lifespans (Shahbazi et al., 2020).
PINHEIRO ET AL. 485
CPD aims to maintain product value as long as viable, focusing on shareholders and financiers, communities, and employees, and with
design methods that result in extending the useable life, either how they interact to jointly create and trade value (Sarkis et al., 2010).
through easy maintenance or by ensuring reliability and durability Due to an increased awareness and knowledge of stakeholders
(Chouinard et al., 2019; den Hollander et al., 2017). For this, the CPD regarding sustainability issues, industries push to reconcile the whole
approach presents three fundamental looping strategies: narrowing, product life cycle including sourcing, manufacture, use, disposal, and
slowing, and closing loops (Bocken et al., 2016). Narrowing aims to recovering the value of the product after its useful life (Jakhar
design products that use the least quantity of resources within a pro- et al., 2019). The relationship between industry and the environment
duction process. Slowing is focused on designing long lifetime prod- is relevant for a company's performance and its importance has been
ucts and related activities to use and reuse products and materials for amplified due to stakeholder concerns (Lieder & Rashid, 2016).
prolonged use and reuse. Closing aims to establish continuous product Stakeholder theory is considered relevant when moving from a
flows in an environment, from the end of the cycle to post-use and linear consumption system to a circular model (Gandolfo &
production (Bocken et al., 2016). Lupi, 2021; Gupta et al., 2019), since a well-designed business model
To allow the customization, updating, or upgrading of products, seeks to create value for a company and its customers (Moggi &
aspects such as software updates, exchanges, or the improvement of Dameri, 2021), as well as stakeholders, such as suppliers and business
components and modules during use are necessary (Moreno partners. Stakeholder theory has also found its way into research on
et al., 2016; Shahbazi & Jönbrink, 2020). Moreover, products that the CE and company performance (Jakhar et al., 2019). Moreover, in
offer an appearance customers desire to use for long periods are also the context of emerging markets, stakeholders' interest in the CE is
a part of the CPD approach (den Hollander et al., 2017; Haines-Gadd growing (Gupta et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Subramanian et al., 2019).
et al., 2018). The nature of CPD is such that it focuses on early failures Several studies have also considered the relevant effect of stake-
and uncertainties in the process towards environmental solutions holders on the performance of firms in these markets (e.g., Jabbour
(Andrae et al., 2020), considering new product development (NPD) et al., 2015; Li et al., 2019), some in the context of the CE (Jabbour
design aspects, such as recovery, disassembly, recycling, et al., 2020).
remanufacturing, reuse, repair, and refurbishment (den Hollander Although there are already studies relating the pressure of stake-
et al., 2017; Pinheiro et al., 2019; Sassanelli et al., 2020). holders to the adoption of the CE, its relations with the CPD have not
Although CPD plays a relevant role for the CE (Arroyabe yet been investigated. The shift from traditional NPD to CPD also
et al., 2021), the literature has shown some challenges to its adoption. requires changes in production and consumption (Subramanian
Chief among the main barriers are the technological limitations of et al., 2019) and, as such, the stakeholders involved in this process
products and processes (Holtström et al., 2019), and the high costs have important roles to play (Baldassarre et al., 2017; Modgil
and investments necessary to adopt a new business model based on et al., 2021). Furthermore, various stakeholder groups have been
CPD (Kaddoura et al., 2019). Moreover, the alignment and capability pressuring firms to adopt circular strategies (Gupta et al., 2019; Jakhar
of the supply chain (De los Rios & Charnley, 2017; Kane et al., 2018) et al., 2019), which tend to have implications as well for CPD
and customer preferences (Holtström et al., 2019) have been seen as (Hapuwatte & Jawahir, 2021). Therefore, we attempt to understand
key points to address. Additionally, customers may be not ready for the role that stakeholder pressure plays on a firm's CPD, through the
the idea of buying circular products (Kirchherr et al., 2018), either by following hypothesis:
supporting reverse supply chains or by having a belief common among
consumers that remanufactured, reengineered parts and recycled H1. Stakeholder pressure has a positive effect on CPD.
materials are of poorer quality (Kane et al., 2018).
2.3 | Industry 4.0 and CPD

2.2 | The role of stakeholders in CPD
The relationship between the emerging Industry 4.0 technologies and
Over the last few decades, a growing number of academics and practi- CE has been recently debated, and there have already been some
tioners have been using concepts and theories that aim to enable the examples presenting the overlaps between these topics, such as Cir-
complexities of today's business to be understood (Iskandar & cular I4.0 and Digital CE (Awan et al., 2021; Bag et al., 2020). The
Ariffin, 2019; Sarkis et al., 2011). In this context, the theory of stake- incorporation of these technologies requires change with respect to
holders is one of the most relevant (e.g., Gupta et al., 2019; Sarkis the development of new products (Frank et al., 2019). When products
et al., 2011). From the point of view of stakeholder theory, a business become smarter, companies may upgrade their digital components;
can be seen as a set of relationships among groups that have a stake therefore, product upgradability is also enhanced, which helps the
in the activities that make up the business (Freeman, 1984). transition towards CE, since it contrasts product obsolescence and
Stakeholder participation and engagement are considered a rele- material waste (Rymaszewska et al., 2017).
vant process to accommodate the preferences of many stakeholder To implement technologies in CPD, it is important to overcome
groups (Jakhar et al., 2019; Sarkis et al., 2011). In general, stakeholder barriers related to the emerging technological improvements and con-
theory deals with the pressures from customers, governments,
cepts, especially those related to Industry 4.0 (e.g., Avila-Gutiérrez
486 PINHEIRO ET AL.
et al., 2019; Pham et al., 2019; Rosa et al., 2020). In this sense, Indus- as the reduction of emissions, effluent or solid wastes, and a decrease
try 4.0 technologies can also drive CE by either tracking products in either the consumption of toxic materials or in the frequency of
post-consumption, to recover components (Jabbour et al., 2019), or environmental accidents should be considered (Li et al., 2019; Raut
optimizing sustainable solutions to reduce emissions from and et al., 2019). A positive EP can help a company establish a good image
resources used in industrial systems (Tseng et al., 2018). Furthermore, and gain reputation; it could also be a source of market legitimacy;
to meet end-of-life (EoL) product requirements, real-time product this is because a “green” image contributes to winning trust and loy-
monitoring systems tend to be improved (Hapuwatte & alty from customers (Li et al., 2019).
Jawahir, 2021). Prior studies have discussed the relationship between EP and
Within the field of emerging technologies, Industry 4.0 has intro- market performance (MP) (e.g., Dangelico et al., 2017; Jabbour
duced companies to the IoT or cyber-physical systems, which have et al., 2015). In this case, company reputation, image, and alignment
revolutionized inter-equipment communication—through the internet between what a company offers and consumer expectations are com-
and data storage in cloud computing, augmented and virtual reality, mon assessment measures (González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006;
simulation and virtualization of production, among other technologies Iskandar & Ariffin, 2019). An increase in EP provides a positive brand

(Avila-Gutiérrez et al., 2019). IoT technology also allows companies to image, increases market share, and improves operational performance
collect a large amount of data, usually called Big Data (Nobre & and innovative capabilities (Dangelico et al., 2017). MP can also be
Tavares, 2019; Rosa et al., 2020). Thus, Big Data combined with understood as the ability of firms to gain market share due to the out-
appropriate analytics can advance management directed towards the comes of their rivals with respect to customer satisfaction, new cus-
CE by feeding sustainability-oriented decision-making processes with tomer acquisition, and loyalty in the context of the service industry
information on environmental impact throughout a product's life cycle (Rajapathirana & Hui, 2018).
(Kamble et al., 2021), also contributing to reuse, waste reduction, and Some companies are motivated to implement circular strategies
product recycling (Awan et al., 2021). that could enhance their potential to gain substantial competitive
The development and use of AI and intelligent systems, which advantages through economic performance and EP. The CE approach
make use of robotic sensors and actuators, are also examples of could increase the revenue and market share of some companies,
Industry 4.0 technologies that can be applied to boost CPD since it may help them to advertise their products and to be competi-
(Ghoreishi & Happonen, 2020). Despite their relevance, studies relat- tive in global marketing (Iskandar & Ariffin, 2019; Raut et al., 2019).
ing to Industry 4.0 and CPD are still insufficient (Kiel et al., 2017; However, the adoption of circular strategies has faced market chal-
Müller et al., 2018). There is also a need to explore the connection of lenges, due to the cost of raw materials that are sometimes cheaper
cyber-physical systems to the IoT to support smart remanufacturing, than the recycled or remanufactured materials; consumers may also
while aligning with the evolving circularity in business (Bag be unwilling to accept products that are shared, remanufactured, or
et al., 2020; Bag et al., 2021; Kerin & Pham, 2019). Therefore, we reused (Kirchherr et al., 2018). In this context, it is still not clear what
derived the second hypothesis: influences CPD may present on company performance. Thus, we con-
sidered the following hypotheses:
H2. The adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies has a
positive effect on CPD. H3. CPD has a positive effect on the EP of companies.
H4. CPD has a positive effect on the MP of companies.

2.4 | CPD and company performance
H5. EP has a positive effect on the MP of companies.
Product success and company performance are connected, since
many companies have tried to manage the success of individual short- Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework adopted in this study
term products within the context of a company's long-term perfor- as a consequence of the hypotheses.
mance (Luchs et al., 2016). Measures of success are often tied to com- Furthermore, we considered as control variables the “company
pany performance variables such as market share, sales, quality, brand size,” “exportation activities,” and “ISO 14001” certification. Previous
development, innovation capacity, speed of marketing, and profit studies indicate that size may influence the performance of companies
(Nappi & Rozenfeld, 2015). The systematization of CPD has been a (e.g., Dangelico et al., 2017; González-Benito & González-
concern to reaching higher levels of company performance Benito, 2006; Jabbour et al., 2015). Exporting companies competing
(Sihvonen & Partanen, 2017); as a result, the increased concern for in the global market need to be efficient and innovative (Govindaraju
circular aspects results in the need for performance measures (Saidani et al., 2013; Khan et al., 2021), while being more likely to meet envi-
et al., 2019). ronmental requirements (Khan et al., 2021; Tsai & Liao, 2017), which
Environmental performance (EP) is considered one of the major can influence their performance. Finally, studies have also suggested
components for company commitment to sustainable development that, even in different contexts, the adoption of ISO 14001 can influ-
(Jabbour et al., 2020); it is also one of the main goals of the CE ence the performance of firms (Johnstone & Hallberg, 2020; Nishitani
(Ghisellini et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019). In measuring EP, variables such et al., 2012).
PINHEIRO ET AL. 487
FIGURE 1 Research framework
3 | RESEARCH METHOD TABLE 1 Constructs and references
Construct Reference
3.1 | Measures and scales Stakeholder Sarkis et al. (2010), Jakhar et al. (2019).
pressure
Aiming to answer the research question and to meet the objectives of Industry 4.0 Sousa Jabbour et al. (2018), Rajput and
this research, we adopted a quantitative survey. The development of Singh (2019), Pham et al. (2019).
the questionnaire used in this research consisted of two stages. As a Circular product Bocken et al. (2016), den Hollander et al. (2017),
first stage, the theoretical review supported in developing the design Sinclair et al. (2018), Halstenberg et al. (2019),
Selvefors et al. (2019).
research model was applied. Regarding stakeholder pressure, we
based questions on Sarkis et al. (2010) and Jakhar et al. (2019). The Environmental Paulraj (2011).
performance
“Industry 4.0” construct was based, mainly, on Sousa Jabbour
Market Ingenbleek et al. (2013), Jabbour et al. (2015).
et al. (2018), Rajput and Singh (2019), and Pham et al. (2019).
performance
The “CPD” construct was developed based on Bocken
et al. (2016), den Hollander et al. (2017), Sinclair et al. (2018),
Halstenberg et al. (2019), and Selvefors et al. (2019). Bocken
et al. (2016) and den Hollander et al. (2017) observed that CPD first draft of the document was sent to nine specialists—five working
encompasses design approaches to recyclability, remanufacturing, at companies and four academic researchers—to obtain their percep-
reuse, disassembly, maintenance, refurbishing, and emotional durabil- tions for each item of the questionnaire. Suggestions for improvement
ity. The design of products that are able to satisfy multiple different were made and incorporated into the final questionnaire. This stage
users was addressed in Sinclair et al. (2018) and Selvefors aimed to determine the validity and accuracy with which the ques-
et al. (2019). Finally, Sinclair et al. (2018) and Halstenberg et al. (2019) tions addressed practices in the industry. The questionnaire also had a
highlighted the PSS as a means of achieving CPD. cover letter containing the objective of the research and the contact
The independent constructs were EP (based on Paulraj, 2011) details of researchers working in Brazil (e-mail and telephone num-
and MP (based on Ingenbleek et al., 2013; Jabbour et al., 2015). bers), in case respondents had any doubts. The original questionnaire
“Company size” (number of employees), the presence of “ISO 14001” was developed and written in the Brazilian–Portuguese language,
certification, and “exportation” (if the company has export activities) which in this article has been translated into English (Appendix A).
were considered as control variables. Table 1 summarizes the refer-
ences we used for underpinning each of the constructs of the theoret-
ical framework. 3.2 | Sample description and data collection
The second stage adopted for developing the questionnaire
included a pre-test carried out on researchers and practitioners in the The population framed in this study, regarding the collection of data,
areas of product development and environmental management. The was Brazilian firms that develop products in the EEE sector. The
488 PINHEIRO ET AL.
population was obtained through lists of the companies associated bias and common method variance. An independent t-test was used
with the Brazilian Association of the Electrical and Electronics Industry to compare the mean difference of two response waves—early and
(known as ABINEE, its Portuguese acronym) and with the Brazilian late responders, with the assumption that the late responders repre-
Association of Machinery and Equipment Industry (known as ABIMAQ, sented a sample who did not respond to the survey (Fulton, 2018);
its Portuguese acronym). The LinkedIn professional social network was our results found no significant differences (p > .05) in both the
the main source for contacting the professionals from the participat- Levene test and the equality of means for the variables in the model
ing companies. (Table 3). In addition, the common method variance was considered in
The questionnaire was sent to mid-to-high-level employees of this study, which often occurs in the self-reporting technique using
the companies (e.g., analysts, engineers, managers, and directors). We the survey method (Doty & Glick, 1998; Malhotra et al., 2006). We
chose these positions because they are professionals normally concluded that non-response bias did not affect our further analysis.
involved with the NPD process and also with monitoring company In addition, the common method variance was considered in this
results. In addition, working in the EEE sector means that these pro- study, which often occurs in the self-reporting technique using the
fessionals are also involved with Industry 4.0 technologies. Several survey method. We use Harman's single factor to detect this bias. We
previous studies have contacted staff in this type of position as a suit- found five factors extracted, with the largest percentage of variance
able profile of respondent (e.g., Bag et al., 2021; Dangelico being 27.93% (less than 50%). Therefore, we concluded that the com-
et al., 2013; Schmidt et al., 2021). The website Survey Monkey hosted mon method variance did not occur in our measurement and survey.
the management of the questionnaire sent to the participating compa- However, we acknowledge that these biases may still exist and our
nies. Data were collected from companies across Brazil, thus ensuring data are not completely free from these biases.
sample representativeness.
The invitation letter reached 952 companies, and our final sample
comprised 142 companies. We only considered questionnaires from 3.3 | Data analysis
companies that develop products (i.e., companies that only distribute
products were excluded). In total, 81.7% of respondents identified We employed partial least squares (PLS) path modeling for data analy-
their companies as electronics, machinery, and equipment based, sis. Some justifications for the use of PLS are considered, as follows.
16.2% identified as being involved with consumer goods, companies First, the PLS approach is useful when involving complex models with
that make and sell products for direct use by the buyers (in the medium sample sizes. In our case, a small to moderate population size
business-to-consumer market, b2c), and 2.1% represented other kinds is appropriate for the case of PLS (Hair et al., 2019). Second, this
of companies (Table 2). approach is often referred to as an alternative method for structural
Several preliminary tests were conducted to ensure that measure- equation modeling (SEM) when the maximum likelihood
ment and data collection were free of biases, such as non-response (ML) estimator cannot work. Since our data are not normal, PLS is the
right choice over ML or multiple regression (Ramli et al., 2018). Finally,
PLS offers several other advantages, such as being suitable for model
TABLE 2 Profile of firms and respondents development with weak to moderate theoretical support (in our case,
Frequency e.g., CPD) and supporting advanced features. We calculated the mini-
Respondent characteristics (%) mum sample requirements for our model and found our data to be
No. of employees greater than 76 cases (where the minimum absolute significant path
<100 48 (33.8) coefficient was 2.64, the significance level was .05, and the required
power level was 0.80). Additionally, our sample is larger than other
Between 100 and 500 42 (29.6)
relevant works in the areas of green production and green product
>500 52 (36.6)
development (e.g., Dangelico et al., 2013; Klassen & Whybark, 1999;
Job position
Rao, 2002). The results of the PLS analysis were reported as follows.
Managers (marketing, sales, product, quality, among 44 (31.0)
First, we reported the results of the measurement model through con-
others)
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) (e.g., factors loadings, average variance
Directors and CEOs 34 (23.9)
Analysts and assistants (marketing, quality, among 25 (17.6)
others)
TABLE 3 Assessment of non-response bias
Engineers (projects, products, among others) 21 (14.8)
Construct Levene's test Sig. t-test
Coordinators and supervisors (R&D, quality, 18 (12.7)
environment, projects, products, among others) Industry 4.0 (IND) 0.822 0.683
Sector Stakeholder pressure (STP) 0.961 0.663
Electronics, machinery and equipment 116 (81.7) Circular product design (CPD) 0.533 0.507
Consumer goods 23 (16.2) Environmental performance (EPR) 0.901 0.750
Others 3 (2.1) Market performance (MPR) 0.862 0.666
PINHEIRO ET AL. 489
extracted, and composite reliability). Second, we reported the results our data were free from collinearity. To support this conclusion, we
of the structural model through the least squares (LS) estimator calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each predictor in the
2
(e.g., r , effect size, and p-value). Third, we tested the hypothesis using model and found VIF values < 3, which meet a rule-of-thumb thresh-
a bootstrapping approach at a 95% confidence interval (CI). Finally, old (see Table 7). In addition, we confirmed that descriptive statistics
we reported the results of robustness checks to strengthen our main and correlations between variables were based on complete data
findings. without missing values. However, we excluded outliers from our data
We used the SmartPLS 3 software to analyze our data (Ringle to get precise results with z-scores > 2.56.
et al., 2015) and implemented specific settings before running it. In
the PLS algorithm settings, we selected the path weighting scheme
with the maximum number of iterations set at 300 and a stop criterion 4.1 | Measurement model assessment
7 07
of 10 (1.0E ). In terms of bootstrapping, we used 5000 subsam-
ples to obtain stability of model estimates through CI methods, We conducted a CFA to assess the measurement model, consisting
namely, a bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap. In addition, of factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), Cronbach's
we set the level of significance to reject null hypothesis using one- alpha (α), and composite reliability (ρc). We obtained the factor load-
tailed at 5%. ings values for each indicator > 0.708 and AVE > 0.5, respectively,
in line with the recommended thresholds for maintaining convergent
validity (Garson, 2016; Hair et al., 2017; Ramli et al., 2018).
4 | RESULTS Although a few indicators yielded values below this cut-off, it is still
acceptable for strengthening content validity (Bandalos, 2018). In
Tables 4 and 5 present descriptive statistics (the means and standard addition, we obtained α and ρc values greater than 0.70, which met
deviations) of each indicator variable; Table 6 presents the correlation the requirements of internal consistency reliability (Hair et al., 2017;
between the variables. Following the guidelines of Bedeian (2014), we Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Finally, the goodness of fit (GoF) index
confirmed that the mean and standard deviation of the variables in for the CFA model included a standardized root mean square resid-
the model did not exceed the maximum, and the correlation sign was ual (SRMR) of 0.077 < 0.08 and normed fit index (NFI) of
not reversed. We found no correlation greater than .70 for all pairs of 0.923 > 0.90, which indicated that our CFA model was a good fit
relationships between variables, which gave an initial indication that (Schuberth et al., 2018).
TABLE 4 Measurement model assessment of Industry 4.0, stakeholder pressure, and environmental performance
Indicator/item Code Mean SD FL AVE α ρc

A. Industry 4.0 (IND) 0.596 0.861 0.897
Internet of things (IoT) IN1 3.908 1.363 0.844
Cloud computing IN2 4.204 1.172 0.683
Big Data IN3 3.620 1.378 0.848
3D printer/additive manufacturing IN4 2.901 1.580 0.609
Simulation/augmented reality IN5 3.021 1.465 0.754
Artificial intelligence (AI) IN6 3.085 1.540 0.858
B. Stakeholder pressure (STP) 0.593 0.864 0.897
Customers ST1 3.486 1.167 0.728
Federal government ST2 3.930 1.179 0.778
Regional regulations ST3 3.880 1.154 0.741
Employees ST4 3.824 1.134 0.790
Top management/shareholders ST5 4.056 1.040 0.717
Suppliers ST6 3.739 1.092 0.858
C. Environmental performance (EPR) 0.615 0.847 0.888
Reduced atmospheric emissions EP1 3.944 1.053 0.815
Reduced water and energy consumption EP2 4.352 0.743 0.836
Reduced solid waste generation EP3 4.218 0.840 0.839
Reduced consumption of hazardous materials EP4 4.261 0.845 0.753
Improved the environmental situation EP5 4.408 0.789 0.663
Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; FL, factor loading; SD, standard deviation; α, Cronbach's alpha; ρc, composite reliability.
490 PINHEIRO ET AL.
T A B L E 5 Measurement model
Indicator/item Code Mean SD FL AVE α ρc
assessment of circular product design
A. Circular product design (CPD) 0.500 0.880 0.902 and market performance
Recyclability CD1 4.099 0.922 0.700
Reuse CD2 4.169 0.847 0.659
Remanufacturing CD3 4.042 0.978 0.703
Maintenance CD4 4.218 0.965 0.663
Disassemble CD5 4.155 0.842 0.674
Refurbished CD6 3.845 0.898 0.757
Emotional durability CD7 4.106 0.998 0.710
Updating/upgrading CD8 4.225 0.937 0.676
Product-service system (PSS) CD9 4.310 1.022 0.715
Multiple circles CD10 4.113 1.042 0.653
B. Market performance) 0.613 0.841 0.887
Increased market share MP1 4.197 0.833 0.783
Opened new markets MP2 4.444 0.666 0.685
Improved image and reputation MP3 4.479 0.647 0.809
Improved profitability MP4 4.141 0.924 0.777
Improved competitiveness MP5 4.303 0.814 0.850
Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; FL, factor loading; SD, standard deviation; α, Cronbach's
alpha; ρc, composite reliability.
TABLE 6 Assessment of discriminant validity using the Fornell–Lacker criterion, the heterotrait monotrait ratio, and correlations
Construct 1 2 3 4 5
CPD (0.692) 0.310** 0.564** 0.304** 0.333**
EPR 0.350 [0.475; 223] (0.784) 0.219** 0.368** 0.538**
IND 0.647 [0.745; 535] 0.261 [0.350; 106] (0.772) 0.265** 0.220**
MPR 0.359 [0.497; 221] 0.436 [0.549; 309] 0.336 [0.456; 208] (0.783) 0.300**
STP 0.379 [0.501; 250] 0.621 [0.720; 510] 0.257 [0.374; 144] 0.364 [0.499; 225] (0.770)
Note: Brackets show the upper and lower bounds of the 95% BCa confidence intervals. Diagonal and bold elements are the square roots of the AVE
(average variance extracted). Below the diagonal are the HTMT values. Above the diagonal are the correlations between the construct.
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
TABLE 7 Structural model assessment
Construct R2 Adj. R2 f2 Q2 VIF Harman's single factor

Industry 4.0 (IND) – – 0.497 – 1.052
Stakeholder pressure (STP) – – 0.089 – 1.052
Circular product design (CPD) 0.417 0.408 0.088 0.173 1.059 27.93% variance explained
Environmental performance (EPR) 0.136 0.110 0.118 0.068 1.157
Market performance (MPR) 0.213 0.184 – 0.114 –
In addition to convergent validity, we assessed the discriminant Second, we assessed the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio. HTMT
validity using two approaches. First, we compared the square root of values greater than 0.90 show the similarity of measurements
AVE with the correlation between latent variables. This approach is between variables, while HTMT values less than 0.85 show the oppo-
often called the Fornell–Lacker criterion. In Table 6, the diagonal line site (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). In Table 6, the HTMT values gener-
shows the square root of AVE is greater than the correlation between ated below the diagonal line are less than 0.85, indicating that
variables, which means that the discriminant validity is fulfilled. discriminant validity was established.
PINHEIRO ET AL. 491
4.2 | Structural model assessment relationships between variables. Overall, our hypotheses on the rela-
tionship between variables (Table 8) were supported. For the relation-
We reported several core metrics for evaluating structural models and ships between STP ! CPD, IND ! CPD, and CPD ! EPR, we found
related parameters. In this regard, we reported the coefficient of positive and significant effects with beta (β) values of 0.233, 0.552,
determination (R2) for each endogenous variable and the effect size and 0.283, respectively, which were significant at p < .01 at the 95%
(f2) for each predictor in the model. We obtained R2 values for the CI. Therefore, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. Finally, for the rela-
endogenous variables in the proposed model ranging from 0.136 to tionship between CPD ! MPR and EPR ! MPR, we found a positive
0.417 (Table 7). According to Hair et al. (2017), these values fall into and significant effect with beta (β) values of 0.200 and 0.328, respec-
large categories. Regarding the magnitude of the contribution vari- tively, which was significant at p < .05 at the 95% CI. Hence, H4 and
ance, we obtained f2 values ranging from 0.088 to 0.497 (Table 7). H5 were supported.
2
Based on Garson (2016) and Hair et al. (2017), f values are included
in the small-to-large category. We obtained predictive relevance (Q2)
values through a blindfolding procedure for each dependent variable 4.4 | Robustness checks
in the model greater than 0. The Q2 results indicate that the PLS
model was “fit” (Latan et al., 2018). We conducted three robustness checks to reinforce our main findings.
First, we assessed endogeneity bias through the Heckman test with
the Stata 16.0 program. We found no endogeneity biases, including
4.3 | Testing of hypotheses inverse causality, sample-selection bias, and omitted variables
(Peel, 2018). We found no significant differences in the various com-
We simultaneously tested our hypotheses through the LS estimator. binations of each relationship in the model after controlling for other
The results of the hypothesis testing are shown in Figure 2. To test variables (Table 9). These results confirm that our main findings were
whether our hypotheses were supported, we looked at the sign of the free from endogeneity bias. Second, we examined the potential of
path coefficient (β) and the 95% bootstrap CI through p-values on the nonlinear relationships between variables. Because PLS generally
FIGURE 2 Evaluation of the measurement and structural models

492 PINHEIRO ET AL.
TABLE 8 Testing of the hypotheses

Structural path Coef (β) SD p-value 95% BCa CI Conclusion
STP ! CPD 0.233 0.072 .001** (0.341; 0.109)** H1 supported
IND ! CPD 0.552 0.066 .000** (0.645; 0.421)** H2 supported
CPD ! EPR 0.283 0.090 .001** (0.416; 0.117)** H3 supported
CPD ! MPR 0.200 0.086 .010** (0.328; 0.144)** H4 supported
EPR ! MPR 0.328 0.078 .000** (0.441; 0.181)** H5 supported
**, * statistically significant at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
TABLE 9 Assessment of endogeneity bias using the Heckman test
Test Coef (β) SD z 95% BCa CI Conclusion

STP ! CPD (selection DV = MPR; IV = IND) 0.417 0.099 4.20** (0.222; 0.611)** Not present
IND ! CPD (selection DV = EPR; IV = STP) 0.563 0.069 8.13** (0.427; 0.699)** Not present
CPD ! EPR (selection DV = MPR; IV = STP) 0.159 0.041 3.89** (0.079; 0.240)** Not present
CPD ! MPR (selection DV = EPR; IV = IND) 0.142 0.037 3.80** (0.068; 0.215)** Not present
EPR ! MPR (selection DV = CDP; IV = STP) 0.335 0.071 4.72** (0.196; 0.474)** Not present
Note: DV is dependent variables; IV is independent variables.

**, * statistically significant at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
TABLE 10 Assessment of nonlinear

Structural path Coef (β) SD p-value f2 Ramsey's RESET
effects
STP*STP ! CPD 0.062 0.161 .351ns 0.007
IND*IND ! CPD 0.124 0.182 .248 ns
0.021 F(1.423) = 0.157, p = .184
CPD*CPD ! EPR 0.076 0.052 .133ns 0.009 F(1.582) = 0.126, p = .135
CPD*CPD ! MPR 0.091 0.111 .207 ns
0.012 F(1.026) = 0.294, p = .234
EPE*EPR ! MPR 0.114 0.106 .141ns 0.021
ns
is not significant.
T A B L E 1 1 Assessment of
Number of segments
unobserved heterogeneity using the
Criteria k=1 k=2 k=3 FIMIX method
Akaike's information criterion (AIC) 1105.63 1090.07 1071.44
Modified AIC with factor 3 (AIC3) 1119.63 1119.07 1115.44
Modified AIC with factor 4 (AIC4) 1133.63 1148.07 1159.44
Bayesian information criteria (BIC) 1147.01 1175.78 1201.50
Consistent AIC (CAIC) 1161.01 1204.78 1245.50
Hannan–Quinn criterion (HQ) 1122.45 1124.90 1124.29
Minimum description length with factor 5 (MDL5) 1424.54 1750.66 2073.72
Log likelihood (LnL) 538.816 516.033 491.720
Entropy statistic (EN) n/a 0.499 0.670
Non-fuzzy index (NFI) n/a 0.567 0.677
Normalized entropy criterion (NEC) n/a 71.180 46.792
Note: Numbers in bold indicate the best outcome per segment retention criterion.
Abbreviation: n/a, not available.
assumes a linear combination between variables (Garson, 2016), a (Table 10). Hence, we concluded that our model had been correctly
nonlinear pattern (i.e., a quadratic effect) is considered absent. To test specified (Wooldridge, 2020).
the existence of this nonlinear pattern, we used Ramsey's regression Finally, we conducted a finite mixture (FIMIX) estimation to test
specification error test (RESET) (Wooldridge, 2020). Based on unobserved heterogeneity (Sarstedt et al., 2017). To ensure this bias
Ramsey's test, we found values of p > .05 for all possible relationships did not occur in our study, we assessed the GoF index for model
PINHEIRO ET AL. 493
comparisons. We obtained Akaike's information criterion modified (Jabbour et al., 2020). This indicates the relevance of suppliers within
with factor 4 (AIC4) and consistent Akaike's information criterion the stakeholder construct in the CPD context. Moreover, the lack of
(CAIC) falling into the same number of segments (k = 1), which indi- information and clarity regarding the responsibilities of each member
cates that this bias was absent (Table 11). To strengthen this conclu- of a supply chain could affect operational capabilities, also increase
sion, we examined the Hannan–Quinn criterion (HQ), the Bayesian the waste across supply chain processes (Jabbour et al., 2020), which
information criteria (BIC), and minimum description length with factor could move backward the CPD purpose. Furthermore, suppliers are
5 (MDL5), which generally works better to determine the number of relevant to support CPD initiatives of focal companies, as suppliers
segments. Our results indicated that there were no different results are responsible for developing and delivering smart components.
between tests, which confirmed our previous conclusion. This result can be considered an advance to the literature, since
although it was expected that stakeholders would be important in
organizational decisions regarding CPD, suppliers were shown to be
5 | DISCUSSION one of the most recognized stakeholders in the CE (Gupta
et al., 2019). This finding is relevant since it points out that suppliers
This study empirically evaluated the role of Industry 4.0 technologies can be presented above one of the most recognized stakeholders in
and stakeholder pressure on CPD and, in turn, their impact on com- terms of the CE, the government (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Gupta
pany performance. Considering the research results, the theoretical et al., 2019). Unlike the common literature, our findings can be
research framework proved to be suitable for empirically understand- explained, since most of the policies and frameworks regarding CE
ing the practical interactions of the research topics within firms. and CPD are commonly founded in European or Asian literature
Despite the fact that the emerging literature has dealt with Industry (Jabbour et al., 2020; Kirchherr et al., 2018), and Brazil is still develop-
4.0, stakeholders, and CPD (e.g., Modgil et al., 2021; Rajput & ing its institutional approach to the CE.
Singh, 2019; Shahbazi et al., 2020), there is still a lack of empirical evi- It is important to note that among the design strategies that
dence addressing these determinants affecting company performance. emerged in our study, PSS has been the most connected with circular
Hence, our findings provide relevant contributions and answer recent business models, approaching servitization (Halstenberg et al., 2019;
calls regarding both the performance of CE and NPD firms from Sub- Okorie et al., 2021). Moreover, the expansion of digital transformation
ramanian et al. (2019), and Industry 4.0 and CPD from Müller has enabled PSS offerings (Bressanelli et al., 2018). Servitization has
et al. (2018) and Jabbour et al. (2020) by filling empirical gaps in the grown through the intensification of the use of the internet, informa-
literature and adding unique evidence for CPD constructs. tion technology, and the adoption of mobile apps (McAloone &
Initially, the highest beta level of our results is the relationship Pigosso, 2017). These findings could be useful by raising new research
between Industry 4.0 and CPD constructs. This finding indicates that and contributions to CPD regarding both “DfX” strategies related to
CPD can be favored by the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies. PSS and servitization.
Besides adding new findings to the NPD and innovation technology We also observed positive relationships among the CPD adoption
literature, this result is aligned with previous studies (Nobre & and the performance dimensions investigated, supporting H3 and H4.
Tavares, 2019; Rosa et al., 2020), which have pointed out that the Despite the relationship between CE and MP being a controversial
adoption of these emerging technologies can contribute to the inte- point in the literature (Lonca et al., 2020; Subramanian et al., 2019),
gration of CE in companies. our research points out that the adoption of CPD may improve market
Regarding the Industry 4.0 construct, the development and use of performance, generating positive results connected to an increase in
AI was the most relevant technology (FL = 0.858). This can be market share, competitiveness, and improving brand image reputation
explained by the fact that AI has been broadly used for increasing effi- and awareness. It was expected that CPD had a positive relationship
ciency in electric and electronic-driven production systems (Pham to EP. In this sense, our results supported this hypothesis, which is
et al., 2019). Moreover, as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has also aligned to previous literature regarding the relationship between
pointed out, AI can accelerate the transition towards a CE at scale, green product development and sustainable performance
offering substantial improvements into areas such as product design, (Dangelico, 2016; Jabbour et al., 2020; Korhonen et al., 2018).
operations, and infrastructure optimization (Ellen MacArthur The last hypothesis presents a positive relation between EP and
Foundation, 2019). Big Data and IoT were also relevant technologies, MP. In this sense, Dangelico et al. (2017) and Jabbour et al. (2015)
even supporting the literature that points to IoT technology alongside pointed out that an increase in EP could provide a positive brand
the collection of a large amount of data (Nobre & Tavares, 2019; Rosa image and increase market share. Taking this into account, but in a
et al., 2020). different sample and industrial context, our results reinforce the
Our results also show that stakeholder pressure (H1) contributes theoretical body of knowledge, presenting evidence that EP
to the adoption of CPD and that “suppliers” are the most relevant favors MP.
stakeholder in our construct. Previous studies on the CE have Regarding the control variables, neither of the constructs pres-
approached the relevance of the advancements of digital supply ented themselves as significant for EP or MP. Therefore, insignificant
chains (Gupta et al., 2019) and the roles and responsibilities of each control variables seem to generate suitable results, since it may indi-
member of the supply chain regarding the adoption of the CE cate the homogeneity of the sample, free from group biases.
494 PINHEIRO ET AL.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N S et al. (2020), whereby various stakeholder groups influence firms to

adopt circular strategies, and especially the role of suppliers in coun-
Although the CE is considered one of the main approaches to promot- tries where CE legislation and regulation are still advancing.
ing environmental sustainability, it is known that its adoption depends
on the development of products in line with its principles. In this con-
text, CPD is an emerging concept and has been highly discussed 6.2 | Implications for practice
among researchers and professionals involved in the areas of sustain-
ability, the CE, and NPD. Although there is evidence from previous Firstly, the article's results indicate a set of design strategies oriented
theoretical research revealing that Industry 4.0 favors CPD, this study towards the development of products for CE, such as designing for
investigates and confirms this relationship through quantitative refurbishing, emotional durability, remanufacturing, and PSS, that can
research. We also identified that AI and the use of big data play an guide managers and designers interested in aligning the product port-
important role in CPD. One reason for this may be the need for the folio with CE principles. In this sense, the NPD process geared
development of smart products and services, which contribute to the towards the CE can be useful for improving the environmental and
lesser use of materials and product sharing. innovative performance of firms, as well as strengthening company
In the context of an institutional void for the CE, our results also performance in respect of Environmental, Social, and Corporate Gov-
highlight the importance of stakeholders and, especially, the role of ernance (ESG) metrics.
suppliers for the adoption of CPD. Probably, with the advancement of Our research results also indicate that the adoption of Industry
CE legislation and regulation in Brazil, the government will have a 4.0 technologies positively affect CPD, since the digitization and
more relevant role as a stakeholder in the adoption of CPD. development of smart products has the potential to consume less
With regard to the CPD effort, our results also highlight the materials and resources and also generate less waste. This result may
importance of designing for refurbishing, emotional durability, be useful for managers, especially from the EEE sectors, interested in
remanufacturing, and PSS. In addition, the CPD effort has been shown improving company performance and developing circular products.
to favor MP and EP in this sample. Although the results presented in this work are derived from research
These research results could be useful for scholars, practitioners, carried out in the EEE sector, our results can serve as a benchmark for
and public policymakers, which can be split into theoretical and practi- other industrial sectors, especially for those who use electro-
cal implications. electronic technologies in their products and processes, such as the
automotive, aerospace, white goods, and information technology
sectors.
6.1 | Theoretical implications Moreover, we present the main relevant aspects that should be
included in the early stages of NPD to its alignment within a CE, such
Our findings provide new insights for the sustainable operations man- as the development of products designed for refurbishing and
agement literature, mainly because this can be considered one of the remanufacturing, which guarantee greater emotional durability, and
first studies that empirically tests Industry 4.0 technologies and stake- those that are linked to services (maintenance, upgrading, extended
holder pressure in the context of CPD. We have demonstrated that warranty, and content consumption, among others). Furthermore,
the determinants of CPD can positively affect the EP and MP of firms. close relationship with strategic suppliers is relevant to support CPD
These determinants were jointly analyzed in a single research frame- initiatives of focal companies, as suppliers are responsible for develop-
work. Moreover, the relationship between CPD and company perfor- ing and delivering smart components.
mance was tested in a broad quantitative approach. Finally, our findings could support management decisions by
Our results also show that the adoption of Industry 4.0 technolo- showing that the adoption of CPD improves both EP and MP, and
gies tend to enable the adoption of circular strategies, and specifically there should not be an imbalance or trade-off between CPD and MP.
boost CPD, since it favors the development of intelligent products
and the application of additive manufacturing. These actions have the
potential to reduce the use of material resources throughout a prod- 6.3 | Limitations and suggestions for future
uct's life cycle, while also improving product sharing developed research
between different users. This result can contribute to the set of theo-
retical knowledge in areas such as NPD, environmental management, There are some limitations to our study that should be acknowledged.
and Industry 4.0. The sample and the respondent profiles are limitations since this study
Despite the controversy in the literature regarding MP and the investigated the EEE industry in an emerging economy. The choice of
adoption of CE, our results indicate a positive relationship between the elements that make up the research model was also a research
CPD and this performance dimension. This new finding may contribute limitation. Particularly, we were not able to incorporate all drivers and
to the theoretical discussions regarding the adoption of circular strate- barriers related to the adoption of CPD in companies. In this sense,
gies for company performance. Moreover, our work supports the prop- future studies could provide a deeper investigation into this issue by
ositions laid out by Gupta et al. (2019), Jakhar et al. (2019), and Jabbour incorporating new elements that may influence the adoption of CPD.
PINHEIRO ET AL. 495
Moreover, future studies could also evaluate this research Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social
model with a focus on other industry sectors, such as automotive, sciences. Guilford Press.
Barreiro-Gen, M., & Lozano, R. (2020). How circular is the circular econ-
furniture, and food, or even expanding the sample to other coun-
omy? Analysing the implementation of circular economy in organisa-
tries. Other organizational theories could also be used to investigate tions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3484–3494.
and add new knowledge in this field (such as contingency and https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2590
resource-based view). Future research could complement our find- Bedeian, A. G. (2014). “More than meets the eye”: A guide to interpreting
the descriptive statistics and correlation matrices reported in manage-
ings by carrying out a deeper investigation into the proposed frame-
ment research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2),
work through case study analyses, assessing the determinants 121–135. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0001
proposed with a greater focus on the direct effect of emerging Bocken, N. M., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Prod-
technologies on company performance. Finally, it is important to uct design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Jour-
nal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. https://
point out that the definition of the CE can be seen as a limited one
doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124
(Korhonen et al., 2018) and therefore merits attention from readers Boks, C. (2006). The soft side of ecodesign. Journal of Cleaner Production,
of this article. It is also relevant to highlight that any survey on 14(15–16), 1346–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.
organizational sustainability may be limited by social-desirability bias, 11.015
Bovea, M. D., & Pérez-Belis, V. (2018). Identifying design guidelines to
as explained by Roxas and Lindsay (2012).
meet the circular economy principles: A case study on electric and
electronic equipment. Journal of Environmental Management, 228,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.014
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of (i) the Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2018). The role of
Brazilian research funding agency CAPES, Coordination for the digital technologies to overcome circular economy challenges in PSS
business models: An exploratory case study. Procedia CIRP, 73(2018),
Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Brazil (Project CAPES/
216–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.322
PRINT 88887.370707/2019-00), and (ii) the S~
ao Paulo Research Chouinard, U., Pigosso, D. C., McAloone, T. C., Baron, L., & Achiche, S.
Foundation (FAPESP) (Grant No. 18/23972-1). (2019). Potential of circular economy implementation in the
mechatronics industry: An exploratory research. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 239, 118014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118014
ORCID
Clube, R. K., & Tennant, M. (2020). The circular economy and human
Daniel Jugend https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5865-7967 needs satisfaction: Promising the radical, delivering the familiar. Eco-
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour https://orcid.org/0000-0002- logical Economics, 177, 106772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
6143-4924 2020.106772
Dangelico, R. M. (2016). Green product innovation: Where we are and
Hengky Latan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4107-6373
where we are going. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(8),
560–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1886
RE FE R ENC E S Dangelico, R. M., Pontrandolfo, P., & Pujari, D. (2013). Developing sustain-
Andrae, A. S., Vaija, M. S., & Halgand, S. (2020). Method for determining able new products in the textile and upholstered furniture industries:
the circularity score of ICT goods. International Journal of Advanced Role of external integrative capabilities. Journal of Product Innovation
Research in Engineering & Management (IJAREM), 6(1), 1–15. Management, 30(4), 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12013
Arroyabe, J. F., Arranz, N., Schumann, M., & Arroyabe, M. F. (2021). The Dangelico, R. M., Pujari, D., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2017). Green product inno-
development of CE business models in firms: The role of circular econ- vation in manufacturing firms: A sustainability-oriented dynamic capa-
omy capabilities. Technovation, 106, 102292. https://doi.org/10.1016/ bility perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4),
j.technovation.2021.102292 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1932

Avila-Gutiérrez, M. J., Martín-Gomez, A., Aguayo-González, F., & Co
rdoba- De los Rios, I. C., & Charnley, F. J. (2017). Skills and capabilities for a sus-
Roldán, A. (2019). Standardization framework for sustainability from tainable and circular economy: The changing role of design. Journal of
circular economy 4.0. Sustainability, 11(22), 6490. https://doi.org/10. Cleaner Production, 160, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
3390/su11226490 2016.10.130
Awan, U., Sroufe, R., & Shahbaz, M. (2021). Industry 4.0 and the circular den Hollander, M. C., Bakker, C. A., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). Product design
economy: A literature review and recommendations for future in a circular economy: Development of a typology of key concepts and
research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2038–2060. terms. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 517–525. https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2731 1111/jiec.12610
Bag, S., Gupta, S., & Kumar, S. (2020). Industry 4.0 adoption and 10R Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley, F., Ford, S. J.,
advance manufacturing capabilities for sustainable development. Inter- Garmulewicz, A., Knowles, S., Minshall, T. H. W., Mortara, L., Reed-
national Journal of Production Economics, 231, 107844. https://doi.org/ Tsochas, F. P., & Rowley, J. (2017). Unlocking value for a circular econ-
10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107844 omy through 3D printing: A research agenda. Technological Forecasting
Bag, S., Yadav, G., Dhamija, P., & Kataria, K. K. (2021). Key resources for and Social Change, 115, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
industry 4.0 adoption and its effect on sustainable production and cir- 2016.09.021
cular economy: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common
125233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125233 methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods,
Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N. M. P., & Jaskiewicz, T. (2017). 1(4), 374–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814002
Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven inno- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the circular
vation: A process for sustainable value proposition design. Journal of economy. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/
Cleaner Production, 147, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. artificial-intelligence-and-the-circular-economy. [Accessed on
2017.01.081 May 2019].
496 PINHEIRO ET AL.
Franco, M. A. (2019). A system dynamics approach to product design and Holtström, J., Bjellerup, C., & Eriksson, J. (2019). Business model develop-
business model strategies for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner ment for sustainable apparel consumption. Journal of Strategy and
Production, 241, 118327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. Management, 12(4), 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-
118327 2019-0015
Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019). Industry 4.0 technolo- Ingenbleek, P. T., Frambach, R. T., & Verhallen, T. M. (2013). Best practices
gies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Interna- for new product pricing: Impact on market performance and price level
tional Journal of Production Economics, 210, 15–26. https://doi.org/10. under different conditions. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004 30(3), 560–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12008
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pit- Iskandar, M., & Ariffin, A. (2019). Relationship between National Automo-
man Publishing Inc. tive Policy (NAP), innovation and automotive vendors' performance in
Fulton, B. R. (2018). Organizations and survey research: Implementing Malaysia. Management Science Letters, 9(8), 1181–1198. https://doi.
response enhancing strategies and conducting nonresponse analyses. org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.4.022
Sociological Methods & Research, 47(2), 240–276. https://doi.org/10. Jabbour, C. J. C., Jugend, D., Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Gunasekaran, A., &
1177/0049124115626169 Latan, H. (2015). Green product development and performance of
Gandolfo, A., & Lupi, L. (2021). Circular economy, the transition of an Brazilian firms: Measuring the role of human and technical aspects.
incumbent focal firm: How to successfully reconcile environmental Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and economic sustainability? Business Strategy and the Environment, in jclepro.2014.09.036
press. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2803 Jabbour, C. J. C., Seuring, S., Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Jugend, D.,
Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial least squares regression & structural equation Fiorini, P. D. C., Latan, H., & Izeppi, W. C. (2020). Stakeholders, innova-
models. Satistical Publishing Associates. tive business models for the circular economy and sustainable perfor-
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: mance of firms in an emerging economy facing institutional voids.
The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and Journal of Environmental Management, 264, 110416. https://doi.org/
economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. https:// 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110416
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007 Jabbour, C. J. C., Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Sarkis, J., & Godinho Filho, M.
Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., & Ulgiati, S. (2018). Exploring environmental and (2019). Unlocking the circular economy through new business models
economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the based on large-scale data: An integrative framework and research
construction and demolition sector. A literature review. Journal of agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 546–552.
Cleaner Production, 178, 618–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.010
2017.11.207 Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., & Kusi-Sarpong, S. (2019). When
Ghoreishi, M., & Happonen, A. (2020). Key enablers for deploying stakeholder pressure drives the circular economy: Measuring the
artificial intelligence for circular economy embracing sustainable mediating role of innovation capabilities. Management Decision, 57(4),
product design: Three case studies. AIP Conference Proceedings, 904–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-0990
2233(1), 050008. AIP Publishing LLC. https://doi.org/10.1063/5. Johnstone, L., & Hallberg, P. (2020). ISO 14001 adoption and environmen-
0001339 tal performance in small to medium sized enterprises. Journal of Envi-
González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, O. (2006). A review of determi- ronmental Management, 266, 110592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nant factors of environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the jenvman.2020.110592
Environment, 15(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.450 Kaddoura, M., Kambanou, M. L., Tillman, A. M., & Sakao, T. (2019). Is
Govindaraju, V. G. R. C., Vijayaraghavan, G. K., & Pandiyan, V. (2013). prolonging the lifetime of passive durable products a low-hanging fruit
Product and process innovation in Malaysian manufacturing: The role of a circular economy? A multiple case study. Sustainability, 11(18),
of government, organizational innovation and exports. Innovations, 4819. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184819
15(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2013.15.1.52 Kahle, J. H., Marcon, E., Ghezzi, A., & Frank, A. G. (2020). Smart products
Goyal, S., Esposito, M., & Kapoor, A. (2016). Circular economy business value creation in SMEs innovation ecosystems. Technological Forecast-
models in developing economies: Lessons from India on reduce recy- ing and Social Change, 156, 120024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cle, and reuse paradigms. Thunderbird International Business Review, techfore.2020.120024
60(5), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21883 Kamble, S. S., Belhadi, A., Gunasekaran, A., Ganapathy, L., & Verma, S.
Gupta, S., Chen, H., Hazen, B. T., Kaur, S., & Gonzalez, E. D. S. (2019). Cir- (2021). A large multi-group decision-making technique for prioritizing
cular economy and big data analytics: A stakeholder perspective. Tech- the big data-driven circular economy practices in the automobile com-
nological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 466–474. https://doi.org/ ponent manufacturing industry. Technological Forecasting and Social
10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.030 Change, 165, 120567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.
Haines-Gadd, M., Chapman, J., Lloyd, P., Mason, J., & Aliakseyeu, D. 120567
(2018). Emotional durability design nine—A tool for product longevity. Kane, G. M., Bakker, C. A., & Balkenende, A. R. (2018). Towards design
Sustainability, 10, 1948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061948 strategies for circular medical products. Resources, Conservation and
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on Recycling, 135, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). 07.030
Sage Publications. Kerin, M., & Pham, D. T. (2019). A review of emerging industry 4.0 tech-
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Rethinking some of the nologies in remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237,
rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 117805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117805
566–584. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2018-0665 Khan, S. J., Dhir, A., Parida, V., & Papa, A. (2021). Past, present, and future
Halstenberg, F. A., Lindow, K., & Stark, R. (2019). Leveraging circular econ- of green product innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, in
omy through a methodology for smart service systems engineering. press. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2858
Sustainability, 11(13), 3517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133517 Kiel, D., Müller, J. M., Arnold, C., & Voigt, K. I. (2017). Sustainable industrial
Hapuwatte, B. M., & Jawahir, I. S. (2021). Closed-loop sustainable product value creation: Benefits and challenges of industry 4.0. International
design for circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, in press. Journal of Innovation Management, 21(8), 1740015. https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13154 1142/9781786347602_0009
PINHEIRO ET AL. 497
Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Nappi, V., & Rozenfeld, H. (2015). The incorporation of sustainability indi-
Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the circular cators into a performance measurement system. Procedia CIRP, 26,
economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological Econom- 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.114
ics, 150, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028 Nishitani, K., Kaneko, S., Fujii, H., & Komatsu, S. (2012). Are firms' volun-
Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental tary environmental management activities beneficial for the environ-
technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management ment and business? An empirical study focusing on Japanese
Journal, 42, 599–615. https://doi.org/10.5465/256982 manufacturing firms. Journal of Environmental Management, 105,
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.054
concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46. https:// Nobre, G. C., & Tavares, E. (2019). Assessing the role of big data and the
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041 internet of things on the transition to circular economy: Part I. Johnson
Küçüksayraç, E. (2015). Design for sustainability in companies: Strategies, Matthey Technology Review, 64(4), 19–31.
drivers and needs of Turkey's best performing businesses. Journal of Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
Cleaner Production, 106, 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. McGraw-Hill.
2015.01.061 Okorie, O., Charnley, F., Russell, J., Tiwari, A., & Moreno, M. (2021). Circu-
Latan, H., Jabbour, C. J. C., Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Renwick, D. W. S., lar business models in high value manufacturing: Five industry cases to
Wamba, S. F., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). ‘Too-much-of-a-good-thing’? bridge theory and practice. Business Strategy and the Environment,
The role of advanced eco-learning and contingency factors on the 30(4), 1780–1802. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2715
relationship between corporate environmental and financial perfor- Paulraj, A. (2011). Understanding the relationships between internal
mance. Journal of Environmental Management, 220, 163–172. https:// resources and capabilities, sustainable supply management and organi-
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.012 zational sustainability. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1),
Li, Y., Ding, R., & Sun, T. (2019). The drivers and performance of environ- 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2010.03212.x
mental practices in the Chinese construction industry. Sustainability, Peel, M. J. (2018). Addressing unobserved selection bias in accounting
11(3), 614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030614 studies: The bias minimization method. The European Accounting
Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation: Review, 27(1), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2016.
A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal 1220322
of Cleaner Production, 115, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. Pham, T. T., Kuo, T. C., Tseng, M. L., Tan, R. R., Tan, K., Ika, D. S., &
2015.12.042 Lin, C. J. (2019). Industry 4.0 to accelerate the circular economy: A
Lin, K. Y. (2018). User experience-based product design for smart produc- case study of electric scooter sharing. Sustainability, 11(23), 6661.
tion to empower industry 4.0 in the glass recycling circular economy. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236661
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 125, 729–738. https://doi.org/10. Pinheiro, M. A. P., Seles, B. M. R. P., Fiorini, P. C., Jugend, D., de Sousa
1016/j.cie.2018.06.023 Jabbour, A. B. L., da Silva, H. M. R., & Latan, H. (2019). The role of new
Lonca, G., Lesage, P., Majeau-Bettez, G., Bernard, S., & Margni, M. (2020). product development in underpinning the circular economy: A system-
Assessing scaling effects of circular economy strategies: A case study atic review and integrative framework. Management Decision, 57(4),
on plastic bottle closed-loop recycling in the USA PET market. 840–862. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2018-0782
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162, 105013. https://doi.org/ Rajapathirana, R. J., & Hui, Y. (2018). Relationship between innovation
10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105013 capability, innovation type, and firm performance. Journal of Innova-
Luchs, M. G., Swan, K. S., & Creusen, M. E. (2016). Perspective: A review tion & Knowledge, 3(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.
of marketing research on product design with directions for future 06.002
research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(3), 320–341. Rajput, S., & Singh, S. P. (2019). Connecting circular economy and Industry
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12276 4.0. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 98–113.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.002
IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis Ramli, N. A., Latan, H., & Nartea, G. V. (2018). Why should PLS-SEM be
of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883. https:// used rather than regression? Evidence from the capital structure per-
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597 spective. In N. K. Avkiran & C. M. Ringle (Eds.), Partial least squares
McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. (2017). From ecodesign to sustainable structural equation modeling: Recent advances in banking and finance
product-service systems: A journey through research contributions (pp. 171–209). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
over recent decades. In Sustainable manufacturing (pp. 99–111). 319-71691-6_6
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48514-0_7 Rao, P. (2002). Greening the supply chain: A new initiative in South East
Mestre, A., & Cooper, T. (2017). Circular product design. A multiple loops life Asia. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22,
cycle design approach for the circular economy. The Design Journal, 20(1), 632–655. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210427668
S1620–S1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352686 Raut, R. D., Luthra, S., Narkhede, B. E., Mangla, S. K., Gardas, B. B., &
Modgil, S., Gupta, S., Sivarajah, U., & Bhushan, B. (2021). Big data-enabled Priyadarshinee, P. (2019). Examining the performance oriented indica-
large-scale group decision making for circular economy: An emerging tors for implementing green management practices in the Indian agro
market context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 926–943. https://doi.org/
120607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120607 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.139
Moggi, S., & Dameri, R. P. (2021). Circular business model evolution: Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS
Stakeholder matters for a self-sufficient ecosystem. Business Strategy GmbH.
and the Environment, in press. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2716 Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., & Terzi, S. (2020).
Moreno, M., De los Rios, C., Rowe, Z., & Charnley, F. (2016). A conceptual Assessing relations between circular economy and Industry 4.0: A sys-
framework for circular design. Sustainability, 8(9), 937. https://doi.org/ tematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research,
10.3390/su8090937 58, 1662–1687. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1680896
Müller, J. M., Kiel, D., & Voigt, K. I. (2018). What drives the implementation Roxas, B., & Lindsay, V. (2012). Social desirability bias in survey research
of Industry 4.0? The role of opportunities and challenges in the con- on sustainable development in small firms: An exploratory analysis of
text of sustainability. Sustainability, 10(1), 247. https://doi.org/10. survey mode effect. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(4), 223–
3390/su10010247 235. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.730
498 PINHEIRO ET AL.
Rymaszewska, A., Helo, P., & Gunasekaran, A. (2017). IoT powered Production, 235, 1525–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
servitization of manufacturing—An exploratory case study. Interna- 06.349
tional Journal of Production Economics, 192, 92–105. https://doi.org/ Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., Wu, L., & Shen, T. (2019). Role of tradi-
10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.02.016 tional Chinese philosophies and new product development under cir-
Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., & Kendall, A. (2019). A taxon- cular economy in private manufacturing enterprise performance.
omy of circular economy indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, International Journal of Production Research, 57(23), 7219–7234.
542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014 https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1530467
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pres- Talens Peiro , L., Ardente, F., & Mathieux, F. (2017). Design for disassem-
sure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating bly criteria in EU product policies for a more circular economy: A
effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 163–176. method for analyzing battery packs in PC-tablets and subnotebooks.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001 Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 731–741. https://doi.org/10.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of 1111/jiec.12608
green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Pro- Tiwari, M. K., Chang, P. C., & Choudhary, A. (2015). Carbon-efficient
duction Economics, 130(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010. production, supply chains and logistics. International Journal of Pro-
11.010 duction Economics, 164, 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Treating unobserved het- 2015.02.008
erogeneity in PLS-SEM: A multi-method approach. In H. Latan & R. Tsai, K. H., & Liao, Y. C. (2017). Innovation capacity and the implementa-
Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling: Basic concepts, meth- tion of eco-innovation: Toward a contingency perspective. Business
odological issues, and applications (pp. 197–217). Springer International. Strategy and the Environment, 26(7), 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.
Sassanelli, C., Urbinati, A., Rosa, P., Chiaroni, D., & Terzi, S. (2020). 1002/bse.1963
Addressing circular economy through design for X approaches: A sys- Tseng, M. L., Tan, R. R., Chiu, A. S., Chien, C. F., & Kuo, T. C. (2018). Circu-
tematic literature review. Computers in Industry, 120, 103245. https:// lar economy meets industry 4.0: Can big data drive industrial symbio-
doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103245 sis? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 131, 146–147. https://doi.
Sauerwein, M., Doubrovski, E., Balkenende, R., & Bakker, C. (2019). Explor- org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.028
ing the potential of additive manufacturing for product design in a cir- Wooldridge, J. M. (2020). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach
cular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 1138–1149. (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.108
Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., & Sloan, P. (2016). Environmental sciences, sustain-
able development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for
trans-disciplinary research. Environment and Development, 17, 48–56. How to cite this article: Pinheiro, M. A. P., Jugend, D., Lopes
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.002 de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Latan, H.
Schmidt, C. V. H., Kindermann, B., Behlau, C. F., & Flatten, T. C. (2021). (2022). Circular economy-based new products and company
Understanding the effect of market orientation on circular economy performance: The role of stakeholders and Industry 4.0
practices: The mediating role of closed-loop orientation in German
technologies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1),
SMEs. Business Strategy and the Environment, in press. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.2863 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2905
Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., & Dijkstra, T. K. (2018). Confirmatory compos-
ite analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.02541
Selvefors, A., Rexfelt, O., Renström, S., & Strömberg, H. (2019). Use to
use—A user perspective on product circularity. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 223, 1014–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. AP PE NDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE, SCALE ITEMS
03.117
Shahbazi, S., & Jönbrink, A. K. (2020). Design guidelines to develop circular 1. Circular product design
products: Action research on Nordic industry. Sustainability, 12(9),
3679. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093679
Shahbazi, S., Jönbrink, A. K., Jensen, T. H., Pigosso, D. C. A., & In the new product development process, the company you work
McAloone, T. C. (2020). Circular product design and development: CIRCit for:
Workbook 3.Technical University of Denmark. (Scale: 1. Totally disagree; 2. Partially disagree; 3. Neither agree
Sihvonen, S., & Partanen, J. (2017). Eco-design practices with a focus on nor disagree; 4. Partially agree; 5. Totally agree)
quantitative environmental targets: An exploratory content analysis
Develops products that allow recycling.
within ICT sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 769–783.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.047 Develops products that allow the reuse of components.
Sinclair, M., Sheldrick, L., Moreno, M., & Dewberry, E. (2018). Consumer Develops products that allow remanufacturing.
intervention mapping—A tool for designing future product strategies Develops products that are easy to maintain.
within circular product service systems. Sustainability, 10(6), 2088.
Develops products that are easy to disassemble.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062088
Develops products whose components can be easily refurbished.
Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Jabbour, C. J. C., Godinho Filho, M., & Roubaud, D.
(2018). Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A proposed research Develops products that allow customization throughout use or
agenda and original roadmap for sustainable operations. Annals of that incorporate design and appearance so that customers have a
Operations Research, 270(1–2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/ desire to use them for long periods of time.
s10479-018-2772-8
Develops products that allow updating/upgrading (aspects such
Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Luiz, J. V. R., Luiz, O. R., Jabbour, C. J. C.,
Ndubisi, N. O., Oliveira, J. H. C., & Junior, F. H. (2019). Circular econ- as software updates, exchanges, or improvements to components and
omy business models and operations management. Journal of Cleaner modules).
PINHEIRO ET AL. 499
Develops products linked to service systems (offering, together Uses 3D printer (additive manufacturing) for prototyping parts of
with the products, services such as training, consulting, maintenance, the product, allowing quick update and maintenance.
extended warranty, and content consumption, among others). Uses simulation and augmented reality.
Develops products that are able to satisfy multiple different users, Uses artificial intelligence.
even after such products have been used (multiple cycles/
recontextualization). 4. Environmental performance
2. Stakeholder pressure Indicate the extent to which you agree that your
company has achieved the following environmental performance
Indicate the level of importance of each of the elements below results.
for the adoption of environmental product development practices by (Scale: 1. Totally disagree; 2. Partially disagree; 3. Neither agree
your company. nor disagree; 4. Partially agree; 5. Totally agree)
(Scale: 1. Totally disagree; 2. Partially disagree; 3. Neither agree The company has reduced atmospheric emissions (polluting
nor disagree; 4. Partially agree; 5. Totally agree) gases).
Customer demand for environmentally sustainable products. The company has reduced the waste of water and energy.
Environmental regulations from the federal government. The company has reduced the generation of solid waste.
Regional environmental regulations (state and/or municipal). The company has reduced the consumption of hazardous/nox-
Employees. ious/toxic materials.
Top management/shareholders. The company has improved the environmental situation (reduc-
Suppliers. tion of accidents and/or environmental liabilities).
3. Industry 4.0 technologies 5. Market performance
In the product development process, the company you work for: Indicate the extent to which you agree that your company has
(Scale: 1. Totally disagree; 2. Partially disagree; 3. Neither agree achieved the following market performance results.
nor disagree; 4. Partially agree; 5. Totally agree) (Scale: 1. Totally disagree; 2. Partially disagree; 3. Neither agree
Uses internet of things for connectivity—digital connection of nor disagree; 4. Partially agree; 5. Totally agree)
objects and devices (sensors, applications, RFID, TAG—electronic The company has increased its market share (market share).
identification, etc.). The company has launched products in new markets.
Uses cloud computing technology (information storage, online The company has improved its image and reputation.
management systems). The company has improved profitability.
Uses and analyzes big data. The company has improved competitiveness.

Bus Strat Env - 2021 - Pinheiro - Circular economy‐based new products and company performance The role of stakeholders and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bus Strat Env - 2021 - Pinheiro - Circular economy‐based new products and company performance The role of stakeholders and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bus Strat Env - 2021 - Pinheiro - Circular economy‐based new products and company performance The role of stakeholders and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 30 June 2021 Revised: 23 August 2021 Accepted: 8 September 2021

Circular economy-based new products and company

Marco Antonio Paula Pinheiro1 | Daniel Jugend1 |

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N Anchored in the need for more systemic research on how the CE

2.3 | Industry 4.0 and CPD

H4. CPD has a positive effect on the MP of companies.

FIGURE 1 Research framework

3 | RESEARCH METHOD TABLE 1 Constructs and references

Indicator/item Code Mean SD FL AVE α ρc

TABLE 7 Structural model assessment

Construct R2 Adj. R2 f2 Q2 VIF Harman's single factor

FIGURE 2 Evaluation of the measurement and structural models

TABLE 8 Testing of the hypotheses

**, * statistically significant at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.

TABLE 9 Assessment of endogeneity bias using the Heckman test

Test Coef (β) SD z 95% BCa CI Conclusion

Note: DV is dependent variables; IV is independent variables.

TABLE 10 Assessment of nonlinear

6 | C O N CL U S I O N S et al. (2020), whereby various stakeholder groups influence firms to

3. Industry 4.0 technologies 5. Market performance

You might also like