Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT The circular ecosystem concept is gaining prominence among academics and practitioners. However, critics claim the concept is used and understood differently by different actors. While conceptual plurality offers possibilities for broad interpretations and engagement, it can undermine the relevance of the concept as an analytical lens due to knowledge fragmentation. This paper aims to create transparency regarding the current understandings of the circular ecosystem concept. For this purpose, we have gathered, coded and analysed 45 circular ecosystem definitions. Our findings indicate that circular ecosystems are most frequently depicted as the interactions and resource flows between independent actors. However, it is often not highlighted that these actors are not stakeholders in the conventional sense, as they can fulfil different roles in different contexts. We further find that circular ecosystem definitions show few explicit linkages to the older and more prevalent circular business model and industrial ecology concepts despite strong conceptual interdependencies. A considerable body of literature subdivides the circular ecosystem into six sub‐ecosystems: industrial, urban, entrepreneurial, knowledge, innovation and business. We critically discuss and synthesise the various circular ecosystem conceptualisations throughout this paper and propose a new unified definition, categorisation and framework. Overall, we hope to contribute towards the coherence of the circular ecosystem concept and streamline the growing research in this area around a common understanding of the underlying real‐world phenomena.
Geissdoerfer et al. (Sun,) studied this question.