Circular Economy in the Triple Helix of Innovation Systems

Abstract

The Triple Helix concept of innovation systems holds that consensus space among industry, government and university is required to bring together their competences to achieve enhanced economic and social development on a systemic scale. In line with this argument, this article analyses empirically how the concept of circular economy is conceived in the institutional spheres of "industry", "government" and "university". Innovation systems are constantly being reconstructed through knowledge production and communication, which is reflected in how concepts develop in the different spheres. By applying natural language processing tools to key contributions from each of the three spheres (the "Triple Helix"), it is shown that, although institutional backgrounds do contribute to differing conceptualizations of circular economy, there is a substantial but limited conceptual consensus space, which, according to the Triple Helix, should open new opportunities for innovations. The consensus space shared across the three spheres focuses on materials and products and sees circular economy as a way to create new resources, businesses and products from waste. The industry sphere highlights business opportunities on global scale, which are also evident in the government sphere. The government sphere connects circular economy to waste-related innovation policies targeted at industrial renewal, economic growth, investments and jobs. The university sphere, in turn, focuses on production and environmental issues, waste and knowledge, and is rather distinct from the two other spheres. The importance of the differing conceptions of circular economy is based on the logic of Triple Helix systems. Accordingly, sufficient consensus between the Triple Helix spheres can advance the application of the concept of circular economy beyond the individual spheres to achieve systemic changes.

Hybridizing the Triple Helix: A prerequisite for managing wicked issues

“…We know, however, that if an organization is to fully exploit its hybridity and to leverage its hybridity to its advantage, then a fusion of logics needs to take place, thereby resulting in the emergence of a new “hybrid logic” (Anttonen et al, 2018; Jay, 2013). In order for this to happen, a platform where conflicting identities/logics can meet and interact with each other needs to be created within an organization (Anttonen et al, 2018). Some researchers refer to this as a space of negotiations and others as a consensus space (Anttonen et al, 2018).…”

“…In order for this to happen, a platform where conflicting identities/logics can meet and interact with each other needs to be created within an organization (Anttonen et al, 2018). Some researchers refer to this as a space of negotiations and others as a consensus space (Anttonen et al, 2018). Whatever term is used, these spaces are places where tensions that the hybridity creates are dealt with, by means of discussion and coordination of activities (Battilana et al., 2015).…”

“…Hybrid organizations are not new phenomena (Bozeman, 1987; Dahl & Lindblom, 1953). The attention given to “hybridization” with respect to organizations, however, seems to have increased during the last decades and we have seen a growing number of cross‐sector collaborations and boundary spanning activities (Anttonen, Lammi, Mykkänen, & Repo, 2018; Ferlie, Fitzgerald, Dopson, & Bennett, 2011; Head & Alford, 2015; Jay, 2013). For public sector scholars, the blurring of sectors is associated with the marketization process that followed in the wake of New Public Management (Grossi, Reichard, Thomasson, & Vakkuri, 2017).…”

“…This blurring of sectors does not only occur in the intersection of public and private sectors, however. Hybrid organizations also emerge in the intersection of the private sector and civil society, the private sector and academia, and the public sector and civil society (Seibel, 2015; Ferlie et al., 2011; Anttonen et al., 2018). These hybrid constellations are often established as platforms for resource sharing and creativity, as well as to spur on technical and social innovations that can meet today's complex and “wicked” problems (Head & Alford, 2015; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2012; Anttonen et al., 2018).…”

A Study on Sustaining Corporate Innovation with E-Commerce in China

“…Yun and Liu (2019) developed a conceptual framework for "open innovation" by examining the previous literature at both a micro and macro level [11]. Other studies also show that ICT and e-marketplaces may be a foundation for corporations to promote innovation [12][13][14][15]. The development of e-commerce in China provides a good opportunity for research in this field.…”