Search

The environmental, social and economic limits and shortcomings of the current linear model of production and consumption highlight the necessity of a rapid transition towards a sustainable paradigm. The concept of a circular economy has recently gained traction among scholars, policy‐makers and businesses as a promising alternative. Yet our understanding of how to speed up the systemic transition from a linear economy paradigm towards a circular economy paradigm is lacking. In this paper, we address this research gap by introducing the concept of 'circular disruption' and by describing how such a disruption may unfold. To do so, we build on S‐curve thinking and the concept of panarchy. Based on the resulting synthesis, we propose three phases that constitute the core of the disruption process: (1) the release phase, (2) the reorganisation phase and (3) the eruption phase. We then operationalise these three phases for different enabling innovation system functions and illustrate our observations with examples for the textile and fashion sector. We discuss how each of the three disruption phases can be accelerated to quickly create an opening for the new circular paradigm. The proposed circular disruption framework offers novel insights on socio‐technical transitions and changes and contributes to strengthening a systemic and theoretically grounded approach to circular economy research. Scholars and practitioners alike may take advantage of this work to focus circular economy efforts on speed and scale—an urgently needed focus to start tackling the sustainability challenges humankind is currently facing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dominant conception of the circular economy presents it as a politically neutral, technology-driven process of efficiency improvements and green market expansion. However, it does not consider the social embedding of circularity and thereby risks undermining the transition out of de facto linear economies. This paper begins with a critique of the dominant conception of the circular economy and its shortcomings in relation to allocation, justice, and sustainable scale. Second, the paper contributes toward theorizing an alternative, social economy-based embedding of circularity. We theorize how the social economy embeds circularity through: (1) business models reflecting the needs and interests of their stakeholders and, with them, a primacy of social value creation; (2) production and consumption based on active citizen involvement in deliberation and decision-making; (3) an approach to technology that seeks to empower technology users; and (4) the promotion of regional economies and circular value chains based on a sense of place. Our theory propositions are inspired by prior empirical research at the intersection of the circular economy and the social economy. We discuss the potential and the challenges of a social economy embedding of circularity against the background of vested interests and incumbents profiting from low circularity and unsustainability. • A critique of circular economy in relation to allocation, justice and scale. • A novel theoretical approach to social economy-based embedding of circularity. • Theory propositions about business, governance, technology and environment. • Reasons for stasis and for transformation toward socially embedded circularity. • Examples of social economy-embedded circularity from cooperatives and nonprofits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A constructive and nuanced discussion on the flaws of academic publishing is still lacking. • Such flaws are a symptom of a broader trend towards academic marketization. • We discuss the two dimensions of marketization: the transformation of academic output into marketable goods and the 'managerialization' of academia. • Sustainability research is especially vulnerable to marketization because of its broader set of values. • We discuss possible ways forward in terms of academic organizational structures, research methods and funding, and publishing outlets. Scholars have long called out the flaws in academic publishing. However, a nuanced and constructive discussion of this issue is still lacking. We advocate that these flaws are symptoms of broader and intensifying marketization of academic research. To address this, we first discuss the two dimensions of marketization: the commodification of academic output and the 'managerialization' of academic governance. We then argue that sustainability research is especially vulnerable to marketization trends because of its broader set of values that cannot merely be reflected in academic output. We illustrate these values by discussing the nature of the challenges faced by sustainability researchers, their relationships with non-academic stakeholders, and the intrinsic normativity of their research. We explore potential ways forward to reform existing academic organizational structures and research funding system, embrace more inclusive and democratic research approaches, and support the development of nonprofit open-access journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The circular economy (CE) concept is much-heralded among policy-makers, scholars and industry professionals as an accelerated pathway towards sustainability. This move away from the dominant linear system where products are discarded at the end of product lifecycle is deemed necessary since it is the main cause of an accelerated resource consumption. Business models are considered as a key enabler for the shift from a linear to a CE. However, research on circular business models has mainly focused on circular approaches adopted by incumbent firms, while the contributions of newly established firms (the authors call these 'circular start-ups') have been largely overlooked. This article scrutinises the business models of circular start-ups and how they may differ from those of incumbent firms embracing CE. For this, it analyses the circular business model strategies and innovations adopted by circular start-ups, relying on a novel data sample of 128 circular start-ups identified in three major CE ecosystems in Europe: the Randstad region in the Netherlands, Berlin and London. Based on this data, a novel typology of circular start-ups is proposed, distinguishing between five circular start-up archetypes: design-based, waste-based, platform-based, service-based and nature-based start-ups. The results also show that circular start-ups tend to embrace strategies corresponding to higher levels of circularity than those of incumbents. This preliminarily suggests that circular start-ups can indeed make major contributions to transitioning towards CE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]