Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the most recurrent variables characterizing the collaborative relationships of industrial symbiosis (IS) (hereinafter also referred to as “anatomic” variables) established in the attempt to adopt circular economy (CE) by collecting evidence from a rich empirical set of implementation cases in Italy.

The current literature on IS was reviewed, and a content analysis was performed to identify and define the “anatomic” variables affecting its adoption in the circular economy. We followed a multiple-case study methodology investigating 50 cases of IS in Italy and performed a content analysis of the “anatomic” variables characterizing each case.

This research proposes the “anatomic” variables (i.e. industrial sectors involved, public actors involvement, governmental support, facilitator involvement and geographical proximity) explaining the cases of IS in the circular economy. Each “anatomic” variable is discussed at length based on the empirical evidence collected, with a particular reference to the impact on the different development strategies (i.e. “bottom-up” and “top-down”) in the cases observed.

Current literature on IS focuses on a sub-set of variables characterizing collaboration in IS. This research builds on extant literature to define a new framework of five purposeful “anatomic” variables defining IS in the circular economy. Moreover, we also collect and discuss a broad variety of empirical evidence in what is a still under-investigated context (i.e. Italy).

Following the lead of neighboring fields such as strategy and organization studies, entrepreneurship is gradually joining in the adoption of a practice perspective. Entrepreneurship as practice (EaP) is thus a nascent domain of investigation where the methodological debate is still unsettled and very fluid. In this paper, the authors contribute to this debate with a focus on family entrepreneurship.

The authors develop a conceptual paper to discuss what it entails to look at family entrepreneurship through a practice lens and why it is fruitful. Moreover, the authors propose a research strategy novel to the field through which such investigation can be pursued, namely process tracing, and examine its inferential logic.

Process tracing is a strategy of data analysis underpinned by an ontology of causal mechanisms. The authors argue that it complements other practice methods by inferring social mechanisms from empirical evidence and thereby establishing a connection between praxis, practices and practitioners.

Process tracing helps the articulation of an “integrated model” of practice that relates praxis, practices and practitioners to the outcome they jointly produce. By enabling the assessment of impact, process tracing helps providing prima facie evidentiary grounds for policy action and intervention.

Process tracing affinity with the practice perspective has been so far acknowledged only to a limited extent in the social sciences, and it is, in fact, a novel research strategy for the family entrepreneurship field.