Don’t call it a circular business model: establishing boundary conditions to clarify conceptual ambiguity in circular economy research

The circular economy literature has increasingly relied on the concept of Circular Business Model (CBM) to describe firm-level circular initiatives. However, this broad labelling tendency risks conflating genuine business model innovation with functional improvements more accurately described as Circular Operations Strategies (COS). Through a critical analysis of 28 studies proposing and adopting CBM archetypes, we assess 272 configurations against criteria drawn from the management literature on business models and operations strategy. Only 25.7% can be positively identified as CBMs based on the descriptions. From this analysis, we derive four propositions that establish the boundary conditions between CBMs and COS. Then, adopting a Design Science research approach, we operationalise these propositions into a sequential decision protocol for classifying circular economy initiatives. The protocol is iteratively developed and refined through its application to eight firms across different sectors, organisational forms and countries. Theoretically, we address what we identify as a domain-specific manifestation of the “business model paradox” within circular economy scholarship, offering an instrument to clarify it. Practically, the protocol enables researchers, firms and policymakers to distinguish initiatives that require business model innovation from those that do not; a distinction with consequences also for resource allocation, performance measurement and policy design.