Circular business model evolution: Stakeholder matters for a self‐sufficient ecosystem

Abstract

Food waste is a key issue in the circular economy. A circular ecosystem results from the contributions of various stakeholders; however, the claims and value propositions of these stakeholders can differ, hampering long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. This study analyses the case of RiCibo, a circular ecosystem based in Genoa, Italy. RiCibo collects surplus food and redistributes it to the needy in the local community. The study examines the conditions that facilitated RiCibo's evolution from a simple project to a circular self-sufficient ecosystem characterised by a co-designed circular business model with a broad range of stakeholders. The results show that sharing people, infrastructure and knowledge, together with mutual trust among stakeholders, are the preconditions of a circular ecosystem. Long-term continuity depends on additional tools that enhance financial self-sufficiency, namely, participative governance, a co-designed circular business model, accountability, frequent engagement, local actions and the development of advocacy power.

From sustainability to thrivability: A novel framework for entrepreneurial ecosystems

“…A number of factors drove evolution towards a thrivable entrepreneurial ecosystem. Similar to previous studies (Moggi & Dameri, 2021;Parida & Wincent, 2019), the results showed that the sharing of knowledge and tools with a common goal was possible thanks to the profitable returns from the cooperation among entrepreneurs. Collected public and European funds and the savings in economic scale made possible by the recovery and reuse of discharged resources (such as land) enabled an increase in thrivability of the system and attracted young entrepreneurs.…”

“…Researchers suggest that the success of ventures depends on appropriate public and private support systems (Cavallo et al, 2019;Nylund & Cohen, 2017) as well as several institutional conditions including regulatory policies, innovation climates and social norms (Morozova et al, 2019;Sunny & Shu, 2019). In this context, entrepreneurship is usually orchestrated by a focal organisation and the ecosystem is characterised by transparency in the actors' actions (Moggi & Dameri, 2021;Parida & Wincent, 2019;Stam, 2018).…”

“…In this conceptualisation, the focus is anthropocentric and mainly on how to enable efficient economic development in an environment of limited resources (Bebbington et al, 2019). This concept has gradually advanced over time to include concrete developments in numerous areas such as social justice, social-ecological technical systems, innovation toward sustainability and self-sufficient ecosystems (Miller, 2013;Moggi & Dameri, 2021). Scholars have already underlined how entrepreneurs' sustainable behaviour may be a façade, and efficiency and technological improvements may unintentionally foster greater sustainability or hide unsustainable behaviour, in a form of 'greenwashing' (Gray & Milne, 2018.…”

“…However, recent studies underline the importance of considering the triple bottom line aspects embedded in the wider space created by the interaction of several linked actors pursuing a common aim: a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017). In this ecosystem, sustainable entrepreneurs are nested within a community in which each actor supports the system by playing a role in an interactive network that potentially supports value co-creation (Donaldson, 2020;Moggi & Dameri, 2021). However, recent studies underline the importance of considering ecosystems in their coherence with our natural world, as economic behaviours are increasingly being imposed on a different order (Smitsman & Currivan, 2019. Redesigning our ecosystem to become more sustainable is part of a process facilitating the development of people, organisations and our learning capacity regarding thrivability .…”

A Hierarchical Pyramid for Food Waste Based on a Social Innovation Perspective

“…In these new approaches, an SI feature my also involve, for example, a specialization in SF supply channels, such as those realized by Recup and Ecomori in Italy, to recover SF from city markets, or by Equoevento, which recovers leftovers from catering events [67][68][69]; it may also concern the management system for a recovery network, such as the one provided by Refood in Portugal, which operates with a particular focus on communitybuilding and citizen participation at a local level [70], or by Avanzi Popolo 2.0 in Italy, which works to create new connections between heterogeneous stakeholders [19]. Food recovery governance can also take the form of public-private networks, as occurs in Genoa (Italy) with Ricibo, a social platform involving non-profit organizations, the local Municipality and traditional businesses cooperating in SF recovery as a circular business model [71].…”