How can the waste management sector contribute to overcoming barriers to the circular economy?

This paper contributes to an emerging literature stream advocating the multifaceted involvement of the waste management sector in supporting the up-scaling of the circular economy (CE). It explores the role of waste collection and recycling platforms in overcoming various barriers to CE implementation, inductively analyzing the case of postconsumer wood in Italy. Data were collected from multiple sources: interviews with 33 informants, participation in project meetings, site visits, and public and private documents. The case shows how waste collection platforms can perform different activities that can help address cultural, regulatory, market, and technological barriers. First, these platforms can contribute to stimulating demand for postconsumer wood, carrying out information and communication activities, and fostering the development of a positive image of the recovered material. Second, the platforms can contribute to defining and implementing the conditions to enable the activation of recycling processes.

Traditionally, waste collection platforms have focused on minimizing the cost of collection and disposal to improve the efficiency of the waste management system (Parajuly & Wenzel, 2017) without directly participating in value creation-that is, the transformation of resources into valuable consumer products through innovation, manufacturing, or distribution activities. However, a few papers have started to highlight that waste collection platforms could actively contribute to resource conservation and materials recovery, opening new opportunities for creating value from waste (de Carvalho Araújo et al., 2019;Salmenperä et al., 2021;Singh & Ordoñez, 2016). This could occur via waste prevention, for example, with waste collection platforms helping spread understanding of how to make recycling easier, enhancing the refurbishment and reuse of postconsumer materials, or extracting resources from waste and developing innovative recovery processes (Salmenperä et al., 2021).
Though these papers advocate the multifaceted and proactive involvement of waste collection platforms within the CE paradigm, they do not explain exactly how waste collection platforms could contribute to eliminating or reducing some of the barriers to CE implementation and diffusion. This gap leads to the formulation of our research questions: Which barriers to CE implementation can be addressed by a more proactive role for waste collection platforms?
How can waste collection platforms contribute to overcoming these barriers?
To answer these research questions, the paper analyzes the case of recycling platforms for postconsumer wood in Italy. This case is interesting and relevant for different reasons. First, wood is a widely used material in many different industries. In Europe, the so-called forest-based industry (broadly including wood-working industries, pulp-producing industries, paper and other fiber-based product industries, and the furniture industry) accounts for 420.000 enterprises, with a total turnover of over 520 billion euros and approximately 3.5 million workers (Cepi, 2018). As this material is widely used, there is also an enormous quantity of postconsumer wood that may be recycled. The second reason concerns the evolution of regulations on wood recycling. Given that wood is the only major raw material fully reproduced by nature, the EU is setting more stringent recycling targets, calling for new and efficient ways to achieve them. Finally, the case of Italian wood recycling platforms is relevant because Italy is among the most commendable countries in terms of its wood recycling strategy. Compared to some other EU countries where postconsumer wood is mainly used for energy recovery, Italy has made relevant investments to foster postconsumer wood alternative recycling.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we analyze the state-of-the-art literature to outline the main barriers to the implementation of the CE paradigm that has emerged from previous studies. In Section 3, we present the research method, with specific reference to how data were collected and analyzed, and we introduce the case studied in this research. In Section 4, we present our empirical material, and based on its analysis, we discuss in Section 5 how the wood recycling platform system is contributing to overcome barriers to CE. Finally, we conclude in Section 6, addressing the limitations of this research and the path for future studies.
The picture emerging from prior literature is heterogeneous and complex. First, researchers have identified a range of barriers that pertain to different domains, including both hard factors, such as technical and economic obstacles, and soft factors, such as social and cultural obstacles (De Jesus & Mendonça, 2018). Second, the existence and relevance of a specific barrier often depend on the roles of different organizations in the CE value chain and even the positions of different individuals within an organization (e.g., different business functions) (Hart, Adams, Giesekam, Tingley, & Pomponi, 2019;Husgafvel, Linkosalmi, Hughes, Kanerva, & Dahl, 2018;Paletta, Leal Filho, Balogun, Foschi, & Bonoli, 2019). Third, the identified barriers are not independent: CE implementation is typically not hindered by just one of them but by a combination of different factors that reinforce one another (Jesus & Mendonça, 2018;Kirchherr et al., 2018;Rizos et al., 2016).
In this paper, to support the analysis of the role of waste collection platforms in overcoming CE barriers, we refer to the taxonomy proposed by Kirchherr et al. (2018), which is comprehensive and quite widespread in the literature (see also Grafström & Aasma, 2021;Paletta et al., 2019). The authors in fact start from four main categories identified by Jesus and Mendonça (2018) and systematize and aggregate the various barriers highlighted in prior studies. As a result of this process, Kirchherr et al. (2018) classify CE barriers as cultural, regulatory, market or technological barriers and provide a list of items generally included in each category.
Cultural barriers are related to social and environmental awareness at both the company and consumer levels. They include factors such as a lack of consumer interest, the prevalence of linear systems in the business context, and a lack of willingness to collaborate along the value chain. Recent research points to cultural barriers as the main obstacles to CE implementation due to the need to change individuals' and organizations' habits, which is, in general, challenging (Grafström & Aasma, 2021;Hart et al., 2019;Kirchherr et al., 2018).
Regulatory barriers are associated with a lack of regulatory policies to support the transition toward the CE. These barriers include, for instance, obstructive laws and regulations, a lack of incentive systems, and the lack of a global consensus (García-Quevedo, Jové-Llopis, & Martínez-Ros, 2020; Kirchherr et al., 2018). These factors are particularly relevant in connection to the recovery of postconsumer materials because the waste management sector is characterized by the presence of waste management directives that are often not aligned across different countries or even regions within the same country (Gregson, Crang, Fuller, & Holmes, 2015;Salmenperä et al., 2021).
Market barriers are related to circular business models' economic viability, which is influenced, for example, by the low price of virgin materials, high upfront investment costs, limited standardization, etc. (Kirchherr et al., 2018). These factors are even amplified in the context of recovery of postconsumer materials because there is a lack of autonomous customer demand for these materials; rather, demand must be stimulated or even created (Paletta et al., 2019). On the other hand, materials collection and treatment costs are high, and many activities consist of low-value operations, making these processes not very profitable, especially when they are conducted in developed countries (Gregson et al., 2015;Husgafvel et al., 2018;Paletta et al., 2019).
Finally, technological barriers are connected to the availability of technologies to implement the CE. Examples of technological barriers include a limited capability of delivering high-quality remanufactured products, limited circular designs, and a lack of data (Kirchherr et al., 2018). Technological barriers are probably the ones that have attracted the most attention in the literature, and they remain a relevant issue. In particular, in the case of recovered materials, technological barriers have a relevant impact on the characteristics of supply.
Recovered resources are usually mixed, and their origins and past uses are uncertain; simply collecting materials is not enough to make them usable, and further activities are necessary to ensure that recovered materials actually meet the quality requirements demanded by consumers; this requires the review of activities and processes and development of new technologies.
Finally, it is worth noting that some recent research further confirms the relevance of the above barriers for the specific sector under investigation-that is, postconsumer wood. Husgafvel et al., 2018, in fact, analyze the case of the cascading of recovered wood in Finland and explore the main barriers perceived by different actors involved in the CE. The authors highlight that organizations belonging to different industry sectors report slightly different barriers, even if the most relevant barriers are related to price/cost effectiveness, industrial scale, and quality issues (such as moisture content, cleanliness, and size).

| MATERIALS AND METHOD
The research method is based on a single case study (Yin, 2014) of an Italian consortium of recycling platforms that deal with the collection, recovery, and recycling of postconsumer wood: Rilegno. In particular, we analyze a recent initiative promoted and developed by the consortium and aimed at identifying new potential uses of postconsumer wood in the construction sector.

| Data collection
Data collection was carried out by triangulating multiple sources of proof (Yin, 2014) and including primary and secondary data.
Primary data sources were semistructured interviews with a diversified group of informants. Interviewees included Rilegno personnel (the president, the general manager, the head of communication), two platform operators, three managers of producers of wood particleboard, members of the consortium, two representatives of the wood industry association, and 23 managers of companies competing in the construction industry and not related to the consortium. Informants from the platform operators, wood particleboard producers, and representatives of the wooden industry association were suggested by the president and the general manager of Rilegno based on the informants' familiarity with the technical processes and the opportunities and criticisms connected to the recycling of postconsumer wood. On the other hand, the organizations operating in the construction industry were selected starting from the Aida database, considering firm size and the specific products produced (wooden houses, buildings and structures; construction elements; insulation elements). Then, for each organization, we asked to talk with informants who could evaluate the suitability of postconsumer wood as an input material for their business activity. Table 1 shows the list of the respondents and their background information.
We developed the interview guidelines for each type of informants, identifying the main discussion points and questions, and we used them flexibly to deepen the issues that emerged during the interview (the interview guidelines are shown in Data S1). Concerning the consortium personnel and the platform operators, the interviews aimed to explore the role of the consortium, the articulation of different processes, and the motivations at the basis of the project and the activities related to the project itself. The interviews with wood panel producers and the industry association representatives explored their experience with the usage of postconsumer wood as an input factor in their production processes and how they had overcome barriers and obstacles associated with it. The interviews with construction company managers addressed the feasibility of the usage of postconsumer wood for manufacturing products employed in the construction sector and the possible barriers preventing this use. On average, each interview lasted around 1 hr. Twenty-eight interviews were recorded and transcribed, and five interviews were not recorded, but the interviewer took detailed notes. In addition, after the interviews, all the interviewees received a report and were given the opportunity to verify their accuracy and add comments and changes. Follow-up issues were raised with interviewees to seek additional details or clarifications. Further insights were also collected through direct observation during site visits to the companies' premises, attendance of exhibitions, and direct participation in project activities and meetings. Secondary data were collected by accessing both publicly available documents (websites, product catalogues, company reports) and privately available documents. Among the data that are not publicly available, we were able to access technical documentation about products and production processes. The data collected as described above were then summarized and analyzed thematically (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The results emerging from the analyzed data are presented and discussed in the next sections.

| Rilegno ecosystem
Rilegno was founded in 1997 following Legislative Decree No. 22/1997, which introduced a new waste management system based on separate collection and aimed at encouraging materials recovery and recycling in Italy. Specifically, the consortium has the objective of ensuring the achievement of the targets set by law for postconsumer wooden packaging (pallets, crates, boxes, cases, etc.).
To this end, Rilegno coordinates two value chains: materials recovery and recycling of wood waste (which is used as an input factor for other production processes) and pallet regeneration. Since its foundation, Rilegno has invested significantly in the construction of the collection infrastructure, which is now extensive and widespread. The consortium is constituted by 1,986 organizations, including wooden package manufacturers and importers, suppliers and importers of materials used for manufacturing wooden packages, and wooden particleboard producers. It serves 4,541 municipalities, 1 which represent 57% of all Italian municipalities with over 42 million inhabitantsapproximately 70% of the Italian population. It coordinates 416 public and private platforms that gather materials derived from municipalities' ecological waste collection areas and directly collect commercial and industrial waste at companies' premises.
Focusing, in particular, on the recovery and recycling value chain, Rilegno has progressively increased its collection capacity ( representing an increase of 7% over the previous year). The improved capacity, however, has risked saturating demand for the postconsumer wood. Today, approximately 95% of wood waste is absorbed by producers of wood particleboard, a basic element for the furniture industry. The remaining part is used for the production of cellulosic pulp for paper mills, wood-cement blocks for green construction, or other niche applications.
This situation led the consortium to initiate a strategic project aimed at studying the feasibility of alternative applications that could use the material recovered from wood waste as an input factor in their production processes and at understanding which actions and operational changes were needed to make such applications viable. In particular, the project was focused on the building sector as a potential market for products made of postconsumer wood because this sector is characterized by high volumes and a large variety of products currently made of virgin wood (which might be substituted with postconsumer wood) (see also Pomponi & Moncaster, 2017).

| PROJECT OUTLINE
This section outlines the project carried out by the consortium, with the objective of identifying new potential uses of postconsumer wood in the construction sector. The project was organized into three main phases: 1. Technical analysis to identify building components where postconsumer wood is considered fit to replace virgin wood; 2. Strategic analysis to clarify which barriers could prevent construction companies from using postconsumer wood for such components; and 3. Operational benchmarking to reveal whether and how similar barriers are dealt with by current users of postconsumer wood (particleboard producers).

| Technical analysis
The first phase of the project consisted of the identification of products and applications that could be made out of postconsumer wood.
This task was carried out by technical experts in construction, and the results of the analysis were discussed with building companies. For

| Strategic analysis
The second phase of the project consisted of an analysis of the barriers that could prevent building companies from replacing virgin wood with postconsumer wood for the three applications described Further criticism also emerged in connection to the presence of the glues and resins that are needed to produce panels or granules using postconsumer wood but that are not needed when insulators or lamellar wood components are made of virgin wood.

| Operational benchmarking
The third phase of the project aimed to explore the experience of particleboard producers that already use postconsumer wood in their production processes to understand if they had faced barriers similar to those that emerged in the interviews with the building sector operators and how these barriers were overcome.
Concerning the quality perceived by final consumers, the interviews with particleboard producers partly confirmed the relevance of this issue but also highlighted the possibility of turning the "waste nature" of the material into a strength, thanks to renewed attention to the themes of sustainability and circularity. For instance, one of the interviewees underlined how his company is exploiting the usage of second-hand input material to deliver a more sustainable product to clients.
"We started implementing the idea of a circular economy before it got a name. … Now that things have changed and governments are pushing companies to be more respectful towards the planet, we have started communicating this message more strongly to our customers. People who choose our products know that they are choosing not to use virgin trees." (CEO, particleboard producer) Similar considerations emerged in all the interviews with the particleboard producers, also highlighting the contribution of the Rilegno consortium in helping people learn the story of postconsumer wood and become acquainted with the idea that wood waste "is a precious resource that cannot be spoiled and needs to be recycled" (CEO, particleboard producer).
Regarding perceived technical performance, the particleboard producers were divided. On the one hand, some interviewees confirmed the technical feasibility of the production of the three identified categories of products using postconsumer wood, and they agreed with the evaluation of the technical experts about the technical performance of the input material. One of the interviewees also provided two examples of buildings that have already been constructed using products (insulators and secondary structures) made out of postconsumer wood (a hotel and a service structure). On the other hand, two interviewees were more doubtful. However, they explained their scepticism with company-specific reasons; in particular, the plants that they currently use to produce panels for the furniture sector cannot be used for producing insulators and frame systems for the construction sector due to the maximum dimensions of the panels (in terms of length and thickness). This production would require an ad hoc investment, the feasibility of which is obviously dependent on a plurality of factors.
"The investment would be feasible only if there was enough demand for these products. The costs for developing a new plant are substantial, and there is the risk that a dedicated investment couldn't be repaid." (CEO, particleboard producer) Finally, the issue of product certification entails two different aspects: certification of the process of cleaning and separating waste wood, resulting in the input material for panel production, and certification of the product itself, in this case, the panel. The former aspect is, in general, the most challenging because it requires certifying how wood waste can be separated from other waste materials (for example, pins and screws) and transformed into a clean secondary material that can be reduced in size and enter the panel production process.
Thus, the product certification aims at guaranteeing the characteristics, in terms of different technical performance of the end product.
The interviews with the particleboard producers pinpointed some relevant insights concerning both aspects. First, most of the panels used in the furniture sector are actually subject to a product certification that defines a product's physical and technical characteristics (internal bond, bending strength, modulus of elasticity, thickness swelling, etc.). Furthermore, one of the interviewees pinpointed the existence of a project at a very advanced stage aimed at tracking and certifying the entire process of wood collection and recycling, starting from the recycling platforms to the production of the end product, that is, wood panels. This is a relevant point, as it suggests the possibility of implementing a similar certification for materials to be used in the construction industry.

| THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF WASTE COLLECTION PLATFORMS IN OVERCOMING CE BARRIERS
The analysis confirms the relevance of cultural barriers (see also Kirchherr et al., 2018), which, in this case, are related to the acceptability of postconsumer wood to final consumers and construction companies. Postconsumer wood, being a recycled material, may be perceived as less valuable than virgin wood; therefore, it is potentially less attractive to consumers looking for high-value products. This worry is reflected in the behavior of builders, who fear that the usage of postconsumer wood could damage their image. To address this barrier, the consortium promotes the use of postconsumer wood by leveraging the idea of product sustainability, hence connecting the value of the material to a positive social impact.

These efforts align with what is happening in a range of sectors,
where the leitmotiv of sustainability and environmental impact is being leveraged to promote and normalize the usage of recycled materials (Magnier, Mugge, & Schoormans, 2019). In this respect, Rilegno is in a privileged position to enact this type of promotion activity in comparison with other operators in the wood value chain (such as a single company, whether a recycler or a producer). First, it has a consolidated experience with the usage of postconsumer wood as an input factor for other productions, thanks to its long-lasting engagement with particleboard producers. Second, as a consortium that includes different operators, it is used to carrying out research and industry analyses that could benefit a broader range of stakeholders, as it is perceived as more impartial and unbiased than an individual company.
The second type of barrier that emerged from the interviews was technological, particularly issues concerning the quality of postconsumer wood. Prior research highlights that one of the main barriers to the engagement of waste platforms within the CE is the actual quality of the waste collected, which can be low due to the limited capacity of waste collection platforms to sort waste materials (Gregson et al., 2015;Milios et al., 2018). The case of postconsumer wood, in this respect, is different. Recycling platforms are potentially capable of selecting the material to ensure high-quality standards. Today, in most cases, this type of selection is not performed because downstream users (i.e., particleboard producers) have integrated the cleaning phases into their manufacturing processes to have better control over the characteristics of the recycled material to be used as an input factor in the respective production processes. However, to support new production, waste collection platforms could carry out some preparation and cleaning activities that are preliminary to the next steps.
The issue of the quality of the material is related not only to technological but also to regulatory barriers. In fact, one of the points that emerged frequently from the analysis is the widespread adoption of quality certifications in the construction sector, which are often required by law. Indeed, the lack of a certification for postconsumer wood was perceived as a relevant obstacle by many interviewees.
From this point of view, the establishment of a process certification would represent an important boost for new potential applications of postconsumer wood. Again, this is something that can hardly be promoted by an individual company. Instead, the consortium, with its network of different operators and engagement with industry associations, can take on this role more easily, staying in contact with all the different actors that are or could be involved in different phases of the process.
Last, market barriers in this case arise largely from the other barriers, confirming their "nested" nature (Kirchherr et al., 2018). The key point is that in the construction sector, at present, there is no substantial customer demand for the materials produced with postconsumer wood, which is the case for most materials that are collected and recycled through waste collection platforms (Milios et al., 2018). To stimulate or even create such demand, a clear understanding of the usability of recovered materials is necessary alongside the ability to communicate and transfer the potential of these materials to prospective and unaware users (cultural barriers). Even in this regard, the research showed that Rilegno could play a relevant role, promoting studies proving that postconsumer wood has a performance comparable to that of virgin wood for selected applications and communicating the results. Since Rilegno is already active in stimulating wood recycling, it could organize events and training sessions to make operators in other sectors and other supply chains more familiar with this material. Again, the involvement of particleboard producers could reinforce this communication since they already use this recycled material as an input factor in their production.
In conclusion, the case shows that some proactive initiatives are This paper contributes to the stream of research that sustains the potential of "postconsumption circular economies" (Gregson et al., 2015;Singh & Ordoñez, 2016). In particular, it supports the idea that the CE paradigm could also be scaled up by leveraging the waste management sector to turn waste into resources. Compared to prior research, the paper attempts to delineate how the waste collection and recycling system could contribute to overcoming some of the cultural, technological, regulatory, and market barriers that affect demand and supply of recycled material.
The actual contribution of waste collection platforms to dismantling CE barriers also depends on a change in the platforms' role: they can carry out some activities not strictly related to the improvement and optimization of the processes of collection and separation of wood waste. In the analyzed case, Rilegno started to proactively explore possible alternative markets for postconsumer wood, which is a task not strictly related to collection and recycling activities. However, the consortium was the only actor interested in finding a new market for this material in response to the increase in collection capacity of the platform network. Similarly, some of the activities in which Rilegno is already engaged (e.g., information, communication, training) as well as some of the possible actions that emerged from the case study (e.g., support for certification development) cannot be considered typical of a waste recycling platform, but as we discussed in the previous section, Rilegno is in a privileged position to engage in them. In this sense, the results of our paper also complement recent research that addresses the role of recycling centers. Milios and Dalhammar (2020), analyzing Swedish recycling centres, highlight a significant potential for increasing reuse operations, stressing the importance of new types of collaborations between recycling centres and other private and public actors. In this respect, Rilegno offers an example of how leveraging the network of actors that constitute the consortium could contribute to overcoming CE barriers.
From a practitioner perspective, the case highlights that recycling platforms can be key allies in supporting the scale-up of the CE. The platform system can contribute to the creation and growth of demand, carrying out information and communication activities, and fostering the development of a positive image of the recovered material. The case clearly highlights that this is a critical issue, particularly in new and emerging sectors where demand is not self-sustaining but needs to be stimulated. The platform system can ensure adequate knowledge about the recovered material and its characteristics, which is fundamental for overcoming the erroneous perceptions that potentially raise barriers. On the supply side, the platform can contribute to defining and implementing the conditions supporting the activation of recycling processes-for instance, ensuring that the material is selected in a way that is coherent with further usage and integrating some of the cleaning phases to be performed by the platforms themselves. All these activities are fundamental in allowing other economic players to develop products and applications using such recycled material if and when economic conditions make it feasible. In this way, the platform system can also contribute to filling the gaps existing between demand and supply of the recovered material in new supply chains, with relevant implications for the platforms: the upscaling of circularity can represent a viable path for ensuring the sustainability of the collection system in the long term.
Finally, the research has some limitations that need to be recognized. This paper relies on a qualitative analysis developed in a specific sector, which does not allow systematic generalization of our findings.
In addition, this paper focuses specifically on the role of the platform system within the existing wood value chain. Finally, it does not study the interactions between the consortium and policy makers, who, however, could play a significant role in informing the activities carried out by the platform system. In particular, it does not address how policy makers themselves could influence the proactive efforts of the platform system, which could be worth further investigation. As highlighted in the discussion, the project was initiated by the consortium without external pressure from policy makers and in the face of a rather passive attitude of the other actors in the value chain. In this context, it would be interesting to explore the effect of a change in the existing policies or the establishment of a system of incentives for both stimulating the usage of postconsumer material and/or fostering diverse involvement of waste collection platforms in the development of the CE.