Sustainable Consumption and Circular Economy: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Jorge Alberto Vargas-Merino
,
Cristian Armando Rios-Lama
,
Miguel Humberto Panez-Bendezú

Sustainable consumption is a key concept in society and the environment due to its direct relationship with sustainable development; its importance lies in the decoupling of consumption and economic growth with environmental damage and its involvement with various behavioral disciplines and ecological concepts. 

  • sustainable consumption
  • circular economy
  • life cycle

1. Conceptualization and Characterization of the Category “Sustainable Consumption”

Formally, the concept of sustainable consumption and production was born at the 1992 World Summit on Sustainable Development, seeking to address sustainability challenges [1] and linking consumption with sustainable development [2]. In 1994, the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment provided the most cited definition (Table 1): sustainable consumption (SC) implies the use of services and products that meet both needs and improvement of the quality of life while reducing environmental impact so as not to endanger the well-being of future generations [1][3][4][5][6][7].
Table 1. The most cited concept of SC (provided by the Oslo Symposium).
Paper(s) Main Conceptualization Key Aspects
[1][3][4][5][6][7] “The use of services and related products, which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of further generations” Resource Efficiency
Intergenerational
In the vision of [8], the conceptualization of SC can be seen as a part of sustainable development, as the previously mentioned definition, or as a term that brings together key characteristics revolving around the satisfaction of needs, improvement of quality of life, resource efficiency, minimization of waste, the extension of shelf life [9] or the need for changes in consumption patterns [9][10][11][12]. In other words, it brings together concepts linked to environmentally friendly behavior in the context of the acquisition of products and services [13]. According to [14], SC should no longer mean voluntary abstention from consumption choices (created in the linear paradigm) but the ability to maintain or improve a high quality of life despite the lower resource availability.
Despite the above-mentioned conceptualizations, there are criticisms due to the conceptual vagueness of SC or sustainability [11][15]. It is said that there is no generalized definition widely accepted by the scientific community [5][11][12][16][17][18]. The obstacles that prevent consensus are rooted in its conceptual complexity and the nature of its application. Some of these may be: SC subjectivity that may have a different meaning for each person, i.e., it may involve buying organic food, recycling, opting for environmentally friendly means of transport or other eco-friendly behaviors [4], the heterogeneity of parallel research streams (responsible—ethical—green consumption, etc.) that generate both greater breadth and vagueness [16], the dichotomy present in its name (sustainability vs. consumption) and the multidisciplinary approach of its base terms [11], the current state of the market that encourages unsustainable consumption patterns and consumerism [10][16], the involvement of consumers and their systemic alterations as actors of social change interacting with the environment [10][19], the conjunction of individuals and entities of different levels in decision-making [20], or the need to consider alterations caused by disruptive agents in future consumption patterns [17]. In light of everything that has been said, it becomes clear that sustainable consumption can have different conceptualizations (Table 2), depending in many cases on the perceptions of the authors, the purpose of the study, and the contexts in which the phenomenon occurs, among others.
Table 2. Summary of literature about extracted ideas of SC.
Paper Year Main Ideas Key Aspect(s)
[3] 2015 SC encompasses factors that go beyond individual behavior and can be observed through international studies that demonstrate how SC varies across different countries. Flexible/Adaptable
[6] 2022 SC requires a joint effort between individuals and companies. While individuals adhere to the principles of SC, organizations must strive to achieve sustainable production. Collaborative
[8] 2018 SC is a term with diverse conceptualizations, ranging from being an essential part of sustainable development as proposed by the Oslo Symposium (the most predominant option) to meeting needs, improving quality of life, resource efficiency, and social equity, among others. Umbrella Term
[9] 2018 SC is a contested concept that revolves around the interaction between social needs and ecological problems, which can be generalized into issues, such as environmental protection, human needs, extending product life cycles, and so on. Contested
Holistic
[10] 2012 SC is a concept that highlights the holistic implications of human consumption, indicating how each decision in consumption can generate an impact (positive or negative) on the global ecosystem. This may involve a change that can be voluntary, be limited by social structure, or consider both factors. Holistic
Voluntary, situational, or both
[11] 2022 SC is a compound term consisting of two words that are antithetical in nature: “sustainable,” which promotes preservation, discourages waste and destruction, and “consumption,” which tends to result in destruction and wastefulness Contradictory
[12] 2022 The definition of SC is constantly debated among scholars. For some, it may imply recommendations for improving production processes, while others associate it with greening markets or advocating for a sustainable lifestyle. The latter is something that consumers can learn and cultivate, making it a practice where individuals demonstrate their concern for sustainability and have the time and economic resources to do so. In general, SC is seen as an umbrella term that encompasses various aspects of sustainability. Nebulous
Umbrella Term
Learnable
[14] 2014 The notion of SC revolves around the need for change, recognizing that humanity is transitioning from a period of “abundance” to one of “austerity”. This does not necessarily mean voluntarily giving up current consumption choices but rather the capacity to lead a fulfilling life with a similar or higher quality of life, despite a decrease in resource availability. Efficiency
Frugality
[15] 2003 The concept of SC is subject to various definitions and, as such, is widely debated and criticized, though its own vagueness can be a benefit. This characteristic provides it with flexibility, enabling it to be adapted to any environment. In other words, it conveys a general idea that acquires more precise characteristics when situated in a specific scenario. Nebulous
Flexible/Adaptable
[16] 2021 SC is the microeconomic foundation on which the circular paradigm is built. Simply put, it is a prerequisite for the applicability of the circular economy because a successful transition towards a circular economy requires adapting more SC patterns. Requirement to Circular Economy
[18] 2015 SC refers to a change in consumption patterns in such a way that energy and resource efficiency prevail in the household, minimizing waste and adopting SC patterns. Behavioral Change
[4] 2010 Currently, SC not only entails responsible use of resources and not compromising the development of future generations, but it also encompasses social aspects, such as worker well-being, respect for traditions, animal rights, women and children’s welfare, and social cohesion. SC means different things to different people, such as buying organic food, using public transportation, recycling, supporting a social cause, and so on. Holistic
Flexible/Adaptable
[19] 2017 In general, SC is viewed as a way to reduce the environmental impact of a product throughout its lifecycle; therefore, it takes into account the lifecycle regarding the purchase, use, treatment, and disposal of products. Through product life cycle
[20] 2019 SC is an amalgam of individuals, marketers, and holistic levels of decision-making aimed at improving the quality of life using fewer resources, and creating lifestyles aligned with sustainable development. Collaborative
Complex
[21] 2019 SC is a broad collective term that designates various consumer behaviors and consumption patterns based on ecological and social needs. Holistic
[22] 2019 SC is a term that encompasses both green consumption and moderate consumption, which involves using principles of reuse and reduction, and encouraging consumers to use sustainable products, paying attention to how they are reused or disposed of, and giving greater attention to advocating for social and environmental causes. Umbrella term
Transformative
Through product life cycle
[23] 2009 To some extent, SC may involve sustainable values, norms, and aspirations that do not necessarily imply ecological purchases, but may impact more prosaic values such as money and time invested in the search for a purchase, or external aspects that escape the consumer’s control. Emotional
Rational
Situational
[24] 2022 In times of crisis, where there is panic and social anxiety, changes in consumption patterns usually occur, and in the context of SC, this can lead to impulsive purchases and overall waste. Crisis Susceptibility
Both the conceptual complexity and breadth of SC are given from the links with related terms, such as responsible consumption, ethical consumption, anti-consumption, mindful consumption [11], or green consumption [21], highlighting the differences between these concepts. For example, according to [25], the difference between green consumption and ethical consumption is that the former focuses only on the environmental factor, while the latter integrates social factors. In another case, the difference between anti-consumption and mindful consumption is also observed. The former is the voluntary choice to avoid waste due to a thrifty (but not environmentally conscious) personality, deriving pleasure in not spending, or the desire to lead a simple life considering non-materialistic factors, although it may integrate an environmental concern [26], while the latter invites reflection in consumption, replacing hedonic values and prioritizing benevolent behaviors that reduce impulsive, compulsive or addictive purchases [11]. Similarly, SC is based on the 3Rs [reduce, reuse, and recycle] [4][9], being a guide that makes up the shared action of circular behavior [27] while finding conceptual similarities in its environmental nature with green consumption [21][25].
It should be noted that sustainable consumption and production have two compounds, and there are discrepancies as to how they should be approached. Ref. [28] points out that sustainable production is subject to SC, although he also states that both terms can be approached jointly or separately. On the other hand, Ref. [22] considers that SC depends on sustainable production, intuiting that products should be conceived under the circular paradigm so that both concepts should be approached as a whole. From another perspective, sustainable consumption and production are considered to interact with each other, where the consumer has a vital role in the former and little direct influence on production [12], which actively involves business and government.
The fact is that regardless of how it is approached, SC is quite broad since a large number of factors influence how it performs. Omitting the already influential demographic characteristics, aspects, such as religion [29][30], parental environmental values and family upbringing [31], culture [3], corporate irresponsibility [32], consumer associations [33], informed consumer and information availability [7], or the green consumer value-action/intention-behavior gap [23][34][35], to mention a few, are aspects that add layers of complexity to a term that is already difficult to define.
At a recent juncture, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in consumers, and economic problems. It is argued that the pandemic prompted changes in sustainable behavior, generating greater environmental awareness subject to sociodemographic characteristics [36], although, by itself, it does not appear to have the potential to change current consumption paradigms [12]. Despite having tentatively generated changes in favor of SC, such as the reduction in purchases of “frivolous” products [37], irresponsible behaviors linked to panic buying and unnecessary accumulation of products have occurred [5][12]; however, such attitudes are related to a natural reflex of human beings in a crisis. From the perspective of [24], the problems caused by the pandemic have led to impulsive and hasty purchases linked to the excessive use of credit cards, going totally against SC.

2. The “Symbiotic” Relationship between Sustainable Consumption/Consumers and Circular Economy

In essence, CE focuses on the extension of the shelf life of a product after its first life cycle [38], has a disruptive capacity that integrates concepts related to the interests of SC [11][16], having an impact [16][22] on the three main actors (consumers, governments, and corporations) that influence sustainability in consumption and production issues [39], which implies its capacity to generate socio-environmental changes in both the private and public sectors [16]. For all these reasons, its capacity to sustain and accelerate the development of sustainable consumption and production [40][41][42] is denoted, highlighting at the same time how it reliably integrates the paradigm of economic growth without undermining environmental well-being [43], which implicitly includes a cross-sectional vision that not only benefits SDG 12 but also several others [42][44].
The literature on CE tends to focus on the private sector, emphasizing sustainable business models while neglecting the necessary changes in the consumer to accept such scenarios [45]. It should be kept in mind that consumers perform a fundamental role in both the adoption of CE [2][16] and SC [10][12][19], being both concepts linked by the implications of the former, which demands an abrupt change in consumption values, patterns, and relationships [45], and encompass the idea of resource optimization, low-emission production, product efficiency, and gradual transition to green consumption [22].
Although various sustainable development practitioners focus on reducing the use of virgin materials at the production level, changes in this area are slow [46]. Given this, the consumer is key to achieving and accelerating the shift from a linear to a circular economy [47]. Its approval is a significant generator of change for current organizations [2], pointing out how the idea of generating changes at the behavioral level would allow for reducing the paradigm of “consume and throw,”, i.e., through the conception of multiple ownership of products, a closed loop is created that maximizes the use of resources while reducing waste [46]. According to the research by [48], consumers have a fundamental role that they do not usually perform, as they do not have a clear understanding of what CE is and how it allows for raising awareness and contributing to sustainable consumption and production. Ref. [47] add that citizens are becoming increasingly aware of their responsibility in consumption cycles, although the latter recognize their lack of understanding of CE.
In the context of CE, consumer behavior implicitly encompasses aspects of SC [27], and consumer intervention can be reflected in the basic concept of the 3Rs [4] and its variants [27]. In other words, the consumer has a sustainable behavior when repairing, extending the shelf life of the product even considering the implicit design limitations [49], how difficult it is to allocate time to repair, and how easy it is to purchase a new product online [50]; recycling, sending products to a treatment process so that their materials serve as raw material for new materials or products, contemplating the differences in product categories and the type of recycling of these [51]; rethinking/reusing, considering the financial and social benefits of renting or buying second-hand products [21][52][53]; refurbishing a product, understood as improving the functional performance of an item (e.g., laptop), to keep it updated [54]; or remanufacturing, which involves the producer restores the product preserving its original function and added value [55]. Ref. [27] expands on this by expressing how the 9Rs framework interacts with CE (Table 3).
Table 3. The consumer and the circular economy within the 9Rs framework.
Approach Strategy Actions
Intelligent use of products and manufacturing R0. Refuse Making the product redundant by abandoning its function or offering the same one with a radically different product.
R1. Rethink Finding or formulating new ways to use a product.
R2. Reduce Increasing efficiency in the manufacture or use of products.
Extension of product and component shelf life R3. Reuse Reusing a product that has been discarded by another consumer, provided it is in good condition and fulfills its original function.
R4. Repair Repairing and maintaining a defective product so that it can regain its original function.
R5. Refurbish Refurbishing an old product and bringing it up to or near current standards.
R6. Remanufacture Using the parts of a discarded product in a new product with the same function.
R7. Repurpose Using a discarded product or its parts in a product with a different function.
A useful application of materials R8. Recycle Processing materials to generate resources of equal or lesser quality.
R9. Recover Incineration of waste for energy generation.
Source: [27], those referred to in [56].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15108401

References

  1. Cohen, B.; Munoz, P.; Muñoz, P. Sharing Cities and Sustainable Consumption and Production: Towards an Integrated Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 87–97.
  2. Camacho-Otero, J.; Boks, C.; Pettersen, I.N. Consumption in the Circular Economy: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2758.
  3. Ceglia, D.; de Oliveira Lima, S.H.; Leocádio, Á.L.; Lima, S.H.D.; Leocadio, A.L. An Alternative Theoretical Discussion on Cross-Cultural Sustainable Consumption. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 23, 414–424.
  4. Abeliotis, K.; Koniari, C.; Sardianou, E. The Profile of the Green Consumer in Greece. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 34, 153–160.
  5. Coman, E.; Coman, C.; Repanovici, A.; Baritz, M.; Kovacs, A.; Tomozeiu, A.M.; Barbu, S.; Toderici, O. Does Sustainable Consumption Matter? The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medication Use in Brasov, Romania. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8017.
  6. Vallet-Bellmunt, T.; Fuertes-Fuertes, I.; Flor, M.L. Reporting Sustainable Development Goal 12 in the Spanish Food Retail Industry. An Analysis Based on Global Reporting Initiative Performance Indicators. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 30, 695–707.
  7. Shao, J.; Taisch, M.; Mier, M.O. Influencing Factors to Facilitate Sustainable Consumption: From the Experts’ Viewpoints. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 203–216.
  8. Chaturvedi, I. Sustainable Consumption: Scope and Applicability of Principles of International Law. Chin. J. Environ. Law 2018, 2, 5–27.
  9. Scott, K.A.; Weaver, S.T. The Intersection of Sustainable Consumption and Anticonsumption: Repurposing to Extend Product Life Spans. J. Public Policy Mark. 2018, 37, 291–305.
  10. Cherrier, H. Sustainability in Practice: Exploring the Objective and Subjective Aspects of Personhood. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2012, 24, 247–267.
  11. Haider, M.; Shannon, R.; Moschis, G.P. Sustainable Consumption Research and the Role of Marketing: A Review of the Literature (1976–2021). Sustainability 2022, 14, 3999.
  12. Leal Filho, W.; Salvia, A.L.; Paço, A.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Vidal, D.G.; Da Cunha, D.A.; de Vasconcelos, C.R.; Baumgartner, R.J.; Rampasso, I.; Anholon, R.; et al. The Influences of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sustainable Consumption: An International Study. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2022, 34, 54.
  13. Bonera, M.; Corvi, E.; Codini, A.P.; Ma, R.J. Does Nationality Matter in Eco-Behaviour? Sustainability 2017, 9, 1694.
  14. Spangenberg, J. Institutional Change for Strong Sustainable Consumption: Sustainable Consumption and the Degrowth Economy. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2014, 10, 62–77.
  15. Connolly, J.; Prothero, A. Sustainable Consumption: Consumption, Consumers and the Commodity Discourse. Consum. Mark. Cult. 2003, 6, 275–291.
  16. Garcia, D.G.; Kipnis, E.; Vasileiou, E.; Solomon, A. Consumption in the Circular Economy: Learning from Our Mistakes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 601.
  17. Kar, S.K.; Harichandan, S.; Kumar Kar, S.; Harichandan, S.; Kar, S.K.; Harichandan, S.; Kar, S.K.; Harichandan, S. Green Marketing Innovation and Sustainable Consumption: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 361, 132290.
  18. Lee, C.K.C.C.; Levy, D.S.; Yap, C.S.F. How Does the Theory of Consumption Values Contribute to Place Identity and Sustainable Consumption? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 597–607.
  19. Geng, D.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Q. Motivating Sustainable Consumption among Chinese Adolescents: An Empirical Examination. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 315–322.
  20. Sharma, N.; Saha, R.; Rameshwar, R. “I Don’t Buy LED Bulbs but I Switch off the Lights”: Green Consumption versus Sustainable Consumption. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2019, 11, 138–161.
  21. Hsueh, S.L.; Lin, Y.J.; Lin, W.L.L. Key Influence Factors in the Shared Sustainable Consumption of Boutique Products. Ekoloji 2019, 28, 1551–1559.
  22. Shao, J. Sustainable Consumption in China: New Trends and Research Interests. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 1507–1517.
  23. McDonald, S.; Oates, C.; Thyne, M.; Alevizou, P.; McMorland, L.-A.L.A. Comparing Sustainable Consumption Patterns across Product Sectors. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 137–145.
  24. Gawior, B.; Polasik, M.; Lluís Del Olmo, J. Credit Card Use, Hedonic Motivations, and Impulse Buying Behavior in Fast Fashion Physical Stores during COVID-19: The Sustainability Paradox. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4133.
  25. Johnstone, M.-L.L.; Tan, L.P. Exploring the Gap Between Consumers’ Green Rhetoric and Purchasing Behaviour. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 132, 311–328.
  26. Culiberg, B.; Cho, H.; Kos Koklic, M.; Zabkar, V. The Role of Moral Foundations, Anticipated Guilt and Personal Responsibility in Predicting Anti-Consumption for Environmental Reasons. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 182, 465–481.
  27. Ali, M.; Choe, P. Independent User Circular Behaviors and Their Motivators and Barriers: A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13319.
  28. Glavič, P. Evolution and Current Challenges of Sustainable Consumption and Production. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9379.
  29. Felix, R.; Hinsch, C.; Rauschnabel, P.A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B. Religiousness and Environmental Concern: A Multilevel and Multi-Country Analysis of the Role of Life Satisfaction and Indulgence. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 304–312.
  30. Ghazali, E.M.; Mutum, D.S.; Ariswibowo, N. Impact of Religious Values and Habit on an Extended Green Purchase Behaviour Model. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 639–654.
  31. Gong, Y.; Li, J.; Xie, J.; Zhang, L.; Lou, Q. Will “Green” Parents Have “Green” Children? The Relationship Between Parents’ and Early Adolescents’ Green Consumption Values. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 179, 369–385.
  32. Escobar-Sierra, M.; García-Cardona, A.; Vera Acevedo, L.D. How Moral Outrage Affects Consumer’s Perceived Values of Socially Irresponsible Companies. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1888668.
  33. Jaca, C.; Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Psomas, E.L.; Ormazabal, M. What Should Consumer Organizations Do to Drive Environmental Sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 201–208.
  34. Essiz, O.; Yurteri, S.; Mandrik, C.; Senyuz, A. Exploring the Value-Action Gap in Green Consumption: Roles of Risk Aversion, Subjective Knowledge, and Gender Differences. J. Glob. Mark. 2023, 36, 67–92.
  35. Testa, F.; Sarti, S.; Frey, M. Are Green Consumers Really Green? Exploring the Factors behind the Actual Consumption of Organic Food Products. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 327–338.
  36. Dangelico, R.M.; Schiaroli, V.; Fraccascia, L. Is COVID-19 Changing Sustainable Consumer Behavior? A Survey of Italian Consumers. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 1477–1496.
  37. Degli Esposti, P.; Mortara, A.; Roberti, G. Sharing and Sustainable Consumption in the Era of COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1903.
  38. Goyal, S.; Garg, D.; Luthra, S. Analyzing Critical Success Factors to Adopt Sustainable Consumption and Production Linked with Circular Economy. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 5195–5224.
  39. Thøgersen, J. How May Consumer Policy Empower Consumers for Sustainable Lifestyles? J. Consum. Policy 2005, 28, 143–177.
  40. Pieroni, M.P.P.; McAloone, T.C.; Pigosso, D.C.A. Circular Economy Business Model Innovation: Sectorial Patterns within Manufacturing Companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 124921.
  41. Aguilar-Hernandez, G.A.; Dias Rodrigues, J.F.; Tukker, A. Macroeconomic, Social and Environmental Impacts of a Circular Economy up to 2050: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123421.
  42. Kristoffersen, E.; Blomsma, F.; Mikalef, P.; Li, J.Y. The Smart Circular Economy: A Digital-Enabled Circular Strategies Framework for Manufacturing Companies. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 120, 241–261.
  43. Tseng, M.L.; Chiu, A.S.F.; Liu, G.; Jantaralolica, T. Circular Economy Enables Sustainable Consumption and Production in Multi-Level Supply Chain System. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104601.
  44. Schroeder, P.; Anggraeni, K.; Weber, U. The Relevance of Circular Economy Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 77–95.
  45. de Morais, L.H.L.; Pinto, D.C.; Cruz-Jesus, F. Circular Economy Engagement: Altruism, Status, and Cultural Orientation as Drivers for Sustainable Consumption. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 523–533.
  46. Arman, S.M.; Mark-Herbert, C. Re-Commerce to Ensure Circular Economy from Consumer Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10242.
  47. Petreca, B.; Baurley, S.; Hesseldahl, K.; Pollmann, A.; Obrist, M. The Compositor Tool: Investigating Consumer Experiences in the Circular Economy. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, 24.
  48. Sijtsema, S.J.; Snoek, H.M.; van Haaster-de Winter, M.A.; Dagevos, H. Let’s Talk about Circular Economy: A Qualitative Exploration of Consumer Perceptions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 286.
  49. Hernandez, R.J.; Miranda, C.; Goñi, J. Empowering Sustainable Consumption by Giving Back to Consumers the ‘Right to Repair’. Sustainability 2020, 12, 850.
  50. Jaeger-Erben, M.; Frick, V.; Hipp, T.; Jaeger-Erben, M.; Frick, V.; Hipp, T. Why Do Users (Not) Repair Their Devices? A Study of the Predictors of Repair Practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125382.
  51. Yadav, S.S.; Kar, S.K.; Rai, P.K. Why Do Consumers Buy Recycled Shoes? An Amalgamation of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 1007959.
  52. Khan, J.; Rundle-Thiele, S. Factors Explaining Shared Clothes Consumption in China: Individual Benefit or Planet Concern? Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2019, 24, e1652.
  53. da Silveira, A.B.; Levrini, G.R.D.; Ertz, M. How Digital Platforms Materialize Sustainable Collaborative Consumption: A Brazilian and Canadian Bike-Sharing Case Study. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2022, 34, 51–71.
  54. Pialot, O.; Millet, D.; Bisiaux, J. “Upgradable PSS”: Clarifying a New Concept of Sustainable Consumption/Production Based on Upgradablility. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 538–550.
  55. Michaud, C.; Llerena, D. Green Consumer Behaviour: An Experimental Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Remanufactured Products. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011, 20, 408–420.
  56. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback