面對資源枯竭與氣候變遷的全球性挑戰，循環經濟已成為推動企業邁向永續發展的關鍵驅動力。ECOCO 作為台灣循環經濟的領導品牌，秉持「價值共創」的核心理念，致力於透過制度創新與市場誘因，將循環經濟融入消費者的日常生活，並構建一個兼具經濟效益與環境保護的平衡生態系統。本研究的核心問題為：「如何透過循環經濟模式建立促進價值共創的商業制度？」
本研究運用質性研究方法，聚焦於 ECOCO 在多種情境下的實踐案例，分析其如何藉由創新回收技術、即時點數回饋系統及多方協同策略，有效改變消費者行為，同時促成企業合作夥伴的共同參與，實現環保與商業利益的雙贏。
ECOCO 巧妙結合即時經濟誘因與消費者教育，成功將回收轉化為一種趣味十足且可持續的生活方式，建立了一個多方共贏的資源循環模式，讓消費者、合作夥伴及政策機構共享回收所創造的價值。此外，ECOCO 在制度興業中的領導角色亦尤為重要，其積極與政策制定者及地方政府合作，借助政策支持來擴大品牌的影響力，並深化大眾對循環經濟的認知與參與。這種創新的制度設計，將環保行為轉化為兼具經濟價值與社會意義的消費選擇，進一步提升資源回收的社會參與度，強化環境友善行為的普及。
ECOCO 的實踐案例顯示，當品牌整合經濟激勵、政策支持與價值共創，可在市場中取得競爭優勢，還能引領消費行為的轉型與社會變革，成為推動永續未來的關鍵力量。這是一場循環經濟的創新突破，更是一幅描繪資源永續與環境友善社會的藍圖，展示出品牌如何在經濟效益、環境友善與社會影響力間取得多重成就。

In response to global challenges of resource depletion and climate change, circular economy has emerged as a critical framework for corporate sustainability. This study investigates how ECOCO, a pioneering circular economy enterprise in Taiwan, implements value co-creation principles to catalyze systemic transformation, focusing on how circular economy models can establish institutional frameworks that facilitate stakeholder network engagement.
Employing qualitative methodological approaches, the research examines ECOCO's implementation across multiple operational contexts. The analysis centers on integrating innovative recycling technologies, real-time incentive mechanisms, and multi-stakeholder engagement strategies. Empirical data gathered through semi-structured interviews, organizational documentation, and field observations reveal three fundamental dimensions: collaborative innovation, resource optimization, and institutional transformation.
The findings demonstrate that ECOCO has successfully synthesized behavioral economics principles with environmental education initiatives, reconceptualizing recycling as an engaging and sustainable practice. The enterprise's institutional entrepreneurship is particularly significant in proactively collaborating with policy stakeholders and local governance structures to amplify impact and deepen public engagement in circular economy practices.
The case analysis illustrates that strategically integrating economic incentives, policy alignment, and value co-creation not only establishes competitive advantage but also catalyzes behavioral transformation and societal change. This research contributes theoretical insights into value co-creation and institutional entrepreneurship within circular economy contexts while offering practical guidance for sustainable business model development.

An, E. (2015). action plan for the Circular Economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions closing the loop. Brussels, 2.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management.
Battilana, J., & D’aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations, 31, 58.
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 how actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management annals, 3(1), 65-107.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing theory, 11(1), 35-49.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business Review Press google schola, 2, 155-194.
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: it's not just about technology anymore. Strategy & leadership, 35(6), 12-17.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment/Ballinger.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Corporate views of the public interest. In: Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510.
Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. In (Vol. 28, pp. 957-969): Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of cleaner production, 143, 757-768.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 41, 133-150.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of management review, 31(4), 864-888.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, conservation and recycling, 127, 221-232.
Kshetri, N. (2018). 1 Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. International Journal of information management, 39, 80-89.
Kvale, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
Lewandowski, M. (2016). Designing the business models for circular economy—Towards the conceptual framework. Sustainability, 8(1), 43.
Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of cleaner production, 115, 36-51.
Lüdeke‐Freund, F., Gold, S., & Bocken, N. M. (2019). A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 36-61.
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation. MIS quarterly, 39(1), 155-176.
MacArthur, E. (2013). Towards the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2(1), 23-44.
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of management journal, 47(5), 657-679.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36, 83-96.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation. Journal of business research, 84, 196-205.
Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2020). The co-creation paradigm. Stanford University Press.
Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage publications.
Spradley, B. W. (1980). Managing change creatively. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 10(5), 32-36.
Stahel, W. R. (2016). The circular economy. Nature, 531(7595), 435-438.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. OUP Oxford.
Tukker, A. (2015). Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy–a review. Journal of cleaner production, 97, 76-91.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
Wieland, H., Polese, F., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). Toward a service (eco) systems perspective on value creation. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET), 3(3), 12-25.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Zhang, C., Hu, M., Di Maio, F., Sprecher, B., Yang, X., & Tukker, A. (2022). An overview of the waste hierarchy framework for analyzing the circularity in construction and demolition waste management in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 803, 149892.
工商時報. (2024a). ECOCO打造智慧回收新未來，億元Pre-A輪募資已成功完成，頂固開發、台塑生醫領投，同時吸引多家機構投資者參與. https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20240320700191-439901
工商時報. (2024b). 循環經濟週 經濟部展出中油「海木耳」保養產品. https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20240919701949-430104
中華新聞網. (2024). 新北市首座淨零碳認證循環方舟 愛買三重店站1月18日亮相登場. https://www.cdns.com.tw/articles/946098
行政院. (2018). 循環經濟推動方案. https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/18ef26a4-5d05-4fb3-963e-6b228e713576
宏碁. (2023). 永續材料管理. https://www.acer.com/sustainability/zh/circular-economies-and-innovation/model-of-circular-economies/sustainable-raw-materials-management
杜鵬, 李慶芳, 周信輝, & 方世杰. (2017). [(創) 串新] 的服務模式: 以價值共創觀點探索尚品 宅配的服務流程與本質. Journal of Management & Business Research (2521-4306), 34(3).
涂敏芬. (2012). 對抗制度的創新: 策略行動者的能動性實踐. 臺大管理論叢, 22(2), 87-118.
涂敏芬, & 洪世章. (2016). 建構服務創新的制度工作. 臺大管理論叢, 27(1), 129-154.
經濟日報. (2024a). 三商餐飲首度攜手成大設置ECOCO智慧回收機 年減碳排放量預估超過4000公斤. https://money.udn.com/money/story/7843/8322910
經濟日報. (2024b). 環境部特選！大云智慧永續方案助力實踐淨零目標. https://money.udn.com/money/story/5635/8261451
聯合新聞網. (2024a). 台塑生醫布局綠色循環經濟 投資「ECOCO智慧回收機」. https://udn.com/news/story/7241/7863208
聯合新聞網. (2024b). 花蓮智慧回收機啟用 24小時回收還可集點換購物金. https://udn.com/news/story/7328/8256175
聯合新聞網. (2024c). 南亞與宜可可公司簽署MOU 共同建構寶特瓶回收再生網絡. https://udn.com/news/story/7241/8357094