The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

IJPPM
71,3 “Enabling circular business models
in the fashion industry: the role of
digital innovation”
870 Phuc Hong Huynh
Business School, Nord University, Bodø, Norway
Received 28 December 2020
Revised 9 March 2021
Accepted 11 May 2021 Abstract
Purpose – Digital innovation and circular business model innovation are two critical enablers of a circular
economy. A wide variety of digital technologies such as blockchain, 3D printing, cyber-physical systems, or big
data also diverges the applications of digital technologies in circular business models. Given heterogeneous
attributes of circular business models and digital technologies, the selections of digital technologies and
circular business models might be highly distinctive within and between sectorial contexts. This paper
examines digital circular business models in the context of the fashion industry and its multiple actors. This
industry as the world’s second polluting industry requires an urgent circular economy (CE) transition with less
resource consumption, lower waste emissions and a more stable economy.
Design/methodology/approach – An inductive, exploratory multiple-case study method is employed to
investigate the ten cases of different sized fashion companies (i.e. large, small medium-sized firm (SME) and
startup firms). The comparison across cases is conducted to understand fashion firms’ distinct behaviours in
adopting various digital circular economy strategies.
Findings – The paper presents three archetypes of digital-based circular business models in the fashion
industry: the blockchain-based supply chain model, the service-based model and the pull demand-driven
model. Besides incremental innovations, the radical business model and digital innovations as presented in the
pull demand-driven model may be crucial to the fashion circular economy transition. The pull demand–driven
model may shift the economy from scales to scopes, change the whole process of how the fashion items are
forecasted, produced, and used, and reform consumer behaviours. The paths of adopting digital fashion
circular business models are also different among large, SMEs and startup fashion firms.
Practical implications – The study provides business managers with empirical insights on how circular
business models (CBMs) should be chosen according to intrinsic business capacities, technological
competences and CE strategies. The emerging trends of new fashion markets (e.g. rental, subscription) and
consumers’ sustainable awareness should be not be neglected. Moreover, besides adopting recycling and reuse
strategies, large fashion incumbents consider collaborating with other technology suppliers and startup
companies to incubate more radical innovations.
Social implications – Appropriate policies and regulations should be enacted to enable the digital CE
transition. Market patterns and consumer acceptances are considered highly challenging to these digital
fashion models. A balanced policy on both the demand and supply sides are suggested. The one-side policy
may fail CBMs that entail an upside-down collaboration of both producers and consumers. Moreover, it is
perhaps time to rethink how to reduce unnecessary new demand rather than repeatedly producing and
recycling.
Originality/value – The pace of CE research is lagging far behind the accelerating environmental
contamination by the fashion industry. The study aims to narrow the gap between theory and practice to
harmonise fashion firms’ orchestration and accelerate the transition of the fashion industry towards the CE.
This study examines diverse types of digital technologies in different circular business models in a
homogeneous context of the fashion industry with heterogeneous firm types.
Keywords Fashion industry, Sustainability, Circular economy, Digital innovation, Circular business model
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
Management The author sincerely thank the editors, the two anonymous reviewers, Professor Einar Rasmussen,
Vol. 71 No. 3, 2022
pp. 870-895 Professor Bjørn T. Asheim, Dr. Giones Ferran for giving valuable, constructive feedback for this paper
© Emerald Publishing Limited development. The author also gratefully thank Mr. Gisle Mardal, Ms. Elin Saunes of the Norwegian
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-12-2020-0683 Fashion Hub, and all interviewees for your participation and data contributions.
1. Introduction Digital-based
Circular business model innovation (MacArthur, 2013; Brennan et al., 2015; Pieroni et al., 2019) circular
and digital innovation (Reuter, 2016; Antikainen et al., 2018; Hofmann, 2019) are two critical
drivers for the transition towards circular economy (CE). CE aims to minimise resource inputs
business
and waste emissions through circular activities of reducing, reusing, recycling, recovering models
and remanufacturing (Gharfalkar et al., 2018; Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). In the CE transition,
the organisational structure, logistic and production methods of firms are reformed from the
linear model of “take-make-dispose” to the circular model of “make-use-return”. Digital 871
innovations are believed to be both the critical enablers and triggers for circular business
models (Ranta et al., 2021). It means that digital technologies are adapted to circular business
models and, at the same time, require business models to change to necessitate technological
functions. In many industries, a digital transformation is co-occurring with the sustainability
transition (Ranta et al., 2021).
Types of circular business models can be classified by CE strategies such as recycling,
extending, intensifying, dematerialising (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020) or narrowing, slowing, and
closing resource flows (Bocken et al., 2016). Firms may adopt circular business models
considering both internal factors (i.e. organisational structures and CE strategies) and external
factors (i.e. underlying industrial and market issues). A wide variety of digital technologies such
as blockchain, 3D printing, cyber-physical systems or big data also diverges the applications of
digital technologies in circular business models. Given the heterogeneous attributes of circular
business models and digital technologies, the selections of digital technologies and circular
business models might be highly distinctive within and between sectorial contexts. The
complexity of the CE transition goes beyond the scope of one generic CE framework. Needless to
say, no circular business model (CBM) can fit all sectors and firm types. Different sectors require
different business models, and different business models entail different digital innovations.
For example, the petroleum sector as a business-to-business sector is likely to introduce
process innovations by cyber-physical systems and data analytics for the resource efficiency
and recovery CBMs to reduce shutdown time and oil loss during the drilling process. By
contrast, business-to-consumer sectors such as the fashion industry with multiple
stakeholders may require radical innovations in both products and processes to shift from
the existing production–consumption paradigm and solve the paradox of reducing new
demand but maintaining profitability. Agostini et al. (2019) indicated that because of the
“industrial and competitive dynamics”, “between sector’s heterogeneity” diverges the
intricate patterns of digital innovation. Firm sizes and firm characteristics influence
environmental sustainability (Balasubramanian et al., 2020). Moreover, the dynamics of
digital innovation and circular business model strategies may also be dissimilar between
large incumbents, small and medium-sized firms (SME) and startup firms. Because of
organisational inertias, large firms are more inclined to select marginal CE principles such as
recycling and reuse for incremental innovations instead of changing the entire business
models (Hockerts and W€ ustenhagen, 2010; Schaltegger et al., 2016). In contrast, small firms
tend to introduce radical CE models and radical innovations (Hockerts and W€ ustenhagen,
2010; Schaltegger et al., 2016; Kennedy et al., 2017).
Although some conceptual research attempted to bridge the knowledge gap of digital
technologies and circular business models, the research field still lacks empirical evidence to
examine how digital technologies enable different circular business models of different
industrial settings (Lieder and Rashid, 2016; Pagoropoulos et al., 2017; Ranta et al., 2021). This
paper adopts a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to the circular business model and digital
innovation research in the context of the fashion industry and its multiple actors. The fashion
industry requires an urgent sustainability transition with less resource consumption, less
waste emissions and a more stable economy. This second most polluting industry consumed
98 million tons of oil and released 1.2 billion tons of CO2 in 2015 (Ellen Macarthur Foundation,
IJPPM 2017). Every year, fashion firms release about half a million tons of plastic microfiber
71,3 equivalent to more than 50 billion plastic bottles into the ocean after textile washing (Ellen
Macarthur Foundation, 2017). Severe resource degradation and environmental pollution are
caused by various factors such as clothing overproduction, underutilisation and low
recycling quality. The global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also causes
growing concerns about the security of outsourcing supply and firm profitability.
The pace of CE research is lagging far behind the accelerating environmental
872 contamination by the fashion industry. Most CE studies were centred on waste,
metallurgy, agri-food and energy sectors (Merli et al., 2018), whereas only a few papers
examined the fashion and textile sector. Among some studies about fashion CE (Todeschini
et al., 2017; Niinim€aki, 2018) and circular textile supply chain (Kazancoglu et al., 2020), no prior
research has investigated digital-enabled fashion CBMs and, thus, left several significantly
important CBMs yet to be explored. The absence of empirical evidence and research efforts
might significantly hinder the CE transition of fashion firms. The report in 2020 of the
Circular Fashion Summit and PwC and Vogue Business claims that circular fashion cannot
be fully exercised without digital technologies. Taking into account the significant emergence
of digital technology in fashion businesses, this study aims to address the following research
questions:
(1) What are digital-based circular business models used by the fashion industry?
(2) How do fashion companies of different sizes (i.e. large, SMEs and startups) differently
adopt those digital-based circular business models?
The various digital technologies are investigated in a homogeneous context – the fashion
industry (i.e. where firms in the same sector may face the same industrial barriers) – and in a
heterogeneous context in terms of actor types (i.e. large, SMEs and startup firms). A
comparison across cases is conducted to understand fashion firms’ distinct behaviours in
adopting various digital CE strategies. An inductive, exploratory multiple-case study method
is employed for investigating innovation projects of large, SME and startup fashion
companies. The study aims to narrow the gap between the fashion CE theory and practice to
harmonise fashion firms’ orchestration and accelerate their transition towards the CE. This
study’s empirical evidence may better inform business managers about how to apply digital
technologies into circular business model innovations for their fashion businesses.
Policymakers could also enact appropriate policies to reinforce fashion circularity in both
the production and consumption sides.

2. Literature review
2.1 Circular business model and digital innovation in the circular economy
The CE transformation is central to many national policies and business plans in recent
years. CE minimises resource depletion and environmental contamination caused by the
linear process of “take-make-discard”. Turner and Pearce (1990) introduced the concept of a
circular economic system to replace the traditional linear production model. From an
economic perspective, Andersen (2007) also argued that material and resource inputs into the
economy should be kept minimal, and product values should be retained through activities of
recycling and reuse. Korhonen et al. (2018, p. 547) define CE as “a sustainable development
initiative to reduce the societal production-consumption systems’ linear material and energy
throughput flow by applying materials cycles, renewable, and cascade-type to the linear
system.” The cooperative role of consumers and producers and other societal actors in the
sustainable transition of CE is emphasised (Hobson, 2016; Korhonen et al., 2018). To a certain
degree, CE can be linked to the concept of sustainability; for example, sustainability is one of
the main goals of CE. However, sustainability is a relatively broad concept, while CE provides
more explicit, specific and actionable guidance at the micro-level (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). CE Digital-based
principles can be translated into CBMs that firms can explicitly adopt (Korhonen et al., 2018). circular
The CBM and digital innovation are two significant elements behind CE. A CBM refers to
“how an organisation creates, delivers, and captures value in a circular economic system”
business
(Den Hollander and Bakker, 2016, p. 2), and “a business model in which the conceptual logic models
for value creation is based upon utilising economic value retained in products after used in the
production of new offerings” (Linder and Williander, 2017, pp. 2, 3). CBMs reflect business
model innovations in the CE, replacing the linear production–consumption system with 873
circular models (Boons et al., 2013; Mendoza et al., 2017). Urbinati et al. (2017) classified CBMs
in terms of downstream circular adoption, upstream circular adoption and full circular
adoption. The downstream circular adoption alters the customer value proposition and
interface through the “reuse” activities of products or usage-based models such as the pay-
per-user but does not vary the internal activities or suppliers. The upstream circular adoption
affects internal activities such as product design, development, production or supply
logistics, but does not appear visible to final consumers. Full circular adoption involves both
internal and external changes on value networks, customer value proposition and interface.
The strategy of adopting CBMs is affected by a number of financial, technological, market,
policy and organisational barriers (Kazancoglu et al., 2021).
CBM innovation refers to the shift from a linear to a circular business model (Linder and
Williander, 2017). Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) defined the four types of CBM innovation,
including CBM transformation (i.e. modification of an existing business model), circular
startups (i.e. the creation of new business models that entail CE strategies), circular business
model diversification (i.e. the addition of the CBM into the existing business model) and CBM
acquisition (i.e. the merger, acquisition and integration of the CBM into the organisation).
Radical CBM innovation is considered a novel improvement to value creation and capture,
while incremental CBM innovation is an improvement in addition to the existing business
models (Foss and Saebi, 2017; Ranta et al., 2021). Firm sizes and characteristics affect firms’
innovation and environmental strategies differently (Balasubramanian et al., 2020).
Therefore, the discrepancy in CBM adoption and CBM innovation strategies of large, SME
and startup fashion companies is anticipated. The long tradition of fast fashion requires
business model innovations to transform business practices into circularity. Based on these
frameworks, this study also explores how CBMs are adopted when it comes to differences in
firm sizes of fashion firms.
Digital innovation is defined as “product or business process innovations that contain
ICT, as well as innovations that rely to a significant degree on information and
communication technologies (ICTs) for their development or implementation (OECD, 2019,
p. 38).” Table 1 summarises various types of digital technologies. In the era of digitalisation, a
wide range of CBMs are dependent on digital technologies to retain and restore value losses of
goods and materials in the production and consumption systems to explore new markets and
to satisfy new market demands (Pagoropoulos et al., 2017; Nambisan et al., 2019). Some CBMs
are based on the sharing economy concept, such as Uber and Airbnb, that would not have
been successful without digital technologies (e.g. real-time data, the internet of Things, digital
platforms). Digital innovations enable CE (Rosa et al., 2020) by optimising material flows and
enabling reverse material flows (Pagoropoulos et al., 2017), by integrating value chains
through data collection and sharing (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018), and by improving
traceability and transparency through the product timeline (Antikainen et al., 2018).
Also, digital technologies alter innovation inputs, processes and outcomes per se (Agostini
et al., 2019). For example, with real-time data and digital platforms, innovation inputs are
shared in a more open, collaborative, transparent, faster way among the stakeholders in the
digital innovation systems. The processes of creating and managing innovations driven by
digital technologies also involve higher participation and feedback of partners and
IJPPM Internet of Things (IoT) The connectivity of physical objects such as electronic devices, smartphones and
71,3 transportation modes is facilitated by the Internet, radio-frequency identification
(RFID) technology tags, sensors and barcodes (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018)
The cyber-physical The integration of cyberspace, physical processes and objects enables the
system (CPS) autonomous coordination of production lines in real-time to optimise decision-
making, production orders and preventive maintenance in manufacturing
(Ahmadov and Helo, 2018; de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018)
874 Big data The capacity to store, manage and analyse a high variety, volume and velocity of
data (Rajput and Singh, 2019)
Blockchain The immutable tracking data of the product and process are provided through a
supply chain or financial flow (Rajput and Singh, 2019; Kshetri, 2018)
3D printing The printing of physical objects in layers directly from digital design models,
which may shorten the lead time for production and which integrates designers,
Table 1. producers, and users (Beltagui et al., 2020; de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018)
The types of digital Online Platform An interface or digital service that involves interactions between two or more
technology users (whether individuals or firms) via the Internet (OECD, 2019)

consumers (Agostini et al., 2019). Digital technologies can be flexibly embedded to generate a
wide range of product and service innovations with less complexity and less uncertainty
during product development phases (Agostini et al., 2019). Also, digital advances make
innovation outcomes less predefined, more easily enacted and modified in an iterative cycle
after first launching to the market (Nambisan, 2017).
Given the emergent role of digital technologies in the CE, several papers, as shown in
Table 2, examined this topic. However, the research streams are predominately theoretical or
conceptual and focused on one particular company, one process of the CE or one or a few
types of digital technology that makes it hard to generalise to an entire industry (Rosa et al.,
2019). The current research of digital technologies and CE, especially digital technologies for
specific CBMs, lacks empirical research and considerations of sectoral contexts
and comparisons across different firm sizes in a homogeneous sectoral context. Little is
known on how different firm types in one industry have different digital innovation
strategies to succeed with CE impacts. With the same opinion, Rosa et al. (2019) and Ranta
et al. (2021) also stressed the essential needs for further holistic, integrated, empirical research
to explain how CE and digital innovation are intertwined in heterogeneous conditions of
different sectors.
Using case studies of four medium and large companies in several sectors (i.e.
construction, machinery, waste management, oil refinery), Ranta et al. (2021) examined digital
technologies (i.e. the Internet of Things, cloud, enterprise resource planning (ERP) system,
artificial intelligence (AI), big data) grouped as data collection, data integration and data
analysis on the dimensions of the incremental versus radical business models and
incremental versus radical CE strategies. Bressanelli et al. (2018) examined a case study to
explore the Internet of Things and big data applications, particularly on the product-service
system (PSS)/servitised models. Most studies are focused on the Internet of Things, big data
and Industry 4.0. However, only a few papers explore the role of 3D printing (i.e. additive
manufacturing), which is considered as a game-changing, disruptive technology (Despeisse
et al., 2017) for the CE but has not been much explored in the CE literature. 3D printing may
significantly change the ways things are produced and how the stakeholders are involved. If
used with other emerging digital technologies (e.g. the Internet of Things, big data, Industry
4.0), 3D printing may radically change the industries (Despeisse et al., 2017). This paper also
adds to the knowledge of how a mass-production industry, such as the fashion industry, can
utilise 3D printing technology and radical CBMs to become more sustainable in fashion
production and consumption.
Authours Studies Digital technologies Approach
Digital-based
circular
Ranta et al. Digital technologies Data collection (by radio- The empirical study business
(2021) catalyzing business model frequency identification examined variety of digital
innovation for circular (RFID), IoT), data technologies on the circular models
economy – Multiple case integration (by cloud business model innovation
study computing, ERP system), in consideration of the
and data analysis (big data, narrowing, slowing and 875
AI) closing resource flows and
the novelty (radical versus
incremental), using four
cross-sectoral cases of the
construction, machinery,
waste management, and oil
refinery companies
Jabbour et al. Unblocking the circular Large-scale data on the The conceptual study
(2019) economy through new CBMs based on the focused on one digital
business models based on ReSOLVE framework technology (large-scale
large-scale data: An data) to review and propose
integrative framework and a framework and research
research agenda themes of large-scale data
on the ReSOLVE CBM
model
Bag and Relationships between Industry 4.0 Literature review on the
Pretorius (2020) industry 4.0, sustainable applications of Industry 4.0
manufacturing and circular in the context of supply
economy: a proposal of a chain management, focused
research framework on the interplay between
institutional pressures,
tangible resources, and
human skills
Bressanelli et al. Exploring How Usage- IoT, big data The empirical study
(2018) Focused Business Models examines the application of
Enable Circular Economy IoT and big data on a single
through Digital firm case (i.e. household
Technologies appliance sector) that uses
the PSS business model
Nobre and Scientific literature analysis IoT, big data Systematic literature review
Tavares (2017) on big data and internet of on the IoT and big data in
things applications on the CE in general, not
circular economy: a focused on the CBMs
bibliometric study
Despeisse et al. Unblocking value for a 3D printing The conceptual paper
(2017) circular economy through proposed research agenda
3D printing: a research of 3D printing for the CE
agenda
Antikainen Digitalisation as an enabler Digitalisation The qualitative paper
et al. (2018) of circular economy examined the role of
digitalisation in the CE and
its challenges. The sectoral
contexts and distinct CBMs
Table 2.
were not mentioned
Prior studies of digital
innovation in the CE
(continued )
IJPPM Authours Studies Digital technologies Approach
71,3
Nascimento Exploring industry 4.0 Additive manufacturing The empirical study
et al. (2019) technologies to enable examines additive
circular economy practices manufacturing technology
in a manufacturing context. in waste collection, sorting,
A business model proposal and treatment
876 Rosa et al. Assessing relations Industry 4.0 Systematic literature review
(2019) between circular economy of Industry 4.0 in the CE
and industry 4.0: a
systematic literature review
Pagoropoulos The emergent role of digital Data collection (RFID, IoT), The systematic literature
et al. (2017) technologies in the circular data integration (data review on data collection,
economy management system, data integration and data
product lifecycle analytics in the circular
management system), and economy
data analytics (machine
Table 2. learning, big data analysis)

2.2 The fashion industry and circular economy

The fashion industry requires sustainable innovations for its imperative transition toward a
CE. The production processes and unsold inventories of products and the throwaway culture
of consumers generate an extreme amount of garment waste. Fifty years ago, consumers
preferred tailor-made garments, whereas consumers nowadays tend to buy cheap and low-
quality clothes, use them only a few times before discarding them. This throwaway culture
leads to massive amounts of consumer waste for which many countries struggle to provide
waste treatment solutions. According to Statistics Norway, each Norwegian throws about 23
kilos of textile per year, and in 2018 Norwegian fashion retailers sent approximately 277
tonnes of new unsold clothes out of Norway.
Producers, because of trying to meet market demands, also exacerbate the issues. Fashion
production is an extremely resource-consuming and polluting process with tons of harmful
chemicals and wastes emissions. During fabric production, in addition to high consumptions
of water, resources, and energy, chemicals and pesticides are used and then discharged into
the environment (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). The long-existing linear production
process relies upon nine-month market forecasts. In that long timespan, market trends and
consumer preferences are liable to change quickly and unpredictably, leading to vast
amounts of inventories being unsold and having to be donated, burned or buried.
The recycling of garments retains the value of used fabrics, but fabrics have diverse forms
of material, design and colours, so garments ought to be well sorted by types before recycled.
The garment recycling process consumes a large amount of chemical for fabric
decolourisation and deodorisation before the fabric is re-made for new garments. The lack
of collecting, sorting and recycling is reported in the study of Kazancoglu et al. (2020) as one of
the most important barriers to the fashion industry’s CE.
The global “fast fashion” economic prospects are not optimistic; many fast-fashion
companies struggle to stay profitable and resilient. The global COVID-19 pandemic and
economic downturns aggravate firms’ financial issues. Consequently, many large fashion
incumbents such as H&M and Zara consider CBMs and technologies to transit to the CE. The
circular fashion economy aims to reduce resource use and waste during production, prolong
garment uses, enhance recyclability and reduce unnecessary new demand. Firms consider
their resource capacities and organisational structures to adopt appropriate CE strategies for
their business models to increase firms’ productivity and sustainability performances
(D’Agostini et al., 2017).
 The CE solution for the fashion industry has become a topic of interest. Some circular Digital-based
fashion business models in the form of service-based models, such as the sharing/ circular
subscription-based/collaborative consumption model (Todeschini et al., 2017; Niinim€aki,
2018), the second-hand retailing model (Todeschini et al., 2017) and the take-back model (Kant
business
Hvass and Pedersen, 2019), have been mentioned in some empirical studies. However, some models
business model innovations that potentially disrupt and shift the fashion production–
consumption paradigm have not yet been studied. Kazancoglu et al. (2020) revealed a
varied set of fashion CE barriers, such as lack of communication and collaboration, lack of 877
tracking and tracing, design challenges, lack of market acceptance or lack of economic
benefits. The fashion industry’s supply chain is long and complicated, with many
manufacturing and distribution processes (Kazancoglu et al., 2020).
Among the few articles mentioned above that deal with digital technology and the CBM, to
the best of our knowledge, no prior study has investigated digital innovation for CBMs in the
fashion industry context to the best of our knowledge. The papers of Todeschini et al. (2017)
and Niinim€aki (2018) mentioned the role of technological innovation for fashion CBMs in
general but did not explicitly investigate digital innovation. Therefore, two essential points
remain missing in the academic debates regarding this topic of the fashion CE: the
comprehensive view of radical fashion CBMs and how different types of digital innovations
facilitate different fashion CBMs.

3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
This study employs the explanatory, multiple-case study approach to examine the firm-level
innovation projects as the analysis unit. The case-study approach is selected for this study as
it is suitable for either exploratory, descriptive or explanatory research to examine questions
such as “how” and “why”, the behaviour of the research subjects cannot be controlled, and the
focus of the research is in a contemporary phenomenon (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Yin, 2011).
The case study method’s main interest is to “illuminate a decision or a set of decisions: why
they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result” (Schramm, 1971, p. 6;
Yin, 2011). The multiple case study method allows the comparison across cases to find
similarities and dissimilarities in the sample (Stake, 2013).
The multiple case study approach of this study seeks to understand fashion firms’
decisions of adopting the specific types of CBM innovations and digital innovations, and how
the innovations are implemented and for which potential results. Multiple case studies
provide empirical evidence for literal replication (i.e. cases with the same results) and for
theoretical replication (i.e. cases with contrasting results) to develop theoretical insights (Yin,
2011). Moreover, both CE and digital transformation research are relatively nascent topics;
large-scale quantitative data of the CE may not be available at this point. For that reason,
exploratory and inductive qualitative research is desirable to seek empirical evidence and
theoretical understanding, and explore the “how” and “why” of the phenomenon before
further hypothesis testing in the subsequent stage.

3.2 Case selection

The cases are selected from the fashion industry in Norway. Compared to other European
countries such as Spain, Turkey and Italy, the Norwegian fashion industry is relatively small
(i.e. turnover NOK 67 billion and 42,000 workers) but had growing exports of almost 8% in
2016 (according to the Norwegian Fashion Hub). Besides several large fashion incumbents, a
majority of Norwegian fashion firms are small and medium-sized. Norwegian textile, which
were started in the 18th century, are well-known for wool, pattern knitting and outdoor
IJPPM sportswear. In recent years, more Norwegian small and medium-sized fashion companies
71,3 promote “made in Norway” products. Despite its relatively smaller scale compared to other
larger textile exporters, the Norwegian fashion industry is relevant and important to be
examined for several following reasons:
(1) Norway is a developed economy with advanced research, innovation and technology.
Norwegian authorities strongly emphasise the CE and digitalisation transformation
878 strategies and provide support for fashion firms that participate in these
sustainability transitions. In Norway, the fashion industry is driven by the digital
technology and sustainability-oriented mindset of both producers and consumers,
appearing as a useful case context to examine digital advances for the fashion CE and
for other developed countries to consider their fashion CE strategies.
(2) A number of research and training projects in Norway and with other European
countries are initiated by the Norwegian fashion industry, showing some political
supports for this sector in Norway. Some Norwegian fashion companies place
sustainability as one of their core business values and aim to re-shore parts of their
production processes to be less dependent on outsourcing supply, more sustainable
and better prepared for global shocks like COVID-19.
(3) The ten selected cases belong to various sub-sectors (e.g. casual fashions, high-end
fashion, sportswear), representing different firm sizes (i.e. large incumbents, SMEs,
startups), and actor roles in the value chain (e.g. manufacturers, technology suppliers,
service providers). Some locate factories abroad (e.g. Varner Group, Bergans of
Norway, Høyer), and some manufacture in Norway (e.g. Oleana, Lillunn). This
strategy of selecting multiple cases in the same context (fashion industry) but with
different characteristics provides an integrative, holistic view of the industry and
allows a comparison across cases to distinguish various CE digital strategies.
Table A1 provides company profiles.

3.3 Data collection

Both primary data (i.e. interviews) and secondary data (i.e. project descriptions, project
applications, website and newspaper articles) are collected. Compared to surveys that provide
simple information in numeric and short-text form but limited in in-depth details, the
interview method is appropriate for capturing more complex and in-depth information to
obtain a more comprehensive and deep understanding of processes and motivation (Creswell
and Poth, 2016). Thus, our primary data is gathered through semi-structured interviews.
However, to reduce the interviewees’ personal biases and achieve data triangulation,
secondary data such as company website information and news articles were also employed.
In total, eleven semi-structured interviews with the project managers, chief executive officers
(CEOs), CTOs and sustainability officers, together with six project descriptions and forty-
three archival documents, are collected (see Table 3). The forty-three news articles from
Norwegian media were downloaded and coded into a framework that classifies the details of
publications, contents, companies and innovation projects.
The first interview was conducted with the Norwegian Fashion Hub’s head director to
gain a comprehensive insight into the industry. Norwegian Fashion Hub is a cluster
organisation consisting of forty established Norwegian fashion companies and a wide
network of suppliers, universities, innovation labs and institutes for research, education and
innovation. The snowball sampling technique was then used to get further contacts with
other company representatives in the network. The interviews were conducted by in-person
meetings, video calls and phone calls from October 2019 to June 2020. All the interviews were
recorded and transcribed by the author and a research assistant. The interviews were based
 Firm Project Website and
Digital-based
No Project size description Interview news articles circular
business
1 Lillunn Medium Yes Yes, with project leader Yes
2 Varner Group Large Yes Yes, one with system manager and Yes models
one with project partner
3 The Startup No Yes, with chief executive officer Yes
Hapticians (CEO) 879
4 Oleana Small No Yes, with CEO Yes
5 Høyer Medium Yes Yes, with project leader Yes
6 Bergans of Large No Yes, with sustainability manager Yes
Norway and with Chief of Information
7 Go Good Startup Yes Yes, with project partner Yes
8 Fjong Startup No No Yes
9 Norwegian Startup Yes Yes, with project partner Yes Table 3.
Rain The summary of data
10 Livid Jeans Startup Yes Yes, with project partner Yes collection

on the narrative approach (Polkinghorne, 1988; Czarniawska, 1997) that allows the
interviewees to openly share their opinions and stories closer to actual events, with
minimal interruptions and personal biases of researchers. Follow-up questions (e.g. “why did
you consider to do that?”, “how do you do that?”) were used to clarify the interview answers.
In addition to the interviews, project descriptions in the form of funding applications of
innovation projects serve as useful data. The project descriptions are written documents of
10–30 pages, explaining the objectives and processes of how the digitalisation and CE should
be achieved together. Most of the projects have been successfully granted funding and are
being implemented. Some of the projects are in the early stages, while others are further
developed (see Table 4).

3.4 Data analysis

The analysis protocol suggested by Wolcott (1994) was employed in this study. The four-
ordered steps proceeded as follows: First, the entire transcripts and documents are
thoroughly read to obtain overall ideas. Next, relevant sentences, phrases, sections in the
transcript or those related to theoretical concepts from our literature reviews (e.g. the types of

No Project Status Type Circular business model

1 Lillunn Being implemented SME Pull demand-driven model

2 Varner Group Being implemented Large Pull demand-driven model
3 The Hapticians Being implemented Startups Pull demand-driven model
4 Oleana Being implemented SME 3D knitwear model/pull demand-driven
model in consideration
5 Høyer On plan SME Pull demand-driven model
6 Bergans of Being implemented Large Service-based model (Rental, subscription,
Norway repair)
7 GoGood Being prepared to launch Startups Service-based model (Second-hand sale)
8 Fjong Being implemented Startups Service-based model (Rental, subscription) Table 4.
9 Norwegian Rain Being implemented – SME Blockchain-based supply chain model The companies and
pilot phase their digital-based
10 Livid Jeans Being implemented – SME Blockchain-based supply chain model circular business
pilot phase models
IJPPM digital technologies, CE strategies and CBM actions) were highlighted, whereas irrelevant
71,3 information was discarded to avoid distractions during the coding stage.
Next, the related and repeated patterns in the codes were found and grouped together
before being assigned into themes and categories. Creswell and Poth (2016) suggested having
not more than thirty categories and five to six themes, regardless of the database size, to keep
the analysis less complicated and more interpretable. The process of coding and categorising
is central to qualitative research as it lays the foundation for elaborating and reasoning
880 theoretical interpretations.
In the last step, the categories are labelled to define similar and contrasting patterns
between the categories. For interpretation of data observations, the analytical technique
suggested by Orton (1997) was used to link the existing theoretical perspectives to an
empirical context for finding understanding based on found patterns in and between
categories. NVIVO-12 software program supported the processes of coding and analysis.

4. Findings
Three main patterns of CBMs based on digital technologies are found by the examination of
the ten large, SMEs and startup fashion companies as manufacturers, technology suppliers
and service providers. The three CBMs include the blockchain-based supply chain model (two
companies), the service-based model (three companies) and the pull demand–driven model
(four companies). The service-based model entails two subtypes: the clothing renting/
subscription-based model and the repair/second-hand sale model. The pull demand–driven
model accounts for the majority of firms in this data sample. Large, SMEs and startup firms
adopt this CBM innovation but at different extents. Table 4 provides the profiles of the firms
with their CBMs. Table 5 presents a summary of the three digital-based CBMs. Some barriers
are also considered to understand how digital technologies help address those issues.

4.1 The blockchain-based circular supply chain model

This model’s core strategy is to improve the fashion value chain’s traceability performance
and automated sorting performance for recycling. The blockchain-based circular supply
chain model is focused on upstream business to mitigate the barriers of the “lack of collecting,
sorting and recycling” and “problems of tracking and tracing” emphasised in the systematic
investigation of Kazancoglu et al. (2020). Garment products contain complex materials that
make the process of sorting and recycling difficult, so technological innovations are required
(Hawley, 2014). In practice, only 1% of clothing materials can be recycled (according to the
Circular Fashion Summit Report, 2020)
Blockchain is a central technology in this model, together with real-time data and the
Internet of Things to enable a transparent, verifiable and immutable information flow
throughout the entire product lifecycle from “cradle to grave” (i.e. from the raw material
production to retail sales) in the supply chain network. This technology may help provide
information to increase sorting automation and recycling efficiency.
We think that blockchain is super enabling technology, and it can change the circular model (Projects
of Norwegian Rain and Livid Jeans).
Blockchain technology registers each transaction of garments throughout the value chain
process without spatial boundness. The value chain actors in any location can decentralise
the access, exchange information, and do not need third party operators. Concurrently with
blockchain, the Internet of Things gives data access through interaction with personal
electronic devices connected with the Internet. Information data at each point of the garment
life are immutable to enhance the transparency of tracking and tracing performances.
Blockchain data can be used for all internal and external stakeholders and should be verified
Model Functions Digital innovation
Digital-based
circular
Blockchain-based Provide information to track and trace Blockchain: register transaction business
supply chain model transaction activities of garment products activities during the value chain
process models
Provide consumers with sustainability The Internet of Things:
metrics of the products (e.g. garment connect the objects and
components, carbon emissions, production enable the blockchain 881
process, logistics) activities
Increase capabilities of reusing, repairing QR code: scanned to provide
and recycling activities for a circular transaction data
economy

Service-based Prolong the lifecycle of garments, increase Digital platform: host the operational
model garment uses activities and services
Offer consumers with clothing renting, The Internet of Things: connect
repairing, second-hand selling with more the objects and enable service
cost-saving, sustainable solutions activities
Blockchain: enhance the clothing
sorting process

Pull demand-driven Shift from mass production based on six- 3D design: virtualise designs
model nine months market forecast to real-time and prototypes that can be
demand-driven production to reduce modified on the online
overproduction system
Dematerialise physical designs by 3D virtual Avatar-based 3D model: measure and
designs to reduce false samples and reduce modify designs according to
lead time of product developments consumers’ avatars
Provide tailor-made solutions for consumers Digital platform: communicate
to customise clothing designs with higher and interact between end-users
quality and better fitness to reduce and designers and business
overdemand partners
Allow integrated communication between 3D printing: produce clothing
designers with end-users and with supplier directly based on 3D virtual
partners designs Table 5.
Automate productions to reduce labour AI and automation: automated The three main digital-
costs and increase higher preciseness in production without human based circular fashion
making clothes involvement business models

by a third party to ensure data creditability. A wide range of sustainability metrics (e.g.
material components, garment types, production time, logistics and delivery, using history
and carbon emissions) can be recorded and showcased to fashion consumers and brands by
simple QR-code scans.
This model contributes to a circular supply chain of the industrial system at various levels
(Korhonen et al., 2018). The model provides mutual CE benefits for both brands and
consumers in a broad sense. Given more credible, transparent information, consumers are
more incentivised to choose sustainable products and fashion brands. For example, by
scanning QR codes, consumers can obtain information on product sustainability indicators
(e.g. chemical use, water use, carbon emission, waste emission). Firms can centrally monitor
and control the production and supply chain processes to boost efficiency and sustainability
performances. Firms can also integrate this model with other CBMs such as recycling,
repairing and renting models to improve efficient automation in garment sorting.
Furthermore, the collaboration process in the supply chain is less geographically limited.
The actors’ vertical and horizontal integrations and collaborations are consequently
IJPPM enhanced through real-time data on each production stage to optimise resource consumption
71,3 and production conditions.
To fully optimise this model, several operational barriers should be taken into account,
for example, the extent to which data should be shared, accessed, verified and trusted among
the network of supplier partners and consumers. One fashion company may have multiple
suppliers in diverse locations, and, ideally, all suppliers in the blockchain network should be
able to register their single activities into the chain. In this study, this model is adopted by the
882 two small medium-sized companies that perhaps have more flexible organisational structures
to adopt this new system compared to larger firms with more complicated corporate structures.
You might know your first level and the second level of providers in terms of materials and origins
where you sell your clothes and so on. But the deeper you go into the value chain, the harder it gets to
build the blockchain because you need that physical and digital touchpoint (Projects of Norwegian
Rain and Livid Jeans).
Thus, firms need to figure out how to collaborate and engage their supply partners in this new
supply chain model. To a certain degree, third parties’ verification may be required to
maintain trust in the blockchain. Also, it is to consider which indicators and comparison
benchmarks should be included in the chain to ensure the chain’s information traceable and
trustful; consequently, it may involve data management.

4.2 The service-based model (rental/subscription-based, repair, reuse/second-hand sales, e-

commerce model)
The service-based models, including two subtypes (i.e. the rental/subscription model in
section 4.2.1 and the repair/second-hand sale model in section 4.2.2), mainly focus on the user
side, downstream business. Service-based models have received substantial interest in the
recent CE literature. Similar to music, film and accommodation being subscribed and rented
(e.g. Spotify, Netflix and Airbnb), fashion items can also be lent, rented and subscribed. These
models help servitise, dematerialise and virtualise fashion to increase garment reuse,
ownership sharing and keep garments in more extended use to slow the loop. They provide
consumers with more conveniences, varieties and lower costs to expand their clothing
wardrobes without causing wastes and environmental pollution.
4.2.1 The clothing renting/subscription-based model. The clothing renting/subscription-
based model is built upon the sharing economy concept. Fjong, a Norwegian fashion
startup, offers a digital platform for peer-to-peer rentals of garments and accessories. Users
can sign up as lenders and get updated about how their garments are rented out to generate
incomes of renting. Simultaneously, others can rent garments that suit their styles, fitness
and affordable prices. The company facilitates transactions between lenders and renters
and guarantee service quality. Extra services such as free cleaning and free delivery are
offered along with clothing rentals. This model directly reduces new purchases and
improves the garment utility as plenty of garments are bought but underused. 3D
technology may also increases clothing personalisation, so consumers can try fitting
products online. The company’s ambition is to expand its businesses to the larger-scale
subscription-based model in which consumers can rent clothing for the long term and daily
basis. With its digital platform, the company can also offer an extra service for its peer
companies and designers to test market opinions about new designs before sending the
designs to mass-production.
The startup firm, Fjong, pioneers in these new market segments, whilst the large fashion
incumbents such as Bergans of Norway also identified market promises and gradually
participated in the market with some new added-in services (e.g. renting camping gears and
children clothes with less frequent use and quickly changed) along with traditional
businesses. Bergans of Norway implements the new renting/subscription services on a small
scale to test the market. The company offers only the services in geographical proximity and Digital-based
collaboration with local organisations such as tourism organisations in the early stage. circular
Believing that the trends of second-hand sale, rental and subscription businesses will
continue to proliferate in the near future, the company prepares itself to react to consumption
business
changes. Digital platforms and systems are planned to improve the qualities of customer models
services and supply chain operations.
4.2.2 The repair/second-hand sale model. GoGood is an entrepreneurial venture providing
second-hand sale businesses based on digital platforms. Their model aims to the “reuse” 883
strategy of CE. An opinion survey conducted by GoGood indicated that one out of three
Norwegians would choose second-hand products in the next years. Low prices and
environmental friendliness are among the advantages of this model; however, some
disadvantages also exist, such as decreased quality after use and the lack of effective
delivery service and distribution. Understanding customer preferences to redesign
according to their fitness and styles is a critical factor for this model’s success.
This company offers a systematic solution to collect and classify garments by types,
evaluate reusable values, wash, redesign and repair. With this model, old clothes are
brought a new life and are kept longer in a closed-loop instead of being sent early for fabric
recycling.
New consumption patterns and digital advances have substantially contributed to the
emergence of both the renting/subscription-based and repair/secondhand-sale models.
In the fashion industry, the development of new consumption patterns has contributed greatly to
service-based business models with rental and subscription services through digital
platforms. . .The digital maturity increases the willingness to use new digital services and gives
the service economy opportunities. The transition from traditional products to digital services of
sharing, renting, and subscribing will escalate (Project GoGood).
The service-based models are mainly dependent on the digital platform and the Internet of
Things technologies. Most business activities and services (e.g. renting, sharing, buying and
selling) are organised and operated on virtual interfaces such as mobile apps, websites or
e-commerce channels.
Our costs in the next few years will largely depend on the development of technology in the digital
platform. But what we are going to spend money on is also what will generate money in the future
(Project Fjong).
Besides digital platforms, the Internet of Things is often used to facilitate individual actions
and interactions among users. For example, when a consumer wants to rent a new garment
for a special occasion, he or she will use personal devices to log onto the mobile app to make an
order, scan the QR codes to check-in and return the product. Blockchain technology in the
supply chain model could be integrated with the service-based models because blockchain
technology helps provide data to enhance the quality and efficiency of classifying garments
for rental and second-hand sales.
However, some consumers may perceive that their social values could be lowered if they
dress in used garments. This factor may hinder these models’ successes. The companies
pointed out the importance of understanding consumer mindsets, enhancing consumer
awareness about new sustainable ways of clothing consumption and normalising used
garment consumption. Reshaping consumer patterns can take time and include several
stages, such as reducing social prejudices to encouraging more clothing renting and second-
hand buying before fully expanding to larger-scale businesses.
I think a lot is about finding the balance between listening to what the customer wants and educating
them in the service we provide. We can offer the same value proposition, but at the same time, be a
sustainable alternative! (Project Fjong).
IJPPM 4.3 The pull demand-driven model
71,3 The pull demand-driven model facilitates a radical shifting in the whole production–
consumption paradigm of both the supply and demand sides and upstream and
downstream businesses. It shifts from the push model in which deadlocked volume-based
production based on six-to nine-month forecasts to the pull demand-driven model built on
real-time driven output to solve two underlying problems of the fashion industry:
overproduction and underuse. Since the designs and prototypes can be digitalised in the
884 product development and production phases, all chain stakeholders can get involved quickly
from the beginning stage.
The pull demand–driven model reforms the linear process of fashion production to a more
circular, collaborative and integrative process to adapt designs, demands and production on
an ongoing basis. Therefore, the “lack of communication and collaboration problems”
between multiple stakeholders in the supply chain (Kazancoglu et al., 2020) may be improved.
Data inputs for production processes are updated following actual preferences of end-
consumers. Garment production can be fully customised, tailored-made directly from virtual
designs to minimise prototype wastes and optimise production.
With the pull business model, we are able to increase the speed from design to delivery, do more
collaboration, produce more personalised items, and be more flexible for small-scale production
(Project Oleana).
Moreover, virtual 3D designs and digital platforms also enable remote monitor and control to
help address travel restrictions because of the pandemic. Thus, manufacturers and
outsourcing partners can collaborate without having to travel physically.
And then we got the Coronavirus, and everything stopped, I’m sure that, since it’s not possible to
travel in the same way as before, we need to see other ways of working because of the COVID-19 and
the economical way of doing things (Project Varner).
The model is shifted from the economy of scale to the economy of scope. In other words,
producers do not have to produce a large-scale quantity in advance. It could also be the
solution for the “diseconomies of scale” barrier of the fashion industry mentioned in the study
of Kazancoglu et al. (2020). The situation where fashion stores were forced to close in the
COVID-19 led to high volumes of unsold clothing. With the pull demand–driven model, the
risk of unsold inventory is reduced when the production does not depend on the mass
production of long-period forecasts but instead based on real-time demands. The cash flow
will be more fluid and flexible without too large fixed cost investment required.
Moreover, the simplified production process of the model reduces the costs of
intermediary and material logistics. The model is not only more sustainable for society but
may also be potentially profitable for the firms. Once the financial performance is improved,
firms may become more resilient against external adversities. Given fewer investment costs
required, the model provides more entrepreneurial opportunities for small, new firms with
small-scale production and limited financial capacity.
Digital tools are competitiveness for the factories to start producing smaller volumes because it
enables us to lower the product development costs a lot,. . .and can produce locally instead in a
factory in India (Project The Hapticians).
Digital production of this model also brings competitive advantages for high-cost countries
such as Norway to compete with lower-wage cost countries.
You can save the labour cost because you don’t have that many people in processes. And it would be
more sustainable because you will eliminate a lot of the wastes. The whole production can be
controlled more easily when you don’t have that many human factors involved (Project Oleana).
3D printing (i.e. additive manufacturing), avatar-based 3D design and AI technologies are the Digital-based
key technologies to unblock the model’s full customisation and integration. 3D designs and circular
digital platform provide multiple parties (e.g. designers to developers, suppliers and buyers)
access to the same system to reduce lead time of product developments and testing errors.
business
The “real-time” flexibility in communication and collaboration between value chain partners models
from the beginning phases of design and testing until the later production stages help reduce
physical prototypes and false samples.
885
The lead time for this model will go down dramatically, which means we will be more fashionable
and more right in time with our garment (Project Varner).
Digitalising the process will potentially cut down 50% of samples and optimise the use of material to
minimise waste. Virtual products can also test demand in advance of production to reduce inventory,
optimise conversion rates, and limit the volume that may harm the environment (Project Lillunn).
Noticeably, the model not only may improve production efficiency (by enhancing
productivity and collaboration between value chain actors) but also may significantly
disrupt the whole production–consumption paradigm. Consumers are incentivised to
change their consumption behaviours from low-quality fast fashion to more sustainably-
made, better quality, better-fitted and more personalised clothing. In the pull demand-
driven model, consumer data and market data are collected for production based on
individual preferences. Through avatar-based 3D technology, consumers can measure their
body sizes, interact on virtual interfaces to create their own 3D designs and then send them
to production.
Another benefit is that fitting and styles will be more accurate to the customer. And also, in the
future, maybe it’s possible to make tailored-made garments because it’s possible to make the
individual type of garment (Project Varner).
Direct communication with end-users is also helpful not only for tailor-made producers but
also for large-scale producers such as the Varner Group. Before mass production, the
producer can load 3D designs on digital platforms to survey consumer opinions about the
new models to avoid overproduction because of unmatched market patterns.
If you are a designer and want to be more sure if the consumers will like your designs, you can make
your design 3D and put it on the webshop, then just get the feedback from the consumers if they like
this type of colour, pattern before you produce (Project Varner).
The degree to which firms will adopt the entire CBM innovation or only some parts of the
model differ among firms. Some large and medium-sized firms (e.g. Varner Group and
Oleana) with well-established organisational structures and business models tend to
adopt this model incrementally and gradually. They aim to first adopt this digital
innovation into some production parts before implementing the whole model and fully
participating in the new market. They await higher certainty in market opportunities and
technologies.
A lot of different companies have been starting up, but it’s in the starting step. The model just
[emerged] a couple of years ago but has been growing (Project Varner).
By contrast, fashion startups such as The Hapticians adopt the entire digital tailor-made
model for their entrepreneurial ventures to possibly create potential sustainable impacts,
diffuse digital advances for new consumer patterns.
In addition to technical and financial capabilities, a major challenge the companies in this
study perceive is consumer acceptance. While the model may change consumer patterns of
buying ready-made garments in stores to tailor-made garments from online designs, several
challenges need to be addressed. For example, if and to which extent consumers will be
IJPPM capable of using new digital technologies, whether they will accept this business model
71,3 innovation and will be willing to pay more for sustainable tailor-made products. The tailor-
made clothes are believed to be more emotionally bonded with the consumers and, therefore,
may be kept longer.
You may have more personal relationships with the tailor-made clothes. So that’s kind of the strategy
as well in terms of sustainability, and the garments fit the consumers better
886
5. Discussion
5.1 Theoretical contribution
The paper addresses the first research question by presenting three archetypes of digital-
based fashion circular business models: the blockchain-based supply chain model, the
service-based model and the pull demand-driven model. The mechanism of how digital
technologies enable those circular models as well as their impacts on firms’ CE performances
is also explained. This study adds to the current stream of CE and digital technology research
an alternative holistic approach to understand how an industry with various actors (i.e.
producers, suppliers, consumers) and different firm types (i.e. large, SMEs, startups) can take
advantages of digital technologies and become more circular, sustainable and profitable
simultaneously. A product lifecycle of fashion items entails several main stages: demand
forecast, design, production, retailer selling, consumer use and recycling (Kazancoglu et al.,
2020). Figure 1 demonstrates the parts of the fashion production and consumption process
that the three models affect.
The rapid emergence of service-based models contributes to recurrent, longer uses of
ready-made fashion items through the activities of reuse, shared-ownership, and rental. This
model may involve fashion service mediums in between producers and consumers to operate
and facilitate retailing services of second-life fashion products. The blockchain-based circular
model affects the value chain’s long process from the fashion items are made until recycled.
The pull demand–driven model changes the whole process of how the fashion items are
forecasted, produced and used. The pull demand–driven model is radical because it helps
predict market demands more accurately to narrow overproduction and shift to the “real-
demand” production based on consumer preferences at the real point. Moreover, it may also
necessitate changes in consumer behaviours in buying and using clothes. Thus, for firms to
adopt this model, new value creation and value capture in the business system may be
required. The paths of adopting this model can be relatively distinguishable among large,
SMEs, and startup fashion firms.
Despeisse et al. (2017)’s study places the focus of 3D printing application primarily on
repairing, remanufacturing and recycling benefits. This empirical study complements the
conceptual research of Despeisse et al. (2017) by adding knowledge on how 3D printing may
also contribute to the “reduce” benefits for the fashion CE. 3D printing technology may result in
disruptive effects on the whole process of designing, production, and consumption to shift
market preferences, value proposition, economic models (from scale to scope), and minimise

Figure 1.
Digital-based CBMs on
the process of the
fashion product
lifecycle
overproduction. In that way, 3D printing would lead to higher resource efficiency and reduction Digital-based
in consumption. circular
Figure 2 reflects the three fashion CBMs on the combined framework of the downstream
versus upstream circular adoption (Urbinati et al., 2017) and the radical versus incremental
business
innovation Ranta et al. (2021). On the one hand, the blockchain-based circular supply chain models
model, as incremental innovation, focuses more on upstream adoption and can be added to
the existing business models. The service-based models predominately focus on downstream
adoption and can also be included as extra services alongside the company’s existing 887
business system. The pull demand–driven model may affect the whole structure of the
production–consumption paradigm and may necessitate radical innovations.
Even though this study and the study of Kazancoglu et al. (2020) examined the fashion
industry in different economic contexts (i.e. of developed economy and of an emerging
economy), the barriers found in this study are relatively consistent with the barriers
highlighted in Kazancoglu et al. (2020)’s study. Norwegian fashion companies also
encountered some main challenges such as “lack of communication and interaction”, “lack
of collecting, sorting and recycling”, “problem of tracking and tracing”, and “diseconomies of
scale” (Kazancoglu et al., 2020), in addition to some other specific barriers of the digital CBMs.
The fashion CBMs using digital technologies may help mitigate those barriers.
Firstly, digital technologies (e.g. the digital platform) improve the predictability of the
innovation process and market patterns with the right targeted customers and actual
preferences and increase the dynamics of commercialisation activities on the virtual
interface. The technologies (e.g. 3D printing, AI and 3D design) enable full customisation,
automation and close dialogues between value chain stakeholders and consumers for
quicker innovation modifications during the product development and production
processes. Digital technologies enhance innovation process dynamics with a higher level
of consumer and designer engagements than the early phases. This point of view also
aligns with Andrews (2015)’s argument that designers should not passively wait for the
development of reuse and recycling infrastructures but should be involved in the early
stage and prepare for the CE processes. In that sense, digital innovations may significantly
contribute to balance the equilibrium of market supply and demand to reduce excess stock
wastes and consumer wastes. Also, the economy of fashion may shift from scale to scope by
real-time–based, tailor-made production. Together with the pull demand-driven model,
fashion as services such as rental, subscription, secondhand-sale models and dematerialise
tangible prototypes would help slow down the fashion loop. Secondly, digital technologies

Figure 2.
Three digital fashion
CBMs on the degree of
novelty and upstream
versus downstream
business
IJPPM (e.g. blockchain, the Internet of Things) increase traceability and transparency of garment
71,3 products to enhance consumer consciousness and recyclability. This digital attribute also
changes the way how the supply chain stakeholders interact and coordinate in the
innovation ecosystem.
The communication flow of CE may also be changed by digital technology. Figure 3
illustrates the conventional, linear communication flow versus the collaborative, integrative
digital communication flow. The conventional, linear communication flow (illustrated by the
888 black lines) is passive and single-way, with a long and fragment value chain process (e.g. from
product development, production, to distribution and recycling). For instance, designers and
producers hardly have direct communication with consumers but mostly based on a long
mass-market forecast period.
On the contrary, the digital communication flow (illustrated by the dashed blue lines)
become more multi-actors, multi-dimensional and integrative. Consumers are placed central
in the digital communication flow, and fashion production is based on real-time. Consumers
can communicate with designers for tailor-made production, and, in another way, producers
can also communicate with consumers to test the designs before mass production. Material
and technology suppliers receive more direct, accurate, real-time info to react to production
plan more quickly and flexibly. Consumers may interact directly with the e-commerce and
service provider retailers (e.g. renting, second-hand buying, repairing). Consumers may also
get informed about recyclable products by recyclers. Recyclers can receive information on
recyclable garments by blockchain and communicate with producers for sustainable designs.
In the digital communication flow, the role of designers is also involved from the early stage of
the value chain.
About the second research question, this study explores how different large, SME and
startup fashion firms adopt digital CBM innovations. Based on the framework of
Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) regarding types of CBM innovation (i.e. circular business model
transformation, circular startups, circular business model diversification, circular business
model acquisition), a comparison across different firm sizes in this study reveals that most of
the large and medium-sized firms tend to adopt circular business model diversification
strategy that added new business functions (e.g. clothes renting, subscription, blockchain-
based model) to existing models. Large fashion firms are more likely to adopt the marginal
changes in their system to assess the appropriateness of digital business model innovation
and market acceptances before fully adopting an entirely new model. The pull demand–

Figure 3.
The traditional, linear
versus digital,
integrative
communication flow
driven model entailing significant shifting in the value creation and value capture system is Digital-based
more likely to derive from circular startups. This study is in line with Balasubramanian et al. circular
(2020)’s research that small startup fashion firms tend to be at the forefront of digital
technologies and radical business model innovation.
business
models
5.2 Managerial implications
The study provides business managers with empirical insights on how CBMs should be 889
chosen according to intrinsic business capacities, technological competences and CE
strategies. In addition to innovation in design and material science, business managers
may also take into account digital advances to fully unblock the benefits of fashion
circularity. This study informs business managers on how they can shift to digital circular
fashion businesses. Digital transformation and CE transition are simultaneously
accelerating among many well-known fashion brands around the world. For example,
H&M and Adidas already offered consumer campaigns such as closing the loop. Fashion
experts forecast that the sustainable technological shift in the industry from global to local
businesses will continue growing drastically in the upcoming years, with an estimated CE
value of 5 trillion US dollars (according to the Circular Fashion Summit Report, 2020). So,
business managers should prepare for this drastic green technology shift, especially
because consumers become increasingly conscious of sustainable corporate and their
individual responsibilities. Businesses that fail to adjust themselves to sociotechnical
systems’ paradigm shifts could be eliminated from the markets. For instance, even the
giants such as Kodak and Nokia lost their markets because they failed to innovate and
keep up with rapid technological changes.
Given distinctive intrinsic advantages and disadvantages, each type of company holds
its different role in industrial symbiosis. Large firms tend to adopt incremental digital and
CBM innovations in a gradual manner to wait for the maturity of markets and technologies.
In contrast, new firms are more likely to implement the entire CBM innovations and more
willing to try disruptive technologies. Therefore, besides adopting recycling and reuse
strategies, large fashion incumbents should consider collaborating with other technology
suppliers and startup companies to incubate more radical innovations. Open innovation
could also improve the digital ecosystem of the fashion industry. Fashion business
managers should not neglect emergent startup and fashion markets, for example, fashion
as services (e.g. rental, subscription), 3D instant customised fashion (e.g. pull demand-
driven model). The arrival of digital startups (e.g. Airbnb, Uber, Spotify and Netflix) may
significantly disrupt traditional markets, create new markets and undermine the
competitiveness of many large incumbents.

5.3 Policy implications

Lack of governmental awareness and supportive policies is one of the most influencing
factors for the CE transition (Kazancoglu et al., 2021). The authorities should also be highly
aware of the digital CE transition to enact appropriate policies and regulations. When
interviewed, companies in this study emphasised that market patterns and consumer
acceptances are highly challenging to their digital fashion models. Whether consumers
accept business model innovations (i.e. pull demand model, rental and subscription model)
may also significantly determine circular fashion’s success. Sustainability and technology
adoption of consumers might take place gradually in a sequence of stages. Together with
both hard and soft incentive schemes, consumer education programs are crucial to enhancing
technological knowledge, increasing market certainty and incentivising sustainable fashion
consumption. This study highlights that the fashion circular economy is driven by both
demand pull and supply push. Therefore, a balanced policy on both the demand and supply
IJPPM sides are suggested. The one-side policy may fail CBMs that entail an upside-down
71,3 collaboration of both producers and consumers.
Lack of collecting, sorting and recycling is a considerable challenge to the fashion industry
(Kazancoglu et al., 2020). Even if the blockchain supply chain model tries to partly improve
traceability, automatic sorting and collecting, recycling may still be a substantial challenge to
the industry because of excessive resource intake and toxic emissions in fabric and yarn
recycling processes. It is perhaps time to rethink how to reduce unnecessary new demand
890 rather than repeatedly producing and recycling. The pull demand-driven model shifting from
the economy of scales to the economy of scope could be a possible solution for the paradox of
reducing production but maintaining profitability, regardless of reduced unnecessary new
demand. Thus, policymakers should also consider policy strategies to incentivise and
facilitate this radical shifting of the CE effectively.

6. Conclusion
The shifting of the fashion industry to digital circular fashion is occurring all around the
world, but surprisingly little known in academia. With the attempt to bridge the gap between
theory and practice, this paper presents pieces of empirical evidence on how fashion firms
may embrace digital innovations and business model innovations to improve their
sustainable performances – using less, wasting less, and gaining more. Digital
technologies offer some considerable potentials to enable the sustainable CE transition
both incrementally and radically, provided that the technology must be used with a proper
consideration of consumer privacy, data management and security. Digital technologies are
not a perfect solution per se, as they also have negative sides. However, suppose the power of
digital technology is harnessed in the right way. In that case, the digital CBM innovations of
upstream circular adoption (i.e. the blockchain-based circular business model), downstream
circular adoption (i.e. the service-based model), or full circular adoption (i.e. the demand pull
model) may substantially contribute to a fashion industry of circularity and sustainability.
The fashion industry issue is caused by a double-effect of overproduction (i.e. mass
production forecast) plus underutilisation (i.e. the fast-fashion throwaway culture). Thus,
double-effect issues require two-way producer–consumer solutions. Consumers’ role should
also be placed centrally in the fashion CE because the new digital fashion is likely to be
determined by new consumer behaviours.
In acknowledging limited data scope, this paper does not try to generalise new theories but
provide holistic, integrative empirical insights that broaden, to some extent, understanding
about digital circular economy and strengthen conceptual findings. Since this study is
conducted in the fashion industry context of a developed economy (Norway) with specific
social and economic characteristics, the extent to which this study’s findings may hold on
other settings, such as less developed countries and emerging economies, should also be
considered carefully.
CE is a relatively nascent concept, and the CE transition is still ongoing. Hence, it may take
academics some time to collect large scale quantitative data and fully document CE transition
results. This paper may lay a basis for further research to build upon at some later stages.
Several research directions may be possible to explore, for example, (1) the development,
adjustment, and modification of digital technologies for fashion circular business models
over time and vice versa; (2) the barriers to the adoption of digital fashion CBMs; (3) the effect
of digital fashion business models on a macro level, for example, how the global fashion value
chain may change and reallocate resources from one country to another; and (4) the economic
and sustainable performance measurements of digital fashion CBMs compared to traditional
fashion CBMs.
References Digital-based
Agostini, L., Galati, F. and Gastaldi, L. (2019), “The digitalization of the innovation process: challenges circular
and opportunities from a management perspective”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 23, pp. 1-12.
business
Ahmadov, Y. and Helo, P. (2018), “A cloud based job sequencing with sequence-dependent setup for
models
sheet metal manufacturing”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 270 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Andrews, D. (2015), “The circular economy, design thinking and education for sustainability”, Local 891
Economy, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 305-315.
Andersen, M.S. (2007), “An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular
economy”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 133-140.
Antikainen, M., Uusitalo, T. and Kivikyt€o-Reponen, P. (2018), “Digitalisation as an enabler of circular
economy”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 73, pp. 45-49.
Bag, S. and Pretorius, J.H.C. (2020), “Relationships between industry 4.0, sustainable manufacturing
and circular economy: proposal of a research framework”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.
Balasubramanian, S., Shukla, V., Mangla, S. and Chanchaichujit, J. (2020), “Do firm characteristics
affect environmental sustainability?: a literature review based assessment”, Business Strategy
and the Environment.
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008), “Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation
for novice researchers”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 544-559.
Beltagui, A., Rosli, A. and Candi, M. (2020), “Exaptation in a digital innovation ecosystem: the
disruptive impacts of 3D printing”, Research Policy, Vol. 49 No. 1, p. 103833.
Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C. and van der Grinten, B. (2016), “Product design and business
model strategies for a circular economy”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 308-320.
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J. and Wagner, M. (2013), “Sustainable innovation, business models and
economic performance: an overview”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 45, pp. 1-8.
Brennan, G., Tennant, M. and Blomsma, F. (2015), “Business and production solutions: closing loops
and the circular economy”, Sustainability, Routledge, pp. 219-239.
Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Perona, M. and Saccani, N. (2018), “Exploring how usage-focused
business models enable circular economy through digital technologies”, Sustainability, Vol. 10
No. 3, p. 639.
Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2016), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches, Sage Publications.
Czarniawska, B. (1997), A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies, Qualitative Research Methods
Series 43, Sage Publications, London.
de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Godinho Filho, M. and Roubaud, D. (2018), “Industry 4.0 and
the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable
operations”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 270 Nos 1-2, pp. 273-286.
Den Hollander, M. and Bakker, C. (2016), “Mind the gap exploiter: circular business models for product
lifetime extension”, Proceedings of the Electronics Goes Green, Berlin, Germany, pp. 6-9.
Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley, F., Ford, S.J., Garmulewicz, A., Knowles, S., Minshall,
T., Mortara, L. and Reed-Tsochas, F. (2017), “Unlocking value for a circular economy through
3D printing: a research agenda”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 115,
pp. 75-84.
D’Agostini, M., Tondolo, V., Camargo, M., Dullius, A., Tondolo, R. and Russo, S. (2017), “Relationship
between sustainable operations practices and performance: a meta-analysis”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 66, pp. 1020-1042.
IJPPM Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), “A new textiles economy: redesigning fashion’s future”, available
at: http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications.
71,3
Foss, N.J. and Saebi, T. (2017), “Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have
we come, and where should we go?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 200-227.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M. and Hultink, E.J. (2017), “The circular economy–A new
sustainability paradigm?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143, pp. 757-768.
892 Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M.P.P., Pigosso, D.C.A. and Soufani, K. (2020), “Circular business models: a
review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 277, p. 123741.
Gharfalkar, M., Ali, Z. and Hillier, G. (2018), “Measuring resource efficiency and resource effectiveness
in manufacturing”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 67,
pp. 1854-1881.
Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Sarkis, J. and Godinho Filho, M. (2019), “Unlocking the
circular economy through new business models based on large-scale data: an integrative
framework and research agenda”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 144,
pp. 546-552.
Hawley, J.M. (2014), “Textile recycling”, Handbook of Recycling, Elsevier, pp. 211-217.
Hobson, K. (2016), “Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular
economy”, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 88-104.
Hockerts, K. and W€ustenhagen, R. (2010), “Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—theorizing
about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 481-492.
Hofmann, F. (2019), “Circular business models: business approach as driver or obstructer of
sustainability transitions?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 224, pp. 361-374.
Kant Hvass, K. and Pedersen, E. (2019), “Toward circular economy of fashion: experiences from a
brand’s product take-back initiative”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 23,
pp. 345-365.
Kazancoglu, I., Kazancoglu, Y., Kahraman, A., Yarimoglu, E. and Soni, G. (2020), “Investigating
barriers to circular supply chain in the textile industry from stakeholders’ perspective”,
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1080/13675567.
2020.1846694.
Kazancoglu, I., Sagnak, M., Kumar Mangla, S. and Kazancoglu, Y. (2021), “Circular economy and the
policy: a framework for improving the corporate environmental management in supply chains”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 590-608.
Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G. and van den Ende, J. (2017), “Radical innovation for sustainability: the
power of strategy and open innovation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 712-725.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A. and Birkie, S.E. (2018), “Circular economy as an essentially
contested concept”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 175, pp. 544-552.
Kshetri, N. (2018), “1 Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 39, pp. 80-89.
Lablaco Organization (2020), “Circular fashion summit report”, available at: https://www.cfs.fashion/
circular-fashion-report-2020 (accessed 2 March 2021).
Lieder, M. and Rashid, A. (2016), “Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review
in context of manufacturing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 115, pp. 36-51.
Linder, M. and Williander, M. (2017), “Circular business model innovation: inherent uncertainties”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 182-196.
MacArthur, E. (2013), “Towards the circular economy, economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition”, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes.
Mendoza, J.M.F., Sharmina, M., Gallego-Schmid, A., Heyes, G. and Azapagic, A. (2017), “Integrating Digital-based
backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: the BECE framework”, Journal of
Industrial Ecology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 526-544. circular
Merli, R., Preziosi, M. and Acampora, A. (2018), “How do scholars approach the circular economy? A
business
systematic literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 178, pp. 703-722. models
Nambisan, S. (2017), “Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of
entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1029-1055.
893
Nambisan, S., Wright, M. and Feldman, M. (2019), “The digital transformation of innovation and
entrepreneurship: progress, challenges and key themes”, Research Policy, Vol. 48 No. 8,
p. 103773.
Nascimento, D.L.M., Alencastro, V., Quelhas, O.L.G., Caiado, R.G.G., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Rocha-Lona, L.
and Tortorella, G. (2019), “Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy
practices in a manufacturing context: A business model proposal”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 607-627.
Nobre, G.C. and Tavares, E. (2017), “Scientific literature analysis on big data and internet of things
applications on circular economy: a bibliometric study”, Scientometrics, Vol. 111 No. 1,
pp. 463-492.
Niinim€aki, K. (2018), Sustainable Fashion in a Circular Economy, Aalto University.
OECD (2019), An Introduction to Online Platforms and Their Role in the Digital Transformation,
OECD Publishing, Paris, doi: 10.1787/53e5f593-en.
Orton, J.D. (1997), “From inductive to iterative grounded theory: zipping the gap between process
theory and process data”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 419-438.
Pagoropoulos, A., Pigosso, D.C. and McAloone, T.C. (2017), “The emergent role of digital technologies
in the circular economy: a review”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 64, pp. 19-24.
Pieroni, M.P., McAloone, T.C. and Pigosso, D.C. (2019), “Business model innovation for circular
economy and sustainability: a review of approaches”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 215,
pp. 198-216.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988), Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences, State University of New York
Press, Albany.
Rajput, S. and Singh, S.P. (2019), “Connecting circular economy and Industry 4.0”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 49, pp. 98-113.
Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L. and V€ais€anen, J.-M. (2021), “Digital technologies catalyzing business
model innovation for circular economy—multiple case study”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 164, p. 105155.
Reuter, M.A. (2016), “Digitalizing the circular economy”, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B,
Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 3194-3220.
Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C. and Terzi, S. (2019), “Towards Circular Business Models: a systematic literature
review on classification frameworks and archetypes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 236,
p. 117696.
Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D. and Terzi, S. (2020), “Assessing relations between
circular economy and industry 4.0: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 1662-1687.
udeke-Freund, F. and Hansen, E.G. (2016), “Business models for sustainability: a co-
Schaltegger, S., L€
evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation”,
Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 264-289.
Schramm, W. (1971), “Notes on case studies for instructional media projects”, Working paper for
Academy of Educational Development, Washington, DC.
Stake, R.E. (2013), Multiple Case Study Analysis, Guilford Press, New York.
IJPPM Todeschini, B.V., Cortimiglia, M.N., Callegaro-de-Menezes, D. and Ghezzi, A. (2017), “Innovative and
sustainable business models in the fashion industry: entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and
71,3 challenges”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 759-770.
Turner, R.K. and Pearce, D.W. (1990), The Ethical Foundations of Sustainable Economic Development,
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D. and Chiesa, V. (2017), “Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy
business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 168, pp. 487-498.
894
Wolcott, H.F. (1994), Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yin, R.K. (2011), Applications of Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Phuc Hong Huynh can be contacted at: phuc.h.huynh@nord.no
No Firm lead Firm type Firm profile

1 Lillunn Medium Lillunn is a Norwegian iconic outerwear brand made by 100% pure lambswool. It was founded in 1953 by Norwegian
designer Unn Søiland Dale who leads Lillunn to collaborate with French fashion houses such as Dior and Givenchy in the Appendix
80s, as well as designing iconic knits such as Eskimo and Marius. Lillunn has a great part of the seam production in Oslo,
Norway, continuing the traditions with a modern take. They have more than 80 stores located in Norway, Netherlands,
America and Japan
2 Varner Group Large Varner Group is one of the largest fashion retailers in Scandinavia, with nearly 11,000 employees and 1,400 stores across
eight countries. The first store was opened in Oslo in 1962. Bik Bok, Cubus, Dressmann are among the concepts of Varner
Group. To make the business becomes more sustainable and improve the environmental footprint of the fashion retailing
industry, Varner Group has defined three focuses: to be fair and responsible to all people, to be climate-conscious and think
circular, and to involve and engage the consumer in sustainable developments. Besides, Varner Group’s goal is to become
the leading data and tech-driven fashion company in Scandinavia by combining the best of online and offline worlds to
create a truly seamless experience for the consumer
3 The Hapticians Startups The Hapticians was established since 2018, specialising in tailor-made fashion with innovative digital solutions of design,
production, and display to change how clothes are made more sustainably. The Hapticians is funded by Innovation Norge
to promote sustainable growths in fashion
4 Oleana Small Oleana was founded in 1992 and currently has 52 employees. Wool and alpaca with superior quality made at the
intersection between craft and industry are the focus of the company. Products of Oleana are made in Norway
5 Høyer Medium Høyer has become a Mecca for quality-conscious and fashion-interested Norwegians, since 2004. Today, with a total of 24
stores, Høyer offers high-end and luxury clothes in high quality
6 Bergans of Norway Large Bergans of Norway is a pioneer in hiking equipment and technical clothing since 1908. Bergans is now setting a goal of
using more sustainable materials to extend the product lifecycles to secure responsible handling of natural resources,
animal welfare and innovation in the design processes. Moreover, since 2009, Bergans has become a member of the Ethical
Trading Initiative (IEH) to promote acceptable working and environmental conditions throughout the supply chain. With
the purpose of long-living products, Bergans has played a major role in the Norwegian outdoor life for more than a century
7 Go Good Startups GoGood is a Norwegian startup company with experiences in office and home furnishing. The modern reuse solutions in
areas such as fashion, children’s equipment, sports and electronics are also considered to be the main purpose of this
company. The company developed a system which drives innovation in the reuse model of clothing and furniture to
provide CE solution for saving the climate and environmental footprint
8 Fjong Startups Fjong was established in 2016 with a digital platform for renting outfits as “clothes’ Airbnb”. 20 employees of Fjong (2019)
work hard to figure out innovative ways for more environmentally friendly fashion businesses
9 Norwegian Rain Small Norwegian Rain was founded in 2009 in Bergen specialising in tailored rainwear by recycled materials and high
technology against bad weather conditions. Products of the brand are not only functional but also elegant, which are
inspired by Japanese functionality, classic men’s fashion and Scandinavian purity. The brand has been very successful
with the first store outside of Norway in London and now is sold in many stores all over the world
10 Livid Jeans Small Livid Jeans was founded since 2010 as a Norwegian textile company from Trondheim, focussing on making jeans inspired
by Japanese finesse within fabric construction while maintaining the classic silhouettes of contemporary Scandinavian
design. The brand’s ambition not only hold core values but also create unique and authentic products against poor
products being made unsustainably
Digital-based
business
models
circular

895

The company profiles

Table A1.