Many different types of barriers are possible, often dependent on firm size, location, and product or service. Barriers can be internal, meaning they act from within the firm, like company financial barriers - or they can be external, meaning that opposition comes from outside the firm, like government or policy-related barriers. Using the PESTEL framework we will look at some internal and external barriers to implementing circular business models. Policies, legislation, or regulations may influence a firm’s ability to implement circular business models. These types of political barriers to circular business models are most often external and dependent on the location of the firm. Recent research from the ICT field provides many tangible examples of how policies may affect firm’s attempts to go circular: Existing policies that incentivize recycling, incineration, or disposal over other circular strategies such as reuse and refurbishment, may affect firms looking to base their value proposition on product life extension. For example, existing extended producer responsibility policies can create competition between ICT reuse organizations and recyclers or manufacturers. Tax and labor regulations can make it challenging for firms to make the business case for repairing, refurbishing or remanufacturing products as these activities are often labor and cost intensive. Policies are usually country dependent, so firms wishing to expand internationally must adhere to all relevant regulation and provide documentation - this can be a challenge, especially for smaller firms. Many circular business models require greater upfront investment, influencing a firm’s cash flow and lengthening the time of return on investment. In addition to greater upfront investment costs, circular business models may also require additional resources, leading to higher costs. Undertaking activities such as repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing often means an increase in firm resources, including additional skilled employees. And in countries with high taxes on labor, firms may find it difficult for this to be economically feasible. Like any business model innovation, circular business models do not guarantee a return on investment. Remanufacturing and resale of existing products may cannibalize new product sales. External economic factors like high costs associated with product take-back, or the low price of virgin materials, may also discourage firms in performing circular business activities. On the social side, success of circular business offerings is shaped by consumer acceptance. Customers’ desires and pre-conceived notions largely influence their willingness to adopt circular offerings. Customers may for example purchase a new product over a remanufactured product if they believe the remanufactured product is inferior. Depending on the type of product, some consumers may also have concerns about data security or hygiene when products are reused. In many cases, consumers are open to circular offerings but are simply unaware of their existence. As a result, many organizations and governments have moved to create more awareness of such business opportunities. Technical barriers may hinder a companies’ ability to adopt circular offerings. It may not be technically possible to reuse, refurbish, or remanufacture existing products without significant labor costs or redesign. There are also concerns about technical reusability of materials or lower material quality after reuse. Existing environmentally-focused regulations may actually pose challenges to adopting circular business offerings. Uncertainty about the environmental benefits of circular offerings could also lead to hesitation in adopting circular business models, as researchers have pointed out environmental benefits are not necessarily guaranteed. Circular business models must contribute to the cycling of products and materials and replace primary production in order to contribute to environmental sustainability. Like many of the barriers previously discussed, legal issues surrounding adoption of circular business models may differ according to firm location and type. In circular business models, where product ownership is not transferred to the customer, firms must internalize legal risk. As such, companies may be resistant to extend responsibility from beyond point of sale. Possible legal action from other firms can also act as a barriers to circular business models. Intellectual property and other design rights may, for example, hinder or limit companies from reusing other firm’s products.