# An Exploration of Circular Economy Practices and Performance Among Romanian Producers
## 5 Conclusions and Further Research  
The results of our research reveal that based upon their practices and performances regarding the transition to CE, the Romanian producers can be grouped into two clusters. The first cluster \"Low scorers on GSCC practices\" is comprised of 51% of the respondents, while the second \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**M \& SD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(t\) \& \(p\) Value**} \\ \hline  & Low scorers on GSCC & High scorers on GSCC & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t=-5.347,p=0.000\)} \\  & practices (CLUSTER 1) & practices (CLUSTER 2) & \\ \hline
**CE practices** & & & \\ Eco design & M = 19.76, SD = 3.31 & M = 22.97, SD = 2.58 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t=-5.347,p=0.000\)} \\ Internal environment & M = 16.70, SD = 6.03 & M = 21.83, SD = 3.43 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t=-5.199,p=0.000\)} \\ Investment recovery & M = 19.22, SD = 4.50 & M = 20.79, SD = 4.77 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t=-1.676,p=0.097\)} \\
**CE targeted performance** & & & \\ Environmental performance & M = 19.10, SD = 3.58 & M = 22.35, SD = 2.86 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t=-4.956,p=0.000\)} \\ Economic performance & M = 14.00, SD = 3.08 & M = 17.54, SD = 2.79 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t=-5.954,p=0.000\)} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, \(t=t\) test, \(p\) value = significance level.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean, standard deviation, \(t\) and \(p\) values for the comparison of clusters 1 and 2 according to the distinctive variables. Figure 1: Cluster comparison according to the two predictors. cluster, \"High scorers on GSCC practices\" is comprised of 49% of the respondents. The most important predictors for the cluster membership are \"green purchasing\" and \"customer cooperation\". The significant differences between the two clusters stem from the eco-design and internal environment, two of the three component variables of the circular economy practices. Regarding the third major component, \"investment recovery practices\", our analysis does not reveal significant variance between the two clusters. In regard to the \"CE-targeted performance\" variable, the two clusters show significant differences for both environmental and economic performance. As a result, we can conclude that the type of cluster a producer belongs to partly influences their CE practices and fully influences their CE-targeted performance. As already mentioned in our introduction, the precepts of the CE have yet to become mainstream even in the developed economies. From a theoretical standpoint, the burden of proof is still upon the shoulders of CE proponents who have yet to demonstrate financial sustainability and speedier development cycles for the underdeveloped regions of the world. The major counterargument to the CE coming from the developing world is an accusation of hypocrisy. The West has developed its economies over the past three centuries with disregard to the environment and thus achieved an enviable standard of prosperity, and when it is \"The Rest's\" turn, it imposes ecological limitations. This counterargument reveals the lack of knowledge and education and it is perhaps the major impetus for further research into the possibilities and potential of the CE. Without adequate theoretical tools, the traditional, linear economic development model will be the only one available for developing economies--such as Romania--to embrace for themselves. The results of the study indicate that, in the case of Romanian producers, the practices related to \"green purchasing\" and \"customer cooperation\" significantly determine the level of economic and ecologic performance. These results are similar to other studies concerning producers from EU [4; 51; 72; 75; 79] among which, the case of Spanish pork producers presents the greatest similarity [72].