Reading articles and Answering questions based on these articles

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E

A conceptual framework for barriers of circular supply chains for sustainability in the textile industry

Ipek Kazancoglu, Associated Professor Dr.1 | Yigit Kazancoglu, Professor Dr.2 |

Emel Yarimoglu, Associated Professor Dr.3 | Aysun Kahraman, Assistant Professor Dr.4

1Faculty of Economics and Administrative

Sciences, Dept. of Business Administration,

Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

2Faculty of Business, Dept. of Logistics

Management, Yasar University, Izmir, Turkey

3Faculty of Business, Dept. of Business

Administration, Yasar University, Izmir, Turkey

4Salihli Faculty of Economics and

Administrative Sciences, Dept. of Business

Administration, Manisa Celal Bayar University,

Manisa, Turkey

Correspondence

Ipek Kazancoglu, Faculty of Economics and

Administrative Sciences, Dept. of Business

Administration, Ege University, Kazimdirik

District, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Circular economy is a contemporary concept including usage of renewable materials

and technologies. The transition to the circular economy creates value through

closed-loop systems, reverse logistics, eco-design, product life cycle management,

and clean production. The aim of the study was to propose a holistic conceptual

framework for barriers of circular supply chain for sustainability in the textile indus-

try. Within this aim, an in-depth literature review on barriers was conducted by cov-

ering all supply chain stages and circular initiatives in textile industry. Then, a focus

group study was implemented. In the focus group study, barriers related to supply

chains that prevent companies to implement the circular economy were discussed

and validated. As a result, a total of 25 barriers were classified under nine main cate-

gories such as (a) management and decision-making, (b) labour, (c) design challenges,

(d) materials, (e) rules and regulations, (f) lack of knowledge and awareness, (g) lack of

integration and collaboration, (h) cost, and (i) technical infrastructure.

K E Y W O R D S

barrier, circular economy, circular supply chain, sustainability, sustainable development, textile

industry

1 | INTRODUCTION

The circular economy (CE) has been debated in literature in recent

years. It focuses on implementing sustainability with the help of waste

management and the culture of zero waste (Kumar & Saravanan, 2019).

Transition to CE from linear economy was seen as the major solution

of sustainable and fair global economy (Vermeulen, 2015). The CE has

been mostly used in the textile industry since it was the largest indus-

try that pollutes the environment with its complex manufacturing pro-

cess. The textile industry also creates negative societal impacts by

using resources such as oil, carbon, and water excessively (Ellen Mac-

Arthur Foundation, 2017). All manufacturing processes in the textile

industry are very water-intensive, and have been using average 93

billion cubic meters of water yearly that represents 4% of global

freshwater withdrawal (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017;

Rathinamoorthy, 2019). The solution for this excessive water usage

could be the recycling and reusing which also reduce energy and

chemicals in the manufacturing process (Dahlbo, Aalto, Eskelinen, &

Salmenperä, 2017). The textile industry also pollutes the oceans with

microfibers in the textile waste. The amounts of the textile waste have

been increasing globally and it was suggested that recycling or reusing

textile products could reduce new wastes from virgin materials (Dahlbo

et al., 2017). In the textile industry, waste taken from manufacturing

process would be a significant input for another manufacturing process

including raw material harvesting, design, yarn production, spinning,

weaving, dyeing, stitching, and cutting (Mukherjee, 2015). It is obvious

that today's linear economy cannot accomplish sustainable

manufacturing process; therefore, the CE is a need for especially textile

industry (Koszewska, 2018). At the end of the manufacturing process

of CE in the textile industry, products can be recycled, reused,

remanufactured, redesigned, reduced, or recovered which are compati-

ble with 6Rs of CE.

Received: 18 April 2020 Revised: 19 May 2020 Accepted: 3 June 2020

DOI: 10.1002/sd.2100

Sustainable Development. 2020;28:1477–1492. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sd © 2020 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1477

The textile industry was studied in previous studies regarding CE

and sustainability since it was the most polluting manufacturing indus-

try whose environmental impacts can be reduced (Camacho-Otero,

Pettersen, & Boks, 2020; Mukherjee, 2015; Todeschini, Cortimiglia,

Callegaro-de-Menezes, & Ghezzi, 2017). Due to the rising importance

of zero waste and the negative impacts of linear economy in the tex-

tile industry, the study focused on the textile industry. The textile

industry has a long supply chain consisting of design, raw material

supply, production, packaging, consumption and waste management

covering different suppliers (Lorek & Spangenberg, 2014). In this pro-

cess, high energy and water use in garment production damages the

environment such as greenhouse gas emissions, soil erosion, waste

water and waste fabric. Therefore, the wastes associated with the tex-

tile sector can be considered as a resource from circular economy per-

spective. Thus, in transition from linear to circular economy the

companies can collect and reuse these wastes with a closed loop sup-

ply chain (Franco, 2017; Sandvik & Stubbs, 2019). Moreover, since

the CE in manufacturing contains the entire complex supply chain (SC)

(Bianchini, Rossi, & Pellegrini, 2019), the study focused on the transi-

tion to circular supply chain (CSC) in the textile industry. In the CSC of

a textile company, the whole chain regarding collecting, sorting, sepa-

rating, and recovering should be developed concurrently, and the pro-

cesses in the chain should be operated with minimum harmful

environmental impacts (Dahlbo et al., 2017). Each step within

manufacturing of final products is affected by another step in SC in

the textile industry, which has several entities such as designers,

material converters, garment manufacturers, brand owners, and

retailers (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Snoek, 2017). It is not adequate to

transform the facilities by itself but rather a systematic and holistic

approach is required all through the SC encompassing all entities and

stakeholders. This study covers not only production, but encompasses

design, materials, manufacturing, distribution, reverse logistics, collect-

ing, sorting, and recycling in order to implement a “closed-loop” cycle

within the supply chain for textile industry. This study supports the

understanding of the systems theory within the holistic conceptual

framework for barriers of circular supply chain for sustainability in the

textile industry. System theory is as a complex, dynamic and large-

scale system, consisting of some basic elements with certain func-

tions. All of the elements are interdependent and interactive to each

other. In addition this, interaction provides link between the human

resources, machine, and environmental activities (Kazancoglu,

Kazancoglu, & Sagnak, 2018). The circular supply chain is a complex,

open and dynamic, large-scale system consisting of different elements

and stakeholders. In order to achieve its purpose for circular the sup-

ply chain, these stakeholders and elements must interact with each

other and interact with the outside environment (Bressanelli, Perona,

& Saccani, 2019; Huamao & Fengqi, 2007).

Even though it was suggested to the firms to transform their

capabilities from linear economy to CE, there have been many barriers

that companies encounter during this process such as financial, mar-

keting, logistics, governmental, and operational barriers. Galv~ao, de

Nadae, Clemente, Chinen, and de Carvalho (2018) reviewed literature

and classified general barriers as follows: technological, policy and

regulatory, financial and economic, managerial, performance indica-

tors, customer, and social. Despite of having different types of indus-

try-based barriers in literature, SC barriers had the greatest

importance in the manufacturing industry that consists of the textile

industry as well (Batista, Bourlakis, Liu, Smart, & Sohal, 2018; de

Sousa Jabbour et al., 2019). Baltussen (2019) pointed that the SC is a

significant barrier in the textile industry. Therefore, this study focused

on understanding SC barriers in textile companies to implement the

CE. The aim of the study was to understand the SC barriers for textile

companies to implement the CSC in the textile industry. The main

contribution of the study was to propose a conceptual framework that

reveals the barriers of CSC with a holistic view by encompassing all

the stakeholders within SC in the textile industry. The research ques-

tion of the study was developed as follow:

RQ: What are the barriers of CSC for sustainability in the textile

industry?

In the study, initially, the relationships among CE, SC, and CSC

were investigated in the first section. Then, in the second section, the

barriers related to the CSC in the textile industry that prevent compa-

nies implementing the CE were examined. In the third section, the gap

and a need for a holistic conceptual framework were shown, and liter-

ature was reviewed. Then, a focus group study was held in order to

discuss and validate the barriers obtained from the literature review.

In the fourth section, findings related to the barriers of the CSC in the

textile industry were demonstrated. Lastly, in the fifth section, mana-

gerial and policy implications were discussed.

2 | CE, SUSTAINABLE SC AND CSC

The CE is an economic model that aims to create maximum efficiency

by using renewable resources, extension of product service lives,

cleaner production, and designing out waste (Ellen MacArthur Foun-

dation, 2017). In parallel to the CE principles firstly 3R (reduce, reuse,

recycling) framework on the CE had been asserted (Su, Heshmati,

Geng, & Yu, 2013). Then, 6R (reuse, recycle, refuse, repair, rethink,

recover), 7R (rethink, reduce, repair, reuse, refurbish, recycle, recover)

and finally 9R (refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanu-

facture, repurchase, recycle, recover) were suggested (Kirchherr &

Piscicelli, 2019; van Buren, Demmers, van der Heijden, &

Witlox, 2016; Zhu, Geng, & Lai, 2010). In the 9R framework, circular-

ity increases from recover to refuse. 9R framework of the CE was

shown in Table 1 below.

Although each Rs of CE has its own characteristics, some of them

can be grouped and exhibit common features. Appropriately, refuse,

rethink and reduce refers smarter product use and manufacture;

reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose refers extending

lifespan of product and its parts; recycle and recover refers useful

application of materials (Kirchherr & Piscicelli, 2019; Potting, Hekkert,

Worrell, & Hanemaaijer, 2017).

As the population of the world increases, consumption rates

increases drastically. However, it is expected that natural resources

will not be adequate for resource-intensive goods over the years

1478 KAZANCOGLU ET AL.

(Esposito, Tse, & Soufani, 2018). It is clear that this tendency is

unsustainable. Since the CE emerges as a solution to the depletion of

global resources and the accumulation of waste, it is a key resource

for sustainability which requires balanced integration of economic

performance, social inclusiveness, and environmental resilience

(Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken, & Hultink, 2017; Santos, Susana, &

Matias, 2017). In the CE concept, all the waste is minimized by

decreasing use of raw materials, and increasing repairing and restor-

ing, remanufacturing, repurposing, recycling, and reusing. The CE also

helps to create sustainability by utilization of renewable energy

resources and by creating of a self-sustaining production system in

which materials are used repeatedly (Genovese, Acquaye, Figueroa, &

Lenny Koh, 2017; Kumar & Carolin, 2019). According to the CE, prod-

ucts should be carefully designed to be durable, modular, and recycla-

ble to cause less environmental problems (Santos et al., 2017). CE

practices mostly reinforce environment protection however it

responds also economic development and societal needs which are

other components of sustainability (Narimissa, Kangarani-Farahani, &

Molla-Alizadeh-Zavardehi, 2020a). The CE builds a restorative and

generative economic system that seeks to maintain the value of

resources and reducing the generation of waste in the long-term

(European Commission, 2015; Sharma, Mangla, Patil, & Liu, 2019).

This economic system requires collaboration between firms, govern-

mental bodies, and international markets (Lieder & Rashid, 2016).

Thus, the positive effect of the CE spreads and disseminates. More-

over, the CE helps creation of social welfare and minimizing social

value destruction by decreasing waste, reducing using natural

resources, prevention of unhealthy working conditions in the extrac-

tion of raw materials and reuse (Hofstra & Huisingh, 2014; Jakhar,

Mangla, Luthra, & Kusi-Sarpong, 2018). Hence, the CE contributes

sustainable development by creating linkages between social, environ-

mental, and economic activities.

In order to implement a successful circular strategy, sustainable

supply chain management plays a critical role (Van Buren et al., 2016).

Besides, for a successful sustainable circular strategy, whole parts of

supply chains should be sustainable (Abbasi & Nilsson, 2012). Sustain-

able Supply Chain (SSC) means strategic integration of material, infor-

mation, and capital flows and management of the cooperation among

companies along the SC to achieve the goals from all three dimensions

of sustainable development (Carter & Rogers, 2008; Narimissa

et al., 2020a). SSC contributes sustainable growth by focusing on

maintaining environmental, economic, and social stability for long-

term. An SSC design is important for the principles of the CE practices

since it changes the whole process from suppliers to end-users

(Bianchini et al., 2019). However, CSC is mainly concerned with mate-

rial flows in economic systems by focusing on intensifying,

dematerializing, closing, slowing and narrowing resource loops

(Geissdoerfer, Morioka, de Carvalho, & Evans, 2018). In circularity,

raw materials are maintained in a circular motion which includes

finishing, selling, waste collection, recycling, reprocessing, reselling as

second-hand garment, and regenerating (Kumar & Suganya, 2019).

CSC provides the advantage of diverting used products as waste by

recycling value and reuse in the production of secondary products

(Genovese et al., 2017). An environmentalist SC design which includes

eco-friendly and energy efficient processes, technologies, products is

needed (Gotschol, De Giovanni, & Vinzi, 2014).

The textile industry is considered as one of the most polluting

and water consuming industries in the world (Fieldson & Rai, 2009;

Rathinamoorthy, 2019). It has a long supply chain that creates emis-

sions (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Textile industry creates

resources for the apparel industry where waste is produced both in

manufacturing and postconsumer stages (Koszewska, 2018). Hence,

transition to circular business model and SSC has started as a solution

in textile industry. In that sense, within the circular textile business

models, supply chain is based on the cradle-to-cradle paradigm.

According to cradle-to-cradle concept, the life cycle of the product

starts from the design stage (Snoek, 2017; Wilson, 2015). Products

are designed considering that postuser fibers and postproduction

fibers can be used as well as virgin fibers as raw materials. Firms add

“collecting” as a step to their supply chain to get postuser and post-

production textile waste. After collecting phase, wastes are sorted.

TABLE 1 The 9R framework of circular economy

9R Strategy definition

Refuse (R0) Prevention of using a certain product or making a

product redundant. In order to achieve refuse,

function of the product should be abandoned,

or same function should be offer with a

distinctive product

Rethink (R1) Using products more intensively by in different

ways, such as sharing product.

Reduce (R2) Prolonging the lifespan of products by reducing

use of raw/natural materials/resources. It allows

to upgrade in terms of superior technologies,

higher information infrastructure to optimize

resources, energy, etc.

Reuse (R3) Using the discarded product which is still in good

condition and fulfils its original function again

(e.g., second hand, sharing of products). It allows

minimizing the consumptions of resources,

energy, and labour.

Repair (R4) Repairing and maintenance of deficient or

damaged products and their parts so, products

can be used longer.

Refurbish (R5) Reviving old products to give them new life so,

products are transformed into updated products

Remanufacture

(R6)

Making new product by using a second hand or

discarded products with their former attributes.

Repurpose (R7) Developing a new product from a discarded

product by re-establishing its functions or use

of purposes

Recycle (R8) Redeeming used/waste materials or resources to

reuse the materials again for the production

with the highest possible value.

Recover (R9) Recovering embedded energy by incineration of

materials and other waste for energy. Thus,

nonrecyclable waste can be converted to

energy at least.

KAZANCOGLU ET AL. 1479

Nonusable ones are discarded, and usable ones are recycled to be

used as materials (raw materials or components) again (Freder-

ick, 2010; Georgise, Thoben, & Seifert, 2014; Jia, Yin, Chen, &

Chen, 2020; Pandit, Nadathur, & Jose, 2019; Rossi, Bertassini, dos

Santos Ferreira, do Amaral, & Ometto, 2020; Sauvé, Bernard, &

Sloan, 2015; Sharma et al., 2019). Therefore, a closed-looped or a

cycle is created. An overview of the circular textile SC was shown in

Figure 1 below.

Implementing CE concept in the textile industry will boost sus-

tainability and sustainable development (Rossi et al., 2020). Circular

textile value chain allows a self-sustaining and eco-friendly manufac-

ture model by optimizing use of resource. It improves recycling and

upcycling by transforming design, collection, and reprocessing by tak-

ing advantage of disposable nature of textiles (Pandit et al., 2019). Ide-

ally, recycling and reusing postuser and postproduction fibers to

produce new textiles can reduce use of virgin fibers (Jia et al., 2020;

Pandit et al., 2019). Moreover, circular textile SC reduces the use of

water, energy, chemicals in the manufacturing process and

reconfiguring supply chain to achieve pollution prevention (Dahlbo

et al., 2017; Jia et al., 2020). While developing the circular textile

whole chain which includes collecting, sorting, separating, and recov-

ering simultaneously to minimize environmental impacts as much as

possible (Balanay & Halog, 2019; Rossi et al., 2020). The textile SC

involves four functional participants, which are retailers, brand

owners, garment manufacturers and material converters (Cao, Zhang,

To, & Ng, 2008). Thus, circular textile SC contributes to environmental

sustainability as it optimizes resources and conserves energy. More-

over, when textile companies establish distribution channels and

models to collect postuser textile waste, awareness of consumers, and

other stakeholders for recycling increases and they join the recycling

and environmental production activities collaboratively (Sarkis, Zhu, &

Lai, 2011). Thus, in addition to environmental sustainability the eco-

nomic value of materials or products increases, and it enhances busi-

ness sustainability. As many firms accomplish business sustainability,

it will affect the whole economic system and triggers sustainable

development and societal welfare in the long-term.

3 | BARRIERS RELATED TO THE CE IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY

There are many barriers which have been investigated to transform

SC processes toward sustainable operations and these barriers change

may vary from industry to industry. There are studies investigating

the barriers faced by companies during the transition from linear

economy to CE in textile industry (Rathinamoorthy, 2019).

Snoek (2017) classified internal (technical, operational, financial,

knowledge, and information) and external barriers (market, society,

cooperation's and coordination within SC, infrastructure, policy, and

regulations) in textile industry. Rathinamoorthy (2019) defined bar-

riers into as cultural, technological, market, and government regula-

tions. Baltussen (2019) categorized barriers into attitudinal,

environmental, institutional, economic, operational, organizational,

structural, and technological in the Dutch textile industry. Pathak and

Endayilalu (2019) grouped the barriers in the implementation of CSC

in textile industry as financial, lack of government support and motiva-

tion, lack of information, lack of technical knowledge, lack of support

from demand and supply network. Moktadir, Rahman, Rahman, Ali,

and Paul (2020) and Galv~ao et al. (2018) demonstrated the barriers

such as technological, customer, financial and economic, policy and

regulatory, managerial, performance indicators, and social to CE.

Kumar and Suganya (2019) have defined the barriers facing the

Designing

Materials (Raw

materials, components)

Processing fibre to yarn/ non-woven

(Knitting, cutting, Manufacturing

weaving, spinning, dying, printing)

Distribution (Wholesales,

retail)

User phase (In-use, re-use)

End of lifePost-consumer textile waste

Post-production textile waste

Discarding, collecting,

trading Sorting

Recyling (Simple processing,

high-tech processing)

Forward Reverse

FIGURE 1 Circular textile supply chain

1480 KAZANCOGLU ET AL.

existing textile industry in order to implement CE. These are; lack

of infrastructure; insufficient policies for collection, and segregation

policies; lack of awareness; adopting the linear business model; the

absence of a globally manageable SC; product quality is not at the

desired level. Some authors (Goldani, 2019; Linder &

Williander, 2017; Oghazi & Mostaghel, 2018; Rizos et al., 2016;

Todeschini et al., 2017) have investigated the barriers related with

the SC and its members.

4 | PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE BARRIERS OF CSC IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY

A conceptual framework was proposed to fill in the gap in literature

indicated before. Initially, the previous studies in literature were inves-

tigated to reveal the barriers of CSC related to textile industry. The

relevant literature for this work was investigated using keywords such

as “CE and challenge/obstacle/barrier,” “CE and textile industry,” “bar-

riers related to CSC,” “circular supply chain and textile industry,”

“green supply chain barrier,” and “sustainable supply chain barriers”

related to the CSC in textile. The databases (Google Scholar, Emerald,

Springer, ScienceDirect, WoS, EBSCO) were explored to search

research articles. Then the first barrier list was identified with 30 bar-

riers on the CSC through review of literature. Afterwards, a group of

experts is determined to discuss and validate the identified barrier set

via focus group method. The composition of the experts was made to

embrace the related stakeholders in textile SC. According to the

results of the focus group, the conceptual framework of the CSC was

proposed for sustainability in textile industry. Then, the set of nine

main categories and 25 barriers were interpreted and, managerial and

policy implications are proposed. The proposed conceptual framework

was shown in Figure 2 below.

4.1 | Need for a holistic framework and identification of the barriers of CSC

The textile industry is incredibly complex with many actors acting in

its SC. Each step in manufacturing of the final product is affected by

another step in SC proving the network structure in the textile indus-

try, which has several entities such as designers, material converters,

garment manufacturers, brand owners, and retailers (Cao et al., 2008;

Kirchherr et al., 2018; Snoek, 2017). It is difficult to achieve the CE

for textile industry, that have many suppliers (Baltussen, 2019) and

complex SC operating in an international, fragmented, and linear

economy (Snoek, 2017). In this context, the size and complexity of the

SC is characterized as a barrier. Hence, a systematic and holistic

approach is required all through the SC encompassing all entities and

stakeholders.

Identification of CSC Barriers

Formation of Framework for CSC Barriers

Literature Review

Yes

Proposed Conceptual Framework of CSC Barriers

Focus Group with Academic and Industrial Expert Opinions for

Validation

Implications and Conclusion

LA BO

U R

M A

N A

G E

M E N

T A

N

D

D EC

IS IO

N

D ES

IG N

C H

A LL

EN G

ES

M A

TE RI

A LS

RU LE

S A

N D

RE

G U

LA TI

O N

S

KN O

W LE

D G

E A

N D

A

W A

RE N

ES S

CO ST

IN TE

G RA

TI O

N A

N D

CO

LL A

BO RA

TI O

N

No

TE CH

N IC

A L

IN FR

A ST

RU CT

U RE

C1 , C2, C3 C4, C5 C6, C7 C8, C9, C10, C11 C12, C13 C14, C15, C16 C17, C18, C19 C20, C21, C22 C23, C24, C25

FIGURE 2 Proposed conceptual framework of barriers for CSC in the textile industry

KAZANCOGLU ET AL. 1481

To adapt the CE, internal management and decision-making pro-

cesses should be based on adopting the new economy (van

Renswoude, ten Wolde, & Joustra, 2015; Pheifer, 2017), and firms

need qualified staff who know how to implement circular business

processes. However, the uncertainty of the profits that the firms will

obtain as return of the investment (Rizos et al., 2016; Snoek, 2017),

the lack of economies of scale and the high cost of raw materials to

be used, prevent the transition to this economic model (Kumar &

Suganya, 2019; Rathinamoorthy, 2019). The fact that not all textile

products are 100% recyclable, frequently observed quality problems

and the complexity of product design processes are also industry-spe-

cific barriers in textile (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Rathinamoorthy, 2019).

There are even problems in information sharing, communication,

and collaboration due to mutual distrust (Hobson, 2016), and finding

suppliers that apply the CE among the SC members (Rathinamoorthy,

2019). In addition, there is a lack of awareness and knowledge both in

theoretical and practical aspects of the CE, in companies and within

the SC (Rizos et al., 2016; Snoek, 2017). Lack of facility and reverse

logistics infrastructure, both on company basis and throughout the

SC, may cause the problem of insufficient and even inefficient collec-

tion and separation (Kumar & Suganya, 2019; Snoek, 2017). There-

fore, there is a need for a holistic framework to identify the barriers

encountered in terms of the SC in the transition of the textile industry

to the CE.

4.2 | Focus group study for validation

In the second phase of the research, a focus group study was con-

ducted to discuss and validate the barriers of CSC revealed from liter-

ature. The aim of conducting a focus group was that it encouraged

experts to discuss and share their deep insights and understandings

on a specific subject and allowed experts to feel free when discussing

their opinions that cause a higher degree of spontaneity (Mor-

gan, 1996).

The focus group study was held in Izmir City, which is the third

biggest city of Turkey and produced 26.9% of the share of industry

within the gross added value in 2018 (ICOC, 2018). Izmir is a highly

industrialized city and has ten industrial organized zones (ARCI, 2012)

and 1,187 textile firms (AEA, 2019). Textile, manufacturing of outfit

and readymade garment, furniture, renewable energy, automotive,

iron-steel, shoe, food, beverages, tobacco, petrochemicals, plastics,

construction materials, medical equipment, packaging, molding, aero-

space and defense industries are the important industry branches in _Izmir (ICOC, 2018).

Data were collected with a focus group study held in January

2020 by bringing together seven experts who work on the CE in the

textile industry. Purposive sampling technique was used in the study.

Purposive sampling technique, which is not a representative tech-

nique as random sampling, was used in this qualitative focus group

study. Random sampling techniques used in quantitative studies are

based on confidence level and sample size is a function of population

size, whereas purposive sampling, a technique used in qualitative

studies, selects information-rich cases and specific participants based

on the aim of the study (Patton, 1990).

Within purposive sampling, the experts were included to the

research based on the criterion that they had at least 10 years of work

experience on sustainability and the CE within textile industry. Some

experts' were contacted with telephone calling, and some of them

were communicated via their LinkedIn accounts. Totally 15 experts

were invited to the research, but only seven of them were available

for participating in the research due to their busy schedules. There-

fore, the opinions of these seven experts were used to finalize the

barriers and these experts discussed the barriers in the CSC in the tex-

tile industry. In the focus group study, four experts were from the tex-

tile industry, who have the SC perspective, one expert was from

Textile Exporters Association that is a branch of governmental institu-

tions, who has the governmental perspective and policy issues, and

two academics were from textile engineering departments in a univer-

sity, who have the theoretical perspective and practical information in

the CE. The detailed information about participants' was shown in

Table 2 below.

Descriptive analysis was used in data analysis. The barriers were

discussed by academic and industrial experts and the barrier list rev-

ealed from literature was shown to them. It was asked to the experts

to talk about the barriers that prevent textile companies to implement

CSC and eliminate these barriers. After eliminating the barriers, it was

asked them to classify these barriers based on the relationships

among them. According to the focus group study, initially, the total of

30 barriers was discussed, and five of them were eliminated. The

TABLE 2 Information on academic and industrial experts

Company type Position in the company Years in the company Work experience Gender

Textile recycler General manager 23 25 Male

Textile supplier Environmental engineer 8 11 Male

Textile manufacturer Director of sustainability 8 12 Female

Global Textile Brand & Retailer Vice president 18 22 Female

Governmental General secretary 11 13 Female

University Textile engineer 10 20 Female

University Textile engineer 8 14 Male

1482 KAZANCOGLU ET AL.

TABLE 3 The barriers of CSC for textile industry

Category No Barriers Barriers description Researchers

Management and

decision-making

C1 Lack of performance evaluation

system

The lack of clear, standardized,

quantitative measurement system

and goals, the lack of feedback

information, data discrepancies,

performance indexes.

Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Masi,

Kumar, Garza-Reyes, &

Godsell, 2018; Bianchini et al., 2019;

Jia et al., 2020.

C2 Lack of acceptance of new

business models

Most businesses stuck into linear

business models. Switching a new

business model requires

fundamental changes in organization

structure, company culture, supply

systems, manufacturing methods,

and target market.

Snoek, 2017; Ritzén &

Sandström, 2017; Arakali, Denley, &

Hoster, 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2018;

Rathinamoorthy, 2019.

C3 Lack of traceability CE requires traceability to monitor

recycled material, and to know

where materials came from and

whether the information shared is

true.

Snoek, 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2018;

Baltussen, 2019; Kumar &

Suganya, 2019; Jia et al., 2020.

Labour C4 Necessity of intensive

workforce

CE activities require high labour

intensity. Being dependent on

human capital turns into a more

important problem if there are lacks

of experience and standardized work

models to follow.

Garcia Martin, 2016; Mont, Plepys,

Whalen, & Nußholz, 2017; van Loon

& Van Wassenhove, 2018; Govindan

& Hasanagic, 2018.

C5 Lack of trained intermediate

staff

SC members may be in lack of

knowledge about eco-literacy.

Trained intermediate staff is critical

since textile industry includes many

intermediate processing steps.

Wilson, 2015; Fei, Qu, Wen, Xue, &

Zhang, 2016; Rizos et al., 2016;

Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018;

Kirchherr et al., 2018; Xiao, Dong,

Geng, & Brander, 2018.

Design challenges C6 Lack of complementary

processes

Lack of availability of sustainable

complementary processing may

harden the design process and it

negatively affects the speed of

product development.

Franco, 2017; Sabbaghi et al., 2017;

European Clothing Action Plan

(ECAP), 2019; Jia et al., 2020.

C7 Complexity in product

architecture

In textile industry there may be a lag

between design and diffusion as

most fabrics are a blend of different

fiber types.

Bell, Lee, Riley, & Slater, 2013; Bakker,

Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014;

Sabaghi, Mascle, & Baptiste, 2016;

Franco, 2017; European Clothing

Action Plan (ECAP), 2019; Jia

et al., 2020.

Materials C8 Availability of recyclable

materials

Limited availability and quality of

recycling materials. Some

components of products such as

petroleum-based plastics and metals

make them unsuitable for recycling.

Elander & Ljungkvist, 2016;

Franco, 2017; Arakali et al., 2017;

Masi et al., 2018; Filho et al., 2019.

C9 Lack of high quality It is difficult to maintain quality

throughout the product life cycle.

Returned materials causes low

quality in recycled products.

Shredding that affects quality badly

is required to turn used textile

material into raw material.

Arakali et al., 2017; Mont et al., 2017;

Kirchherr et al., 2018; Masi

et al., 2018; Roosendaal, 2018;

Koszewska, 2018; Baltussen, 2019.

C10 Complexity in material

composition

Textile products are complex garments

and made from various materials

that decrease the ability to extract

resources from products and finding

alternatives.

Chen and Burns, 2006; Claudio, 2007;

Bastein et al., 2013; Bell et al., 2013;

Benton and Hazell, 2013;

Dissanayake and Sinha, 2015; Resta

et al., 2016; Bocken et al., 2016;

Guldmann, 2016; Franco, 2017;

Snoek, 2017; ECAP, 2019

(Continues)

KAZANCOGLU ET AL. 1483

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Category No Barriers Barriers description Researchers

C11 High cost of raw materials Recycled materials are more expensive

than virgin raw materials. Turning

used products into raw materials

requires high initial investment.

Garcia Martin, 2016; Mont

et al., 2017; Arakali et al., 2017;

Masi et al., 2018;

Roosendaal, 2018.

Rules and

regulations

C12 Lack of sectorial

standardization

The failure in certain standards for

collecting and recycling of wastes

can lead to problems such as not

guaranteeing quality and efficiency,

monitoring and measuring the SC.

Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; Hart,

Adams, Giesekam, Tingley, &

Pomponi, 2019; Kirchherr

et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2019.

C13 Lack of certifications Certification is required to monitor

whether recycled raw materials and

materials purchased from suppliers

comply with the standards.

Fayet & Vermeulen, 2014;

Roosendaal, 2018; Kirchherr

et al., 2018; Mangla et al., 2018;

Hart et al., 2019.

Knowledge and

awareness

C14 Lack of CE awareness Inadequate awareness on CE principles

within SC partners. The lack of

information in company and SC

about the benefits of switching to

the CE.

Roosendaal, 2018; Masi et al., 2018;

Mangla et al., 2018; Levering &

Vos, 2019.

C15 Lack of theoretical information Lack of theoretical information about

the type of materials that should be

used in the products and how to

produce the textile products by

applying the CE.

Fischer & Pascucci, 2017;

Koszewska, 2018; Govindan &

Hasanagic, 2018; Zhang et al., 2019

C16 Lack of technical know-how Technical knowledge of companies

about how they can implement the

CE is low.

Pasqualotto, 2015; Franco, 2017; Filho

et al., 2019.

Integration and

collaboration

C17 Lack of sharing information and

communication

Lack of effective communication,

integration, and cooperation among

SC members which will increase

their competitiveness and

productivity.

Rizos et al., 2016; Boiten, Li-Chou Han,

& Tyler, 2017; Mangla et al., 2018;

Bet et al., 2018

C18 Lack of constant supplier Lack of regular suppliers within the SC

can lead to quality problems from

raw material to finished product.

Changing suppliers often prevent

achieving the CE goals.

Pomponi & Moncaster, 2017; Mangla

et al., 2018; Kumar &

Suganya, 2019.

C19 Lack of shared vision and

willingness to collaborate

SC partners can be reluctant to

integrate, co-create, and join the

partnership throughout the SC. This

may be due to a lack of common

vision, fear of losing control, or lack

of trust between them.

Franco, 2017; Roosendaal, 2018;

Kirchherr et al., 2018; Brown,

Bocken, & Balkenende, 2019;

Karlsson, Rootzén, & Johnsson, 2020

Cost C20 High investment cost Companies should change their

infrastructure in transition to the CE.

Use of new technology, certification

process, and training employees

increase the investment cost. In

addition, the cost of recycled fibers,

used in the production and the

collection of waste fabrics, are high.

de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Kirchherr

et al., 2018; Rathinamoorthy, 2019;

Pathak & Endayilalu, 2019; Kumar &

Suganya, 2019; Baltussen, 2019

C21 Uncertainty in profitability The uncertainty in profitability and

return on investment affect

companies’ expectations and causes them to be reluctant in making

investments.

Boiten et al., 2017; Ritzén &

Sandström, 2017; de Jesus &

Mendonça, 2018; Geissdoerfer

et al., 2018; Baltussen, 2019.

C22 Failure to provide the scale of

production

Since the demand for circular products

in textile industry is low, there is

currently no large volume of

Rizos et al., 2015; Agyemang

et al., 2019; Baltussen, 2019;

Rathinamoorthy, 2019.

1484 KAZANCOGLU ET AL.

barriers excluded from the study were as follows: “complexity in

material”, “lack of production/operation processes,” “limited willing-

ness to collaborate in the value chain,” “power balance in buyer-sup-

plier relationships,” “trust in existing SC partners.” Secondly, the total

of 25 barriers was categorized under nine main categories by rear-

ranging them.

In the next section the interpretations of main categories and bar-

riers are made in line with the literature on SC and CSC in textile

industry.

5 | THE BARRIERS OF CSC IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY

The total nine main categories and 25 barriers validated in the focus

group study were presented in detail in the Table 3. In this section, ini-

tially, the main categories were described below.

5.1 | Management and decision-making

This category is about the general administration of CE practices

in a firm. It expresses managerial decision making, company cul-

ture, controlling the success of business processes and material,

information flow. Willingness and readiness to adopt a new busi-

ness model is important because unless a firm decides to change

its old way of practicing, a circular business model would not

be executed. Meanwhile, the firms should evaluate the perfor-

mance of their circular practices at the firm level. However,

there is a lack of common standards in performance evaluation

system for CE practices (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). In addi-

tion, a successful CE practice requires controlling SC partners,

tracing the flow of materials and sharing information (Bianchini

et al., 2019).

5.2 | Labour

The CE needs high labour intensity in textile industry especially for

activities such as collecting, separating and repairing (van Loon & Van

Wassenhove, 2018). This reduces production efficiency, increases the

sales price of the product and prolongs the launching time to market

(Xiao et al., 2018). Moreover, as the CE is a closed-loop system, inter-

mediate staff also has a role for successful CE practices. However,

there is a lack of training in intermediate staff on the CE (Kirchherr

et al., 2018).

5.3 | Design challenges

A product goes through some complementary processes in textile

industry (e.g., cleaning, coating, dyeing, welding) until it takes its final

form. While this does not cause any problems in the linear economy,

it causes problems in the CE as there is a lack of availability of sustain-

able complementary processes (e.g., disassembly, separation,

recycling). Thus, sustainability could not be achieved in entire produc-

tion and problems occur in the design processes (Koszewska, 2018;

Snoek, 2017). Besides, some products have complex structures as

they contain interconnected parts (Sharman & Yassine, 2003). This

brings out disassembly, separation, recycling, and production prob-

lems (Elander & Ljungkvist, 2016; Franco, 2017).

5.4 | Materials

Materials are one of the main inputs of manufacturing and it is a vital

problem for circular manufacturing. Firstly, some products contain

unrecyclable and chemical materials. In this case, the parts of the dis-

carded product cannot be reused as materials and problems occur in

the recycling process, which is one of the elements of the CE (Elander

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Category No Barriers Barriers description Researchers

production, which prevents

companies to benefit from the

advantages of economies of scale.

Technical

infrastructure

C23 Insufficiency of reverse logistics

infrastructure

Lack of reverse logistics infrastructure

complicates the implementation of

the CE.

Van Renswoude et al., 2015; Rizos

et al., 2016; Hart et al., 2019;

Agyemang et al., 2019.

C24 Inadequate of facility

infrastructure

Lack of textile recycling, reprocessing,

collecting, and sorting facilities

complicates the implementation of

the CE.

Bouzon et al., 2016; Boiten

et al., 2017; Koszewska, 2018;

Mahpour, 2018; Dieckmann,

Sheldrick, Tennant, Myers, &

Cheeseman, 2020.

C25 Collection and separation

problem

Only a small amount of textile waste

can be collected and recycled.

Unofficial waste sellers carry out the

sorting and classification of used

products.

Pasqualotto, 2015; Fei et al., 2016;

Baltussen, 2019; Koszewska, 2018;

Filho et al., 2019.

KAZANCOGLU ET AL. 1485

& Ljungkvist, 2016). Using the parts of the discarded products also

brings quality problems. In addition, due to processing the materials—

obtained from the used products—into raw materials reduces the final

product's durability and it may not please consumers (Ghisellini, Cialani,

& Ulgiati, 2016; Mont et al., 2017). Moreover, products may contain

complex parts which refers the number of components a product design.

For example, as bra contains many component parts (e.g., hooks, eyelets,

band elastics, foam, sliders, fabric, and wires). A high complexity product

causes design, recycle, disassembly, and waste problems. It is also hard

to find ecological substitutes for many materials (Franco, 2017). The high

cost of recycled and eco-friendly materials is also another problem. As,

the entire process of turning used materials into raw materials (specify-

ing, collection, separation, shredding, etc.) is costly, the price of the

recycled raw materials increases (Novak & Eppinger, 2001).

5.5 | Rules and regulations

The current rules and regulations of the government are directed towards

the linear economy rather than the CE. Lack of knowledge of the govern-

ment on the CE and lack of regulations to promote the CE is a barrier for

companies and the SC (Hart et al., 2019). The lack of sectorial standardi-

zations, specifications and supporting policies of governments on recycled

materials and reuse for products is a barrier for companies to enforce the

CE and principles (Hart et al., 2019; Kumar & Suganya, 2019).

5.6 | Knowledge and awareness

The lack of awareness, technical knowledge and management capacity

of companies is a significant barrier that will change existing business

models or production technologies and adopt the CE (Tura et al., 2019).

This makes it difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to adapt

to the CE, as they do not know about new ways of doing business and

employees do not know how to apply (Rizos et al., 2016).

5.7 | Integration and collaboration

The main barrier for companies in the transition to the CE is that it is

difficult to cooperate because currently the companies in the SC are

operating in the linear economy (Kumar & Suganya, 2019; Narimissa,

Kangarani-Farahani, & Molla-Alizadeh-Zavardehi, 2020b). The devel-

opment of long-term relationships of the SC is based on transparency

and information sharing of the parties. Due to the length of the SC

and the nature of the competition in the textile industry, they are

reluctant to share information among firms (Tura et al., 2019).

5.8 | Cost

It requires a high initial investment for firms to implement and manage

the CE, producing and selling circular products, making necessary

technological investments and training human resources for circular

operations (Hart et al., 2019; Pathak & Endayilalu, 2019). Firms cannot

benefit from economies of scale because they do not produce large

volumes (Baltussen, 2019). In the long run, there is an uncertainty

about return on investment (Kumar et al. 2019; Werning and Spinler,

2020). Therefore, firms do not want to invest and take risks because

of the uncertainty in profitability and the long-term benefits it will

provide within the SC (Rizos et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2019;

Narimissa et al., 2020b).

5.9 | Technical infrastructure

In the transition to the CE, the initial steps should be the prevention

of waste or at least minimizing the amount of waste (Koszewska,

2018). However, the current infrastructure and technological chal-

lenge of firms cause insufficient collection and separation processes

of textile products and materials (Fletcher, 2014). Meanwhile, the col-

lection of products from consumers is a complex process. Therefore,

there is a need for reverse logistics infrastructure, necessary facilities,

and technology in collecting and separating recyclable products to

turn them into high quality raw materials (Hart et al., 2019).

6 | MANAGERIAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The managerial and policy implications will be discussed according

to the nine main dimensions that were mentioned before. The sup-

port and commitment of the top management is inevitable to con-

duct circular operations among the SC. Thus, the management and

decision-making have a vital role in achieving a sustainable textile

industry. The top management should convince the company with

this new business model that is based on the CE. Another impor-

tant issue is that the SCs are composed of many companies that

require the commitment of all parties within the SC. At this point,

the policy makers can act as a regulative and supportive role in

order to disseminate this vision to all SC partners. In addition to

the top management should establish a performance management

system to clearly manage and share the performance of each

department and the company as an overall. In that sense, traceabil-

ity of the products is an important issue where the managers can

get use of digital technologies. Policy makers should establish stan-

dards as well as measures on how to manage the circular perfor-

mance of all the companies within the SC and implement it with

rules and regulations.

Labour is an important part of the circular transition in textile

however, the lack of knowledge and technical expertise is an impor-

tant problem. Hence, the managers should focus on training and edu-

cational programs to enable the workers with the required knowledge

and skills. Policy makers should either conduct educational programs

for workers to gain necessary skills for circular operations or at least

support the programs of the companies. These programs should also

1486 KAZANCOGLU ET AL.

target unemployed people because textile is a worker intense industry

that may contribute to decrease unemployment.

The design of the product or service possesses an overwhelming

importance as just it has in quality management. Design is the phase

where all the possible negative outcomes or consequences, which can

be faced in future stages of the product life cycle, can be prevented.

Therefore, managers should focus on life cycle assessment and con-

duct design by taking all prospective circular activities into account.

On the other hand, the increasing complexity of the product may

cause additional pressure on design however managers should be

committed that circular and sustainable aims should not be neglected

nor underestimated.

The material is another category of barriers that managers and

policy makers should consider. The lack of obtaining the required

amount of material to be used in circular operations can be coped

when the circular transition is committed all through the SC. In that

sense, policy makers can promote and support the circular operations

among the textile SC by tax exempts or by rule and regulations. On

the other hand, the quality problems and the complexity of material

can be struggled with the help of digital technologies as well as tech-

nical infrastructure as described earlier in this section.

The governmental barriers constitute a significant part among

other barriers because the laws regulate the market and determine

the long-term projection of the sector. Thus, policy makers should

focus on preparing new rules and regulations as well as revising and

modifying the current ones to be in line with the transition to the CE.

The companies conducting the circular activities should be certified

by the related authorities to prevent the misuse of circular activities

and to regulate the market. In addition to that, the standards should

be set in order to assure a uniform level of quality which is critical to

achieve the desired circular and sustainable outcome.

Knowledge and awareness is an important barrier in the road

towards circular textile industry. The mutual and overall benefits

should be explained and disseminated among the SC. Thus, the coop-

eration and communication is essential that managers should focus

on. Also, policy makers can support these actions and contribute to

build the necessary trust towards the transition to the CE. The sup-

port of government and local authorities; in terms of public cam-

paigns, seminars of conference in cooperation with academia; will

enhance the trust of the stakeholders towards circular transition. In

that stage, it is important to exhibit and share the sustainable benefits

of this transition.

Integration and collaboration is the most important barrier that

managers and policy makers should develop implications on. The trust

is the key factor for convincing the textile supply to implement such a

new business model. Hence, information sharing and improved com-

munication should be the initial step. It is going to contribute the

traceability of the products and services. Block chain-based technol-

ogy and radio frequency identification (RFID) can be used in traceabil-

ity for textile supply chain (Kelepouris, Pramatari, & Doukidis, 2007;

Rusinek, Zhang, & Radziwill, 2018). Afterwards, the transparency of

circular operations in all stages of the SC will be achieved. Finally, this

will proceed with the SC to achieve a common vision and shared

goals. Eventually, the companies in the SC will have a permanent

statue in the long run, rather than considering the CE as a fad or fash-

ion. The companies should act as a cluster and get use of the econo-

mies of scale in all of their operations obtaining a joint circular

approach including, design, technical infrastructure investment, logis-

tics, and marketing.

The cost is an obvious barrier that constitutes an important of

the arguments of the people that resist the transition to the CE. The

managers can overcome this barrier as a result of implementing all

managerial implications listed in this section. Thus, it will be an out-

come of the proposed managerial and policy implications to solve the

cost problem. These high costs are related to the producing and/or

selling circular products. In order for textile companies to benefit from

economies of scale, they need to increase the amount of products

they produce. This increase in production quantity depends on con-

sumer demand for circular products. Therefore, the more information

consumers have about these products and its benefits, the more they

will buy these products, then the more producers will increase pro-

duction quantities and eventually, unit cost per product will decrease.

The managerial implications for technical infrastructure are

mainly based on digitization and information technologies. The bene-

fits of digitization and Industry 4.0 should be used to overcome the

barriers related to technical infrastructure. The recycling, reprocessing,

collecting, and sorting activities can be enhanced by smart technolo-

gies. Especially, the processes within recycling may require extent

technologies in textile. Thus, not only the productivity but also the

human safety issues related to these activities can be improved. On

the other hand, the policy implications may focus on the governments

to subsidize the related technological investments or at least enable

the industry to reach long term loan options to finance these circular

investments.

7 | CONCLUSION

In the textile industry, the barriers in transforming from linear econ-

omy to the CE are challenging. These barriers should be eliminated

throughout the entire SC within the help of all SC members. A com-

pany in the textile industry can only deliver a circular product if its

entire SC is circular. Due to these reasons, eliminating barriers and

increasing the adaptability to the CE have a vital importance for the

companies in the textile industry.

The contribution of this study is mainly proposing a conceptual

framework for barriers of CSC in transition to circular economy in the

textile industry. Therefore, this study supports the understanding of

the systematic and holistic view by encompassing all the stakeholders

within SC in the textile industry. The total of nine main categories and

25 barriers embracing the related supply chain stages and stake-

holders are categorized and presented as a guide for textile industry

as well as policy makers in transition to CSC.

The proposed framework can be implemented in other emerging

economies such as Mexico, China, Bangladesh, Brazil, and India

because in the literature it has been pointed out that similar problems

KAZANCOGLU ET AL. 1487

are existing in these countries for the textile industry. In the literature,

these have been mentioned such as high investment costs (Herrero

Rodríguez, 2017), the difficulties of cooperation between suppliers

(Brink, 2018), low education labour (Pathak & Endayilalu, 2019), reluc-

tance to adopt the circular economy model, lack of regular supplier,

limited dissemination of innovation, difficulty in the collection process

of waste, lack of infrastructure, and lack of awareness and attention

(Abdulrahman, Gunasekaran, & Subramanian, 2014; Damgaard, Nørup,

Pihl, & Scheutz, 2019; de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Desore & Narula,

2018; Moktadir et al., 2020).

There were several limitations and future research opportunities

in the study. The study was based on exploratory research methods.

Therefore, the proposed conceptual framework can be generalized for

textile industry however the results may vary related to validation

stage in each country. The developed framework is applied to Turkish

context; this framework is implemented in other emerging economies

and results may be compared in future studies. In this study only bar-

riers specific to the textile industry were examined. In future studies,

drivers and practices can be investigated apart from barriers in textile

industry. Another limitation is that, this was just a preliminary study of

an empirical research that showed the conceptual framework of the

barriers of CSC in the textile industry. In future research, it was

advised to the scholars to implement Multi Criteria Decision Making

(MCDM) studies regarding the barriers or new qualitative studies can

be organized to understand deeper insights of industrial experts. Thus,

the identified barriers may be further evaluated for the cause and

effect relationship by using DEMATEL, ISM, or ranking the barriers by

AHP, ANP, TOPSIS, VIKOR methods. In addition, this study developed

SC barriers; however, in literature there were many barriers such as

economical, technological, marketing, and cultural barriers. It was

advised that to perform more studies regarding these barriers to

develop the CE in the textile industry. Finally, the main industry in this

study was textile industry, thus similar studies regarding different

industries can be conducted in further studies.

ORCID

Ipek Kazancoglu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8251-5451

Yigit Kazancoglu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9199-671X

Emel Yarimoglu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0484-5006

Aysun Kahraman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4210-3924

REFERENCES

Abbasi, M., & Nilsson, F. (2012). Themes and challenges in making supply

chains environmentally sustainable. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, 17(5), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13598541211258582

Abdulrahman, M. D., Gunasekaran, A., & Subramanian, N. (2014). Critical

barriers in implementing reverse logistics in the Chinese manufactur-

ing sectors. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 460– 471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.08.003

AEA (Aegean Exporters Association), 2019, Members, Retrieved from

http://en.eib.org.tr/members.asp?AnaMalGrup01=0044|||TEXTILE&

AnaMalGrup02=0044.0057|||TEXTILE%20FABRICS.

Agyemang, M., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Khan, S., Mani, V., Rehman, S., & Kusi-

Sarpong, H. (2019). Drivers and barriers to circular economy

implementation: An explorative study in Pakistan's automobile indus-

try. Management Decision, 57(4), 971–994. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MD-11-2018-1178

Arakali, S., Denley, M., & Hoster, A. (2017). Drivers and challenges for the

expansion of renewable resource feed stocks: The sustainable textile sec-

tor, Master Project, United States: Nicholas School of the Environment

of Duke University.

ARCI (Aegean Region Chamber of Industry), 2012, Organized Industrial

Zones, Retrieved from http://www.ebso.org.tr/en/services/organized-

industrial-zones.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work

engagement: The JD-R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psy-

chology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389–411. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235

Balanay, R., & Halog, A. (2019). Tools for circular economy: Review and

some potential applications for the Philippine textile industry. In

S. S. Muthu (Ed.), Manufacturing circular economy in textiles and apparel

processing and design (49–75). The textile institute book series. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing.

Baltussen, A. M. (2019). Mainstreaming recycled textiles: An analysis of

drivers and barriers for circular business model diffusion in the Dutch

apparel industry, Master's Thesis Internship—Master Sustainable Busi- ness and Innovation Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University.

Bastein, T., Roelofs, E., Rietveld, E., & Hoogendoorn, A. (2013). Opportuni-

ties for a Circular Economy in the Netherlands. TNO, Report commis-

sioned by the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment,

1–13. Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Liu, Y., Smart, P., & Sohal, A. (2018). Supply chain

operations for a circular economy. Production Planning & Control, 29(6),

419–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449267 Bell, N. C., Lee, P., Riley, K. & Slater, S. (2013). Tackling problematic textile

waste streams. Retrieved from http://www.resyntex.eu/images/

downloads/NiaCBell_TACKLING_PROBLEMATIC_TEXTILE_WASTE_

STREAMS.pdf.

Benton, D., & Hazell, J. (2013). Resource Resilient UK (Circular economy task

force). London: Green Alliance. isbn:978-1-905869-90-9.

Bet, B., Kas, J., Truijens, D., Lee, S. V. D., Broere, J., Leising, E. & Wang, Y.

(2018). Barriers and best practices for the circular economy. Retrieved

from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154412546.pdf.

Bianchini, A., Rossi, J., & Pellegrini, M. (2019). Overcoming the main bar-

riers of circular economy implementation through a new visualization

tool for circular business models. Sustainability, 11(23), 6614, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236614.

Boiten, V.J., Li-Chou Han, S., & Tyler, D. (2017). Circular economy stake-

holder perspectives: Textile collection strategies to support material

circularity. Retrieved from http://resyntex.eu/images/downloads/

ValrieJBoiten_Textile_collection_strategies.pdf.

Bocken, N., Miller, K. & Evans, S. (2016). Assessing the environmental

impact of new Circular business models, Conference New Business

Models- Exploring a changing view on organizing value creation, 16-

17 June. Toulouse, France.

Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C. M. T., & Campos, L. M. (2016).

Identification and analysis of reverse logistics barriers using fuzzy Del-

phi method and AHP. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 108, 182– 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.021

Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2019). Challenges in supply chain

redesign for the circular economy: A literature review and a multiple

case study. International Journal of Production Research, 57(23), 7395– 7422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1542176

Brink, J. V. (2018). Expectations of the circular economy in the fashion

industry (Master's thesis). Supervisor: dr. Julian Kirchherr, Universiteit

Utrecht.

Brown, P., Bocken, N., & Balkenende, R. (2019). Why do companies pursue

collaborative circular oriented innovation? Sustainability, 11(635), 1– 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030635

1488 KAZANCOGLU ET AL.

Camacho-Otero, J., Pettersen, I. N., & Boks, C. (2020). Consumer engage-

ment in the circular economy: Exploring clothes swapping in emerging

economies from a social practice perspective. Sustainable Development,

28, 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2002 Cao, N., Zhang, Z., To, K. M., & Ng, K. P. (2008). How are supply chains

coordinated? An empirical observation in textile-apparel businesses.

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 12(3), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020810889326

Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework for sustainable supply

chain management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal

of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816

Chen, H.-L., & Burns, L. D. (2006). Environmental Analysis of Textile Prod-

ucts. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24(3), 248–261. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0887302X06293065

Claudio, L. (2007). Waste Couture: Environmental Impact of the Clothing

Industry. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(9), 449–454. https:// doi.org/10.1289/ehp.115-a449

Dahlbo, H., Aalto, K., Eskelinen, H., & Salmenperä H. (2017). Increasing

textile circulation—Consequences and requirements. Sustainable Pro- duction and Consumption, 9, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc. 2016.06.005

Damgaard, A., Nørup, N., Pihl, K., & Scheutz, C. (2019). Replacement rate

for textiles in a circular economy-a case of three African countries. In

17th International Waste Management and Landfill symposium. Italy:

Santa Margherita di Pula.

de Jesus, A., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers

in the eco-innovation road to the circular economy. Ecological Economics,

145(March), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001 de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Luiz, J. V. R., Luiz, O. R., Jabbour, C. J. C.,

Ndubisi, N. O., de Oliveira, J. H. C., & Junior, F. H. (2019). Circular

economy business models and operations management. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 235, 1525–1539. Desore, A., & Narula, S. A. (2018). An overview on corporate response

towards sustainability issues in textile industry. Environment, Develop-

ment and Sustainability, 20(4), 1439–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10668-017-9949-1

Dieckmann, E., Sheldrick, L., Tennant, M., Myers, R., & Cheeseman, C.

(2020). Analysis of barriers to transitioning from a linear to a circular

economy for end of life materials: A case study for waste feathers.

Sustainability, 12(5), 1725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051725

Dissanayake, G., & Sinha, P. (2015). An examination of the product devel-

opment process for fashion remanufacturing. Resources, Conservation

and Recycling, 104, 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2015.09.008

Elander, M., Ljungkvist, H. (2016). Critical aspects in design for fiber-to-

fiber recycling of textiles. Retrieved from http://mistrafuturefashion.

com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MFF-report-2016-1-Critical-

aspects.pdf.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning

fashion's future. Retrieved from http://www.ellenmacarthur

foundation.org/publications.

Esposito, M., Tse, T., & Soufani, K. (2018). Introducing a circular economy:

New thinking with new managerial and policy implications. California

Management Review, 60(3), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125 618764691

European Clothing Action Plan (ECAP) (2019). Circular Textiles Ready to

Market, Danish Fashion Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ecap.eu.

com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Circular-Textiles-Ready-to-

market-booklet.pdf.

European Commission (2015). Closing the loop—an EU action plan for the circular economy, Communication from the Commission to the Euro-

pean Parliament, The Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee of the Regions 21, European Commission, COM/2015/

0614, Brussels.

Fayet, L., & Vermeulen, W. J. (2014). Supporting smallholders to access

sustainable supply chains: Lessons from the Indian cotton supply

chain. Sustainable Development, 22(5), 289–310. Fei, F., Qu, L., Wen, Z., Xue, Y., & Zhang, H. (2016). How to integrate the

informal recycling system into municipal solid waste management in

developing countries: Based on a China's case in Suzhou urban area.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 110, 74–86. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.019

Fieldson, R., & Rai, D. (2009). An assessment of carbon emissions from

retail fit-out in the United Kingdom. Journal of Retail Leisure Property, 8

(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1057/rlp.2009.16 Filho, W. L., Ellams, D., Han, S., Tyler, D., Boiten, V., Paco, A., …

Balogun, A. L. (2019). A review of the socio-economic advantages of

textile recycling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 10–20. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.210

Fischer, A., & Pascucci, S. (2017). Institutional incentives in circular econ-

omy transition: The case of material use in the Dutch textile industry.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.12.038

Fletcher, K. (2014). Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys (2nd

ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Franco, M. (2017). Circular economy at the micro level: A dynamic view of

incumbents' struggles and challenges in the textile industry. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 168(1), 833–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.09.056

Frederick, S. (2010). Development and application of a value chain

research approach to understand and evaluate internal and external

factors and relationships affecting economic competitiveness in the

textile value chain. Phd Dissertation, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, NC.

Galv~ao, G. A., de Nadae, J., Clemente, D. H., Chinen, G., & de

Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Circular economy: Overview of barriers.

Procedia CIRP, 73, 79–85. Garcia Martin, P. C. (2016). The circular economy in the fashion industry:

Implications and challenges for Italian SMEs. Master's Thesis in Inter-

national Business, University of Vaasa Faculty of Business Studies

Department of Management.

Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S. N., de Carvalho, M. M., & Evans, S. (2018).

Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 190, 712–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2018.04.159

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The

circular economy - a new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner

Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 12.048

Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Figueroa, A., & Lenny Koh, S. C. (2017). Sus-

tainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circu-

lar economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega, 66(January),

344–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015 Georgise, F. B., Thoben, K. D., & Seifert, M. (2014). Supply chain integra-

tion in the manufacturing firms in developing country: An Ethiopian

case study. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2014, 1–13. https://doi. org/10.1155/2014/251982

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy:

The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and

economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Goldani, L. K. (2019). Transitioning to a circular business model in sustain-

able fashion companies. Master's Thesis in Universidade Federal do

Rio Grande do Sul. Escola de Administraç~ao. Programa de Pós-

Graduaç~ao em Administraç~ao.

Gotschol, A., De Giovanni, P., & Vinzi, V. E. (2014). Is environmental man-

agement an economically sustainable business? Journal of Environmen-

tal Management, 144, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. 2014.05.001

KAZANCOGLU ET AL. 1489

Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, bar-

riers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspec-

tive. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2), 278–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.08.018

Guldmann, E. (2016). Best Practice Examples of Circular Business Models,

Published by Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark Environ-

mental Protection Agency, Strandgade 29, 1401 Copenhagen K,

Denmark.

Hart, J., Adams, K., Giesekam, J., Tingley, D. D., & Pomponi, F. (2019). Bar-

riers and drivers in a circular economy: The case of the built environ-

ment. Procedia CIRP, 80, 619–624. Herrero Rodríguez, P. (2017). Circular Economy: Application in the textile

industry. Retrieved from http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/

handle/10234/171290/TFG_2017_HerreroRodriguezPatricia.pdf?

sequence=1.

Hobson, K. (2016). Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating gener-

ative spaces for the circular economy. Progress in Human Geography,

40(1), 88–104. Hofstra, N., & Huisingh, D. (2014). Eco-innovations characterized: A taxo-

nomic classification of relationships between humans and nature. Jour-

nal of Cleaner Production, 66, 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.11.036

Huamao, X., & Fengqi, W. (2007). Circular economy development mode

based on system theory. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and

Environment, 5(4), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2007. 10677537

ICOC (Izmir Chamber of Commerce), 2018, Industry in Izmir, Retrieved

from http://www.izto.org.tr/en/izmir-sanayi.

Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., & Kusi-Sarpong, S. (2018). When

stakeholder pressure drives the circular economy: Measuring the

mediating role of innovation capabilities. Management Decision, 57(4),

904–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-0990 Jia, F., Yin, S., Chen, L., & Chen, X. (2020). The circular economy in the tex-

tile and apparel industry: A systematic literature review. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 259, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. 120728

Karlsson, I., Rootzén, J., & Johnsson, F. (2020). Reaching net-zero carbon

emissions in construction supply chains—Analysis of a Swedish road construction project. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 120

(March), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109651 Kazancoglu, Y., Kazancoglu, I., & Sagnak, M. (2018). A new holistic conceptual

framework for green supply chain management performance assessment

based on circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1282– 1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.015

Kelepouris, T., Pramatari, K., & Doukidis, G. (2007). RFID-enabled

traceability in the food supply chain. Industrial Management & Data

Systems, 107(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570710 723804

Kirchherr, J., & Piscicelli, L. (2019). Towards an education for the circular

economy (ECE): Five teaching principles and a case study. Resources,

Conservation & Recycling, 150, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2019.104406

Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J.,

Huibreschtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the circu-

lar economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological Eco-

nomics, 150, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018. 04.028

Koszewska, M. (2018). Circular economy—Challenges for the textile and clothing industry. AUTEX Research Journal, 18(4), 337–347. https:// doi.org/10.1515/aut-2018-0023

Kumar, P. S., & Carolin, C. F. (2019). Future for circular economy. In S. S.

Muthu (Ed.), Manufacturing circular economy in textiles and apparel

processing and design (208–217). The textile institute book series. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing.

Kumar, P. S., & Suganya, S. (2019). Systems and models for circular econ-

omy. In S. S. Muthu (Ed.), Manufacturing circular economy in textiles and

apparel processing and design (169–181). The textile institute book series. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing.

Kumar, V., Sezersan, I., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Gonzalez, E. D. R. S., & AL-

Shboul, M. A. (2019). Circular economy in the manufacturing sector:

benefits, opportunities and barriers. Management Decision, 57(4),

1067–1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-1070 Levering, R., & Vos, B. (2019). Organizational drivers and barriers to circu-

lar supply chain operations. In L. de BoerPoul & H. Andersen (Eds.),

Operations management and sustainability—New research perspectives (43–66). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation:

A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal

of Cleaner Production, 115, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2015.12.042

Linder, M., & Williander, M. (2017). Circular business model innovation:

Inherent uncertainties. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2),

182–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1906 Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a

sustainable economy—Beyond green growth and green economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.08.045

Mahpour, A. (2018). Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in con-

struction and demolition waste management. Resources, Conservation

and Recycling, 134, 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2018.01.026

Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., &

Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Barriers to effective circular supply chain man-

agement in a developing country context. Production Planning &

Control, 29(6), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018. 1449265

Masi, D., Kumar, V., Garza-Reyes, J., & Godsell, J. (2018). Towards a

more circular economy: Exploring the awareness, practices, and

barriers from a focal firm perspective. Production Planning &

Control, 29(6), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018. 1449246

Moktadir, M. A., Rahman, T., Rahman, M. H., Ali, S. M., & Paul, S. K. (2020).

Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy:

A perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 174, 1366–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017. 11.063

Mont, O., Plepys, A., Whalen, K. & Nußholz, J.L.K. (2017). Business model

innovation for a circular economy drivers and barriers for the Swedish

industry—The voice of REES companies. Retrieved from https://lup.lub. lu.se/search/publication/833402ef-b4d4-4541-a10e-34d1e89d2146.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1),

129–152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 Mukherjee, S. (2015). Environmental and social impact of fashion: Towards

an eco-friendly, ethical fashion. International Journal of Interdisciplinary

and Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(3), 22–35. Narimissa, O., Kangarani-Farahani, A., & Molla-Alizadeh-Zavardehi, S.

(2020a). Evaluation of sustainable supply chain management perfor-

mance: Indicators. Sustainable Development, 28(1), 118–131. Narimissa, O., Kangarani-Farahani, A., & Molla-Alizadeh-Zavardehi, S.

(2020b). Drivers and barriers for implementation and improvement of

sustainable supply chain management. Sustainable Development, 28(1),

247–258. Novak, S., & Eppinger, S. D. (2001). Sourcing by design: Product complex-

ity and the supply chain. Management Science, 47(1), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.189.10662

Oghazi, P., & Mostaghel, R. (2018). Circular business model challenges and

lessons learned—An industrial perspective. Sustainability, 10(3), 739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030739

1490 KAZANCOGLU ET AL.

Pandit, P., Nadathur, G. T., & Jose, S. (2019). Upcycled and low-cost sus-

tainable business for value-added textiles and fashion. In S. S. Muthu

(Ed.), Circular economy in textiles and apparel: Processing, manufacturing

and design (95–122). The textile institute book series. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing.

Pasqualotto, I. (2015). The sustainable Business Perspectives: Circular

economy and textile recycling market opportunities, Master's thesis in

business administration, finance and control, Venezia: Universita

Ca'Foscari.

Pathak, R., & Endayilalu, A. (2019). Circular economy: A perspective of

Ethiopian textile sector. IJCIRAS, 1(1), 101–109 http://ijciras.com/ PublishedPaper/IJCIRAS1192.pdf

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. CA: Sage.

Pheifer, A. G. (2017). Barriers and Enablers to Circular Business Models.

Brielle: White Paper. https://www.circulairondernemen.nl/uploads/

4f4995c266e00bee8fdb8fb34fbc5c15.pdf

Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built envi-

ronment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143,

710–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.055

Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., & Hanemaaijer, A. (2017). Circular

Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain. Available at.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-circular-

economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf.

Rathinamoorthy, R. (2019). Circular fashion in circular economy. In S. S.

Muthu (Ed.), Manufacturing circular economy in textiles and apparel

processing and design (13–48). The textile institute book series. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing.

Resta, B., Gaiardelli, P., Pinto, R., & Dotti, S. (2016). Enhancing environ-

mental management in the textile sector: an organisational-Life Cycle

Assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135(November),

620–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.135

Ritzén, S., & Sandström, G. Ö. (2017). Barriers to the circular economy— Integration of perspectives and domains. Procedia CIRP, 64, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005

Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Kafyeke, T., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., & Ioannou, A.

(2015). The circular economy: Barriers and opportunities for SMEs.

CEPS Working Documents. No. 412. http://aei.pitt.edu/67297/1/

WD412_GreenEconet_SMEs_Circular_Economy.pdf

Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Wytze, V. D. G., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A.,

Kafyeke, T., … Topi, C. (2016). Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Bar-

riers and enablers. Sustainability, 8(1212), 1–18. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su8111212

Roosendaal, J. (2018). Breaking barriers to circular economy in the Dutch

textiles industry, Master Thesis in Sustainable Business and Innova-

tion. Utrecht University.

Rossi, E., Bertassini, A. C., dos Santos Ferreira, C., do Amaral, W. A. N., &

Ometto, A. R. (2020). Circular economy indicators for organizations

considering sustainability and business models: Plastic, textile and

electro-electronic cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119137

Rusinek, M. J., Zhang, H., & Radziwill, N. (2018). Blockchain for a Trace-

able, Circular Textile Supply Chain: A Requirements Approach. Soft-

ware Quality Professional, 21(1), 4–24.

Sabbaghi, M., Cade, W., Behdad, S., & Bisantz, A. M. (2017). The current

status of the consumer electronics repair industry in the US: A survey-

based study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 116, 137–151.

Sabaghi, M., Mascle, C., & Baptiste, P. (2016). Evaluation of products at

design phase for an efficient disassembly at end-of-life. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 116(March), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.01.007

Sandvik, I. M., & Stubbs, W. (2019). Circular fashion supply chain

through textile-to-textile recycling. Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management, 23(3), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-04- 2018-0058

Santos, B., Susana, A., & Matias, J. (2017). The relation between corporate

sustainability and circular economy. In S. G. Azevedo & J. C. O. Matias

(Eds.), Corporate sustainability: The new pillar of the circular economy

(pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Nova Publishers.

Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K.-H. (2011). An organizational theoretic

review of green SCM literature. International Journal of Production

Economics, 130(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010. 11.010

Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., & Sloan, P. (2015). Environmental sciences, sustain-

able development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for

trans-disciplinary research. Environmental Development, 17, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.002

Sharma, Y. K., Mangla, S. K., Patil, P. P., & Liu, S. (2019). When challenges

impede the process: For circular economy-driven sustainability prac-

tices in food supply chain. Management Decision, 57(4), 995–1017. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-1056

Sharman, D. M., & Yassine, A. A. (2003). Characterizing complex product

architectures. Systems Engineering, 7(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10. 1002/sys.10056

Sharman, D. M., & Yassine, A. A. (2004). Characterizing complex product

architectures. Systems Engineering, 7(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10. 1002/sys.10056

Snoek, S. (2017). Circular economy in the textile industry—Transition the- ory in start-ups in the textile industry, Master Thesis in Climate Stud-

ies Environmental Policy, Wageningen UR.

Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular eco-

nomic in China: Moving from rethoric to implementation. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 42, 215–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2012.11.020

Todeschini, B. V., Cortimiglia, M. N., Callegaro-, de-MenezesD., &

Ghezzi, A. (2017). Innovative and sustainable business models in the

fashion industry: Entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and chal-

lenges. Business Horizons, 60(6), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bushor.2017.07.003

Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Stahle, M., Piiparinen, S., & Valkokari, P.

(2019). Unlocking circular business: A framework of barriers and

drivers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 90–98. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.202

van Buren, N., Demmers, M., van der Heijden, R., & Witlox, F. (2016).

Towards a circular economy: The role of Dutch logistics industries and

governments. Sustainability, 8(7), 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/

su8070647

van Loon, P., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2018). Assessing the economic

and environmental impact of remanufacturing: A decision support tool

for OEM suppliers. International Journal of Production Research, 56(4),

1662–1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070647

van Renswoude, K., ten Wolde, A. & Joustra, D. J. (2015). Circular business

models—An introduction to IMSA's circular business model scan, IMSA Report. Retrieved from https://groenomstilling.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/

sites/default/files/media/imsa_circular_business_models_-_april_

2015_-_part_1.pdf.

Vermeulen, W. J. (2015). Self-governance for sustainable global supply

chains: Can it deliver the impacts needed? Business Strategy and the

Environment, 24(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1804

Werning, J. P., & Spinler, S. (2020). Transition to circular economy on firm

level: Barrier identification and prioritization along the value chain.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 245(118609), 1–16.

Wilson, L. (2015). The sustainable future of the Scottish textiles sector:

challenges and opportunities of introducing a circular economy model.

Textiles and Clothing Sustainability, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40689-015-0005-y

KAZANCOGLU ET AL. 1491

Xiao, S., Dong, H., Geng, Y., & Brander, M. (2018). An overview of China's

recyclable waste recycling and recommendations for integrated solu-

tions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 112–120. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.032

Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V. G., Liu, Y., Wan, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019).

Barriers to smart waste management for a circular economy in China.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 240(December), 1–12. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118198

Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., & Lai, K. H. (2010). Circular economy practices among

Chinese manufacturers varying in environmental-oriented supply chain

cooperation and the performance implications. Journal of

Environmental Management, 91(6), 1324–1331. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.013

How to cite this article: Kazancoglu I, Kazancoglu Y,

Yarimoglu E, Kahraman A. A conceptual framework for

barriers of circular supply chains for sustainability in the textile

industry. Sustainable Development. 2020;28:1477–1492.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2100

1492 KAZANCOGLU ET AL.