Abstract
Circular business models (CBMs) are increasingly recognised as key levers for decoupling economic growth from resource use, yet existing taxonomies remain fragmented and difficult to operationalise across sectors and value chains. This paper advances conceptual clarity by developing and empirically validating an integrated CBMs taxonomy that links archetypes, 10R‑strategies, retention loops, value chain stages, and product categories.
A multi-method design combines a Systematic Literature Review following PRISMA guidelines, extended contextual analysis, and empirical validation through expert interviews, co-creation workshops, an industry survey, and case evidence from manufacturing contexts, with a particular focus on original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The resulting taxonomy distinguishes seven CBM archetypes specified into fourteen CBM types and systematically maps each type to associated 10R‑strategies, dominant value retention loops (narrowing, slowing, closing, dematerialising), and relevant lifecycle phases.
Findings show that the fourteen CBM types align with focused subsets of 10R‑strategies, thereby reducing conceptual overlap and “double counting” among models. Dematerialisation and digitalisation rely on Refuse (R0) and Rethink (R1) in a dematerialising loop during the use phase, while Profit Sufficiency narrows and intensifies flows via R0–R1 across material extraction and production. Circular Supplies models (Industrial Symbiosis, Sourcing Circular Supplies) and Resource Recovery & Recycling (Upcycle recycling/recovery) close loops mainly through Recycle (R8) in upstream and end‑of‑life stages. Resource and process efficiency models (Production‑on‑demand, Process Optimisation) narrow flows via Reduce (R2), whereas Access Provision (Sharing platforms, Performance/use‑oriented, As‑a‑service) intensifies use through combinations of Rethink (R1), Reuse (R3), and Repair (R4). Product lifecycle extension models (Premium durability, Modularity/upgradeability, Lifecycle services, Reprocessing) slow loops in the use phase using Reuse (R3), Repair (R4), Refurbish (R5), Remanufacture (R6), and, in some cases, Repurpose (R7).
The mapping clarifies how upstream‑oriented models concentrate interventions in material extraction, processing, and production, while downstream‑oriented models act mainly in distribution, use, and recovery stages. Across product modalities, no CBM is categorically unsuitable, but models requiring complex reverse logistics, cleaning, and coordination are more challenging for low‑value/high‑volume consumables, where recovery costs more easily outweigh unit value.
The study offers an integrated model that bridges CBM archetypes, value chain stages, and product characteristics, providing a stronger foundation for circular business model research and a diagnostic tool that helps firms identify context‑appropriate CBMs, align actor roles and incentives, and prioritise circular strategies that maximise lifetime value while reducing environmental impacts.