Discussion and Conclusion

other hand, lacking knowledge about how it works or how to use smartphone apps as well as time does not seem a big problem for the consumers.

statistically significant results. Thus, one can conclude that regarding Model 2 (long-term car sharing), Model 3 (private car sharing) and Model 4 (private ride sharing) the positive relationship between Use-oriented PSS and Acceptance of Circular Value Proposition is mediated by Consumer Evaluation, partly confirming Hypothesis 2. Besides, a difference between consumers who own a private car and consumers who do not could be investigated.

Customers who own a car evaluate use-oriented PSSs including car sharing significantly more negatively than consumers who do not (p=0.04). In this, the effect size is moderately large (ηp²=0.07) indicating that owning a car explains a moderate part of the difference in the evaluation of a use-oriented PSS and thus in the acceptance of a circular value proposition between customers who own a car and customers who do not.

Hypothesis 3 and 4 could not be confirmed statistically since the results were not significant.

However, the partial eta squared values showed moderate to strong results indicating that the directions of the predicted hypothesis are right. Furthermore, as can be derived from the correlation matrix, consumers tend to be more aware of sustainability and around 65% of the participants indicated that they would participate in car sharing to travel more sustainably.

Thus, one can conclude that consumers generally are concerned about sustainability and issues regarding our natural environment which is in line with the arguments outlined above and with previous literature (e.g. Msengi et al., 2019). Hypothesis 5 could be affirmed statistically and hence Trust moderates the positive relationship between use-oriented PSS and Consumer Evaluation. This means that consumers who show higher levels of trust regarding sharing services are also more likely to evaluate use-oriented PSSs more positively.

This might also be a reason for why Model 1 and Model 2 where the core product is provided by a company is rated more positively since it is generally more difficult for consumers to trust a private person than a company (Mäkeläinen, 2006).

Lastly, insights could be gained regarding the reasons why consumers would participate in sharing services. As a result, sharing services which are sustainable, convenient and which reduce responsibilities as well as costs for the consumers are more likely to be used. In addition, customers are less likely to accept sharing services when their territorial coverage is not widespread, when they already have the core product or when it is hard for them to trust the offer regarding safety and quality. Moreover, one quarter of the participants indicated that they are worried about the compensation system which again refers to the trust aspect. Also, some consumers have difficulties using the app or sharing services in general. Hence, use-oriented PSSs including sharing services which consist of the preferred characteristics and, especially, which are trustworthy should be more likely to be accepted and thus also their circular value proposition.

5.2 Implications

Consequently, the study reveals essential managerial implications and thus supporting companies and managers in developing an attractive sharing service system and, in particular, an effective circular value proposition. Primarily, suppliers should rather offer use-oriented PSS with a higher degree of use-orientedness and hence they should provide various services related to the core product since customers evaluate these more positively. Moreover, providers should generally ensure to deliver trustworthy products. In particular, suppliers should make sure to provide offerings which are safe, high-quality and which have a trustworthy compensation system. Besides, digital platforms like an app and the sharing service in general should be easy to use. Furthermore, offerings should be sustainable and suppliers should emphasize this, along with the trust aspect, when promoting and developing marketing strategies. Moreover, companies that plan to implement a circular value proposition should ensure to promote their offering attractively to an appropriate target group

since consumers’ evaluation also depends on their individual needs. Especially when it comes to sharing services where the core product is provided by the supplier, they should focus on a target group that does not yet own the considered product as people who own the product already are less likely to use the offering provided. As explained above, Model 3 and Model 4 were more positively evaluated by consumers owning a private car and Model 1 and model 2 were more positively evaluated by consumers who do not have a private car. This is also in line with the findings explained above that consumers who have an above average income usually have a private car and hence evaluate Model 3 where they can rent out their car more positively. Besides, consumers who generally trust the offering should be addressed, as they are more inclined to evaluate a use-oriented PSS positively and hence should also be more likely to accept a circular value proposition. In addition to that, consumers living in rural areas should be included into the offer area in order not to exclude them from society and to give them equal access. In particular, sharing services in terms of cars is even really important for consumers living in rural areas without a private car as the connection to public transportation is rather limited compared to cities.

Furthermore, some theoretical implications can be derived from the study and hence it also adds to previous literature. The most important contribution lies in its implications for the research of consumer evaluation and acceptance of a circular value proposition since several papers criticize that consumer acceptance of circular business models providing a circular value proposition of use-oriented PSSs including sharing services is not researched a lot so far (da Costa Fernandes et al., 2020, Catulli et al., 2017). Fernandes, et al., 2020, for instance, claims that the value observed by consumers and other stakeholders through the value propositions is rarely addressed. Hence, by providing statistical evidence that consumers positively evaluate use-oriented PSS including various types of sharing services and that this relationship is moderated by trust in the offering, important additions could be achieved by

focusing on the consumer side. Moreover, by exploring various reasons why consumers do or do not participate in use-oriented PSSs, including sharing services, the consumers’

perspectives could be illuminated. In addition, through providing statistical evidence that trust influences the evaluation of use-oriented PSS including sharing services, recent literature about revenue generation regarding sharing services could be validated. For example, Kumar et al. (2018) assert that sharing service providers need to ensure that they provide a trustworthy service in order to maximize the number of rentals to generate revenue.

Furthermore, a slight difference between men and women in evaluating sharing services could be investigated. Men rated sharing services where the core product is provided by a private person more positively than women. This result is consistent with and confirms previous literature which claims that men are generally more likely to perceive less risk in sharing services (Dittmar et al., 2004) and it is generally more difficult to trust private individuals than a reputable company (Mäkeläinen, 2006). Lastly, in contrast to previous literature (e.g. Casey & Sieber, 2016, Flammer, 2013, Msengi et al., 2019) the study found that Awareness of Sustainability does not have an impact on Consumer Evaluation of a Use-oriented PSS since non-significant results were achieved. However, Awareness of Sustainability and Use-oriented PSS are significantly and positively correlated (p=0.36**), so consumers with a high Awareness of Sustainability were already familiar with a Use-oriented PSS, which weakened the influence of the independent variable. The same applies to Age since non-significant results were achieved. This is also in contrast to previous literature that claims that age has a significant influence on consumer evaluation (e.g. Ozcan et al., 2017;

Shaheen et al., 2015). As a consequence, previous literature could be supplemented and confirmed by examining the consumer side.

5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The study provides several limitations as well as suggestions for future research which will be discussed in the following paragraph. First of all, a convenience sample allows for the collection of a larger amount of data, but because of the short time period, it is limited in that it restricts the generalizability of the data (Etikan et al., 2016). Furthermore, the opportunity to participate was not equal for all qualified individuals (Etikan et al., 2016) as the population of interest is a relatively large population and it is impossible to reach all of them. Hence, as the sample selection was limited on Dutch and German car consumers of the author’s network the study may be biased as the sample was not completely randomly distributed across the population of interest, i.e., consumers in the automotive industry (Winship & Mare, 1992). Though, when conducting the survey care was taken to address as diverse a picture of the target population as possible which was controlled through including the participant’s demographics, such as gender, age or place of residence. However, it might still be interesting to conduct the study with a larger sample and a longer survey period, as well as in other geographical areas, such as other countries and continents. This could then lead to more accurate and general results, and differences in consumer ratings between different geographic areas could be examined. Moreover, circularity can be implemented through various measures (Bocken & Ritala, 2021) where use-oriented PSS including sharing services is only one of many. Hence, it might be interesting to conduct the same study with other measures regarding circularity in order to investigate which method is the most effective one and most appreciated by the customers to further fill the literary gap on consumer evaluation of circular value propositions and circular business models. On the other hand, it might also be interesting to conduct the same study applying a use-oriented PSS but including sharing services other than car sharing, such as sharing services of clothing or technology, since people are generally already familiar with car sharing and

many people have access to a private car. Clothing, for example, is a daily need, and so it might be interesting to see whether consumers would also share their daily needs for more circularity and thus sustainability. In addition, further reasons should be investigated why consumers would accept or reject a specific circular business model since in this thesis only a limited number of reasons could be queried. Thereby, the development of an easier scale might be useful in order to query more reasons simultaneously and which allows for a simpler analysis. Furthermore, the measure of the consumer evaluation and acceptance of a circular value proposition is limited as the survey has a cognitive character and people are asked about their intentions, motivations and attitudes and not about their past experience or actual behavior. In addition, when conducting a survey in association with a questionnaire, errors and biases are always possible such as socially desirable responses. Moreover, bias and errors can occur if the questions are not understood correctly or the survey takes too much time (Choi, et al., 2004). However, care was taken to formulate the questions in a comprehensible way and not to ask too many questions. Moreover, it came to abort the survey or not complete reading as the four different models provided each contain multiple different characteristics and hence, each model provides a lot of information. Nevertheless, so-called trap questions (Liu & Wronski, 2018) are included to test whether the participant read every scenario carefully. Consequently, it might be useful to conduct the survey with a different method, e.g. with an experiment where participants are divided into four different groups depending on which of the four models they were presented with and evaluated. As a result, more differences could also be found between the four models provided.

5.4 Conclusion

The aim of this study was to uncover how consumers would evaluate a more circular offering and hence a circular value proposition. Based on recent literature, it has been argued that consumers are generally open to and more likely to positively evaluate a use-oriented

PSS including sharing services and thus a circular value proposition, depending on their age, awareness of sustainability, and trust. The customers’ evaluation and hence the acceptance of a circular offering has been investigated by providing four use-oriented PSSs including sharing services which vary in their degree of use-orientedness. The statistical results confirmed the positive relationship between consumer evaluation and a use-oriented PSS characterized by a high degree of use-orientedness as well as the moderating effect of trust.

Hence, the outcomes add to previous literature and offer several managerial implications.

Therefore, an answer for the research question posed at the beginning asking Scaling up Circular Economy: How do Consumers Evaluate a Circular Value Proposition? could be found. Primarily, it could be found out that use-oriented PSS characterized by a higher degree of use-orientedness are more likely to be evaluated positively. Furthermore, it could be investigated that circular offerings providing a circular value proposition which are more sustainable, convenient, safe and which are of high quality are more likely to be accepted by consumers. In addition, reduced responsibility and costs for the consumers builds another aspect that is preferred by consumers. Consequently, circular value propositions that promise consumers an honorable, sustainable, and trustworthy offering that is easy to use and provides multiple services and thus less costs and responsibilities to consumers are more likely to be evaluated positively. As a result, scaling up CE puts business models and especially value propositions towards consumers at a higher level of circularity, allowing for greater impact in addressing the current climate crisis.

References

Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students' understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513-544.

Adams, T. (2015). My father had one job in his life, I’ve had six in mine, my kids will have

six at the same time, Guardian,

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/29/future-of-work-gig-sharing-economy-jugg ling-jobs.

Agarwal, N., & Steinmetz, R. (2019). Sharing Economy: A Systematic Literature Review, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(6), 1930002-1-1930002-17.

Agatz, N., Erera, A. L., Savelsbergh, M. W., & Wang, X. (2011). Dynamic ride-sharing: A simulation study in metro Atlanta. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 17, 532-550.

Ahola, H., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Koivumaki, T. (2000, January). Customer delivered value in a web-based supermarket. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.

Akbar, P., & Hoffmann, S. (2018). Under which circumstances do consumers choose a product service system (PSS)? Consumer benefits and costs of sharing in PSS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 416-427.

Almquist, E., Senior, J., & Bloch, N. (2016). The elements of value. Harvard business review, 94(9), 47-53.

Amazon Mechanical Turk. (2022, April 21). Amazon Mechanical Turk. Amazon Inc.

https://www.mturk.com.

Aminoff, A., Valkokari, K., Antikainen, M., & Kettunen, O. (2017, April). Exploring disruptive business model innovation for the circular economy. In International Conference on Sustainable Design and Manufacturing (pp. 525-536). Springer, Cham.

Anderson, E., Lodish, L. M., & Weitz, B. A. (1987). Resource allocation behavior in conventional channels. Journal of marketing Research, 24(1), 85-97.

Antikainen, M., Aminoff, A., & Heikkilä, J. (2018, June). Business model experimentations in advancing B2B sharing economy research. In ISPIM Innovation Symposium (pp. 1-12).

The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).

Antikainen, M., Heikkilä, J., Knuutila, H., Nurmi, P., Petänen, P., & Heikkilä, P. (2020, June).

Sustainable circular economy value propositions in clothing as a service-model. In XXXI ISPIM Innovation Conference-Online: Innovating in Times of Crises. Lappeenranta University of Technology. Viitattu (Vol. 8, p. 2021).

Antikainen, M., Lammi, M., Paloheimo, H., Rüppel, T., & Valkokari, K. (2015, December).

Towards circular economy business models: Consumer acceptance of novel services. In ISPIM Innovation Symposium (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).

Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E., & Lang, C. (2015). Sustainable product-service systems for clothing: exploring consumer perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland. Journal of Cleaner production, 97, 30-39.

Arvidsson, A. (2018). Value and Virtue in the Sharing Economy. Sociological Review, 66(2), 289–301.

Avital, M., Carroll, J. M., Hjalmarsson, A., Levina, N., Malhotra, A., & Sundararajan, A.

(2015, January). The sharing economy: Friend or foe?. In ICIS.

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing.

Journal of consumer research, 39(4), 881-898.

Barquet, A.P.B., Oliveira, M.G., Amigo, C.R., Cunha, V.P., & Rozenfeld, H., (2013).

Employing the business model concept to support the adoption of product-service systems (PSS). Ind. Market. Manag. 42 (5), 693e704.

Bassiouni, D. H., & Hackley, C. (2014). 'Generation Z'children's adaptation to digital consumer culture: A critical literature review. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 13(2), 113-133.

Bayerischer Industrie- und Handelskammertag (BIHK) e. V. (2017). Shareconomy im

B2B-Bereich Potenziale für die Ressourceneffizienz,

https://www.ihk-muenchen.de/ihk/BIHK_Brosch%C3%BCre_Shareconomy-B2B.pdf.

Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715-734.

Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self‐administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739-753.

Bocken, N. M., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & Van Der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 308–320.

Bocken, N., & Ritala, P. (2021). Six ways to build circular business models. Journal of Business Strategy.

Bocken, N. M. P., Ritala, P., & Huotari, P. (2017). The circular economy: Exploring the introduction of the concept among S&P 500 firms. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 487-490.

Bocken, N. M., Schuit, C. S., & Kraaijenhagen, C. (2018). Experimenting with a circular business model: Lessons from eight cases. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 28, 79-95.

Boehm, M., & Thomas, O. (2013). Looking beyond the rim of one's teacup: a multidisciplinary literature review of Product-Service Systems in Information Systems, Business Management, and Engineering & Design. Journal of cleaner production, 51, 245-260.

Bolton, R. N., & Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers’ usage of services:

Usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of marketing research, 36(2), 171-186.

Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation:

state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner production, 45, 9-19.

Botsman, R. (2013). The Sharing Economy Lacks a Shared Definition, Fast Company, https://www.fastcompany.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-definition.

Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative consumption, 1.

Buruzs, A., & Torma, A. (2018). A Review on the Outlook of the Circular Economy in the Automotive Industry. International journal of environmental and ecological engineering, 11(6), 576-580.

Casey, D., & Sieber, S. (2016). Employees, sustainability and motivation: Increasing employee engagement by addressing sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

Research in Hospitality Management, 6(1), 69-76.

Catulli, M., Cook, M., & Potter, S. (2017). Consuming use orientated product service systems: A consumer culture theory perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 1186-1193.

CBS. (2022). Hoeveel mensen hebben een rijbewijs?.

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/verkeer/rijbewijzen.

Chen, X., Huang, B., & Lin, C. T. (2019). Environmental awareness and environmental Kuznets curve. Economic Modelling, 77, 2-11.

Chen, Y., & Wang, L. (2019). Commentary: marketing and the sharing economy: digital economy and emerging market challenges. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 28-31.

Cheng, Y. (2022). Normality Check [PowerPoint Slides]. University of Amsterdam.

file:///Users/laurakende/Downloads/Tutorial%20slides%20-%20Normality%20check-1.pdf.

Cheng, Y. (2022). Outliers Check [PowerPoint Slides]. University of Amsterdam.

file:///Users/laurakende/Downloads/Tutorial%20slides%20-%20Outliers%20check-1.pdf.

Cherry, C. E., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2018). Is sharing the solution? Exploring public acceptability of the sharing economy. Journal of cleaner production, 195, 939-948.

Choi, B.C.K., & Pak, A.W.P. (2004). A Catalog of Biases in Questionnaires, Preventing Chronic Disease, 2(1), A13.

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 279-296.

Cohen, A. P., Shaheen, S., & McKenzie, R. (2008). Carsharing: A guide for local planners.

Coley, A., & Burgess, B. (2003). Gender differences in cognitive and affective impulse buying. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.

Constantiou, I., Marton, A., & Tuunainen, V. K. (2017). Four models of sharing economy platforms. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(4).

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

da Costa Fernandes, S., Martins, L. D., Campese, C., & Rozenfeld, H. (2019, July).

Representing the Value Proposition of Product-Service Systems (PSS) in a Value-Based Perspective. In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3091-3100). Cambridge University Press.

da Costa Fernandes, S., Pigosso, D. C., McAloone, T. C., & Rozenfeld, H. (2020). Towards product-service system oriented to circular economy: A systematic review of value proposition design approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 257, 120507.

Daoud, J. I. (2017, December). Multicollinearity and regression analysis. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 949, No. 1, p. 012009). IOP Publishing.

Das, K. R., & Imon, A. H. M. R. (2016). A brief review of tests for normality. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 5-12.

Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International journal of market research, 50(1), 61-104.

Derikx, L.M., & van Lierop, D. (2021). Intentions to Participate in Carsharing: The Role of Selfand Social Identity, Sustainability, 13, 2535.

Dias, F., Lavieri, P. S., Garikapati, V. M., Astroza, S., Pendyala, R. M., & Bhat, C. R. (2017).

A behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services.

Transportation, 44(6), 1307-1323.

Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Meek, R. (2004). Buying on the Internet: Gender differences in on-line and conventional buying motivations. Sex roles, 50(5), 423-444.

Duffett, R. (2020). The YouTube marketing communication effect on cognitive, affective and behavioural attitudes among Generation Z consumers. Sustainability, 12(12), 5075.

Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2016). The relationship between access practices and economic systems. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(2), 210-225.

Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G.

(2019). Marketing in the sharing economy. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 5-27.

Ekins, P., Domenech, T., Drummond, P., Bleischwitz, R., Hughes, N., & Lotti, L. (2019). The Circular Economy: What, Why, How and Where. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Ekins-2019-Circular-Economy-What-Why-H ow-Where.pdf.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the Circular Economy, https://www.werktrends.nl/app/uploads/2015/06/Rapport_McKinsey-Towards_A_Circular_E conomy.pdf.

Elwell, C. K. (2014). The distribution of household income and the middle class.

Elzinga, R., Reike, D., Negro, S. O., & Boon, W. P. (2020). Consumer acceptance of circular business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 119988.

Ertz, M., Durif, F., & Arcand, M. (2016). Collaborative consumption: Conceptual snapshot at a buzzword. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 19(2), 1-23.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

European Commission. (2019, December 11). The European Green Deal sets out how to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, boosting the economy, improving people's health and quality of life, caring for nature, and leaving no one behind. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/e%20n/ip_19_6691.

European Commission. (2020). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - A new Circular Economy

Action Plan - For a cleaner and more competitive Europe.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1.

0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.

European Commission. (2020, March 11). EU_Greendeal_Circular_economy_en. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_20_437.

Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2018). Beyond technology: Identifying local government challenges for using digital platforms for citizen engagement. International Journal of Information Management, 40, 17-20.

Ferguson, J., Gonzalez-Padron, T., & Milliman, J. (2012). Sustainability driven innovation at Ecolab, Inc.: Finding better ways to add value and meet customer needs, Environmental Quality Management, 21(3), 21–33.

Ferrero, F., Perboli, G., Rosano, M., & Vesco, A. (2018). Car-sharing services: An annotated review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 501-518.

Finck, M., & Ranchordás, S. (2016). Sharing and the City. Vand. J. Transnat'l L., 49, 1299.

Fisher, S. (2020, November 13). 7 Ways to pretest your survey before you send it. Qualtrics.

https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/6-ways-to-pretest-your-survey-before-you-send-it/.

Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Reaction: The Environmental Awareness of Investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758-781.

Fremstad, A. (2018). Is there a future for sharing? A comparison of traditional and new institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(4), 595-616.

Fremstad, A., Underwood, A., & Zahran, S. (2018). The environmental impact of sharing:

household and urban economies in CO2 emissions. Ecological economics, 145, 137-147.

Frishammar, J., & Parida, V. (2019). Circular business model transformation: A roadmap for incumbent firms. California Management Review, 61(2), 5-29.

Frosch, R. A., & Gallopoulos, N. E. (1989). Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American, 261(3), 144-153.

Gao, S., Jing, J., & Guo, H. (2017, July). The role of trust with car-sharing services in the sharing economy in China: From the consumers’ perspective. In International Conference on Cross-Cultural Design (pp. 634-646). Springer, Cham.

Garbie, I.H. (2015). Sustainability Awareness in Industrial Organizations. Procedia CIRP, 26, 64-69.

Gebauer, H., Friedli, T., & Fleisch, E. (2006). Success factors for achieving high service revenues in manufacturing companies. Benchmarking: An International Journal.

Gefen, D., Benbasat, I., & Pavlou, P. (2008). A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 275-286.

Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2016). Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process–A workshop based on a value mapping process.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1218-1232.

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.

Ghosh, D., & Vogt, A. (2012). Outliers: An evaluation of methodologies. Joint statistical meetings.

Gilles, N., & Christine, L. C. (2016). The Sustainable value proposition of PSSs: the case of ECOBEL “Shower head”. Procedia CIRP, 47, 12-17.

Godelnik, R. (2017). Millennials And Sharing Economy: Lessons From a 'buy nothing new, share everything month’ project. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transition, 23, 40-52.

Goedkoop, M.J., van Halen, C.J.G., te Riele, H.R.M., & Rommens, P.J.M. (1999). Product Service Systems, Ecological and Economic Basics. Economic Affairs, TheNetherlands.

Gregg, D. G., & Walczak, S. (2010). The relationship between website quality, trust and price premiums at online auctions. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(1), 1-25.

G*Power. (2014). Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (Version 3.1.9.6).

Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.

In document Master Thesis Scaling up Circular Economy: How do Consumers Evaluate a Circular Value Proposition? (pagina 54-102)