# Circularity Practices in Manufacturing-A Study of the 20 Largest Manufacturing Companies in Sweden

Filip Skärin, Carin Rösiö, Ann-Louise Andersen

► To cite this version:

Filip Skärin, Carin Rösiö, Ann-Louise Andersen. Circularity Practices in Manufacturing-A Study of the 20 Largest Manufacturing Companies in Sweden. IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems (APMS), Sep 2022, Gyeongju, South Korea. pp.399-407, 10.1007/978-3-031-16407-1_47. hal-05386096

HAL Id: hal-05386096

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05386096v1

Submitted on 27 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# Circularity Practices
in Manufacturing—A Study of the 20 Largest
Manufacturing Companies in Sweden

Filip Skärin✉️, Carin Rösiö✉️, and Ann-Louise Andersen✉️

Jönköping University, Gjuterigatan 5, 553 18 Jönköping, Sweden
filip.skarin@ju.se

**Abstract.** In line with the accelerating global warming crisis, the concept of circular economy (CE), wherein the utilization and lifetimes of resources and materials are maximised, has gained a significant increase in attention. For manufacturing companies, adapting to a CE is particularly important due to high CO₂-e emissions. In order to increase the knowledge regarding how manufacturing companies have adapted to a CE, sustainability reports wherein the companies themselves report upon their circularity practices can be examined. This study has aimed at investigating the publicly available sustainability reports of the 20 largest manufacturing companies in Sweden, with the purpose of identifying which, and on what level of implementation, circularity practices are mentioned. The 10R framework was used as a foundation for categorizing and analysing the identified circularity practices. The findings in this study include a total of 38 unique circularity practices, whereas 13 are categorized as visioned or planned, and 36 are categorized as ongoing or already realised circularity practices. The circularity practices were primarily related to reducing, reusing, and recycling. Suggestions of further research include elaborately describing the circularity practices as well as further exploring the implementation of repairing, refurbishing and remanufacturing amongst manufacturing companies.

**Keywords:** Circularity · Circularity practices · Circular economy · Manufacturing · Sustainability

## 1 Introduction

During the past 150 years, the linear economy characterised by a “take-make-use-dispose” product and material view has dominated [1, 2]. In line with the accelerating global warming crisis, the approach of circular economy (CE) has gained a significant increase in attention, wherein the utilization and lifetimes of resources and materials are maximised [3]–[5]. Nowadays, CE is generally accepted as a significant support to sustainable development [1, 6, 7]. For manufacturing companies, the strive towards a CE is highly relevant as they play a major part in the global warming crisis. For instance, in 2019, manufacturing companies were responsible for 32% of Sweden’s entire CO₂-e
emissions [8]. In order to realize CE, circularity practices such as reuse, refurbish, repair and remanufacture can be adapted and implemented [9]. However, the descriptions of circularity practices are largely focused on products in previous research. Similarly, hitherto conducted research has also been directed towards describing the circularity practices from a supply chain perspective (e.g. [10]) and developing circular business models [11]. A particular emphasis on the circularity practices in manufacturing is yet to be realised. Therefore, further clarifications regarding the contents of circularity practices directly related to manufacturing operations is needed.

CE has also become an interesting topic for companies, as indicated by the increased focus on CE in publicly stated sustainability reports (e.g. [10, 12]). Hence, investigating sustainability reports enables an up-to date description by the companies' themselves regarding their circularity practices. In Sweden, the sustainability report is a public document required to be annually presented by companies if fulfilling two of the following requirements: (i) having a total asset of more than 175 million SEK (≈17.2 million USD), (ii) net sales of more than 350 million SEK (≈ 34.4 million USD) or (iii) average 250 employees or more [13]. Previous research has not emphasized on describing circularity practices mentioned in sustainability reports amongst manufacturing companies. Hence, the purpose of this study is to identify which, and on what level of implementation, circularity practices in manufacturing are mentioned in sustainability reports. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: chapter 2 describes the theoretical framework, including circularity focus in sustainability reports and circularity practices. Section 3 presents the methodology for fulfilling the purpose. Section 4 presents the identified circularity practices, and in Sect. 5 these are discussed. Lastly, in Sect. 6, conclusions and suggestions of further research are presented.

# 2 Related Research

## 2.1 Circularity Focus in Sustainability Reports

Investigating sustainability reports has previously been carried out in order to identify and describe circularity practices. For instance, Sihvonen & Partanen [14] explored how Asian, European and North American information and communications technology companies have addressed CE in their sustainability report. The focus regard eco-design practices regarding quantitative environmental targets. CE was addressed in terms of the product life cycle phases pre-use, use and post-phase, including recover, reduce, reuse and recycle [14]. Rhein and Sträter [15], on the other hand, studied the sustainability reports of 10 global companies which products are most frequently found in oceans and on coasts, focusing on a self-commitment of those companies and reconstructuring the CE concept and the circularity practices reduce, reuse and recycle. Moreover, Calzolari et al. [10] focused on the adaptation of CE practices, in particular reduce, reuse, recycle and recover were distinguished as CE practices, within 50 European Multi-National Enterprises within the sectors agri-food, services, energy and manufacturing.
The latter included companies such as Volkswagen AG, Daimler, Siemens and Unilever. They found an increase from 3 mentions in 2013 to 25, i.e. half of the companies in 2018. Production/manufacturing was found to be primarily related to reuse of parts and components, usage of renewable energy and increase of production systems efficiency [10].

## 2.2 Circularity Practices and R-Frameworks

The R-framework originates from the introduction of 1R in the 1980s. This stemmed from the lean manufacturing, and focused primarily on the reduction of wastes [16]. During the 1990s, an evolved R-framework covering the circularity practices reduce, reuse and recycle was adopted by many companies in order to establish greener manufacturing. However, as this R-framework, frequently termed as 3R, does not ensure the possibility to adapt a four-stage product life-cycle, including pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, use and post-use, it is nowadays frequently reckoned as not alone capable of ensuring sustainable manufacturing [17, 18]. Instead, incorporating 6 circularity practices, i.e. the 6R framework is commonly referred to. This framework includes the addition of recover, redesign and remanufacturing from the previous 3R framework. By implementing the circularity practices included in the 6R framework, a closed-loop which entails cradle-to-cradle perspective of products and resources can be implemented within the supply chain in order to set the foundation for sustainable manufacturing [18]. However, in recent years the R-framework has been developed even further. This has led to a numerous Rs being added to the aforementioned 6Rs. For instance, Potting et al. [19], presents an additional 4Rs, resulting in a total of 10Rs. The general rule of thumb in Potting et al.'s [19] reasoning implies that a higher degree of circularity aids in maximising the utilization of resources, hence limiting the environmental impacts of manufacturing companies. Nevertheless, there is a discrepancy amongst the hitherto conducted research regarding the terminology used in these descriptions of the R-framework. Potting et al. [19] uses similar, but not identical terms, as the previously discussed 6Rs, whilst also adding refuse, rethink, repurpose and recover to the R-framework (Table 1).

<table><caption>**Table 1** The 10R framework, adapted from Potting et al. [19]</caption><thead><tr><td>Circularity practice category</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>R0—Refuse</td><td>Make the product unessential through function removal or by including function and ability in other products</td></tr><tr><td>R1—Rethink</td><td>Rethinking the usage of products, e.g. through minimizing natural resource and material usage</td></tr><tr><td>R2—Reduce</td><td>Efficiently manufacturing of the products, e.g. through minimizing natural resource and material usage</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><td>Circularity practice category</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>R3—Reuse</td><td>The product is reused by another consumer while still remaining original abilities</td></tr><tr><td>R4—Repair</td><td>Repair the product to enable original abilities to properly function</td></tr><tr><td>R5—Refurbish</td><td>Refurbishing the product to original condition</td></tr><tr><td>R6—Remanufacture</td><td>Dismantle the product to enable original abilities to properly function</td></tr><tr><td>R7—Repurpose</td><td>Use discarded product or its parts in new product (with other abilities and functions)</td></tr><tr><td>R8—Recycle</td><td>Process the product to obtain material which can be used in manufacturing of new products</td></tr><tr><td>R9—Recover</td><td>Recover energy through material incineration</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3 Methodology

In this research, a document study was carried out in order to investigate sustainability reports (see Fig. 1). The sample, and also the unit of analysis, included the 20 largest manufacturing companies in Sweden according to their net turnover in 2020. Sustainability reports from the sample were gathered from the companies' websites, and their most recent reports from 2020 were read in its entirety. During the reading, parts related to circularity were extracted. The sustainability reports were read in English if available, however, in the cases were solely a Swedish version of the report was available, the excerpted parts were translated into English after reading the reports in order to synchronize the data analysis. The parts related to circularity practices, e.g. in terms of quotes and paragraphs, were thereafter sorted and categorized using the software NVivo. This was based on the previously mentioned 10R framework, which was chosen due to its extensiveness in comparison to other R-frameworks (e.g. 3R and 6R). However, as the 10R framework described by Potting et al. [19] focuses on products, not circularity practices in manufacturing, solely the structure of the framework was used. Instead, the purpose of this study has been to provide new insights into the specific contents of each circularity practice category, as well as the level of implementation of these circularity practices. A circularity practice in manufacturing was defined as a circularity practice occurring within the manufacturing facility. Only the circularity practices related to the production of products was included, as well as e.g. reparations of the product, however, circularity practices related to product design, implementing circular business models and so on was not included. Once the initial categorization was completed, a second refinement of the circularity practices was carried out to further cluster and clarify the practices. Lastly, each circularity practice was categorized either as a visioned/planned practice or as an ongoing/realised practice. This categorization was inspired by Calzolari
et al. [10], and chosen since it was deemed to provide sufficient separation between the identified circularity practices in terms of level of implementation.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** The methodological process and sample, adapted from Calzolari et al. [10]</figcaption></figure>

## 4 Circularity Practices in Manufacturing

By studying the sustainability reports of the 20 largest manufacturing companies in Sweden, a total of 38 unique circularity practices in manufacturing were identified (see Table 2). The majority of the identified circularity practices in this study have been categorised as ongoing/released practices. In total, 13 of the identified circularity practices were categorized as visioned/planned practices, whilst 36 ongoing/realised circularity practices. In terms of visioned/planned circularity practices, “Reduce resource usage”, “Reduce generated waste” and “Reduce GhG (greenhouse gas) emissions” were the most frequently mentioned practices, and also the only practices mentioned by more than one single company. The circularity practices “Reduce GhG emissions”, “Reuse materials”, “Reduce generated waste” and “Reduce energy usage” were mentioned by the most companies in terms of a realised/ongoing practice. Furthermore, repairing, refurbishing and remanufacturing were only identified in terms of a single circularity practice each, in comparison to the other circularity practice categories wherein more specified descriptions of circularity practices were possible to attain from the results.

<table><caption>**Table 2** Identified circularity practices in manufacturing</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Circularity practices</th><th>Total</th><th>V/P</th><th>O/R</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>R0—Refuse</td><td>No practice identified</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">R1—Rethink</td><td>Apply sustainable chemical management</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Implement circular production processes</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Increase available data from production</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Circularity practices</th><th>Total</th><th>V/P</th><th>O/R</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td>Increase usage of renewable energy</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Rethink existing production to make more sustainable &amp; circular</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Use new sustainable processes and technologies</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">R2—Reduce</td><td>Reduce chemical usage</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce energy usage</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce environmental impact</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce fuel usage</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce resource usage</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce generated waste</td><td>11</td><td>3</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce water usage</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">R3—Reuse</td><td>Reuse components</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse heat and steam</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse materials</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse packaging material</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse products</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Reuse water</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>R4—Repair</td><td>Repair own products (as service)</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>R5—Refurbish</td><td>Refurbish own products and parts</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>R6—Reman</td><td>Remanufacture products, parts and components</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">R7—Repurpose</td><td>Repurpose packaging materials</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Repurpose product</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">R8—Recycle</td><td>Repurpose residual products</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle energy</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle hazardous waste</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle heat from wastewater and machines</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle metals</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle packaging materials</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle thermoplastics</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle in general</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle waste</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Recycle water</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>**Table 2** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Circularity practices</th><th>Total</th><th>V/P</th><th>O/R</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">R9—Recover</td><td>Recover for incineration (energy recovery)</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Recover for landfill</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Recover—undefined (only disposal mentioned)</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5 Discussion

The circularity practices mentioned in the sustainability reports have been found to be recurrently vaguely described by the companies, which might signal a lack of focus on circularity practices in manufacturing. This as the sustainability report otherwise would provide an opportunity for manufacturing companies to clearly describe their adaptation to a CE and related circularity practices. Hence, the neglect of focus on circularity practices in sustainability reports might be an explanation for the amount of unique circularity practices identified in this study and the low frequency of many circularity practices. Similarly are the results of this study indicating a lack of a structured way of working with circularity in manufacturing. For instance, the usage of a R framework in order to coordinate circularity practices was only mentioned by three companies. However, only one of these companies refer to a specific R framework (5R, including reduce, reuse, repair, remanufacture and recycle), whilst the other two briefly mention the following of a few circularity practice categories. This is further strengthening the probability regarding the lack of focus on circularity practices in manufacturing amongst the studied companies.

The majority of the identified circularity practices in this study have been categorised as ongoing/released practices, a finding which is correlating with the conclusions from e.g. Tiscini [12], implying that circularity indeed has increased in frequency in sustainability reports and is currently being adapted by many companies. Studying sustainability reports has proven to be a sufficient method for identifying and categorizing circularity practices according to level of implementation. Although, as the description of the circularity practices often are described at a low degree in the sustainability reports, difficulties in interpreting the report were present, causing the need to further describe the identified circularity practices. This study provides valuable insights in indicating the circularity trends amongst Swedish manufacturing companies. However, further case studies are needed to precisely identify how far companies have come in their adaptation to CE through circularity practices, as well as describing in detail the challenges with implementing circularity practices.

Furthermore, the identified irregularities in terms of frequency amongst the circularity practices might stem from the 3R framework, i.e. reduce, reuse, recycle, still being the most dominantly focus areas amongst manufacturing companies. Nevertheless, using the 10R framework as a foundation provided the possibility for creating a detailed description of the identified circularity practices. Though, as previously mentioned, the definitions in the 10R framework, as presented by Potting et al. [19], was not used. Instead, this study was carried out with the intention of exploring the circularity
practices without any predetermined description of the contents of the circularity prac-
tices. Due to this, differences in the formulation of the circularity practices are clearly
visible, hence, the results should not be considered comparable in terms of amount of
unique circularity practices in each circularity practice category, rather as solely trans-
parently describing the circularity practices reported by manufacturing companies. The
circularity practices are also frequently entangled with each other, primarily related to
reduce, which can be considered both as a consequence of other circularity practices
and as individual practices. This might be considered as an influencing factor partly
causing the comparatively high frequency in circularity practices related to e.g. reduce.
Likewise can the literal interpretation of circularity practices be recognized as an issue.
For instance, reduce energy has been interpretated as either a direct intention or realised
act to reduce energy usage, and also, as described by one of the companies: "Energy
efficiency is aimed at reducing the amount of energy required to produce products and
provide services." [20, p. 106], and is thus also including energy efficiency.

**6 Conclusions**

In this study, the sustainability reports of the 20 largest manufacturing companies in Sweden have been investigated in order to identify and categorize the circularity practices related to manufacturing. The analysis was based on the 10R framework, an extension of the 6R framework and was chosen since it enables a more detailed description of the circularity practices. A total of 38 unique circularity practices were identified in this study, whereas 13 of these were categorized as visioned or planned practices, and 36 as ongoing or already realised practices.

As identified in this study, multiple circularity practices which are not directly related
to the products are mentioned by the companies. For instance, several companies have
addressed the work towards managing residual materials from production and reusing
heat from production. This implies that solely fulfilling circularity practices from directly
related to products are not sufficient in order to achieve circularity. Primarily since
circularity often involves a resource perspective, hence the aim should regard extending
the lifetimes of all resources used by companies.

Further research could focus on elaborately describing the circularity practices, as
these are seldom described in detail in sustainability reports. Further exploration if less
frequency circularity practices are neglected by companies, or solely not included in the
sustainability report, could also be carried out.

**References**

1. Franco, M.A.: Circular economy at the micro level: a dynamic view of incumbents' struggles and challenges in the textile industry. J. Clean. Prod. **168**, 833–845 (2017)

2. Pitt, J., Heinemeyer, C.: Introducing ideas of a circular economy. In: Stables, K., Keirl, S. (eds.) Environment, Ethics and Cultures. International Technology Education Studies, vol. 5, pp. 245–260. SensePublishers, Rotterdam (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-938-8_16

3. Webster, K.: What might we say about a circular economy? Some temptations to avoid if possible. World Futur. J. Gen. Evol. **69**(7–8), 542–554 (2013)
4. Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., van der Grinten, B.: Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. **33**(5), 308–320 (2016)

5. Bressanelli, G., Saccani, N., Perona, M., Baccanelli, I.: Towards circular economy in the household appliance industry: An overview of cases. Resources **9**(11), 1–23 (2020)

6. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S.: A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. **114**, 11–32 (2016)

7. Lieder, M., Rashid, A.: Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. **115**, 36–51 (2016)

8. Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2021. https://scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/miljo/utslapp-av-vaxthusgaser. (accessed Sep. 23, 2021)

9. Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K., Weber, U.: The Relevance of Circular Economy Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Ind. Ecol. **23**(1), 77–95 (2019)

10. Calzolari, T., Genovese, A., Brint, A.: The adoption of circular economy practices in supply chains—an assessment of European multi-national enterprises. J. Clean. Prod., 312(127616), (2021)

11. Gusmerotti, N.M., Testa, F., Corsini, F., Pretner, G., Iraldo, F.: Drivers and approaches to the circular economy in manufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. **230**, 314–327 (2019)

12. Tiscini, R., Martiniello, L., Lombardi, R.: Circular economy and environmental disclosure in sustainability reports: empirical evidence in cosmetic companies. Bus. Strateg. Environ., 1–16 (2021)

13. Swedish Parliament, “Årsredovisningslag (1995:1554).” https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svenskforfatningssamling/arsredovisningslag-19951554_sfs-1995-1554#K6P10 (January 27, 2022)

14. Sihvonen, S., Partanen, J.: Eco-design practices with a focus on quantitative environmental targets: An exploratory content analysis within ICT sector. J. Clean. Prod. **143**, 769–783 (2017)

15. Rhein, S., Sträter, K. F.:Corporate self-commitments to mitigate the global plastic crisis: Recycling rather than reduction and reuse. J. Clean. Prod. 296, 126571 (2021)

16. Wu, H.Q., Shi, Y., Xia, Q., Zhu, W.D.: Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy in China: A DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th five-year-plan. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. **83**, 163–175 (2014)

17. Badurdeen, F., Iyengar, D., Goldsby, T.J., Metta, H., Gupta, S., Jawahir, I.S.: Extending total life-cycle thinking to sustainable supply chain design. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. **4**(1–3), 49–67 (2009)

18. Jawahir, I.S., Bradley, R.: Technological Elements of Circular Economy and the Principles of 6R-Based Closed-loop Material Flow in Sustainable Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP **40**, 103–108 (2016)

19. J. Potting, M. Hekkert, E. Worrell, and A. Hanemaaijer, “Circular economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain” PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2017)

20. SSAB, “Annual report 2020” 2020. https://www.ssab.com/company/investors/reports-and-presentations#first=10&sort=%40customorder descending (accessed Jan. 21, 2022)