Implementing the circular economy in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area: The interplay between market actors mediated by transition brokers

Abstract

This paper analyses the interplay between regime and niche actors in implementing the circular economy through mediation by transition brokers. The study is based on ‘action research’ carried out in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. Innovation science is adopted as theoretical approach. First, the analysis shows that more ambitious initiatives could be taken than by individual market actors. Whether these circular initiatives represent just incremental change—as other studies suggest—cannot be concluded. Rather, it is plausible to conceptualise the transition process as a continuous transformational change. Second, in creating circular initiatives, the interplay between regime and niche actors was evident but varied. Actors could team up more easily where their interests aligned. This conclusion corresponds with recent innovation literature, which emphasises the importance of linkages between processes at niche, regime and landscape levels. Before generalising the results, similar studies in other regional contexts would be valuable. Short informative In moving to a circular economy, the willingness of market actors to innovate is crucial. Real‐life experiments on the implementation of circular initiatives built by market actors at local level through the mediation of independent intermediaries (here called ‘transition brokers’) are scarce. This study aims to bridge this knowledge gap by focussing on the interplay between niche and regime actors. Action research on implementing the circular economy programme in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (2015–2020) represents an example. Innovation science is adopted as leading theoretical approach. The case shows that more advanced ambitions could be achieved than through individual market actors by themselves. Whether the circular initiatives built represent just incremental change—as suggested in the few other studies—is considered too simplistic. It is concluded to conceptualise the CE transition rather as a continuous, transformational change which takes time. The interplay between niche and regime actors was evident in the case but varied. Niche actors could team up more easily with regime actors where their interests coincided. Niche CE innovations did not necessarily develop in protected environments, as suggested by early MLP studies. They could diffuse more widely if they link up with ongoing processes at regime and landscape level. This conclusion corresponds with the more recent innovation literature.

A Review of Circular Economy Studies in Developed Countries and Its Potential Adoption in Developing Countries

“…Urban, municipal and metropolitan areas were the topics of discussion in a vast number of the articles as there are increasing concerns for implementation and transition of circular economy in these areas. Most of the publications cited countries and cities in Europe as case studies for the implementation of circular economy in urban, municipal and metropolitan areas [35][36][37]. The third group of industries commonly mentioned in the papers was the metal and steel industries, energy industries and the food and agriculture industries which had a 9% respectively.…”

The transition from linear economy to circular economy for sustainability among SMEs: A study on prospects, impediments, and prerequisites

“…This phenomenon will decrease waste and provide the resources for production (Barquet, Järnberg, Rosemarin, & Macura, 2020). But the transition from an LE to CE is not an easy path as its fruitful results (Cramer, 2020). European Commission emphasized in a study that two key actors (business and consumers) play a crucial role in the transition towards CE (Barreiro‐Gen & Lozano, 2020).…”

Stakeholder Perspectives in Transitioning to a Local Circular Economy: a Case Study in Spain

“…This sort of actor mediates both the process and content in building circular initiatives. This type of stakeholder approaches other stakeholders, notably local government and other business stakeholders [18], as part of a system [82].…”

“…However, CE implementation through IS remains a niche paradigm, embraced by only a small number of companies within a limited number of industries in some areas of the world [17][18][19], and such a low level of implementation is a drawback to the advancement of the CE at a global scale [20]. One key factor that is claimed to be crucial for allowing the transformation from the linear model to a circular model through IS is a cooperation between stakeholders [21], insofar as some authors have argued that it is essential to encourage different stakeholders to increase uptake of this new model among companies [22].…”