Purpose:

For decades, green supply chain management and sustainability initiatives have guided organisations toward minimising environmental harm, improving eco-efficiency, reducing waste, and regulatory compliance (Sarkis and Dou 2017). While these strategies have generated important progress, their predominant focus on harm reduction and incremental improvement has been criticized as producing “weak sustainability” (Demastus and Landrum 2024), insufficient for restoring ecosystems or creating net-positive environmental and social outcomes (Meyer et al. 2026).

These limitations have called for developing means to generate “strong sustainability” (Demastus and Landrum 2024). They prompted a shift toward regenerative supply chains (RSC), which integrates circular economy initiatives, regenerative design, and ecosystem restoration to refresh and strengthen natural, social, and economic systems (Bag et al. 2025; de Souza et al. 2019). Rather than solely doing less harm, RSCs enhance ecological systems, strengthen social well-being, and generate long-term economic value (Gualandris et al. 2023). Recent evidence suggests that regenerative practices can yield both environmental and financial benefits, including operational efficiencies, cost reductions, and improved organizational resilience (Tanveer et al. 2025). Despite the possibilities, RSC research remains fragmented and provides limited conceptual clarity of how regenerative principles influence supply chain structures, governance mechanisms, and performance outcomes in practice (Hsu et al. 2025).

This study reviews the emerging literature on RSC with four objectives: (i) to identify dominant research streams and trends shaping this nascent field; (ii) to examine the core conceptual underpinnings and practical realities of regenerative supply chains; (iii) to develop a synthesizing framework that clarifies the relationships among core themes—what is being regenerated, the mechanisms enabling regeneration, and the resulting outcomes; and (iv) to provide directions for future RSC research.

Design:

This integrative review adopts Denyer and Tranfield (2009) three-stage systematic literature review methodology: planning; analysis and synthesis; and reporting. The planning stage covers defining relevant search terms, selecting appropriate databases, and establishing clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, as summarised in Figure 1. The screening process resulted in a final sample of 35 articles and book chapters published between 2017 and 2026.

An inductive analytical approach was applied to examine the 35 selected articles, paying attention to their research objectives, key findings, and implications. Bibliometric data were extracted and analysed to identify publication trends. In parallel, a manual content analysis of keywords, abstracts, research questions, and stated contributions was conducted to identify core themes. The Grodal et al. (2021) data categorisation framework was employed to systematically group the articles into thematic clusters using a mutually exclusive classification scheme based on the primary focus of each article. This approach facilitated the development of a conceptual framework that elucidates the relationships among the identified themes within RSC research.

Figure 1: Article selection process (available in word version)

Findings:

Our review shows that, despite its recency (since 2017), the state-of-the-knowledge in RSC has advanced significantly. From their publication date, the 35 papers could be divided into three major phases: foundational (2017-2020), empirical evaluation (2020-2024), and advanced applications (2025-2026). Foundational papers focused on establishing basic concepts—circular supply chain archetypes (Batista et al., 2018), regenerative design frameworks (de Souza et al. 2019), and circular economy indicators (Howard et al. 2018). Papers in the empirical evaluation period exhibit diversification into specific sectors, e.g., agri-food (Balcom et al. 2023), exploring strategies and challenges for adopting RSC (Ali 2024). Recent papers moved from "what" to "how" with advanced methodologies: deep reinforcement learning (Tseng et al. 2025) and frameworks for hyperconnectivity (Wu et al. 2025). The 2026 papers (e.g. Jadallah et al. 2026; Liu et al. 2026; Meyer et al. 2026) include applications across sectors, showing initial sign of maturity.

Substantively, our preliminary findings suggest that the core concept of RSC is encapsulated in four interconnected pillars, which center on "benefit enrichment" (Tanveer et al. 2025):

Net-positive socio-ecological outcomes: This defining goal of RSC transcends the traditional focus on minimizing negative environmental impacts (harm-reduction) to actively restoring and enhancing the social-ecological systems in which the supply chain is embedded (Gualandris et al. 2023).

Circularity and bio-inspired loops: Rooted in Circular Economy principles on closing loops for zero waste, regeneration focuses on the “quality” of those loops, enriching the systems in the process. Organic food value chains that shun pollution by sequestering greenhouse gas emissions and maintaining biodiversity, living soil, as well as clean air and water are regenerative (Roth and Zheng 2021).

Proportionality and reciprocity: Proportionality ensures resource use aligns with an ecosystem's capacity to regenerate, while reciprocity mandates that the supply chain gives back (Gualandris et al. 2023). These concepts aim to engender a mutually beneficial, ethical and structural relationship between supply chains and their host environment (both natural and social), ensuring a relationship of benefit mutuality, rather than extraction.

Strategic reconfiguration (disintermediation and reintermediation): Operationalizing the first three conceptual pillars requires a fundamental restructuring of the supply chain network, leapfrogging from gaining efficiency to creating a structurally different regeneration-enabled supply chain architecture (Hsu et al. 2025). Disintermediation leverages technology to create a direct link between producer and consumer, removing exploitative agents. Reintermediation realigns incentives by introducing new relational mechanisms, market and supply chain structures to guide demand toward restoration options, fostering regeneration (Meyer et al. 2026).

From the perspective of building operationally feasible and implementable RSCs, three key areas of concern and investigation are noted:

Critical drivers and enablers: What are the critical resources (tangible & intangible) and processes needed to develop dynamic capabilities for new RSCs? What role does leadership play and what governance mechanism should be established to engender a supportive organizational culture in fostering circularity and regeneration?

Supply chain structure, coordination, and contextual realities: Across diverse sectors, establishing RSCs faces a plethora of context-specific challenges, e.g., the need to focus on soil health, biodiversity, and regenerative organic farming for short food supply chains (Balcom et al. 2023), and the importance of "designing with nature," and using biodegradable materials and modular construction to restore ecosystems in construction (Oyefusi et al. 2024). What core supply chain architectures and coordination mechanisms, e.g., coopetition, are most appropriate to deal with sector-specific practices across diverse industries?

Social-ecological embeddedness and people-centricity: A defining characteristic of RSCs is their deep integration with both natural ecosystems and human communities. How could concepts like “place focus,” “social equity,” and “biocentrism,” be invoked to design supply chains that are embedded in and restorative of local ecosystems, foster people-centric operations, generate positive social outcomes, enhance community well-being, and ensure fair labour practices?

Value:

Amid growing recognition of the limitations of harm-reduction approaches, the potential role of RSC is becoming increasingly prominent. This review is timely—it consolidates the current state of knowledge, identifies critical gaps in the literature, and outlines promising directions for future research to advance RSC development. The review offers significant opportunities and insights for prospective theorising by supporting the forward-looking development of conceptual frameworks that anticipate how systems may evolve toward restoration, renewal, and long-term resilience.

Research limitations:

Based exclusively on published papers, this study requires further empirical support to validate the proposed theoretical framework.

Practical implications:

Apart from proposing a research agenda to guide future theoretical and empirical investigations, this integrative review informs managerial practice by proposing a framework that highlights key drivers, enabling mechanisms, structural and organizational changes, and expected outcomes associated with regenerative transitions.

Keywords: Regenerative supply chains, circular supply chain, literature review

References (selected):

Bag, S., Rahman, M. S., Routray, S. and Khurana, R. (2025) Regenerative supply chain orientation and coopetition in supply chain networks for ESG initiatives: A parallel mediation study. Journal of Business Research 201.

de Souza, V., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. and Borsato, M. (2019) Towards Regenerative Supply Networks: A design framework proposal. Journal of Cleaner Production 221, 145-156.

Howard, M., Hopkinson, P. and Miemczyk, J. (2018) The regenerative supply chain: a framework for developing circular economy indicators. International Journal of Production Research 57 (23), 7300-7318.

Hsu, K., Shevchenko, A. and Yang‐Sun, Yang S. (2025) Regeneration and Supply Chain Complexity: Insights From the Forest Sector. Journal of Supply Chain Management.

Meyer, C., Luiz, J., Grutter, A. and Parker, H. (2026) Disintermediation and Reintermediation of Seafood Supply Chains for Social and Ecological Regeneration. Journal of Supply Chain Management 62 (1), 20-36.

Oyefusi, O. N., Enegbuma, W. I., Brown, A. and Zari, M. P. (2024) From green to regenerative supply chain management in construction: Towards a conceptual framework. Environmental Development 52.

Roth, A. and Zheng, Y. (2021) A Tale of Two Food Chains: The Duality of Practices on Well‐being. Production and Operations Management 30 (3), 783-801.

Sarkis, J. and Dou, Y. (2017) Green supply chain management: A concise introduction. Routledge.

Tanveer, U., Hoang, Thinh G., Ishaq, S. and Howard, M. (2025) Regenerative Supply Chains in Vietnamese Agriculture: Extending Natural Resource Theory Through Collective Waste Utilization and Social Benefit. Business Strategy and the Environment 34 (8), 9993-10011.

Tseng, C. Y., Li, J., Lin, L. H., Wang, K., White Iii, C. C. and Wang, B. (2025) Deep reinforcement learning approach for dynamic capacity planning in decentralised regenerative medicine supply chains. International Journal of Production Research 63 (2), 555-570.

Abstract

Transformation Pathways to Regenerative Supply Chains: Interplay of Organizational Unlearning and Structural Reconfiguration

Purpose of this paper:

Escalating climate disruption, biodiversity loss, and social inequality compel supply chains to move beyond harm reduction toward organizing logics that restore social-ecological systems (Hahn and Tampe, 2021; Gualandris et al., 2024). Regenerative supply chains represent such a logic, in which sourcing, governance, and performance criteria are evaluated according to their contribution to surrounding living systems (Hahn and Tampe, 2021; Gualandris et al., 2024). Yet how firms operationalize this logic under heterogeneous starting conditions has received limited theoretical attention (Gualandris et al., 2024; Hsu et al., 2025).

Two gaps motivate this study. First, drawing on Gualandris et al. (2024), this paper distinguishes Creation pathways, in which regenerative principles are constitutive of original organizational design, from Conversion pathways, in which established supply chains are redirected toward regenerative ends. How pathway-specific cognitive and organizational inheritances shape transformation trajectories remains unexplored. Second, because regenerative supply chains depart fundamentally from conventional supply chain logic, organizational unlearning becomes critical to understanding transformation. Conventional assumptions about profit-driven efficiency, growth-oriented scale, and audit-based control conflict with regenerative principles (Hahn and Tampe, 2021; Gualandris et al., 2024). Organizational unlearning, understood as the intentional process through which firms render obsolete assumptions visible, relinquish dysfunctional routines, and relearn more adequate governance practices (Cegarra-Navarro and Wensley, 2019; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2025), is therefore central to this transformation. Whereas Creation firms primarily contest field-level defaults, Conversion firms must additionally displace procurement routines and performance metrics that are embedded in inherited organizational architectures.

This study examines how structural reconfiguration and organizational unlearning co-evolve across both pathways, reconceptualizing regenerative supply chain transformation as a cognitive, relational, and structural change process.

Design/Methodology/Approach:

This study employs a qualitative multiple-case design suited to theory-building about complex, context-dependent processes (Eisenhardt, 1989). The sample comprises five organizations selected through purposive theoretical sampling: consumer brands and material innovators operating across the food and pet nutrition, bio-based packaging, personal care, and footwear sectors. They represent contrasting starting conditions: Creation cases were founded with regenerative principles embedded in original organizational design; Conversion cases redirected supply chains previously governed by conventional procurement routines and efficiency metrics. Cases were selected to enable theoretical replication and generate analytic contrast rather than representational breadth (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2018).

Data were collected through eleven semi-structured interviews with focal organization informants and external regeneration experts, complemented by company documents, reports, and secondary materials. Protocols addressed starting conditions, regenerative ambitions, structural reconfiguration and evidence of organizational unlearning, organized around the awareness, relinquishing, and relearning phases (Cegarra-Navarro and Wensley, 2019). Analysis followed an iterative, abductive procedure: first-order inductive coding in MAXQDA was progressively integrated with theoretically informed second-order themes consistent with the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013), drawing on organizational unlearning and regenerative supply chain literatures as sensitizing frameworks. Within-case analyses preceded cross-case comparison to identify mechanisms through which unlearning conditions the depth of structural reconfiguration at the supplier interface.

Findings

Three cross-case patterns characterize regenerative supply chain transformation. First, Creation cases embedded regenerative principles early through supplier selection based on ecological criteria, purpose-driven governance and alternative performance indicators privileging relational depth over cost efficiency. Primary challenges were external: absent standards, heterogeneous supplier capabilities, and tensions between ecological cycles and market expectations of speed and scale. Second, Conversion cases faced internally disruptive burdens. Inherited procurement routines, price-based criteria, carbon-centred metrics, and product-first logics constrained regenerative ambitions. Meaningful change required inverting the conventional sequence by grounding supply chain and product development decisions in regenerative sourcing possibilities and supplier capacities, rather than in predefined product specifications. Third, structural reconfiguration stabilized only when accompanied by the unlearning of dominant assumptions about scale, efficiency, control, and value. Where those assumptions remained institutionally entrenched, structural changes either proved superficial or were reversed under performance pressure.

The mechanism operates recursively. Unlearning rendered inherited assumptions visible and contestable; structural reconfiguration created new relational and operational arrangements; those arrangements generated feedback that further challenged or reinforced managerial assumptions. Trust-based partnerships, reciprocal knowledge exchange, and tolerance for experimentation enabled firms to translate regenerative principles into workable routines. Stable regenerative routines further require shifts in the cognitive and normative rules governing valid performance and legitimate coordination, indicating that transformation is simultaneously structural, relational, and institutional in character.

 

Value

This paper makes three contributions. First, it conceptualizes regenerative supply chain transformation as an intertwined cognitive, relational and structural change process, complementing emerging work on regenerative organizing and supply chain renewal (Gualandris et al., 2024). Second, it develops an empirically grounded comparison of Creation and Conversion pathways, showing how initial conditions and inherited architectures shape distinct transformation trajectories. Third, by integrating organizational unlearning theory, it specifies awareness, relinquishing, and relearning as mechanisms through which firms surface, question, and replace assumptions that constrain regeneration (Cegarra-Navarro and Wensley, 2019; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2025). Together, these contributions offer a process framework for scholars and practitioners navigating regenerative transformation.

Research limitations/implications:

The study is bounded by its qualitative case design, limited sample, and sectoral and geographic concentration. Findings support analytical, not statistical, generalization. Future research should pursue longitudinal, multi-tier analyses, broaden institutional contexts, and link cognitive-structural reconfiguration to measurable regenerative outcomes.

Practical implications:

Regenerative transformation requires more than redesigning supplier networks and governance structures. Managers must unlearn entrenched decision logics, including cost-efficiency scorecards, carbon-centred metrics, and audit-based compliance routines, that reproduce assumptions regeneration must displace. Creation firms should safeguard mission-aligned governance during scaling. Conversion firms benefit from deliberate unlearning routines, structured supplier accompaniment, and protected experimentation spaces.

References:

Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Di Chiacchio, L. and Cubillas-Para, C. (2025) ‘Enhancing green process innovation performance: The role of regenerative unlearning and knowledge base management’, European Management Journal, 43(4), pp. 617–627.

Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Wensley, A. (2019) ‘Promoting intentional unlearning through an unlearning cycle’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(1), pp. 67–79.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532–550.

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013) ‘Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology’, Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), pp. 15–31.

Gualandris, J., Branzei, O., Wilhelm, M., Lazzarini, S., Linnenluecke, M., Hamann, R., Dooley, K.J., Barnett, M.L. and Chen, C.-M. (2024) ‘Unchaining supply chains: Transformative leaps toward regenerating social–ecological systems’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 60(1), pp. 53–67.

Hahn, T. and Tampe, M. (2021) ‘Strategies for regenerative business’, Strategic Organization, 19(3), pp. 456–477.

Hsu, K., Shevchenko, A. and Yang‐Sun, Y.S. (2025) ‘Regeneration and Supply Chain Complexity: Insights from the Forest Sector’, Journal of Supply Chain Management [Preprint].

Yin, R.K. (2018) Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6th edn. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Purpose

The circular economy (CE) transition requires a fundamental transformation from linear to circular business models (Ekins et al., 2020). However, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face systemic barriers including limited ac-cess to secondary materials, rigid customer requirements, knowledge gaps, and constrained resources, particularly independent SMEs not integrated into large-scale supply chains (de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018). Regional circular value chains offer advantages such as reduced transportation costs, trust-building through proximity, and enhanced resilience (Ekins et al., 2020). How-ever, literature provides limited guidance on governance mechanisms enabling independent SME participation, particularly regarding trust-building, data sov-ereignty, and neutral platform coordination (Konietzko et al., 2020). This study asks whether and how a ‘neutral platform’ can provide governance mecha-nisms to overcome trust-building, data, and coordination barriers in regional SME circular value chains. Eventually, the study conceptualizes a ‘neutral plat-form’ through non-partisan governance, a transparent non-profit model, and strict data-sharing policies. It examines how neutral platform governance can enable independent SMEs in building regional circular value chains and it ap-plies participatory backcasting to develop a strategic roadmap extending to 2035. North-West Germany serves as an exploratory regional case, while the Rhine-Main region provides a comparative lens for assessing transferability.

Approach

This study integrates participatory backcasting (Kishita et al., 2024; Vergragt and Quist, 2011) with transition management frameworks (Loorbach, 2010). Backcasting, as a normative methodology, works backward from desirable fu-tures to identify necessary R&D activities, technological advances, and gov-ernance innovations. Participatory backcasting is particularly suitable here be-cause it links long-term transition visions with present-day governance choices and enables social learning among heterogeneous stakeholders under condi-tions of uncertainty. The methodology follows a five-stage framework (Quist and Vergragt, 2006): strategic problem orientation, future vision construction, backcasting analysis, action agenda elaboration, and implementation planning. The regional environment is analyzed through six organizational dimensions: resource management, human-centric transition, economic logic, socio-technical innovation, regional synergy, and organizational agility. Data collec-tion employs semi-structured interviews and iterative workshops with SMEs, industry associations, and public-private partnerships. The empirical context in-cludes automotive, aerospace/maritime, and other energy- or resource-intensive value chains. The analytical focus lies on the governance conditions for regional circular value chains with a closed-loop orientation, while acknowl-edging that partially open-loop configurations may still occur in practice. Com-parative analysis between North-West Germany and Rhine-Main assesses transferability across regions with different economic characteristics.

Preliminary Insights

Initial stakeholder analysis reveals that governance and trust-building chal-lenges often outweigh technical constraints. SMEs highlight data sovereignty, competitive information exposure, and power asymmetries as key challenges in circular material exchanges. While existing research often focuses on corpo-rate-led or client-facilitated networks (Konietzko et al., 2020), this project ex-plores neutral intermediary governance structures that exclude profit extrac-tion to address trust-related barriers. Workshops further suggest that human-centric factors (employee participation, organizational culture), as well as gov-ernance factors (trust-building, data governance, and fair value distribution) are critical preconditions for successful transition pathways, aligning with Rob-inson’s (2003) social learning perspective. Stakeholders also perceive regional circular chains as a way to reduce global supply chain dependency. Regarding transferability, preliminary insights suggest that governance conditions out-weigh on identical material loops. The backcasting process is expected to yield a prioritized roadmap addressing neutral platform governance, data protocols, trust-building for SMEs, and digital coordination infrastructure.

Value

This research addresses gaps in CE governance literature by focusing on re-gional SME networks. While Konietzko et al. (2020) address primarily corpo-rate-led contexts, our research extends participatory backcasting to independ-ent SME circular value chains and integrates governance and data sovereignty dimensions absent from technical CE frameworks. The six-dimensional struc-ture moves beyond techno-economic models by incorporating organizational culture and institutional trust-building as first-order circularity determinants. Neutral intermediary governance addresses the tension between openness and rent extraction (Konietzko et al., 2020) and extends transition management theory (Loorbach, 2010) to digital platform-mediated regional circular value chains. The comparative perspective also supports reflection on transferability beyond a single regional case.

Research Limitations / Implications

Findings are based on qualitative interviews and initial workshops. Robinson (2003) identifies ‘assumption drag’ as a persistent backcasting challenge. Im-plementation is also a weak stage in backcasting and requires sustained en-gagement beyond a 12-month timeline. Literature on neutral platform opera-tors in regional SME contexts also remains limited (Konietzko et al., 2020). In addition, guidance on how CE exchange platforms can protect competitive in-formation while enabling transparency still requires exploratory development (Wunck and Kallisch, 2022; Zichichi et al., 2020). Findings are contextualized to North-West Germany; broader applicability requires further testing.

Practical Implications

For SMEs, this research provides a diagnostic framework for assessing circular transformation readiness. Industry associations gain intermediary models for regional orchestration, while policymakers are shown the relation between technical infrastructure investments, governance infrastructure, and trust-building mechanisms. The resulting roadmap can help direct public research funding toward systematic steps for achieving circular future visions.