Let’s Talk about Circular Economy: A Qualitative Exploration of Consumer Perceptions

Abstract

Consumer involvement plays a major role in the circular economy (CE), which requires a new and more active role of consumers. However, consumer awareness of and interest and involvement in the CE is low. Therefore, we aimed to find the starting points for consumer involvement in activities that promote a CE by exploring consumers’ general perceptions of the CE and several practice cases. Four focus group discussions were conducted (N = 24) in the Netherlands. The group discussions showed that most consumers did not have a clear understanding of the term “circular economy,” although their associations pointed in the right direction. Perceptions, attitudes, motives and barriers in terms of advantages and disadvantages varied among the participants and were related to (1) the functionalities of the products, (2) the production system, (3) economic aspects and (4) emotions such as concern about risks. We identified four key messages: targeting with regard to behaviours, attitudes and product functionalities; aligning with emotions; linking to practical cases; and applying multidimensional CE-related behaviour in everyday life and involving consumers in its innovation. These key messages are helpful in overcoming obstacles and barriers, raising awareness and providing input for sustainable consumption and production in the CE.

1. Introduction

1.1. Circular Economy: Rethinking Both the Supply and Demand Sides

High hopes have been expressed that the circular economy (CE) will enhance environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. In essence, a CE requires a rethinking of both the supply and demand sides of the “linear” and fossil-based economy as we know it, which implies the transformation of the production and consumption system [1]. Although the importance of consumers has been underlined in several studies, no studies have investigated how consumers perceive the CE.

There are multiple definitions of a CE (e.g., [2,3]). A common idea in these definitions is that the transition towards a CE centres on (1) resource efficiency in the entire production chain, from the efficient use of nutrients to produce biomass through the processing and to the products, their reuse and their life span; and (2) designing out of waste as the intention of a CE is to work towards a closed loop that is inextricably related to the safety of circular products and their production. More specifically, a CE requires combined strategies to reduce, reuse and recycle activities [3]. Until now, the consumption side has received less attention than the production side both theoretically and in practice, but several recent studies have underlined the importance of consumers and consumption in the further development of a CE [4]. Consumers have roles in a CE as purchasers, maintainers, repairers, sellers, sharers, collaborators, and waste discarders [5]. These consumer positions within a CE and the importance of their active involvement to achieve the CE goals contrast with the current situation that is characterised by a lack of consumer awareness and acceptance (see, e.g., [4,6]). To the best of our knowledge, insights into consumer perception about the CE as the full concept are not available. The objective of this study is to improve our understanding of consumer perceptions by focusing on both the CE as a general term and, more specifically, in terms of food-related practice cases of a circular nature. By using these issues as topics of conversation in focus group discussions, we explore how consumers perceive the CE at both an abstract level and more concrete levels. We aim to add to the emerging field of CE research by gaining insight into consumer perceptions on the CE and finding possible entry points for research, intervention, and communication activities to stimulate consumer interest and involvement.

1.2. Consumer Perspective on Circular Economy

To date, most studies in which consumers have been questioned about their perspectives and perceptions of the CE have focused on specific solutions and studied consumer acceptance of specific types of products or functions [4], especially in relation to fashion and phones (e.g., [7,8], for example, explored the factors that influence consumer acceptance of refurbished mobile phones; they identified consumers’ lack of awareness, a misunderstanding of what refurbishment actually entails, and a negative trade-off between perceived risks and benefits). A review of these studies showed that the acceptance of a CE depends on personal characteristics (e.g., materialism), product and service offerings (e.g., product quality), knowledge and understanding, experience and social aspects (e.g., privacy), perceptions of risks and uncertainty, benefits, and other psychological factors (e.g., norms) [4].

In the CE, far-reaching changes are expected from the consumer. Consumption is likely to change with respect to what consumerism and consumer goods mean to consumers, how consumers perceive consumption, and how consumption will evolve in terms of patterns and practices as well as consumption levels (e.g., reducing and refusing overconsumption, rethinking throwaway habits, avoiding conspicuous consumption, and living with less) [9]. Specifically, consumers must expand their traditional roles as individuals who buy and use goods (e.g., reusing, repairing, refurbishing, remanufacturing, recycling) to include new consumption forms, such as peer-to-peer transactions, sharing, borrowing and leasing [5,10,11]. According to [4], the meaning of consumption is changing. First, consumption will become more anonymous as individuals can no longer identify themselves with products because they share the products instead of owning them. Second, consumption will become more connected by means of deeper forms of engagement, such as sharing food and involvement or participation in production. Third, the multiplicity of values means that products or services should focus not only on functionality but also on symbolic values such as frugality and well-being. Fourth, material consumption was previously perceived as a sign of status, but circular solutions are perceived as a form of rebellion against mainstream consumption and thus encourage political consumerism. Fifth, uncertainty is perceived by means of issues such as trust, risk, control of products and relationships. Addressing such possible changes in the consumption domain is one issue; studying them empirically and from a consumer perspective is the next important issue.

In the specific field of food, the topic of waste has been the most frequently studied CE application during the last decade. These studies suggest that food waste is related to multiple behaviours in the everyday life of consumers, such as planning, shopping, transporting, provisioning, storing, preparing, consuming, maintaining and disposing [12,13]. The role of the consumer within a CE goes beyond the individual purchase of new products to new forms of consumption and related behaviours, such as participation in production, sharing food, and new types of recycling behaviours. Illustrative practice cases with a circular character already exist, but they are either rarely defined as such or have rarely been studied from a circular viewpoint. Thus, several opportunities and practices for consumer involvement in a range of CE-related behaviours could be addressed. Furthermore, a recent study by [6] observed that the lack of consumer interest and awareness are currently considered the main barriers to the transition towards a CE by business professionals and policymakers. Despite the potential importance of this finding, it is based on the opinion of professionals and policymakers, not consumers themselves. Therefore, we focus on what consumers reveal about their interest and understanding of circularity and circular behaviour.

1.3. Aim of This Study

Given the observation of little-to-no consumer interest and awareness in a CE, this research aims to find the starting points for consumer involvement in activities that promote a CE. Improving our understanding of the ways in which ordinary people talk and think about circularity and circular behaviour is helpful to our understanding of whether and to what extent circularity is an issue for contemporary consumers and to assess what role (groups of) consumers could play in the ongoing transition towards a CE in the foreseeable future. Given this objective, and unlike studies that have been confined to specific circular solutions [4], our research includes exploration of the novel issue of consumer perceptions of the general concept of the CE.

While a consumer-oriented approach has become more common in the field of food technology and innovation (e.g., [14]), research on consumer involvement in a CE is in its infancy and requires general insights into the diversity of perceptions of a CE. Given this state of consumer-oriented research in the CE field, it is appropriate to use a qualitative approach to explore the topic by inviting consumers to participate in group discussions about the CE to gain insight into the ideas, associations and perceptions of ordinary people. In addition to the specific outcomes of these discussions that will be reported in subsequent sections, this study may be seen against the backdrop of developing discussions about a CE beyond the circles of professionals and decision makers. While the CE has become a well-established topic of discussion among practitioners, policymakers and scholars, it is time for societal discourse; for the latter, we need to gain original insight into consumers’ views, understanding and engagement regarding circularity and circular consumption. Thus, our study follows the line of reasoning that developing a CE is a matter not only of technological innovation but also of consumer behaviour and behavioural change (e.g., [15,16]).

2. Materials and Methods

To improve our understanding of how consumers perceive a CE as well as whether and to what extent circularity is a topic of consumer consideration and concern, several consumer focus groups were conducted. Focus groups are especially valuable when exploring a new topic and deepening insights [17]. Projective techniques were used to facilitate discussion on the study topics. This method is especially valuable when exploring new topics in terms of association perceptions, motives, barriers and emotions [18]. Two topics were explored in the focus group discussion. First, consumers’ general perceptions of the CE were discussed to gain insights into their associations with CE-related terminology. Second, and more specifically, food-related products and services were discussed separately in addition to different types of related behaviours (see Appendix A). These topics were represented in seven food-related practice cases, such as the rest-stream valorisation of products as well as the packaging, sharing, and joint production of sewage water and manure.

2.1. Procedure

Focus group discussions were held with 4 groups of 6 participants each across two days within one week in November 2018 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. All sessions followed a semi-structured protocol of individual tasks and group-wise discussions. For most tasks, response sheets were used to register individual data. Audio- and video-recordings of the discussions were used to literally transcribe the sessions. Each session lasted for two hours.

2.2. Participant Selection

The recruitment of the participants was outsourced to a specialised professional organisation. This agency recruited 24 participants. All respondents were responsible for their own grocery shopping and had a good understanding of the Dutch language in both writing and speaking, and all but one were employed. Per session, there was an equal distribution in terms of sex (three men, three women), age (one person between 20 and 30, two between 31 and 40, two between 41 and 50, and one between 51 and 60), educational level (three with bachelor’s level or higher), and family composition (at the maximum, two participants were single, and at the minimum, three had children between the ages of 4 and 18 living at home). Finally, in each session, we included one participant with a non-Dutch background and two participants who were more experienced with a CE. Experience with a CE was measured with a 9-item self-constructed questionnaire on the use and buying of second-hand goods, reuse and repairing, environmentally friendly goods, composting, and the buying of irregularly sized, shaped or coloured fruits and vegetables. The participants were told that the study was about the habits of their household and their grocery shopping. All participants provided informed consent, agreed to be videotaped and were paid for their participation.

2.3. Measures

The protocol consisted of five tasks that were prepared in advance and noted in a guide. The introduction and final task were undertaken group-wise, whereas the other tasks were individual tasks followed by a group-wise discussion. The third task, in which cases were discussed, was specifically related to food, while the other tasks were more generally related to a CE. Since a CE is not a common topic for consumers to discuss, projective techniques were used to facilitate the discussion. Similar techniques have been used previously in studies on consumer perceptions of bio-based economies [19]. For each topic, a set of questions was composed; however, the issues raised by the participants were first fully explored. The questions prepared in advance were used to facilitate the discussion. These questions were helpful in raising questions as well as issues that may not have been covered spontaneously by the respondents.

The first task was an opportunity for each respondent to introduce him/herself and become acquainted with each other. The main aim was to create an open atmosphere where all participants felt free to speak about their personal ideas. It was emphasized that all answers were correct and that the participants did not have to agree with each other but had to respect each other’s opinions.

In the second task, a step towards the general subject (CE) was made by first mapping the consumers’ associations with a CE. The participants were asked to group 21 cards that contained words. One of the cards contained the phrase “circular economy.” Twenty other words were selected that were related to more direct aspects of a CE (e.g., waste, recycling), more indirect aspects (e.g., technology, independence from oil, carbon footprint, environmentally friendly, sustainability), food and food production (e.g., meat, fruit and vegetables, seasonal, local, fair trade), and more general words to facilitate broader associations (e.g., health, education, safety, crowd funding, social media, price, quality). Additionally, an effort was made to have no more than 2 words that were closely related to each other (e.g., price, economy, money, expensive) to avoid obvious groups of words. While making their groups, the respondents were asked to add a key word to each group. In the discussion, the respondents explained their groupings and the reasons behind them.

In the third task, seven examples of actual CE initiatives related to food were presented. The moderator described the seven cases (see Appendix A), and the respondents were given seven cards with a symbol representing each case. Then, the respondents were asked to rank the cards. The aim of this task was to obtain insights into their perception of CE cases, what they regarded as advantages and disadvantages, their objections and their motives for the application of the CE in their daily life. Ranking was performed in three rounds. The first round focused on their level of familiarity with the case. The second round focused on the level of importance of each case, either for themselves or for society, as interpreted freely by the individual participants. In the third round, the participants were asked to rank the cards to the degree that the initiatives were suitable to join or to practise in their daily life. Then, the rankings and the reasonings behind them were discussed in the group.

In the fourth task, the participants were asked what questions they had in relation to the CE, the information they needed, and to whom they would ask these questions. At this point, an explanation of the CE was given; prior to this point, the moderator had only stressed that the focus was the participants’ perceptions and what they thought a CE meant.

Finally, in the closing round, the participants were asked to pick a card that represented the day’s discussion for them and to tell the other participants why they selected that particular card. This final task provided a more general view of the attitudes of the participants.

2.4. Data Analysis

The focus group discussions were transcribed, coded and analysed using Atlas.ti 8. We applied inductive thematic content analysis [20]. All transcripts and expressions related to the different tasks were coded by one person. The final code book consisted of codes divided according to the different tasks. With regard to the general discussion of the CE, all reasons for grouping the terms were coded. For the practical cases, all associations, motives and barriers were also coded, including positive and negative issues, feelings, use, behaviour and governmental issues.

Associations with the CE (the second task) were computed by counting the number of times a word was placed in the same group as the term “circular economy.” In addition, the rankings within the group in terms of familiarity and importance were described.

In this paper, the results on information needs (task 4) are not discussed since the communication task was somewhat more exploratory and not relevant to the main focus on consumer attitudes towards the CE. In addition, the task seemed slightly abstract for the participants, and we decided to try a somewhat different approach after two sessions. Similarly, the results of the first task were not analysed since this was an introduction and not related to the topic.

3. Results

3.1. Associations with the Circular Economy as a Term

In the second task, the respondents were asked to group 21 keywords, including the term “circular economy,” based on their own perceptions. The CO₂ footprint, independence from oil, and recycling were the terms most often placed in the same group as the term “circular economy.” Additionally, technology, environmentally friendly, sustainable, waste, fair trade, local, and crowd funding were terms related to the CE by a considerable number of respondents. Other terms such as season, care, and price were associated less often with the CE (see Figure 1).

In the discussion, the respondents explained their groupings. The term “CE” was placed in groups for several reasons. Often, the selected keywords were related to environmental impacts, such as an ecological footprint, a conscious way of dealing with food and the environment, or saving the earth. The term “future” was also frequently mentioned as being related to “CE.” The respondents used many different expressions, but all of the expressions related to the future of our planet and outcomes of our behaviour, including “the future of the earth,” “the way to go,” “where we should be heading to,” “top priority,” “what we can pass on,” and “the best outcome for all of us.” Some respondents made additions to these phrases, such as “it might also go wrong,” “what we do now is not enough,” and “there is also resistance to this.” In addition to environmental impacts and the future, the respondents had some other perspectives. Responsibility was mentioned, whether the responsibility of the government or responsibility close to one’s self or far from one’s self (i.e., the importance of one’s own actions). Other issues that were mentioned were technology (“present-day technology makes it easier”), education, and renewal.

In one case, the term “CE” was not placed into a group by one person because he felt that a CE was unrealistic, i.e., “there are boundaries to reusing and recycling; it is a nice image, but it will never work.” Other participants did not know what to do with the term “CE”; for that reason, they did not place it in a group. More commonly, the term was placed in a group with other “leftover” terms, i.e., “I had a few ones left” and “I did not know what to do with that one.” Some respondents intentionally placed CE in a group but did not have a clear picture of that group, i.e., “I don’t know exactly why, but I just felt that they belonged together.”.

3.2. Ranking the Circular Economy and Related Terms

In the third task, the respondents were asked to take the group of terms containing “CE” and rank the terms according to their familiarity with them, and from most important to least important. Some misinterpretations occurred during this task; two respondents used one card less than they used in the first task, and one participant used only a few cards out of the larger set. Additionally, three respondents had missing values on the rating of importance. Overall, the results of the remaining participants show that regarding familiarity, the term “CE” was often ranked in the last place or the next-to-last place, indicating that respondents were less familiar with the term “CE” compared with the other terms. In the discussion, the degree to which the consumers felt familiar with the CE differed. A few respondents said they knew exactly what it was, for example, because of their work, and they mentioned specific aspects of the CE, such as modular production. Other respondents said they had never heard of it or that they did not know what it was. Most respondents had some idea of what a CE was, but as they were not sure if their idea was correct or a vague idea, they said they did not know exactly, i.e., “I think I know what it means” and “I have some kind of an idea, but I doubt whether it is right.” In addition, some respondents felt that a CE was not relevant to them and not present in their life, i.e., “It is not something I use in my vocabulary,” “It is something not very much alive,” and it is even “overwhelming.” Some participants felt that a CE was related to the government or companies. Finally, some respondents felt that a CE was not realistic, i.e., “There are boundaries to what is possible” and “I do not know if this is achievable within our life period.”.

When the respondents were asked about their ratings of importance, the position of the term “CE” was somewhat higher compared to its ranking in the task of familiarity, although it was still in the lower range. In the discussion of familiarity and importance, some of the same issues emerged. Respondents mentioned the aspect of personal involvement, i.e., “I am not going to use that,” “It is something that is not part of me... not something for me personally” and “I know it is not unimportant, but I am not involved in it myself.” Again, the respondents mentioned the aspect of feasibility, i.e., “A CE is not an achievable goal; if it is not achievable, I am not going to put it on top (of my list).”.

3.3. Perceptions of Food-Related Examples of a CE

Overall, most participants were not familiar with the different practice cases that were introduced and discussed. In the case of the rest-stream products (e.g., a “paper-like box made from manure” and a “bio-based bag made from sewage water”), this is understandable since these are not yet on the market. In the case of “loan platform” and “home takeaway,” only a few participants were familiar with and made use of these or knew of comparable platforms in their (local) community. During the discussion for each practice case, both positive and negative issues were raised, which will be described below. The issues were grouped by the functionality of the product, which was represented by the product characteristics that were preferred or not, the food production system, the economic benefits or barriers, emotions and social aspects.

3.3.1. Motives and Advantages of Food-Related Examples of a CE

Among the participants, several motives and advantages were mentioned regarding why one could appreciate the seven examples discussed. First, several functionalities of the products were addressed. The participants mentioned issues such as preventing the wasting of food with regard to “home takeaway” and “avoiding [the] waste factory” or a more efficient use of available equipment and less space needed to store equipment in the case of the “loan platform.” Moreover, they appreciated the two examples of bio-based packaging as a good alternative solution to the large amount of plastic waste. They liked the novelty of the packaging as a good replacement for existing packaging such as plastic bags. For some, the issue of not having to cook was appreciated as they did not like to cook or did not have the time to cook, as expressed by the following sentiments: “I would be a takeaway user all the time” and “I do not like to cook, but I like tasty food.” Others liked the easy availability of the “avoiding waste factory” soup in the supermarket. Second, issues that involved a better production system were mentioned, such as in the practice case of “gentlemen farming,” which to some participants meant more local and animal-friendly food. Additionally, a more personal component was addressed for the practice case of “home takeaway,” i.e., “you know who produces/prepares your food.” Both of these cases represent a more social food production system in which there are joint activities with regard to production and harvesting as well as the sharing of food. “Home takeaway” seemed especially appreciated when it was considered charity (interaction between citizens), and it was perceived to be different when it was considered commercial (interaction between company and citizen). Third, several economic advantages were given; for example, if you do not have much money, “home takeaway” might be a good opportunity. Similarly, in the practice case of the soup from the “avoiding waste factory,” this soup was expected to be cheaper than regular soup because it was made from tomatoes that were otherwise waste. Fourth, emotions such as good feelings were mentioned, i.e., “makes me feel better/gives me a good feeling/or a not as bad feeling.” For example, in relation to “home takeaway,” some participants mentioned that they would like to cook as a way to help others. With regard to the bio-based bag and paper-like box, some participants assumed that it was safe and that otherwise it would not be on the market.

3.3.2. Objections and Disadvantages of Food-Related Examples of a CE

A wide variety of disadvantages or objections were mentioned. First, there was the issue of the functionality of a product. For example, if participants had the impression that there were already enough other types of bio-based plastics, then they saw no need for another new type. Especially when discussing the bio-based bag, some participants raised the issue that if they had to bring their own bag, they would not need the new bio-based bag. Second, participants perceived some barriers related to the production system. For example, some participants did not want to participate in the production of food, while others did not have the interest or the time to do so. In addition, several issues were mentioned relating to the way in which the initiations were organised. With regard to “gentlemen farming,” the participants expected that it would be quite difficult to make joint-decision actions with all the partners of the cooperation about what type of foods should be grown or produced. In the practice case of the “loan platform,” practical difficulties between people were raised when discussing shared kitchen equipment, such as “How do I get it back?” and “What rules and agreements are there for when it gets out of order?” Some participants elaborated on their concerns and mentioned that rules and legislation should be applied when discussing hygiene and food preparation at home. In addition, some participants raised the issue that “gentlemen farming” is better suited to rural areas than urban areas due to the availability of space. Moreover, participation in such cooperation requires a reshuffling of one’s daily life schedule, which some people did not like. Finally, some participants said they were simply not into agriculture and that they did not have an affinity for food production. Third, economic disadvantages were raised. Some participants expected higher prices of the soup from the “avoiding waste factory,” while others truly had no idea about the costs. In addition, some participants mentioned that they did not want to invest money or time in these initiatives, such as “gentlemen farming.” Next, the issue was raised on a more general level that the “loan platform” might have a negative impact on the economy since less equipment is needed. Fourth, the participants addressed a variety of negative emotions, especially related to expected risks. For example, with regard to safety, they felt insecure about the hygiene of food produced or prepared in someone else’s kitchen and feared that they might become sick from the food (home takeaway) or feel disgusted when putting food into a paper-like box made from manure that might stink or might be unsafe. A few participants also mentioned that they would not take a risk on food that does not taste good. Others worried about their privacy, such as not knowing who might come to their door if they started preparing food for “home takeaway.” With regard to the packaging, participants felt unsure about whether the packages would be collected properly to avoid them popping up in the environment. Particularly in relation to “gentlemen farming” and pigs being fed with local brewers’ grain, the participants addressed the risk of unsuccessful harvesting, such as no or low yield or too much of the same product. Especially regarding the practice case of the “circular pig,” the participants mentioned that they did not want to eat an animal that they had taken care of. When some participants were discussing this, they also considered societal perspectives, such as expressing doubts about whether the general public would accept these types of products because they might stink or be unsafe (bio-based packaging made from manure or sewage) or whether they would accept this active role in food production.

The fact that the participants considered advantages and disadvantages at the same time is reflected in the following illustration about “gentlemen farming”: “imagine the farmer goes bankrupt; the farm will be broken down and factories will be built, so I prefer to have a farmer in that place.” The way they balanced these ideas seemed to be linked to the willingness to adopt different types of behaviours, such as participating, sharing, buying or activities related to recycling and reuse. When the participants addressed their motives and barriers, they were related to what the participants wanted to do, what they actually did and what they did not want to do themselves. Again, a broad range of issues was mentioned in relation to the different behaviours, e.g., participating, sharing, buying, and recycling.

3.3.3. Consumer Perceptions of Behaviour and Participation in the CE

Discussions about participating in food production ranged from enthusiasm to not wanting to work on a farm. Those who were positive raised points such as “It reminds me of my childhood” or “I will be closer to food production,” while the negative participants addressed issues with regard to feasibility and how the process would work out. A few even felt ashamed that they did not want to participate in agriculture. When the issue of sharing was discussed, some participants were familiar with this concept in their everyday life (for example, with people from their flat or their family), while others were not. This last group of participants seemed to be more negative and raised more barriers and questions. Generally, in everyday life, sharing was related to more personal benefits, such as saving money, time and space. There seemed to be different ideas about the sharing ability of different types of equipment. Participants suggested that this process would be more convenient in urban areas than in rural areas. Sharing food would not be a solution for some participants because they did not want to eat food from someone else’s kitchen without knowing who prepared the food. The participants stated that they would buy the discussed products or services depending on the type of product, ease of accessibility and availability. They also considered feasibility. With regard to recycling-related behaviour and avoiding waste, participants mentioned several issues. When they discussed the use of bags, they said that they avoided buying bags because they brought their own. Some participants mentioned that they bought fruits and vegetables that were not of regular quality in terms of size. They perceived this action as saving food that looked different but was still fine for consumption. Overall, participating in this process gave them the idea that they at least did something to reduce waste and therefore were an example for the next generation. Overall, the participants seemed to be positive if they perceived the behaviour as saving time and/or money and showing advantages in daily life, some of which were more practical in urban areas and others in rural areas. In other words, the process should be applicable in daily life.

3.4. General Perceptions of the Focus Group Discussion on the CE

At the end of the group discussion, the participants reflected on the discussion itself. The participants’ associations with the discussion differed with regard to general versus specific, passive-oriented versus action-oriented, the degree to which the discussion was conscious, and the level to which it reflected the complexity of the issues. Some respondents had very general, somewhat distant and passive associations, such as, “We have to be careful with the planet” or they expressed the need for action but in a general way, such as, “We are going in the wrong direction.” This perception was also related to passing the world on to future generations. In addition, respondents mentioned the need to become more conscious and not closing their eyes as important factors. Several respondents related the issue to the need for individual action and the complexity of the issue in terms of individual versus collective interest, such as, “Of course you think about your own interest first” and “We have to do it together.” Finally, some respondents mentioned more specific actions related to themselves.

4. Discussion

To move towards a CE, both technical and societal hurdles must be considered. Our exploratory consumer research provides insights into how both fields could come together when developing consumer-oriented and therefore more successful CE innovations. During the discussions about the practice cases, attention was paid to perceptions of risks, benefits and objections, which support the findings in the prior review of [4]. Reflecting on the consumers’ perceptions of a CE, generally combined with the issues related to the specific practice case, results in four key observations that are relevant when involving consumers in a CE.

4.1. Key Observations on Consumer Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours

First, the discussion showed great variety in attitudes, perceptions and behaviours with regard to intentions as well as current actions represented in the motives and barriers of the different elements of the practice cases. Overall, participants had their own sets of favourite practice cases. No single case stood out in popularity; some were most favoured by one person, while others were another participant’s favourite for a variety of reasons. There was, for example, variety in the participants’ interest in the different functionalities, both positive and negative feelings, and being involved or already acting versus no interest at all. This variety in consumer interest and involvement is also found in consumer studies on sustainable behaviour and product choice, in which several segments of (un)committed consumers have been identified (e.g., [21,22]). Such findings suggest that the careful exploration of every practical application of a CE is needed to obtain insights into the merits of the practice cases for specific target groups and the underlying pros and cons that various consumers perceive for that specific case. Thus, it is necessary to explore and target the functionalities/features of products and services and their sustainability aspects. In accordance with this, communication about both the concept and practice cases of circularity should be tailored.

Second, several emotional associations and feelings were mentioned. Within the context of this study, at the beginning and the end of the session, consumers expressed concerns about the critical situation of planet Earth. They raised this issue in phrases such as, “If we continue like this, we will not make it.” It appears that the terminology introduced and the group discussion about it encouraged them to express their discomfort regarding the unsustainable production and consumption practices and principles that currently prevail. Some of the participants who experienced discomfort felt a sense of urgency, but at the same time, they did not know how to link this concern to actual behaviour. When we consider the term “circular economy”, the discussion showed that participants did not have a clear understanding of the topic, which was expressed, for example, by the term “overwhelming.” Simultaneously, the participants’ associations with the term “CE” point in the right direction and were linked to a positive gut feeling, which can be built upon in the development of a CE. This unfamiliarity of consumers with the precise meaning of a CE parallels the findings of research on consumer perceptions of bio-based products ([19,23]), and refurbished products [7]. In addition to this unfamiliarity, there seems to be a positive association; at the same time, feelings of insecurity and risks were experienced. Participants who were most familiar with the practice cases appeared to express fewer practical risks. However, the perceived risks should be known and taken seriously, even when they are based on unfamiliarity with the topic. If these risks of products and processes are approached adequately during the development of a product, the product may give consumers a good feeling and the belief that supporting it is the right thing to do.

Third, although a CE is a concept often discussed at governmental and business levels, a CE as such is hardly a hot topic amongst consumers. Instead, unfamiliarity is dominant. This raises the question of whether investment in promoting the overall concept of a CE to consumers will support the development of the CE in general. In fact, linking the CE to practice cases as well as habits and routines will make it more tangible to consumers in a way that fits into their everyday life and will provide more feasible opportunities to behave more circularly. The lack of consumer awareness and acceptance has been mentioned as an important barrier for the development of a CE (see, e.g., [4,6]. The results obtained by our explorative study suggest that making a CE more concrete is beneficial to increasing consumer involvement. The focus group discussions reveal that participants who were most interested in or positive about one or more of the practice cases also seemed more eager to engage with or already participated in some CE activities. That is, the few participants who were already familiar with the practice cases stated that they were unaware that these cases could be termed circular and classified as within the CE. Thus, the link between the practice cases and the CE was not clear to the participants. There seem to be different levels of abstraction that lead to different interpretations, with a CE being more abstract and more distant compared to the practice cases, which were closer and more applicable to everyday life. This principle is known as construal level theory and has been demonstrated across various events, activities, and objects [24]). Awareness of this issue might be helpful in supporting better decision making or communication. Overall, this insight supports the relationship between consumer unfamiliarity with CE and the current finding that a CE is not something many participants include in their everyday life activities and considerations.

Fourth, CE behaviour consists of more than consumption; it is multidimensional as it moves from orientation to disposal and needs, such as greater awareness and involvement when choosing products from more sustainable sources, buying, sharing, participating, recycling and other activities to avoid waste. Specific “circular” behaviour or related issues, such as shared ownership and its associated uncertainty, were still quite new to most of the participants. The acceptance of multidimensional behaviours varied among the participants, and their attitudes towards actual participation in production differed substantially. For example, the food-related practice cases showed attitudes ranging from clear-cut aversion to food production and agriculture to avid interest in food sources and positive childhood memories about their relationship with food production. Some participants preferred more convenient options that are more easily applicable in daily routines, such as the possibility of purchasing “circular” foods in the supermarket they already visit. Other participants indicated being more open to activities that require more changes in their behaviour or habits, such as participation in the production of food or planning the use of equipment. These insights show that consumers can have different roles, not only as users or consumers but also as part of co-creation. During the development of products, the product and its features should be applicable in the everyday life of consumers. Additionally, the development and production process should be aligned with consumers’ behaviours and involvement. Thus, a more consumer-oriented or even co-creation approach is needed to develop more successful innovations.

4.2. Implications and Recommendations for Consumer Involvement

The transformation towards a CE requires changes in both the production and consumption system. The previously identified observation by [6] that limited consumer interest and awareness threaten the further progress of the CE could be seen as a starting point for this study. Other studies [5] subscribe to this point of view. This study adds to this research by exploring the obstacles and barriers of consumers with regard to a CE in general and to seven practice cases in production and consumption more specifically, which helps to better understand consumers and provides insights that are helpful in the development and promotion of CE innovations. Our study underlines this lack of consumer awareness and adds to knowledge of how to further develop consumer involvement in discussions about participation in CE activities. Additionally, our consumer study addresses some insights that are relevant in the development of products or services of CE activities with regard to the sustainable use of resources to support the transition towards a CE. Consumer interest and awareness could be raised by considering the abovementioned four key observations that combine consumers’ perspectives in terms of attitudes, perceptions, intentions and behaviours with more sustainable product characteristics, production, processing and resources.

In addition to considering consumers’ motives, attitudes and barriers, we believe it is important for ordinary people to start to talk about the CE to form clearer opinions, improve their understanding, and inspire their involvement. For the sustainable development of the CE and the development of consumer-oriented technical innovations in the CE, it is important for the CE to become a topic of discussion, not only in board rooms and government buildings, but also around kitchen tables or in schools. From this perspective, it is vital to improve our understanding of consumers’ perceptions of the CE to address possible starting points for such discussions. Alignment with the positive gut feeling of consumers can be helpful since it points consumers in the right direction even if they do not have clear ideas about the concept of the CE. However, we do not know the possible negative and positive effects of having a well-known concept of a CE. A clearer marketing of CE initiatives could be helpful in driving consumer behaviour, but it might also have a negative impact, for example, if a CE cannot be clearly defined (e.g., the EU lacks a formal definition, according to [5]) or if the concept is not considered reliable.

Although the participants seemed to be aware of the problems addressed by a CE, few linked these problems to their own behaviour or the behaviour of others, such as fellow citizens. Most participants mentioned government and industry as the main actors in a CE and did not seem to see a role for themselves; in this way, they disengaged themselves from the CE. In addition, some respondents mentioned that the idea of a CE was somewhat overwhelming for them and that they did not know where to start. Moving consumers into actual involvement seems to be the most challenging issue in developing a CE. As mentioned in the key observations, targeted approaches for various consumer wishes may be helpful and may be linked to concrete advantages in daily life.

In addition to the issues raised above regarding awareness and targeting, it might be helpful to start with consumers who are already involved in CE initiatives but are not aware of their active participation in the CE. These individuals could become ambassadors and share their experiences with those who do not know where to start. Linking the CE to concrete practice cases and providing advantages and functionalities can contribute to creating more familiarity with the concept of the CE and, more importantly, to consumers’ willingness to relate conceptual issues to their own behaviours.

When involving the consumer during the development of a sustainable innovation, it is necessary to pay attention to obstacles and possible discrepancies between consumer perceptions and real circumstances; for example, the perceived environmental impact might diverge from the actual impact [25].

4.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study had a qualitative design that allowed the exploration of a great variety of issues among consumers that could also be tested in quantitative studies. The design and number of the focus groups was suitable for this type of analysis and the goal of exploring the variety of issues [17]. However, this sample cannot be considered representative. Therefore, a qualitative exploration in other countries is needed, as well as a quantitative consumer study. The latter would be a proper follow-up study, for example, to gain insights into the percentages of different consumers who have an interest in CE-related activities, who are already active or who have no interest at all. Adding circular behaviours and attitudes to the Five Factor Sustainability Scale [21] would be helpful in gaining insights into the presence of different groups based on these targeted interventions or communications. The overview by [4] showed that the acceptance of a CE depends on personal characteristics, product and service offerings, knowledge and understanding, experience and social aspects, perceptions of risks and uncertainty, benefits, and other psychological factors. In this study, we focused mainly on experiences, risks and benefits. It would be interesting to further explore other factors, for example, to see how psychological factors, such as materialism, are related to risk and benefit perceptions.

Second, the study could be repeated in other domains or with other practice cases. For example, the link with the food production system was addressed by consumers in this study. It would be interesting to examine whether this issue of awareness of the production system is of particular interest to food or if it is an issue for all domains. In addition, our study included only Dutch participants; thus, it would be valuable to apply this approach in other EU countries.

5. Conclusions

The group discussions showed that most consumers did not have a clear understanding of the term “circular economy,” although their associations were pointed in the right direction, and a few did not have any associations with this term. When discussing CE practice cases, the participants showed variety in their attitudes, motives and barriers, as well as their intentions to engage in CE behaviour. The perceptions in terms of advantages and disadvantages were very different between participants and were related to the functionalities of the products, the food production system, economic aspects and emotions, such as worrying about risks. Our study provides four observations for consumer involvement in discussions and activities to support the CE.

First, the great variety between people in their perceptions of disadvantages and risks should be taken into consideration. Careful exploration of consumer perceptions and behaviour with regard to practice cases is needed to understand these practice-specific perceptions and involvement, and to tailor to target groups. Target groups can be triggered by combinations of certain motives and characteristics of more sustainable products and services. Second, alignment with consumers’ feelings and emotional associations is needed. Positive gut feelings about a CE can be helpful since they can be pointed in the right direction, even if consumers do not have clear ideas about the concept. At the same time, risk perceptions should be identified and taken seriously, although they may stem from the individual’s unfamiliarity with the CE. Third, linking the CE to concrete practice cases and providing advantages and functionalities can contribute to creating more familiarity with the concept of a CE and, more importantly, to consumers’ willingness to relate the conceptual issues to their own behaviours. In addition, when ordinary people start to talk about a CE and improve their understanding, they can form clearer opinions about their personal involvement. Fourth, building on that idea, CE-related behaviour is considered to be multidimensional, with new and more active roles for consumers that go beyond traditional consumption, both in everyday life and by involving consumers in innovations, such as by means of co-creation. These key observations are helpful in overcoming obstacles and barriers, raising awareness and providing input for the consumer-oriented sustainable use of resources in a CE.