Towards a circular disruption: On the pivotal role of circular economy policy entrepreneurs

Abstract

The shift towards sustainable development is argued to be achieved by a circular disruption triggered or supported by circular economy (CE) policies. CE policies can pressure the disruption of currently predominant linear socio-technical systems across sectors towards a circular paradigm. Knowledge on how these policies appear on the agenda is essential to accelerate the circular disruption. Several works highlight the importance of policy entrepreneurs as agenda setters. However, they were not explored by the scholarly community on CE yet. Therefore, this article analyses the characteristics and strategies of CE policy entrepreneurs in Portugal as a circular frontrunner in the European Union (EU). Two groups of policy entrepreneurs were distinguished based on their different characteristics and strategies. Successfully driving the adoption of national CE policies required ambitious, tenacious and perfectionist CE expert(s) who create a CE vision, derive concrete solutions and gather support for their ideas, the CE initiator. Influencing CE implementation and evaluation required politically savvy CE implementers who openly and tenaciously develop projects and secure the continuous development of the policy.

From waste to market: Exploring markets, institutions, and innovation ecosystems for waste valorization

“…Focusing on a systems perspective and through a process approach, our findings complement recent studies in business strategy that address individual‐ and firm‐level viewpoints in CE transitions. For example, Droege et al (2021) show how circular disruptions are contingent on the action of policy entrepreneurs, whose success in pushing for change relies on individual attributes, such as their ambition, tenacity, and perfectionism. In an organizational perspective, Moktadir et al (2020) identify leadership and top management commitment as the most critical success factor for CE practices, raking above the existence of strong CE legislation toward CE practices.…”

Circular e‐waste ecosystems in necessity‐driven contexts: The impact of formal institutional voids

“…Given such complexity, a formal institutional environment that supports and steers actors to collaboratively engage in keeping resources at their highest value is paramount for the growth of a circular ecosystem (Fehrer et al, 2023; Konietzko et al, 2020; Susur & Engwall, 2023). Prior literature has, for example, highlighted the importance of regulations and public supportive measures (e.g., tax incentives), as well as formal agreements, certifications, and adequate market structures (e.g., Alonso‐Almeida et al, 2020; Bimonte et al, 2022; Blomsma et al, 2023; Droege et al, 2023; Fehrer et al, 2023; Konietzko et al, 2020; Parida et al, 2019; Zucchella & Previtali, 2019). Yet this body of work has, thus far, largely focused on high‐income economies; this is problematic, as findings might not be directly transferable to LMICs, for two main reasons.…”

Industry 4.0 deployment for circular economy performance—Understanding the role of green procurement and remanufacturing activities

“…The current investigation relied on socio‐technical systems theory for this purpose, drawing inspiration from prior studies (Ghadge et al, 2022; Lundgren et al, 2022; Münch et al, 2022). Organizational design is best understood through the lens of socio‐technical systems theory, which reflects an approach for thinking about how to best optimize a given system by taking into account both its human (social) and technology (technical) aspects (Droege et al, 2023; Ortt & Kamp, 2022). From the perspective of the occurrence of organizational events, the social capabilities of an organization lead to the adoption of technical systems, which in turn, translates into effective system management activities with the goal of achieving the desired process performance (Guest et al, 2022; Münch et al, 2022).…”