Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT Startups, as key drivers of innovation towards a circular economy ( CE ) transition, are gaining momentum in the agri‐food industry. However, an inclusive classification framework for circular agri‐food startups is still lacking, despite its crucial role in articulating their contribution and informing tailored policies to facilitate a smoother CE shift in the agri‐food sector. This research aims to shed light on circular agri‐food startups by developing a comprehensive typology that identifies their key characteristics and contributions to the CE . In this regard, a two‐tiered method, combining content analysis and hierarchical clustering, was employed to examine 79 circular agri‐food startups based on their supply chain position, adopted CE strategy, business model innovation orientation, technological approach, and customer segment. As a result, an inclusive typology was developed, categorizing startups into three distinct groups, namely, biotech‐driven sustainable producers, digital CE enablers, and circular packaging pioneers. Biotech‐driven sustainable producers primarily operate in the upstream food supply chain, adopting repurposing or upcycling strategies with a technology‐oriented business model. Digital CE enablers leverage digital solutions across various stages of the supply chain to implement reduction strategies through a platform‐oriented business model. Circular packaging pioneers, operating with a product‐ or service‐oriented business model, focus on sustainable packaging solutions through reuse strategies. The insights provided support agri‐food stakeholders and policy‐makers in crafting strategic policies that put the potential of circular startups into effect, thereby fostering a more resilient, sustainable, and circular agri‐food supply chain. Finally, future research directions are proposed to support startups on the road towards a circular agri‐food system.
Ranjbari et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: