What are waste-to-resource supply chains: exploring their unique dynamics and implications for circular economy

Implementing a circular economy – defined as “a system where materials never become waste and nature is regenerated” (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2024) – highlights the need to deal with waste in existing supply networks. This involves not only waste reduction (Lisi et al., 2025; Luo et al., 2022) but also – and arguably more importantly – how to return streams of waste items and materials into productive activities as secondary resources (Kreye, 2025; Nakamura and Kondo, 2002). Waste can be defined as the “output from a human activity that […] requires further treatment before it can be released to the environment or be used as a substitute for other industrial products” (Tisserant et al., 2017, p. 630). Creating secondary resources from such waste streams is necessary to avoid them leaving the productive system and hence for creating circularity (Farooque et al., 2024; Münch et al., 2023).

Waste-to-resource activities can be seen as supply chains (SCs) because they involve multiple SC actors within a flow of materials, services, finances and information (Kreye, 2026; Mentzer et al., 2001; Ratsimandresy and Miemczyk, 2024). Viewing such waste-to-resource activities as an SC offers interesting lanes for academic exploration and circularity implementation. SC management uses a systemic view integrating SC actors’ capabilities to achieve SC goals (Bag and Rahman, 2023; Sweeney, 2011). For waste-to-resource activities, this enables them to achieve the goals of a circular economy, such as resource efficiency, creating environmental quality, economic development and social equity (Abdulameer and Ibrahim, 2025; Kirchherr et al., 2023). Studying waste-to-resource activities as SCs hence offers the opportunity to achieve circularity in industrial activities. It also opens interesting avenues for academic exploration.

A waste-to-resource SC enables studying the flows both within and across organisations to investigate how they contribute to achieving circular SC goals (Carter et al., 2015a; Farooque et al., 2024). SCs are defined by how materials, finances and information move across SC actors (Brandao and Godinho Filho, 2024). Waste-to-resource SCs may share characteristics of these flows with other kinds of SCs, such as reverse SCs (Frei et al., 2020; Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2009). For example, Selviaridis et al. (2016) observed uncertain timing of reverse material flows because of reverse resource dependency as input is provided by customers instead of suppliers. Other studies highlight ad hoc product flows (Frei et al., 2020) and uncertain conditions of supplied items within these reverse SCs (Guide et al., 2006; Münch et al., 2023). This uncertainty suggests a discontinuity in the information flow, where little information is shared from the “supplier” of reverse flows. While these insights suggest an emerging understanding of reverse SCs, waste-to-resource SCs likely also have unique characteristics. Their connection to waste streams – i.e. materials that are discarded (Nakamura and Kondo, 2002) – suggests material flows that lack inherent value. In addition, waste-to-resource SCs involve actors that are not typically part of the forward SC, such as waste treatment organisations and often public waste collectors (Halldórsson et al., 2019). This research aims to explore this area via the following research question (RQ):

We explore this RQ by studying a single case, an organisation established to receive waste consumer items and repair or refurbish them for resale to new consumers. The case organisation was chosen for its unique focus on transforming waste consumer items into secondary consumer products. Based on in-depth data, we explore the material, information and finances flow in waste-to-resource SC. The study findings indicate specific characteristics of the material, finance and information flows in its waste-to-resource SCs. While waste-to-resource SCs share some specific characteristics with both forward and reverse SCs – such as material, finance and information flow in demand of consumer products – many flow characteristics are unique. For example, upstream supply of material, finance and information flow in waste-to-resource SCs appear to be unique to these types of SCs. Here, we identify supply push with lack of control over incoming waste material and seasonal fluctuations. This is complemented by a disrupted information flow and consequently a need to recreate information by the focal organisation through detailed inspection of the waste items.

This research contributes to the discussion on implementing circularity (Kreye, 2026; Ratsimandresy and Miemczyk, 2024; Sehnem et al., 2019) by identifying the unique characteristics of waste-to-resource SCs, which form a missing link for transforming waste into valuable resources and keep it from leaving the cycles of productive activities. By showing not only how materials flow in these specific SCs but also how finances and information flow, this research contributes to a more detailed and elaborate theoretical understanding of this type of SC and successful management approaches.

Waste-to-resource activities connect a range of actors in a mix of service-based and product-based flows. Waste-to-resource activities involve at least three actors: a waste generator, a waste management or transforming actor and a user of the secondary resources. Waste is traditionally seen as a loss of material and energy (Maliha et al., 2023), undermining the efficiency of production processes and leading to an increase in material inputs to satisfy demands ^[1]. Waste also appears as overproduction, such as surplus products that are discarded without prior use (Alptekinoglu et al., 2023). As a result, waste management is traditionally viewed as an input-only sector: the provided services focus on removing waste from residential and business sites (Nakamura and Kondo, 2002). The further processing of this waste traditionally involves public organisations, which prescribe how waste can or has to be treated (landfill, storage, decontamination, etc.) to avoid environmental pollution (Senna et al., 2023). Within a circular economy, such waste streams are transformed into secondary resources, effectively transforming waste management into an input-output sector (Kreye, 2026). This creates the opportunity to study waste-to-resource management as an SC where a set of actors performs a range of waste-to-resource activities.

Studying waste-to-resource activities as SCs offers significant opportunities for theory development by expanding scholarly investigation (Kreye, 2026; Lisi et al., 2025). SCs are traditionally described as having a common set of SC goals that guide the management decisions of all actors by applying a system-level logic (Carter et al., 2015b; Sweeney, 2011). These SC goals have been identified as meeting or exceeding expected service levels by the end user by optimising total SC investments or costs (Sweeney, 2002). Circular SCs typically do not have an end user, as materials are looped back into SCs (De Angelis et al., 2018; M. Kreye, 2025). Consequently, outcomes in waste-to-resource SCs can relate to the provision of secondary resources that satisfy the needs of their users, who can be actors along the forward SC. Criteria here can include pricing and durability of secondary resources, including remanufactured products (Ovchinnikov, 2011) and products using recycled materials (Sun et al., 2020). Other desired outcomes of waste-to-resource SCs concern waste elimination as material streams leaving the productive system through value-destruction are reduced or eliminated (Girotto et al., 2015; Nakamura and Kondo, 2002). Such otherwise-lost material streams are instead reused and potentially valourised in other productive activities (Abdulameer and Ibrahim, 2025; Ratsimandresy and Miemczyk, 2024). Such SC goals differentiate waste-to-resource SC from other SCs, including forward SCs (Carter et al., 2015b; Sweeney, 2011) and reverse SCs (Blackburn et al., 2004; Münch et al., 2023), creating a unique setting for furthering SC-management theory.

In addition, the creation of capabilities for using waste streams in other productive activities is often opportunity driven – based on the existence of a specific waste stream or the technological ability to transform it (Bag and Rahman, 2023). For example, by-products from whisky distillation can be transformed into Omega-3s using microalgae and reduce dependence on fish-based oils amid growing global demand ^[2]. Another example is yarn produced from wasted pineapple leaves that not only replaces traditionally produced yarns with high negative environmental effects but also offers secondary incomes to pineapple farmers ^[3]. Applying an SC lens to creating waste-to-resource SCs to such opportunity-driven waste-transformation capabilities may in turn advance our understanding of creating and managing circular SCs and accelerate the transformation towards such more sustainable economic systems.

SCs require integrated management of material, information and financial flows across SC actors (Mentzer et al., 2001; Sweeney, 2011). Waste-to-resource SCs are likely to demonstrate specific dynamics in these flows, demanding targeted management responses to achieve the desired SC outcomes. Traditionally, material flows are captured in the “physical supply chain” (Carter et al., 2015b), flowing downstream in forward SCs (Mentzer et al., 2001) or upstream in reverse SCs (Blackburn et al., 2004; Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2009). Material streams in waste-to-resource SCs start from the waste supplied by actors from any stage in the (forward) SC from raw material extraction to end user (Nakamura and Kondo, 2002). This waste is either collected by dedicated service providers (Halldórsson et al., 2019) or via self-service, as especially end-consumers often bring waste streams to local household waste recycling centres. Waste transformation into valuable resources can range from reuse to recycling and often aims to redirect waste streams from landfills (Girotto et al., 2015; Nakamura and Kondo, 2002). In circularity, the waste transformation methods are usually prioritised based on the waste hierarchy to maintain the highest residual value and recover value from waste streams (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). Waste transformation can be performed by a range of organisations, including waste-management organisations and remanufacturers. Such secondary resources are then used to create demand for waste-to-resource SC material flows. This use of secondary resources can take the form of recycled materials, parts or products containing secondary materials by actors from any stage in the (forward) SC, including consumers, original equipment manufacturers and parts suppliers. These aim to replace the use of virgin materials in the supply network (MahmoumGonbadi et al., 2021).

The finance flow traditionally goes counter to the material stream (Mentzer et al., 2001) and creates a finance chain that distributes money across a range of actors (LeBaron, 2021). While in linear SCs, the end consumer is “the only source of “real” money in the chain” (Sweeney, 2002, p. 4); sources of finance in circular SCs may come from a range of sources. The end consumer of a given product before it is looped back into the SC as a source of money may be complemented by other sources, such as public funding and taxes for waste collection and processes (Nakamura and Kondo, 2002). Thus, the financial flows in waste-to-resource SC are less clear than the material flows.

The material and finance flows are complemented by information flows, which in linear SCs working in both upstream and downstream directions (Schweitzer et al., 2025). While in traditional SCs, the material and finance flows are typically triggered by information flows (Sweeney, 2011), information might play a less central role in waste-to-resource SCs. For example, waste collection by third-party logistics providers often does not require information sharing between waste generator and collector, as waste is simply collected in pre-determined bins at an allocated time (Halldórsson et al., 2019). As a result, return material flows are often described as being “organised ad hoc” (Frei et al., 2020, p. 1614) and highly uncertain regarding the timing and quantity of supplied waste items (Guide and Jayaraman, 2000) as well as their quality (Blackburn et al., 2004; Münch et al., 2023). This uncertainty indicates a lack of information. Uncertainty remains about the ability to recover valuable materials from waste items (Guide and Jayaraman, 2000). This uncertainty is even higher in open-loop SCs, where such operations are managed without full understanding of the preceding manufacturing and use patterns. Similarly, the “demand for such [secondary] products is probably unknown and exposes the network to even greater uncertainty” (Guide and Jayaraman, 2000, p. 3783). This further suggests a lack of information across the waste-to-resource SC.

As material, finance and information flows in waste-to-resource SCs follow specific patterns, the management of these flows also requires specific approaches. This is guided by the SC goals of end-customer value and waste removal. Of importance are likely the variability and uncertainty related to the quantity and quality of these flows between the range of SC actors (Blackburn et al., 2004; Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2009). Such macro-level SC characteristics are complemented by micro-level considerations in terms of the functions of businesses within the SC (Carter et al., 2015a; Sweeney, 2002). Such micro-level considerations relate to decisions regarding the movement, storage, and transformation of product flows across organisations (Sweeney, 2011). The timing of these flows is critical to ensuring that SC actors maintain the ability to meet their ongoing operational expenditure commitments (Sweeney, 2011). They affect how material, finance and information flows occur within SCs and conjointly contribute to achieving SC performance (Carter et al., 2015b) and understanding the SC (Brandao and Godinho Filho, 2024). Additional SC actors, such as carriers and financial institutions, enable flow management and support the SC management of flows (Carter et al., 2015b; Ratsimandresy and Miemczyk, 2024). The purpose of this study is hence to characterise waste-to-resource SCs in terms of the material, finance and information flow, including an understanding of the micro-level considerations on movement, storage, and transformation of waste into secondary resources.

This study aims to answer the RQ: How do material, finance and information flow in waste-to-resource supply chains? We apply a qualitative case-study approach to explore this RQ. The understanding of circular SCs and related concepts (open loop, closed loop, reverse SCs, product returns, etc.) is rapidly developing with often inconsistent definitions and interpretations of the underlying conceptualisations and definitions (Kirchherr et al., 2023; Sehnem et al., 2019). This dynamism of the field requires further development of contextualised and in-depth insights from empirical research. Case studies offer the ability to study a phenomenon in context and develop in-depth insights (Voss et al., 2002). Furthermore, we use inductive logic for the empirical case study. The initial conceptualisation was useful for case selection and identifying an overall structure for data collection and analysis. For example, we used the initial conceptualisation to aid the data collection process and probe for potential SC dynamics. However, the derived insights reported in this paper arise from the observed and described dynamics of waste-to-resource SCs and their management in the case organisation with subsequent conceptual development using the literature in the field. In other words, while this research is primarily inductive, it builds on prior concepts from the literature as detailed in our conceptual framing. This research is philosophically based on critical realism, which posits that reality is independent of human thoughts and beliefs; however, one’s understanding of reality is inevitably shaped by cognition and context. As such, this empirical study is based on an inductive case study.

We present evidence from a single nested case chosen because of its unique ability to give insights into managing the multiple flows in waste-to-resource SCs. The case is anonymised, and will be referred to as “Regenerate”. Regenerate is set in the consumer-product context and complements other circularity-focused studies that present consumers as the end points in the SC (Roussat et al., 2023). Regenerate is the first and to date only organisation in the UK that sources waste items from consumers, repairs, refurbishes, or manufactures them, and then resells them to consumers. Regenerate complements a nationally well-established network of shops and hubs facilitating reuse by reselling donated items from the public via charity shops and other outlets without prior repair, refurbishment or remanufacturing. As such, Regenerate is unique within the UK and facilitates implementation of a circular economy. It may also be a unique case within the European context. A review of the European platform Interreg Europe ^[4] – which is based on voluntary submission of sustainability and circularity-related projects and organisations – shows that comparable organisations across Europe focus on reuse or recycling of waste products without waste transformation activities, such as repair, refurbishment or remanufacture. This would suggest that the case used as the basis for the empirical research in this paper is unique within the wider European context as well and hence satisfies the criteria of a “talking pig” (Siggelkow, 2007) or an “extreme” case (Yin, 2018). Regenerate is a small organisation employing 25 staff and is part of a regionally operating large waste-management company with more than 5,000 staff. The nested case demonstrates the multi-level nature of SCs (Carter et al., 2015a). The unit of analysis is Regenerate’s SC, nested in the wider waste management organisation and the local operating context. The case hence aligns both intra-organisational flows (across the focal organisation) and inter-organisational flows (Mentzer et al., 2001). The case study includes not only Regenerate as the focal organisation but also insights from its partnership with a local authority and local supply and demand arrangements.

Data collection included multiple sources, including site visits and observations, semi-structured interviews, and secondary data (Yin, 2018). After case sampling, an initial observation visit formed the foundation for this research and gave the researchers the opportunity to gain a contextual understanding of the case, including its physical location within the local community and operational setup. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with key personnel in the organisation (Table 1). The interview guide ( Appendix) focused on areas related to context, supply, operations, sales, and future outlook. Explicit probes based on our initial conceptualisation were used to supplement specific questions and were used if interviewees did not refer to related issues on their own accord. The interview guide enabled comparability of collected insights across interviewees and allowed triangulation during the analysis process. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved, i.e. when insights were confirmed and repeated in new interviews and no new insights emerged (Miles et al., 2018). Secondary data was collected to complement the primary data and consisted of documents provided by the case contact as well as publicly available data (Table 1, right column).

Data were analysed iteratively through a combination of qualitative coding and data interpretation to holistically reflect the case dynamics as follows. Initially and partially in parallel with data collection, a case description was compiled based on the researcher’s emerging understanding of the case dynamics and context. This aligns with best practice to ensure internal validity of our work (Yin, 2018). This was iterated with the case company to derive an accurate case description summarising the key dynamics. Discussing this holistic case description also enabled developing a more nuanced understanding and gave an initial indication of a suitable coding structure. This informed the following detailed coding of all collected data using NVivo. In the detailed coding, we initially derived descriptive first-order codes based on the analysis of all the collected data. This was subsequently categorised into second-order codes, which were informed by an iterative reflection on the empirical data and relevant literature aligned with best practice (Miles et al., 2018). Some second-order codes were indicated in the initial coding structure mentioned above, while other second-order codes emerged from the detailed coding and abstraction from some first-order codes. An example of these emerging second-order codes is the finance flow across the physical SC. These second-order codes were then further abstracted based on reflections on the wider literature that emerged as relevant for this case. Here, the researchers travelled back and forth between the data and the literature to refine the coding structure. For example, the second-order codes of “environmental sustainability effects” and “social sustainability effects” were eventually merged into the aggregate theme of “supply-chain goals” to reflect the similarities between these second-order concepts in affecting the key concepts relevant for the focus of this research. Through this combination of holistic case interpretation and detailed data coding, an initial coding structure with first-order and second-order concepts and aggregate themes was derived. This iterative data-analysis process resulted in the coding structure depicted in Figure 1.

The creation of Regenerate came against the backdrop of a changing role of waste management and increasing importance of handling different waste streams in an environmentally friendly way. The Chief Sustainability Officer (Waste management organisation) described this as follows:

This description demonstrates the increasing operational complexity of waste management, which itself provides input into other economic activities. However, the pace of change is limited by the lengths of waste management contracts with municipalities. Waste-collection contracts are typically 7 years and waste disposal contracts 25 years, based on the amortisation periods of the related infrastructure, such as collection vehicles or disposal facilities. As a result, “there are limitations on putting new developments in for changing the system” (Chief Sustainability Officer, Waste management organisation). The Chief Sustainability Officer (Waste management organisation) summarised the current challenges in waste management as follows:

In sum, waste management organisations have become waste-to-resource SCs.

The creation of Regenerate was initiated by the local authority’s tendering process for the space. The local authority was “one of the first in the UK to place a strong emphasis on giving back to the community” (Contract extension announcement), and social sustainability was a mandatory bidding requirement. The original contracting involved 54 social value commitments, which were worth 15% of the bid evaluation. The final contract included social, environmental and economic benefits for the local community worth over £1bn over the seven-year contract period. Table 2 lists the sustainability outcomes promised and achieved by Regenerate. The main SC goal is diverting waste items into reuse. Hence, a detailed record is kept of the diverted waste items and their resale value. For example, “in 2022, we completed 4,442 electrical items with a potential resale value of £90,288. And in 2023, we completed 6,557 items with a resale value of £89,790” (Electrical repairs lead).

Material flows start as donations from members of the public: “99% of [donations] are from the residents “(Regenerate manager). These are received at household waste collection sites where “members of staff will encourage members of the public as they come onto site to donate anything that can be restored in charity containers” (Regenerate manager). In addition, Regenerate takes donations from businesses, including fabrics or materials from furniture shops. This supply of material flows is characterised by a lack of control over incoming items – the type of items being supplied and their quality – and the seasonality of these incoming items – timing fluctuations in annual and weekly patterns. The Regenerate manager explains: “We have no control of what comes in, we also have no control if it does not come in”. The reason for these dynamics can be found in the decision-making locus of supply, which is with the suppliers (consumers). In other words, supply is pushed towards Regenerate. Once materials arrive at Regenerate, they undergo transformation, which is labour-intensive and requires skilled labour because of the nature of supply. In addition, the fluctuations in supply created significant fluctuations in workload in operations. Demand is created by consumers or members of the public who purchase via a wide range of sales channels. Demand in turn is characterised by seasonal fluctuations and different patterns across the sales channels and locations of the shops (locality of demand). These patterns of material flow are summarised in Table 3 (Row 2). Balancing the specific characteristics of the material flow in supply, operations and demand of the waste-to-resource SC in Regenerate creates specific management needs. While both supply and demand were characterised by seasonal fluctuations in type and quantity of incoming items, these are misaligned. For example, “a lot of the Christmas decorations do not get sent to a recycling centre up until [consumers] replace them. But by then it is too late [for us to resell them]” (Regenerate manager). As a result, storage and inventory management are key SC management capabilities, as the Regenerate manager continued:

This demonstrates the importance of storage to manage the misaligned seasonal fluctuations of supply and demand arising from Regenerate’s lack of control over either supply or demand streams.

In addition to bridging the misaligned seasonal fluctuations of supply and demand, inventory management serves other purposes. As some incoming waste items could not be repaired or refurbished, they were disassembled for spare parts. Storing these spare parts enabled Regenerate to adjust the number of new stock orders. Similarly, the ability to identify use patterns of materials needed in operations, such as paint for furniture, fabrics or bike parts, allowed Regenerate to pull a supply of such items from their suppliers (the household waste recycling centres). “Through the recycling centres, [we source left-over] paint. We bring it over to the hub. We make sure it’s OK and we have a paint pot at hand” (Shop supervisor). Such approaches further increase the sustainability effects of Regenerate’s operations by redirecting further waste streams and transforming them into resources, using the inefficiencies of forward SCs. In sum, inventory management enabled an increase in transforming waste into resources instead of complementing supplied waste items with new orders.

The finance flow is only partially connected to the material flows with close dependence on additional SC actors. No finance flow is associated with the supply of materials or waste items, as these are all donated. In other words, no money is exchanged between Regenerate and its suppliers. Instead, finances are received for the sale of repaired or refurbished items to consumers across the variety of sales channels. This stream is complemented by the service arrangement for managing the “20 household waste recycling centres [for the local authority]” (Regenerate manager). The finance flow is indicated in Table 3, Row 3.

One of the main challenges for Regenerate is the lack of information flow accompanying the supply of materials, both upstream and downstream. In other words, no information accompanies the flow of waste items from suppliers (downstream flow), nor is the material flow initiated by an upstream information flow. Regenerate has no information regarding the supplied material flow, including the safety of donated products, their prior use, functioning, etc. As a result, they need to create this information when items arrive in their hub through inspection of the supplied items for safety and functioning using “an industry standard […] [which] everyone in any [repair] shop will use” (Lead bike technician). This information allows Regenerate to make a decision regarding the continued handling of the supplied waste items.

Downstream, information is communicated to potential customers by preparing the repaired or refurbished items for sales. Especially in online channels, such signalling can involve significant information about the type of item, its age and quality. Conversely, information about demand is collected by Regenerate regarding locality of sales, timing of sales and price. This enables Regenerate to compile insights on demand and guide decision-making, e.g. regarding sales channels for specific items, accordingly: “we have a meeting once a week, with the managers of the recycling centres. We go through what sells in our shops and what does not. [We discuss] what we want to encourage more” (Shop Supervisor). This allows Regenerate to generate learnings across their SC. Table 3 (Row 3) summarises the case findings regarding information flow.

We began with the RQ: How do material, finance and information flow in waste-to-resource supply chains? In studying an extreme case of repairing and refurbishing used consumer items and reselling them to new consumers, we identified the characteristics of material, finance and information flows within the waste-to-resource SC and the approaches for managing them.

The case presents novel insights regarding material, finance and information flows in waste-to-resource SCs. Figure 2 depicts a schematic of these three flows in the waste-to-resource SC and identifies their unique dynamics at the transfer points in supply and demand, which are discussed in this section.

The case insights suggest specific characteristics of the material flow of waste-to-resource SCs. We identify a supply push from upstream suppliers, characterised by a lack of control of the “purchasing” company over the incoming items in terms of type, quality and timing as well as the seasonality of these incoming waste streams. Uncertainty in supply management has been conceptualised in forward SC, where it connects to capacity management in operations (Sting and Huchzermeier, 2010). While the uncertainty regarding the quality and timing of incoming items has also been described for reverse SCs (Münch et al., 2023; Selviaridis et al., 2016), the lack of control of supply may be unique for waste-to-resource SCs. For waste-to-resource SCs, the supply uncertainty arises from the nature of the reverse stream and temporally removed nature of waste after often long use periods. Especially consumer products may be in use for extended periods, including storage and reuse, before ending up in waste material flows (Kreye, 2025). This differentiates these streams from many reverse SCs, where product return flows are more closely aligned with release or dispatch timings through legal warranty or return periods (Frei et al., 2020). Our study hence indicates that supply push may be a unique characteristic in waste-to-resource SCs.

One emerging insight for the material flow was the importance of storage capacity to balance pushed material supply flows with demand. For the presented case, this formed a key constraint on the scale of operations in the waste-to-resource SC and allowed part recycling of waste items that could not be repaired or refurbished. This contradicts management prescriptions in forward and reverse SCs that aim to reduce inventory through approaches such as just-in-time (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2021) or decoupling spare part production until demand arises (Heinen and Hoberg, 2019). Instead, our insights show not only the importance of inventory management to managing waste-to-resource SCs but also the strategic importance for achieving sustainability outcomes, including extending the material flows included in the circular SC.

Our case insights demonstrate also unique characteristics regarding the finance flow in waste-to-resource SCs. Instead of the usual flow counter to the material flow (Mentzer et al., 2001; Sweeney, 2011), our case insights show a finance flow that is not aligned with the physical SC or the material flow. Here, we observe two distinct sources of the finance flows across waste-to-resource SCs. The first source – and in our case the primary source – of finances was the service agreement of waste diversion with the local authority or public organisation. This effectively creates a triadic arrangement for waste disposal between consumers, a waste-disposal company and a local authority aligned with typical service arrangements for waste management (Halldórsson et al., 2019). The second source of the finance flows is the sale of repaired or refurbished products to new end-users. This aligns with sources of finances in traditional SCs identifying the end-user as a key source (Mentzer et al., 2001; Sweeney, 2011). Combined, these two sources for the finance flow enabled the case company to engage with social sustainability efforts by financing social charity projects, effectively redirecting parts of the finance flow to uses outside of the waste-to-resource SC, such as donations to local charities or the support of local social charitable projects. This suggests a hybrid purpose of this organisation extending beyond mere economic benefits for profit maximisation to include social or environmental benefits (Abdulameer and Ibrahim, 2025; Echefaj et al., 2024). Our findings hence indicate a complex support structure (Carter et al., 2015b) for the finance flow for waste-to-resource SCs.

Our case insights offered surprising insights regarding the information flow in waste-to-resource SCs. Instead of the traditional upstream and downstream flow of information often to initiate material and finance flows (Mentzer et al., 2001; Sweeney, 2011), we observed disruption of this information flow in the supply of waste materials: no information flowed between suppliers and the focal organisation. Such disruptions of information flow are traditionally seen as dysfunctional (Echefaj et al., 2024). Instead, our case findings indicate that this is a common characteristic of receiving waste as supply. Because of this disrupted information flow, information needed to be created by the focal organisation through inspection of the supplied items. While these observations partially reflect service operations, where service engineers also initially inspect a product that is to be maintained or repaired, there is usually a rich exchange of information between service provider and customer (Delbufalo, 2012; Kreye, 2017). The disruption of information flow between supplier and focal organisation, and subsequent need to (re)create this information, hence seems unique to waste-to-resource SCs. Other possibilities are checklists that could provide insights on the product use and status when reaching the facility. Such created information is in turn pushed downstream towards their customers through signalling in the sales process. Our research hence indicates unique characteristics of the waste-to-resource SCs in terms of information flow.

While our case focused on a consumer-based waste-to-resource SC, the evidence indicates a wider change in the waste management sector to an input–output-based business (see Section 4). Such reflections indicate potentially different types of waste-to-resource SCs based on the types of involved SC actors and involved material streams.

The first potential way to differentiate types of waste-to-resource SCs is based on the types of involved SC actors, which can range from businesses to consumers, like forward SCs (Chase and Apte, 2007; Halldórsson et al., 2019; Kreye and Van Donk, 2021). Consumer-faced SC activities are faced with a large number of geographically dispersed locations (Chase and Apte, 2007) and often ad hoc (i.e. unplanned) engagements with singular channels of communications (Halldórsson et al., 2019). In contrast, business-faced SCs often involve relatively fewer partners, with often closer relationships and planned and administered encounters (Kreye and Van Donk, 2021). These differences have potentially profound implications for the creation of waste-to-resource SCs. For waste-to-resource SC, the connection points can be both on the upstream side to source or supply waste (either from a business or a consumer) and on the downstream side to sell or market the secondary resource (either to a business or a consumer). Table 4 indicates how the flows identified in Section 5.1 may look for these types of waste-to-resource SCs.

The second potential way to differentiate types of waste-to-resource SCs is based on the residual value in the waste item, which may depend on the type of waste item. While the case focused on waste streams of specific consumer products (furniture, electronics and bicycles), implications can also be drawn for other waste streams based on the residual value. Activities, such as reuse and remanufacture, are largely dependent on the ability to retain value for further resale (Farooque et al., 2019; M. Kreye, 2025). Consequently, the residual value in the waste item will affect the heterogeneity of waste-transformation activities within waste-to-resource SCs. Low-value waste items may only be purposefully recycled to (re-)create value. An example here can be food waste, which often sees limitations in reuse, with composting being a main safe processing step (Farooque et al., 2019). In contrast, high-value items can be redistributed to a range of waste-transformation activities, including reuse, remanufacturing and recycling. This includes complex consumer products, such as household electronics or production machinery (M. Kreye, 2025; Ovchinnikov, 2011). Figure 3 summarises these potential differences and their implications for types of waste-to-resource SCs.

Based on these characteristics or combinations of characteristics in the material, finance and information flow of waste-to-resource SCs, their uniqueness can be identified through comparison with forward and reverse SCs. Table 5 summarises how supply, operations and demand are characterised in waste-to-resource SCs in comparison to typical descriptions of forward and reverse SCs in the literature. These insights suggest that while waste-to-resource SCs share some specific characteristics with both forward and reverse SCs – such as demand characteristics of material, finance and information flows – many flow characteristics are unique. In particular, the upstream supply of material, finance and information flow in waste-to-resource SCs appears to be unique to these types of SCs and contrasts models in forward and reverse SCs. Specifically, the supply push observed for waste-to-resource SCs and related lack of control over it seem to create unique management challenges in these settings and contrasts purchasing and supply management understanding that highlights the buyers’ control over supply (Kreye et al., 2018). This suggests a need for building targeted understanding of these types of SCs. The present study offers an initial direction for this theory development through identifying the shared and unique characteristics of material, finance and information flows in waste-to-resource SCs.

This study set out to answer the RQ: How do material, finance and information flow in waste-to-resource supply chains? Based on the in-depth insights of a single outstanding case transforming waste items into secondary resources and consumer products, we identify the unique characteristics of waste-to-resource SCs. We identify supply push, where a focal organisation in a waste-to-resource SC lacks control over incoming waste items in terms of their type, quantity and quality, with seasonal fluctuations in these supply streams. We also identify operational similarities to services, as a focal organisation first inspects incoming waste items before deciding on further repair or refurbishing activities. We further identify demand dynamics, which show seasonal fluctuations as well as location-specific patterns, similar to retail. To manage the misalignment in the supply push and demand, our study further showed the importance of inventory management in waste-to-resource SCs to enable product availability when the demand arises.

This research contributes to the discussion on implementing circularity (M. Kreye, 2025; Ratsimandresy and Miemczyk, 2024; Sehnem et al., 2019) by identifying the unique characteristics of waste-to-resource SCs, which form a missing link for transforming waste into valuable resources and keep it from leaving the cycles of productive activities (MahmoumGonbadi et al., 2021). Through identifying the flow characteristics of consumer-based waste-to-resource SCs, we build the basis for building theoretical understanding of these specific SC types and enable the creation and management of functioning waste-to-resource SCs. We extrapolate these insights by discussing the potential flow characteristics of other types of waste-to-resource SCs, including a combination of business and consumer actors as well as different value waste streams. This offers a novel area of research and indicates where further understanding and theory building are needed.

The reported study has important managerial implications for SC managers in waste-to-resource SCs. A meaningful starting point for capability development is inventory management, where sources of supply can be identified and materials stored to enable satisfying demand when it arises. This enables SC managers to respond to supply push and specifically the seasonality and uncertainty of supplied items, their quantity and quality. To manage the operations and demand, SC managers in waste-to-resource SCs are advised to use and apply insights from fields such as service management and retail. These recommendations are based on the observed dynamics that waste-to-resource SCs share in their supply, operations, and demand with other SCs: supply to reverse SCs, operations to services, and demand to (small-scale) retail. Managing these dynamics requires focal organisations acting in waste-to-resource SCs to develop and combine the capabilities from these diverse SC settings, ranging from inventory management, employee skills, responsiveness to supply changes, and demand pattern recognition.

This research further has policy implications, especially regarding the role that waste-management organisations play in implementing circularity. Our research suggests that waste-sector actors become a central part of implementing circularity by becoming SC actors for consumer products. Yet, they often remain excluded from strategies aimed at industrial activities. Regulators hence need to include such actors in their thinking and regulatory definitions for implementing circularity. Conversely, regulators also need to include such actors in the consultation processes for deriving future regulations for implementing circularity.

This study has important limitations, which point towards further research opportunities. First, the single-case basis allowed us to explore both the conceptualisations for theory development and the empirical characteristics of this novel area of research. It does have limitations in creating a specific and unique basis for this study. As this was part of the study design, we see the conclusions presented in this paper in relation to this methodological choice. Future research should explore other waste-to-resource SCs. The waste hierarchy might offer a meaningful basis for classifying these. For example, SCs for recycling waste streams from end-of-use products to secondary material streams are likely more complex with more SC actors and more interconnections with forward SC actors (MahmoumGonbadi et al., 2021). In addition, waste can arise at a variety of sources, including consumers and businesses, driving the quantity and variability of waste supply. Similarly, the markets for secondary resources can vary between consumers and businesses, creating different demand patterns for waste-to-resource SCs. Studying these different types of waste-to-resource SCs would further enrich this nascent area of investigation.

Second, this study focuses on a retrospective exploration of the flows in waste-to-resource SCs. This creates limitations on how these SCs form and points towards a need for studying the creation and dynamic development of waste-to-resource SCs to build understanding and guidance on how to establish them. Future work needs to study the emergence of waste-to-resource SCs to identify their dynamic creation and development. This would further the understanding and acceleration of the implementation of circular SCs.

Third, this study focused on the operations of a locally operating organisation. Limitations arise from the context-specific nature of some of our insights, especially regarding the relationship with the local authority and localised supply and demand patterns. Other locations may differ in the specific arrangements within their contexts, especially in the role of public organisations. Further work is needed on scaling such circular SCs to widen the efforts reported in this paper by engaging more consumers, achieving an increased number of waste products being looped back into use or including a wider set of waste products. This would advance knowledge from a “talking pig” to a standard practice within consumer products.

What is your role?

How long have you been in this role?

What is your background?

1. How has the area of waste-management developed in recent years?

2. How does “Regenerate” fit into the wider context?

3. Why do you think [Waste management organisation] opened “Regenerate”?

1. Where do you get your supply from, especially waste items?

2. How do you decide what to bring into the workshop/your facilities?

3. How do rejection decisions made?

4. What are your thoughts on scaling sourced items?

1. What steps do you apply to items once they reach you?

2. What are the key issues you consider in these steps?

3. How would you approach scaling in your operations?

1. To whom? Who are your main customers? Who is the end user?

2. How do you ascertain their needs? How do you approach demand management?

3. How could you scale demand for secondary items?

1. What are the next steps for “Regenerate”?

2. Is there anything you wish to clarify?