Homogeneity or Heterogeneity: An Institutional Theory View on Circular Economy Practices in the Outdoor Sporting Goods Industry

Abstract

The concept of a circular economy (CE) has recently gained attention within the field of corporate sustainability, including the textile sector. Although CE-related literature often mentions actors from the outdoor sporting goods industry (OSGI) as forerunners, an analysis of their CE implementation is missing. Thus, in this paper, we attempt to identify the structure of the current state of CE activities in this field. To develop the study, we used a qualitative methodology through content analysis of documents as well as expert interviews, taking an institutional theory (IT) view to support that analysis. Our findings indicate that many outdoor brands and retailers are engaged in practices related to the CE and that homogeneity among these practices varies between moderate to high. Thus, we assume that processes of institutional isomorphism are in place and that there will be increasingly uniform CE practices in the OSGI in the future. Our study not only contributes to a more organised understanding of the diverse CE playing field, as it adds an industry-specific perspective to the literature, but it also helps managers to draw practical implications.

1. Introduction

Due to unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, water, air, and soil pollution, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss are urgent challenges of our time. Consequently, sustainability is a widely discussed topic in both the business world and more theoretical literature [1]. Within this area, the concept of a circular economy (CE) has recently gained attention—especially due to its supposed economic and environmental benefits [2,3]. Despite the growing number of publications, Ki et al. [4] highlight the need to move from general analyses of the CE concept toward more industry-specific ones that consider the unique preconditions within different fields.

One industry that is increasingly aware of sustainability issues and whose players are already partially applying CE actions [5,6,7] is the outdoor sporting goods industry (OSGI). However, a structured analysis of the CE concept within the industry has not yet been conducted. To address this gap, we first aim to expand the discussion on the CE and to explore the OSGI’s perspective on this increasingly popular concept by mapping the current state of CE practices among outdoor brands and retailers. To support this analysis, we want to add an institutional theory (IT) perspective, as it can provide insights into the relations between firms and their environments [8] and has been widely recommended and applied when analysing corporate sustainability issues [9,10]. Thus, our second aim is to review the current state of CE practices in the OSGI, looking for signs of institutional isomorphism (II), a major concept within IT [11].

1.1. The Circular Economy

The origins of the CE concept date back to the works of Boulding [12], who stressed that the planet is a closed system and natural resources are therefore limited. The phrase itself was first used in a study by Pearce and Turner [13] investigating the relation between environmental and economic activities. In the 1990s, the concept was first included in policy on a wider scale in China as a strategy to cope with the growing population, economy, and problems associated with limited resources [14]. In 2009, the Chinese government adopted the Circular Economy Promotion Law, which describes a CE as a “a general term for the activity of reducing, reusing, and recycling in production, circulation, and consumption” [15]. In 2015, the European Union followed and published Closing the Loop: An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, which was recently renewed in 2020 as part of the European Green Deal [16]. However, within the area of corporate sustainability, the CE concept has only gained importance in recent years—in literature as well as in practice [2,3].

The European Parliament described the CE as an alternative draft to the so-called linear production model, which is based on a “take-make-consume-throw away” [17] philosophy and subsequently defined it as “a production and consumption model which involves reusing, repairing, refurbishing, and recycling existing materials and products to keep materials within the economy wherever possible. A circular economy implies that waste will itself become a resource, consequently minimising the actual amount of waste” [17]. This view demonstrates that a CE is not only about closing the material loop, but also about prolonging the useful life of products. As it also implies wasting less resources, the EU has established a waste hierarchy with the priority order Prevention, Reuse, Recycling, Energy Recovery and Disposal [18].

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation—a think tank focused on the CE—has played an important role in shaping the discussion by publishing some fundamental reports [19,20,21]. It distinguishes between the technical cycle (for non-biodegradable materials) and the biological cycle (for biodegradable materials), and describes the CE as drawing the most use from all resources within those two cycles by keeping them at their most valuable level all the time. The cycles are based on three principles: (a) eliminate waste and pollution; (b) circulate products and materials; and (c) regenerate nature [22]. Accordingly, a CE avoids the negative environmental externalities of production processes, uses resources to the maximum, and aims at using renewable resources and enhancing natural resources by “returning nutrients to the soil and other systems” [22].

Geissdoerfer et al. [1] reviewed the relation between a CE and sustainability. While they identified conditional, beneficial, and trade-off relations in the literature, the investigation found it most appropriate to see a CE as one possible way among several toward achieving greater sustainability (beneficial subset). Bocken et al. [5] classified CE practices into those narrowing resource flows (more efficient production processes), slowing resource loops (durable products, repair, re-commerce, and rental), and closing resource loops (recycling, and using recycled materials).

As there are many different interpretations of the CE, performance metrics are often discussed in the literature. In a review, Vinante et al. [23] identified 365 firm-level indicators in 23 areas, which they found to be mostly valid and independent of individual firm conditions, such as location or size. They stressed that environmental indicators are more frequent than governance, economic, and social ones. Equally, such values were usually measured on a continuous scale and less often via ranked or dichotomous metrics. The six most cited indicators were CO₂ emissions, total material consumption, proportion of recycled materials used in products, strategic incorporation of the CE concept, establishment of a takeback system for used products, and establishment of a rental system.

While a change from a linear to a more circular approach is needed, one company cannot achieve this change on its own. Due to the complexity and interconnectedness of CE tasks in the supply chain (e.g., designing for recyclability at a brand level in conjunction with the capacity for actual recycling at a recycling provider years later), research stresses the need for collaboration in so-called circular ecosystems [24,25]. Parida et al. [24] created a two-stage model to implement such an ecosystem. In the first stage, firms should identify their own and potential partners’ readiness. In the second stage, one player takes the lead, while all partners shape the actual ecosystem via the standardisation of industrial processes, among them being the setting of clear cooperation rules, the carrying out of early investments, and the sharing of knowledge.

Sehnem et al. [26] categorised the benefits of CE implementation into economic, environmental, and social. Economic benefits include reduced costs through virgin material, waste disposal and environmental taxes, and increased revenues through selling waste and improved reputation. The reduction of raw materials, waste, and emissions are environmental advantages, while increased employment in reverse logistics and better health through less-polluted closed loops are the mentioned social benefits. However, the review further stressed that a CE also comes with several disadvantages which are often understudied. These are, for example, higher fixed costs for reverse logistics, supply dependency on competitors, or higher water use for the cleaning of recovered parts.

While the EU definition sees the CE as a production and consumption model, the literature interest often focuses on the production side. However, establishing a CE will also radically change the consumption habits of citizens—such as re-selling used clothing, repairing belongings, or doing without product ownership [27]. Camacho-Otero et al. [28] reviewed the literature for investigations related to consumption and the CE. First, they found that most studies analysed drivers and barriers in the seven categories of personal characteristics, product/service offering, knowledge and understanding, experience and social aspects, risks and uncertainty, benefits, as well as other psychological factors. For example, materialistic consumer values, the low quality of refurbished products, and a lack of knowledge about the rental process can lead to low acceptance of circular solutions. Second, the review looked at how circularity changes consumption, including less identification via ownership, stronger relations between firms and customers, or the politicisation of choosing circular over linear.

1.2. Circular Economy Practices and the Outdoor Sporting Goods Industry

There has been intense research of the CE concept within the textiles sector. Hvass [29] found several reuse practices amongst textile brands, including Patagonia, while Bocken et al. [5] identified Patagonia as a visionary and holistic actor related to circular business models. In a case study, Holtström et al. [7] analysed how Houdini enacted a stepwise implementation of circular practices since its inception and described the outdoor brand as an example of integrated CE implementation.

Ki et al. [4] reviewed the literature for CE barriers, enablers, drivers, and strategies, as well as the practices of internal and external stakeholders in the fashion industry. The study found similar practices to those classified by Bocken et al. [5] and also identified a literature focus on closing the loop, which they divided into closed-loop recycling (recycling into material that is used in the same product type) and open-loop recycling (recycling into material used in another product type). In a similar review of the literature on the CE in the textile and apparel industry, Jia et al. [30] highlighted that design for sustainability, reduction of resource use and waste, and reverse logistics practices were CE-related procedures. Furthermore, some findings showed that many textile firms take an experimental approach towards new, circular business models [29,31].

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s [10] report, A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future, provided an analysis of why change is needed and mapped out what a more circular industry could look like. The latter included the proposal to “phase out substances of concern”, “transform the way clothes are designed, sold, and used”, and to “radically change recycling”. Several OSGI players were mentioned as forerunners, especially from the field of microfibre research (Patagonia, MEC, Arc’teryx, OIA, and EOG Microfibre Consortium), resale and rental (Houdini), and repair (Bergans, Jack Wolfskin, Patagonia, Salewa, and Houdini).

As this short survey shows, however, while there has been significant research on the CE in general as well as in the textile sector, a more focused discussion on the concept from an OSGI perspective is missing. That said, on a few occasions, outdoor firms have been mentioned within analyses of broader economic sectors and, in those instances, they have been found to be relatively advanced as corporate examples of CE implementation. This is an indicator that the CE is on outdoor firms’ agendas and that it is worthwhile to close this research gap and shed a clearer light on CE practices in the field. Thus, we aim to answer the following research question:

• How are brands and retailers in the outdoor sporting goods industry implementing circular economy practices?

1.3. Institutional Theory

One of the central proposals of new institutionalism is the concept of organisational fields [32]. Neo-institutionalists describe organisational fields as clearly delimitated sectors of organisations that produce similar goods or services and follow a common purpose and regulations [11,32,33]. Institutional theorists also ask why organisations implement certain structures or procedures [34]. Consequently, a main assumption of neo-institutional theory is institutional isomorphism (II), which claims that organisations within one field will—after an initial phase of variance—become more like each other, step by step [11]. This homogenous behaviour is caused by similar pressures within one field.

DiMaggio and Powell [11] identified two forms of isomorphism. The first is competitive isomorphism, which explains behaviour with market imperatives of efficiency. The second, II, supplements the competitive view by explaining behaviour with three different mechanisms: coercive (forced) behaviour, mimetic behaviour (copying others when unsure how to proceed), and normative behaviour (concordant with requirements of professionalisation). Hence, they argued that players within a field often act according to institutional pressures and not (only) according to rational market implications. As a consequence, organisations often adopt institutional rules primarily because that helps them to be seen as legitimate, and not necessarily just because it increases their performance [35,36].

Recent studies show a relation between CE adoption and II [37,38,39]. By adopting institutionalised structures, in this case circular business practices, actors demonstrate that they belong to society and play by its rules [35], which increases their chances of survival [8]. If all firms within a field are subject to similar pressures, they might all respond similarly. Accordingly, we first assume that, regarding the implementation of CE practices, the OSGI is an organisational field and, second, that its actors are subject to II. Subsequently, we expect firms to behave in an increasingly similar way, and thus we ask the following:

2.

To what extent have isomorphic processes caused homogeneity among circular-economy-related practices of brands and retailers from the outdoor sporting goods industry?

2. Materials and Methods

As few studies in the CE literature focus on the OSGI, little is known about how it interprets the CE concept. As recommended when confronted with such significant knowledge gaps or a need to identify new and specific perspectives [40,41], we thus used a qualitative exploratory research approach. Hence, our goal was not to test hypotheses, but rather to add the perspective of a new industry to the CE literature as well as to add new insights related to a CE for industry stakeholders.

Furthermore, because Dacin et al. [42] recommend using documents, interviews, and observations of study subjects under an institutional theory perspective, we divided our study into two phases. In the first, we conducted qualitative content analysis [43] of outdoor brands and retailers’ documentation in the form of homepages and published reports. Based on this, we ran the second phase, a qualitative content analysis of semi-structured expert interviews of outdoor brands and retailers. As we could not conduct any field observations of study subjects, we decided to interview further outdoor stakeholders to gain an external perspective on brands and retailers’ behaviour.

Background information as a list of analysed documents, codebooks, and interview key questions are available as Supplementary Materials.

2.1. Document Analysis

To the best of our knowledge, no study exists that either describes the population of outdoor brands and retailers or gives a definition of these. Accordingly, we decided to analyse only documents of brands and retailers of the European Outdoor Group (EOG). We selected the EOG since it comprises many important, international industry players, places great significance on the sustainability topic, and was mentioned in literature related to the CE concept. Based on our selection criteria, we included a total of 94 EOG brands and 13 EOG retailers in our analysis. For every organisation, we analysed the homepage (n = 107) and, if available, sustainability-related reports (n = 35) for all CE-related content.

The document analysis was conducted in December 2020. Coding of the document content was done deductively and inductively [43]. Therefore, we used the three CE principles of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation—eliminate waste and pollution, circulate products and materials, regenerate nature (see Section 2.1)—to begin our analysis of the structure of CE practices. Subsequently, in an iterative process, we adapted this category system inductively. As recommended by Mayring [43], we created a definition, standard example, and, when needed, coding rules.

2.2. Expert Interviews

While the focus on EOG members in the document analysis provides a path to operationalise the OSGI sector, it is also a limitation, as it mainly captures the internal perspective of brands and retailers. Additionally, written content does not allow for clarifying enquiries and, due to its public availability, often only yields basic information. Thus, to gain an external perspective on brands and retailers (observation), as well as to deepen the insights from the document analysis, we decided to conduct additional expert interviews.

Besides brands and retailers of the EOG, we wanted to include different stakeholders from within the OSGI supply chain. Based on the circular supply chain structuring (for fashion) of previous research [44], we looked at the stakeholder groups suppliers, brands, retailers, service providers, and consumers. Since we explicitly wanted to obtain an external view on brands and retailers, we added the groups’ researchers, journalists, and independent industry experts. We identified relevant organisations within these stakeholder groups from the literature, our document analysis, and via snowball sampling [45,46]. During the interviews, it was recommended by experts to add an industry association perspective and to interview one brand and one retailer who were non-EOG members.

We recruited individual experts via mail request to their organisations and, in total, 21 agreed to participate in our investigation (

Table 1. Analysed expert interviews.

Stakeholder Type	Number of Interviews (Interviewees)	Interviewee Position (Number)
Brand	6	Sustainability manager (5)
		Sustainability consultant (1)
Independent Industry Insider 1	2	Sustainability manager (1)
		Researcher (1)
Industry Association	2	Sustainable business manager (1)
		Sustainable projects manager (1)
Journalist	1	Editor (1)
Product Tester 2	1	Product tester outdoor journal (1)
Researcher 3	2	Associate professor (1)
		Graduate engineer (1)
Retailer	3 (5)	Buyer (1)
		Product manager (1)
		Project manager (2)
		Sustainability manager (1)
Service Provider (end-of-life)	1	Director (1)
Service Provider (tracing technology)	1	Business development manager (1)
Supplier (ingredient brand)	2	Product developer (1)
		Sustainability strategist (1)

¹ At the time of the interview, not employed by but with experience in the industry. ² Representing the consumer perspective. ³ Research focus: sustainability in textiles.

). Interviews were conducted between April and September 2021. It is important to state that the interview guidelines were not exclusively focused on the research questions of this study but also aimed at further questions related to the field of CE, OSGI, and IT. We chose this procedure to reduce the transaction costs of initiating several interviews.

The interview guidelines addressed the research question and accordingly asked about the current state of CEs and the CE practices of brands and retailers. The guidelines were based on the findings from the document analysis. However, the key questions were mainly formulated as relatively open to allow for new aspects to arise. Subsequently, these initial questions were followed by more detailed ones to clarify or deepen insights from the document analysis. The guidelines were slightly different for each stakeholder group. Additionally, as is common in the qualitative research process, we made minor changes to the guidelines after each conducted interview when appropriate.

We forwarded key questions to the experts before the interviews, which lasted 30 to 100 min with an average of 80 min and were held via video conferencing. The interview language was English or German. We determined the number of interviews based on the degree of new information received; that is, when no more new information was being generated, no further interviews were conducted. Our overall interview goal was to have informants describe the current initiatives of brands and retailers related to a CE.

Interviews were pseudonymised (the results of the document analysis are not anonymised/pseudonymised) and transcribed via MAXQDA [47]. Subsequently, the transcribed interviews were coded to extract key aspects from the data. Coding was also facilitated via MAXQDA and was performed deductively based on the categories of the document analysis and adapted inductively within an iterative process when indicated by the content of the interviews. Again, a definition, standard example, and—when needed—coding rules were created. For the presentation of findings, a combined category system was created (see

Table 2. Combined category system.

Main Categories	Subcategories	Frequency in Documents
General circular economy aspects	Presence	33
	Understanding	-
	Strategic implementation	-
	Past implementation	-
Reduce	Energy	96
	Water
	Chemicals
	Waste
	Emissions
	Tools
	Cooperation
Circulate products	Durability	60
	Repair	57
	Reuse	26
	Rental	11
Circulate materials	Selling the material	1
	Using recycled material	67
	Recycling of products	27
	Remanufacturing	17
	Industrial symbiosis	22
Regenerate nature	Shifting to renewable materials	31
	Shifting to renewable energy	36
	Supporting conservation projects	67

).

2.3. Data Interpretation

To answer the first research question, we deductively derived main categories for the CE practices and inductively added subcategories, which we present and discuss in Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4 and Section 3.5. In addition, we inductively identified some general aspects about the CE in the industry, which we present and discuss, preceding the actual practices, in Section 3.1.

To answer the second research question, we analysed the deductively and inductively derived CE practices for homogeneity among firms (how similar their practices are). Subsequently, we used the identified homogeneity as a qualitative indicator of II. To increase the intercoder reliability and to avoid a high subjectivity of this qualitative approach, the authors first assessed homogeneity individually before determining the final evaluation together. Further, during this process, we encountered the problem that homogeneity could simultaneously be high among those firms implementing a practice, even though other firms were not implementing it at all. Thus, we integrated a quantitative indicator (the frequency of CE practices) to support and differentiate the qualitative analysis (the frequency numbers were taken only from the document analysis of the 107 homepages and 35 reports; see Table 2). Besides the discussion of homogeneity and frequency of the identified CE practices in Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4 and Section 3.5, Figure 1 serves to illustrate and summarise these insights in a homogeneity–frequency matrix.

3. Findings and Discussion

Our findings show that many brands and retailers actively try to implement CE practices, which confirms the literature pointing out that certain outdoor firms are forerunners in this field [5,6,7]. Furthermore, we also found that while all different types of CE activities described by ref. [5,22] were also found in the OSGI, the regenerate nature principle was less present than others. Moreover, while the literature often focuses on closing the loop [4], OSGI stakeholders prioritise resource reduction (narrowing) and the design of durable products (slowing). Since they focus on durability and reduction practices, firms largely comply with the waste hierarchy [18]. However, the use of recycled material is overemphasised when compared to the implementation of slowing-the-loop activities, such as reuse or repair. As a final note, both researchers would like to stress that consequent compliance with the hierarchy would entail the abandonment of the current overproduction.

3.1. General Circular Economy Aspects

3.1.1. Presence

Sustainability is currently the predominant topic in the industry and, consequently, the CE concept is very present as well. Of the firms surveyed, 33 mentioned the term explicitly in their documents. In the interviews, one brand and one supplier mentioned that they have innovation teams within their company and that the CE topic is intensively discussed there. The interviewed retailers mentioned that CE elements also play an increasing role within their product selection and their employee training, with Supplier 1 explaining it as follows: “Everybody talks about it. It is very present—for example, our colleagues from marketing get this every day. It is also very present in our department and for our colleagues from leadership and management, because it is an exciting concept.” Moreover, most stakeholders agree that CE practices will become more important in the future—in the OSGI just as in other sectors.

3.1.2. Understanding

While interviewees often describe the CE by delineating it from the linear production model, many industry actors state that they are still trying to fully understand the implications of the concept for their business. One noted that “we are still very much in the throes of getting a much deeper understanding of what exactly Circular Economy means for the outdoor industry” (Industry Association_1). However, all stakeholders seem to concur that a CE includes not only closing, but also slowing-the-loop aspects. Reduce elements are often not directly associated with the CE concept, as most stakeholders seem to share the conception of Geissdoerfer et al. [1] that CE practices help to achieve resource reduction—in other words, they take the beneficial subset approach that a CE is one of several potential solutions towards greater sustainability.

3.1.3. Strategic Implementation

What was evident from our analysis is that firms demonstrate similar strategic approaches. Accordingly, most stakeholders see the CE not as a goal in itself, but as a means for more sustainability. As an example, one explained the following:

I think that Circular Economy, for me, it’s not a goal in itself. For me, sustainability is the goal and Circular Economy is one way to get there, one of many ways. I think that’s quite important because for us that it is not the goal to get a Circular Economy, for us it’s to get a sustainable economy. And circularity is one of the ways to get there.

(Brand_5)

In contrast, only two interviewees mentioned the CE as an overall vision they work towards.

Despite these views, several brands have set strategic goals related to a CE, such as achieving a target proportion of recycled or bio-based content within all used materials within a certain timeframe. Some stakeholders mention non-quantitative goals (such as scaling up re-commerce), with one claiming that “By 2024, 90% of all Vaude products shall be made primarily from biobased or recycled materials. Thereby, our approach is based on the principles of a Circular Economy” (Vaude Homepage).

Further, most stakeholders find it important to focus on durability and a long product use phase. This entails prioritising functionality before sustainability or circularity and ensuring that the appropriate product is found for each customer, because otherwise products will not be used for a long time. Additionally, most stakeholders agree that narrowing and slowing-the-loop practices make the most sense for outdoor firms. Only one stakeholder stressed that the focus should be on the end-of-life stage, explaining that the following:

Longevity is not the most important aspect, the circularity is (…) because otherwise you only keep on postponing the problem. And at the end you are still facing the same problem and you can only solve it by making the article more circular.

(Supplier_2)

Most firms seem to have an eclectic approach and currently implement some of the potential CE models. While there are companies with a very holistic approach engaging in all categories of CE practices, one interviewed independent industry insider highlighted that, depending on the firms’ preconditions (such as the brand or retailer, size, product type, ownership, target group, or the focus of the overall environmental strategy), it can make more sense to take an eclectic approach and to select appropriate practices than to try to implement all CE elements. Consequently, an apparent strategy is to pilot different circular business models to see whether and/or how well they work. While pilots and the unclear development in the field complicate goal setting, many actors right now seem to be in the process of creating a more systematic approach to circularity (and sustainability). As one explained,

We want to experiment, we want to gain some experience [of] what works and what doesn’t work, what is worthwhile, what is somehow economically sustainable and pays off. Behind all this is of course also the idea to prepare the company for changing markets and consumer habits. So, we are not completely unprepared and have to change our whole business model at once.

(Brand_2)

These accounts confirm the former studies that have identified pilots related to CE implementation as frequent and useful [29,31].

3.1.4. Past Implementation

While the term circular economy only gained popularity relatively recently [2,3], many firms claim to have engaged in practices related to the concept for far longer. This longer-term view seems to be especially evident for the more efficient use of resources, the design of long-lasting products, and those offering repair or rentals. This is illustrated by one brand, stating the following:

First of all, I have to say that we have always had certain things. So, repair has been around as long as the company ‘Brand_Name’ has existed, and this means for more than 100 years. Thus, this is nothing new, but it hasn’t been prioritised since it was kind of normal and less marketed of course.

(Brand_2)

In addition, interviewees mentioned that the industry’s first attempts at using recycled materials and recycling were already undertaken in the 1990s.

3.2. Reduce

The first main category of firms’ CE activities is the concept of reduce, which entails measures to make processes more efficient and cleaner. This was mentioned by nearly all firms and seems to be the most important category of CE practices for outdoor stakeholders besides durability (although, as mentioned above, the interviewees would not necessarily understand it as part of a CE). Since implementation processes vary, homogeneity is moderate, as shown by the overview of reduce practices in

Table 3. Overview: reduce practices.

Practices	Forms
Energy	Own operations
	Suppliers
Water	Supplier (dyeing techniques, leather tanning, reprocessing)
	Product (organic cotton)
Chemicals	Supplier (dyeing techniques, chrome tanning)
	Product (organic cotton, PVC, PFC)
Waste	Supplier (reuse/recycle production waste)
	Product ([plastic] packaging, microfibres, design to reduce offcuts)
	Own operations (office waste separation)
Emissions	Own operations
	Supplier
	Society (lobbying)
Tools	Certifications (3rd party)
	Own labels
	LCA-based tools
	Environmental management systems
	Research
Cooperation	Industry focus
	Industry-spanning

. The key reduce practices are considered in the following.

Mainly, firms try to reduce the use of energy, water, chemicals, and waste. For water, which is mentioned as an upcoming and increasing challenge, four main practices can be identified: more resource-efficient technologies for (1) dyeing and (2) tanning processes, (3) a shift to organic cotton, and (4) water recovery at the production site. Organic cotton and new dyeing processes can also reduce the use of chemicals—chrome-tanned leather (footwear), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (bike bags), and fluorocarbons (PFC) (DWRs) were most often cited in this regard. As concerns waste, many firms, in particular retailers, try to reduce both the total amount of packaging as well as the amount of plastic packaging. Accordingly, they use paper, recycled plastic, and/or biodegradable packaging or shopping bags. Moreover, one interviewed retailer encourages its brands to reduce packaging as well:

We complain to our firms that wrap up each product individually. You make an order and then, this is shipped in several tranches! So, each time new packaging, lots of material and so on. Here, we try to talk to the firm and to find an agreement, so this doesn’t happen anymore.

(Retailer_3)

Besides packaging, firms mention tackling waste from microfibre release as well as from production offcuts.

However, most companies do not try to focus on one section but to be more efficient overall, and often progress in these areas has an influence on what currently seems to be the main sustainability goal for most firms: emission reduction. Hence, many firms use similar tools which often comprise all or several reduce categories. This includes certifications (e.g., Blue Sign, and OEKO Tex 100), LCAs or LCA-based calculations (e.g., HIGG Index, and science-based targets), and environmental management systems (e.g., ISO 14,001 and 50,001). For chemical management, an RSL is standard, while only four of the analysed brands mentioned an MRSL. Only two companies said they follow the zero discharge of hazardous chemicals (ZDHC) requirements. Many firms use offsetting to balance their emissions (e.g., Gold Standard, and DHL GoGreen).

Furthermore, some brands substantially invest in research developing new processes and materials, while several firms have also introduced their own sustainability labels. These usually include such topics as environmentally friendly materials and technologies. Examples are Green Shape (Vaude), Madekind (Berghaus), Conscious Choice (Tierra), Planet Friendly (Scarpa), Green (Tatonka), or A Greener Choice (Fritlufts group retailers: Globetrotter, Friluftsland, Naturkompaniet, and Partioaitta).

Next to that, firms engage in reduce-related multi-stakeholder projects. Mostly, they cooperate within industry associations, such as the OIA Climate Action Corps. The EOG-initiated projects Single Use Plastics and the Microfibre Consortium are searching for solutions to reducing waste, collaborating with suppliers, brands from other sectors, and academia. Additionally, some firms have signed the EOG Sustainability Charter, the UN Fashion Charter for Climate Action, or have committed (e.g., Arc’teryx) or plan to commit (e.g., Vaude) themselves to the Science Based Targets initiative.

While there are signs of high alignment within reduce practices, there are also major disparities, as evidenced by the rigour with which the use of certain chemicals is restricted, reduction goals are set, or suppliers are integrated into reduction efforts. Additionally, firms use many different terms related to emissions—for example, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, becoming climate neutral, carbon neutral, or even “climate positive”.

3.3. Circulate Products

The second main category of firms’ CE activities is the concept of circulating products. An overview of practices associated with this category can be found in

Table 4. Overview: circulate products practices.

Practices	Forms
Durability	Design physical durability
	Design aesthetic durability
	Warranty promises
	Product testing
	Maintenance information/service
Repair	Repair offer
	Design repairable products
	Facilitate consumer repairs (e.g., iFixit)
Reuse	Collection
	Distribution via partner
	Direct donation
	Re-commerce
	Provide re-commerce platforms
Rental	Rental
	Subscription

. Each of the four key practices is considered separately below.

3.3.1. Durability

While reduce practices were mentioned more frequently, qualitative statements indicate that product durability is the most important circular feature for the industry. For example, one homepage stated that “our philosophy is guided by the belief that durability is the strongest path to sustainability” (Arc’teryx homepage). However, one interviewee made it clear that durability is not primarily a circular, but a functional feature. Thus, it is convenient for the industry that one of the major requirements of outdoor products is durability, as this was relevant long before the idea of slowing the loop, and it can now be presented as an indicator of the industry’s environmental awareness.

Homogeneity is high, as illustrated by the following overview of durability practices. For example, many companies highlight intensive testing to assure their products’ fitness for use under harsh conditions. Products are tested by inhouse and/or third-party laboratories as well as athlete ambassadors. Accordingly, many offer so-called product lifetime guarantees—for example, the Satisfaction Guarantee (Smartwool), Got Your Bak Lifetime Guarantee (Camelbak), No Matter What Warranty (Eagle Creek), and Guaranteed to Keep You Dry (Gore). Moreover, several firms give detailed online care instructions (e.g., how to wash and impregnate down, or to waterproof products) and retailers mention product care as an important element of their in-store customer service. In addition, many firms proactively encourage their customers to use products as long as possible (e.g., to use worn-out hiking boots for gardening).

At the same time, homogeneity is limited by differences in the depth of durability practices. For example, the way information on product care is presented varies, as some merely provide text, while others provide videos or offer a product care service. Likewise, the intensity of firms’ product tests varies and only a few firms state a precise duration for their so-called product lifetime warranties. Further, while some stakeholders stress the importance of aesthetic durability (i.e., design that lasts and does not simply follow short-term, seasonal fashion trends), one interviewed stakeholder underlined the impossibility of aesthetically durable design, as this is a highly subjective matter of taste.

3.3.2. Repair

Repair and durability are mutually dependent and, as with designing durable products, the repair aspect seems to be very important and frequent in the industry, although the degree of homogeneity is slightly lower than for durability. On the one hand, similarities can be observed regarding offers to repair: while many brands have their own repair department, others work with repair service providers. One ingredient brand mentioned that it trains, equips, and certifies its service providers. Often, the role of the repair service provider is played by retailers, which offer extensive repair services:

Last year, we visited ORTLIEB. Two colleagues, and they brought back a huge ORTLIEB suitcase with all sorts of spare parts, also old spare parts—we [are] talk[ing] about 10–15-year-old bags. And ORTLIEB said: ok, we trained you and now you are good to go. And that is ok for me if they don’t simply say: here is the stuff, see what you can do. No, we were on-site and had a look at everything and now we can do something with it.

(Retailer_3)

However, on the other hand, beyond the offer to repair, aspects of design for repairability are only highlighted by a few firms. For example, Vaude has introduced a repair index for its products to guide designers and inform consumers. Additionally, few firms make sure that spare parts stay available, even for discontinued designs. One exception was found on the ORTLIEB homepage: “Our products are designed such that individual components can be replaced. For products which are discontinued we provide spare parts for at least ten years. Damaged parts can be exchanged, holes mended, buckles and straps renewed.” Firms also encourage consumers to first try to repair products before disposing of them, as illustrated by Vaude’s slogan “Repair, don’t replace!” Among the surveyed brands, only Vaude mentions cooperating with iFixit, an online platform for repair tutorials whose usefulness for customers was also highlighted by one interviewed retailer.

3.3.3. Reuse

Although reuse is much less common than durability and repair, with 26 actors mentioning engagement in reuse activities, firms’ reuse practices display high uniformity. This is shown by their re-collection, donation, and re-commerce programmes, which are often still in the experimental stage and limited in terms of geographical availability and product offer. Regarding the first of these, many firms collect gear via take-back programmes, which are often run together with a collection partner and are incentivised by vouchers. Collected items are either kept by the service provider—for second-hand sale, donations, different forms of downcycling, or disposal—or enter the firms’ re-commerce platforms. While firms can draw some products from take-back programmes to feed their re-commerce, samples, overstock, damaged and defective inventory returned from stores, and replaced items returned by customers serve as the main input. Additionally, brands often use the experience of partners—such as retailers or service providers such as The Renewal Workshop or E-Bay—for their re-commerce offers.

Moreover, many firms encourage customers to give products a second life, as does Deuter:

If you want to act sustainably, you should use your backpack for as long as possible—either yourself or by passing it on to someone else. All our backpacks can be repaired through our own repair service in Gersthofen. And friends, acquaintances, second-hand shops, or used clothing collections of charity organisations are delighted to receive still functional products.

(Deuter homepage)

Although the practice is less common, Vaude (with E-bay) and Globetrotter have created digital trading platforms where customers can buy and sell used gear. Similarly, one interviewed retailer organises a physical flea market twice a year, where customers can offer their own items that they do not want to use anymore. The retailer stresses that such activities are primarily aimed at publicity and loyalty effects.

3.3.4. Rental

Rental practices are less common than reuse activities; only 11 firms mentioned that they offer, have offered, or are thinking about offering rental equipment. Additionally, implementation is slightly less uniform, as illustrated by the different types of partnerships around rental, which range from those with ski resorts, mountain huts, retailers, and independents, to those with employees only. However, most rentals are often in a pilot stage and firms rent out similar product types via similar rental models (rental as opposed to share, subscription, or leasing).

One of the most extensive rental services among the studied brands is that currently offered by Vaude. Their iRentit service is offered online with subsequent home delivery and is also available through Vaude stores with subsequent in-store collection. An equally extensive offer among retailers is provided by Globetrotter. Rented items are typically equipment and items needed only temporarily—for example, tents, backpacks, bike packs, snowshoes, skis, or bouldering mats.

While equipment rental is somewhat popular, clothing rental is rare. One retailer mentioned lending rain jackets to customers who hand in their only rain jacket for repair. However, one area where clothing rental models seem to work is for children, as one interviewed brand mentioned its economically viable subscription service for children’s anoraks:

We think rentals—there could certainly be areas there that could be really important for the outdoor industry. I mean, we see it with skis for example. Or, when you start looking at children’s clothing or renting bouldering mats or sleeping bags, tents.

(Industry Association_1)

3.4. Circulate Materials

The third main category of firms’ CE activities is the concept of circulating materials. An overview of practices associated with this category can be found in

Table 5. Overview: circulate materials practices.

Practices	Forms
Sell the material	-
Using recycled material	Product and packaging
	Own operations
Recycling of products	Design for recyclability
	Initiate actual recycling
	Own operations
Remanufacturing	-
Industrial symbiosis	Send waste
	Receive waste

. Each of the five key practices is considered separately below.

3.4.1. Sell the Material

Bergans is currently the only actor piloting a business model based on selling customers back a product’s particular material. Specifically, customers can return their product that uses the cellulose-based Spinova material, which allows them to receive a new product made from that material. Although the pilot does not allow for the new product to incorporate the exact same material as that returned, it does highlight the process of reuse allowed for by Spinova.

3.4.2. Using Recycled Materials

Using recycled material is very common and important for the industry; homogeneity is equally high within this practice. For example, recycled materials are often used in special eco-ranges and not in the whole collection (e.g., Columbia Outdry Extreme Eco range). However, many brands have set (soft or hard) goals to increase the proportion of recycled materials used across their product range:

So, our top four materials are cotton, polyester, nylon, and leather. So, transitioning all those materials to either being recycled, responsibly sourced, renewable, or regenerative by 2025 for apparel and 2030 for Footwear and equipment. That is super important for us because those four materials make up over 90% of our entire materials footprint. So, that is a critical part of our sustainability journey towards our science-based targets, but also a fundamentally important part of Circular Economy as well.

(Brand_1)

Similarly, retailers mention that they want to gradually increase the share of products with recycled materials within their offer.

Some brands and retailers combine the use of recycled materials with other product characteristics to declare whether a product is sustainable (see Section 3.2). Brands obtain pre- as well as post-consumer recycled materials from suppliers, the majority of which is polyester, but also polyamide, wool, down, or cotton. The polyester usually comes from recycled PET bottles since they are widely available, while hardly any recycled content comes from the textile sector (with the exception of some textiles recycled in Italy, as mentioned by one interviewee). Many actors refer to the Global Recycled Standard (GRS) by Textile Exchange to prove the origin of recycled resources. Lastly, other areas for recycled materials are product packaging, as well as, to a lesser degree, firms’ own operations (stores, offices, fair stands).

3.4.3. Recycling of Products

Practices related to the recycling of products seem to be in their infancy and are less widespread than using recycled materials. However, the set goals and future expectations suggest that this practice could gain importance. Firms’ procedures display moderate homogeneity. On the one hand, practices resemble one another as evidenced by firms’ monomateriality approach to design for recyclability. Additionally, monomaterial products are usually only present within certain collections, and not the whole product range:

Many of our products are including fewer materials, for the purpose of recycling. The Monomaterial Collection is constructed with singular material construction. Monomaterial garments are 100% recyclable. Each product is made from one single material, enabling garment-to-garment recycling, and reducing waste.

(Helly Hansen homepage)

On the other hand, only some firms engage in activities to initiate the actual recycling of their products and to support the creation of the required infrastructure (collection, sorting, and recycling). Some players mention cooperation with researchers or service providers for collection or recycling—not only for their products, but also for waste generated in their facilities (see Reuse). One interviewed supplier is engaged in an international consortium, where specialised firms (for design, manufacturing, collection, sorting, and recycling) collaborate to create an efficient procedure for a closed textile loop. Additionally, both interviewed industry associations are engaged in different research projects, which, as one interviewee who is involved in a recycling technology project explained, “will drive those sorts of technologies (…) and part of our role in that is basically feeding information from our members. Our members are really, really keen to know about these technologies“ (Industry Association_1).

3.4.4. Remanufacturing

Remanufacturing is rare, as a mere 17 actors mentioned such practices. However, the procedures of those firms engaged in this way are very homogenous: they use production leftovers as well as pre-owned products (not fit for re-commerce) to tailor unique and limited pieces—for example, jackets with unusual colour codes. One report states the following:

In May 2019 we launched the limited-edition Leftover Sleeping Bag in selected stores, made with a colourful assortment of fabrics leftover from our production process showing it is possible to put this fabric to good use. In the winter this was followed up by a selection of Leftover mittens and moccasins.

(Haglöfs Sustainability Report 2019)

This practice is often at a test stage, however, and its inherent limited scalability results in a small product offer, which is often only available at certain locations (e.g., Bergans Redesign is only in Norway, and Arc’teryx Rebird is only in Canada and the USA).

3.4.5. Industrial Symbiosis

Industrial symbiosis is slightly more common than remanufacturing. Its appearance is as uniform as it is for remanufacture practices since it takes either the form of firms sending their waste to a partner that can use it as a material input (e.g., for packaging) or some brands (their suppliers) receiving waste from a partner for production. Vaude is the only company that sells production remnants to private consumers via its E-Bay upcycling store:

And we also started to partner up with some other brands where we can use like leftover materials. So, we just now launched a shoe where we used ‘Supplier_Name’, [which] is a company close to us, and they are having leftover jeans denim material in Italy. And then we used that to make a new shoe of that material.

(Brand_5)

3.5. Regenerate Nature

The fourth main category of firms’ CE activities is the concept of regenerating nature. An overview of practices associated with this category can be found in

Table 6. Overview: regenerate nature practices.

Practices	Forms
Renewable material	Bio-based material
	Bio-based synthetics
	Biodegradability
Renewable energy	Own operations
	Suppliers
Support conservation projects	Support projects
	Own funds/projects

. Each of the three key practices is considered separately below.

3.5.1. Shift to Renewable Materials

Although 31 firms mentioned having (re)discovered several renewable materials that can replace fossil-based input for their products and packaging, this category nevertheless shows high heterogeneity. This is especially evident in the variety of so-called alternative fibres used, the most common being wood, hemp, algae, sugar cane (molasses), coffee, flax (linen), castor beans (oil), algae, or corn (starch). In 2020, ICEBUG noted that “this year, we are focusing on reducing the use of plastics and replacing them with renewable sources, such as algae, wool, and hemp” (ICEBUG Sustainability Report 2019/20).

Bio-based synthetics are increasingly discussed within the industry, even though their use is still limited. Interviewed firms add it, for example, to shoes and membranes, with one explaining that “we are looking at bio-based EVA that is actually used in some shoes […]. And we are looking at that as well for our midsoles. It’s made of sugar cane“ (Brand_5). While some brands mention they are refraining from using them for now, waiting for more clear data to be available, others see strong potential for the future and are engaging in cross-sectoral research projects.

3.5.2. Shift to Renewable Energy

The use of renewable energy—mainly at their own facilities—was mentioned by 36 firms. Parallel to frequency, homogeneity for this practice is moderate, as evidenced by the following overview. While most firms simply mentioned using renewable energy for their own facilities, some factors cause a less uniform picture: for instance, the share of renewables for these facilities differs and can be far from 100%, as illustrated by MSR’s New York-based factory where the share is 25%.

Only 13 actors mentioned producing renewable energy themselves. While several actors claim to promote e-car commuting, Rab wants to completely move its fleet towards plug-in electric vehicles. Further, advanced firms are now targeting their suppliers and have already agreed (or aim to do so) on the transition towards (more) renewable energy with them.

3.5.3. Support Conservation Projects

The support of conservation projects was mentioned by 67 firms, and high homogeneity can be observed, as many support the same projects, such as the European Outdoor Conservation Alliance (which seems obvious since it is close to the EOG), Leave No Trace, Protect Our Winters, and The Conservation Alliance. Several members have also created their own foundations (e.g., Petzl Foundation, The Explorer Fund (TNF), Arctic Fox Initiative (Fjällräven), Arc’teryx Community Grand, and Vaude Sport Albrecht von Dewitz Stiftung).

4. Conclusions

The first aim of this paper was to establish a structured overview of CE-related practices in the OSGI. This is an important step that adds an industry-specific perspective to the more general CE discussion. In doing so, we identified reducing, circulating product, circulating materials, and regenerating nature as essential manifestations of such practices among brands and retailers.

The second aim of this paper was to evaluate the degree of homogeneity among these practices as an indicator of the presence of institutional isomorphism. As we found that the degree of homogeneity varies from moderate to high (as illustrated by Figure 1), we assume that II processes are in place and that there will be more uniform CE practices in the OSGI in the future. This is supported by the testimony of expert interviewees, who expect to see a growing CE presence in the field and mentioned mimetic (peer) pressure (i.e., other outdoor firms as role models for CE implementation). Thus, we expect these isomorphic processes to remain, thereby further increasing the homogeneity and frequency of CE practices so that such practices become standard.

Accordingly, our results are of relevance for OSGI practitioners. First, this study can help them to see the status quo within their industry more clearly. Based on this, they can make more well-founded decisions related to their own approach to the CE concept. Further, our study provides managers with an outline of the range of potential strategic directions available if they want to increase CE practices within their company.

Second, our work shows that missing out on the development related to CEs could lead to legitimacy problems. Thus, actors who refuse to engage in CE activities could be perceived as not innovative, unsustainable, or outdated. Therefore, all OSGI firms should pay attention to the CE concept and have it on their agenda. However, they should also be aware that isomorphic processes often lead to the implementation of practices that are not necessarily efficient. Thus, instead of merely mimicking others or succumbing to the pressure towards stasis, firms should become that which IT terms institutional entrepreneurs [48]). Accordingly, firms could benefit from a CE approach that manages to find or substantiate an individual strategic approach. This can include adapting CE practices to the circumstances of the company (e.g., the type of product) and carefully evaluating which practices make sense from an economic and environmental point of view. This way, players could stand out from competitors, leading the discourse as pioneers instead of adopters, thereby also facilitating communication with consumers.

Finally, this study has some limitations. Namely, there is no definition of the population brands and retailers of the OSGI. However, we decided to look at brands and retailers of the EOG which comprises many important industry players. Additionally, since our interviewee sample is relatively small and cannot be representative of the whole OSGI, potential generalisation from the findings is limited. Notwithstanding, we combined the interviews with a rather comprehensive document analysis and our exploratory insights can be the basis for further research.

Furthermore, the brands and retailers we selected for interviews were mainly forerunners in the field of CE-related practices, which could have distorted the results. Moreover, the interviewed brand and retailer representatives were unlikely to say something very negative about their employers. However, we chose a stakeholder approach that also allowed us to cover external perspectives on brands and retailers. Beyond that, when brands or retailers implement CE practices but do not mention them on their homepages or in their reports, our document analysis approach is limited. Lastly, we evaluated homogeneity based on qualitative criteria, which are not always 100% objective.

Accordingly, a future quantitative validation of the qualitative findings in this rather explorative study would be appropriate. This could also include a stronger focus on different types of outdoor firms (such as small, medium, or large) as well as outdoor gear (such as apparel, footwear, or equipment). From an IT perspective, it could be worthwhile to analyse the pressures that make firms engage in CE practices and to what degree they originate from efficiency or legitimacy imperatives. Lastly, a structured comparison of the OSGI to other industries could yield interesting findings.