CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Strategies for circular economy in the Nordics: a comparative analysis of directionality

Wardeberg, Mari, Brynthe Lund, Henrik, Hanson, Jens, Kärki, Riina, Rekosuo, Linda, Tenhuen-Lunkka, Anna, Palola, Sarianna·2024·Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society
DOI 10.1093/cjres/rsae017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this paper we mobilize sustainability transitions literature to explore directionality for circular economy (CE) transitions, by drawing on and adapting a framework for analysing roadmaps to empirically investigate CE strategies. Specifically, this paper explores circular economy CE strategy documents in the Nordics, the commonalities and differences between them and to what extent they provide directionality for CE transitions. Through a systematic document analysis of 39 CE strategy documents, we find that the strategy documents are vague and lack clear political visions. As such, we argue that the documents fail to provide clear directionality for CE transitions and question their usefulness. Additionally, the paper demonstrates how CE strategy documents can contribute to promoting the development of industries that couple to national ambitions for the development of new, green industries.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cjres/rsae017

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. AlMalki, 2023, Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model, Management Review Quarterly, 73, 731, 10.1007/s11301-022-00259-8 · DOI
  2. Avelino, 2009, Empowerment and the challenge of applying transition management to ongoing projects, Policy Sciences, 42, 369, 10.1007/s11077-009-9102-6 · DOI
  3. Avelino, 2019, Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 195, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.002 · DOI
  4. Bergek, 2023, Directionality challenges for transformative innovation policy: lessons from implementing climate goals in the process industry, Industry and Innovation, 30, 1110, 10.1080/13662716.2022.2163882 · DOI
  5. Berkhout, 2006, Normative expectations in systems innovation, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18, 299, 10.1080/09537320600777010 · DOI
  6. Boons, 2013, Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: an overview, Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 1, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013 · DOI
  7. Borup, 2006, The sociology of expectations in science and technology, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18, 285, 10.1080/09537320600777002 · DOI
  8. Bowen, 2009, Document analysis as a qualitative research method, Qualitative Research Journal, 9, 27, 10.3316/QRJ0902027 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Chizaryfard, 2021, The transformation to a circular economy: Framing an evolutionary view, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 31, 475, 10.1007/s00191-020-00709-0 · DOI
  10. Circular Cities & Regions Initiative, 2022, Operation of the Circular Cities and Regions Initiative’s Coordination & Support Office (CCRI-CSO). 2nd CCRI R&I Gaps and Policy Report
  11. EESC, 2019, Circular economy strategies and roadmaps in Europe: Identifying synergies and the potential for cooperation and alliance building
  12. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015, Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe
  13. EMF, 2015, Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe
  14. Geels, 2006, Multi-level perspective on system innovation: relevance for industrial transformation, 163, 10.1007/1-4020-4418-6_9 · DOI
  15. Geels, 2004, From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory, Research Policy, 33, 897, 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Geels, 2007, Dynamics in socio-technical systems: typology of change processes and contrasting case studies, Technology in Society, 29, 441, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.009 · DOI
  17. Geels, 2007, Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, 399
  18. Geissdoerfer, 2020, Circular business models: a review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123741, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Ghisellini, 2016, A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems, Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Government Offices of Sweden, 2020, Circular economy – strategy for the transition in Sweden
  21. Grillitsch, 2019, Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: the case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden, Research Policy, 48, 1048, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.004 · DOI
  22. Hansen, 2015, The geography of sustainability transitions: review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 92, 10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001 · DOI
  23. Henderson, 1990, Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9, 10.2307/2393549 · DOI
  24. Hermann, 2022, Socio-technical imaginaries of a circular economy in governmental discourse and among science, technology, and innovation actors: a Norwegian case study, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, 121903, 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121903 · DOI
  25. Hull, 2008, Policy integration: what will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities, Transport Policy, 15, 94, 10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.004 · DOI
  26. Jakobsen, 2022, Policy action for green restructuring in specialized industrial regions, European Urban and Regional Studies, 29, 312, 10.1177/09697764211049116 · DOI
  27. Kautto, 2020, Between a policy mix and a policy mess: policy instruments and instrumentation for the circular economy, 207, 10.4337/9781788972727.00025 · DOI
  28. Kemp, 1998, Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10, 175, 10.1080/09537329808524310 · DOI
  29. Kirchherr, 2018, Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European Union (EU), Ecological Economics, 150, 264, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Kirchherr, 2017, Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions, SSRN Electronic Journal, 127, 221
  31. Kirchherr, 2023, Conceptualizing the circular economy (Revisited): an analysis of 221 definitions, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194, 107001, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001 · DOI
  32. Kivimaa, 2021, Moving beyond disruptive innovation: a review of disruption in sustainability transitions, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 38, 110, 10.1016/j.eist.2020.12.001 · DOI
  33. Klima- og Miljødepartementet, 2021, Nasjonal strategi for ein grøn, sirkulær økonomi
  34. Köhler, 2019, An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1, 10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Konrad, 2017, Performing and governing the future in science and technology, 465
  36. Kovacic, 2020, The Circular Economy in Europe: Critical Perspectives on Policies and Imaginaries
  37. Liu, 2018, Are exports of recyclables from developed to developing countries waste pollution transfer or part of the global circular economy, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 22, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.005 · DOI
  38. Lund, 2022, The influence of Industry 4.0 narratives on regional path development, Regional Studies, Regional Science, 9, 82, 10.1080/21681376.2022.2029552 · DOI
  39. Mäkitie, 2023, Digital innovation’s contribution to sustainability transitions, Technology in Society, 73, 102255, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102255 · DOI
  40. Marjanović, 2022, Uncovering the holistic pathways to circular cities-the case of Alberta, Canada, 1, 65
  41. Markard, 2012, Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects, Research Policy, 41, 955, 10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013 · DOI
  42. Mazzucato, 2018, Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities, Industrial and Corporate Change, 27, 803, 10.1093/icc/dty034 · DOI
  43. Merli, 2018, How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 703, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112 · DOI
  44. Miedzinski, 2019, A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy roadmapping for the SDGs: the case of plastic-free oceans, UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper Series (IIPP WP 2019-03)
  45. Miedzinski, 2022, Paving the pathways towards sustainable future? A critical assessment of STI policy roadmaps as policy instruments for sustainability transitions, Futures, 142, 103015, 10.1016/j.futures.2022.103015 · DOI
  46. Miljøministeriet, 2021, Handlingsplan for cirkulær økonomi. National plan for forebyggelse og håndtering af affald 2020-2032
  47. Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, 2022, Norway’s Battery Strategy
  48. OECD, 2008, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook
  49. Office of the Prime Minister, 2021, Hurdalsplattformen
  50. Parks, 2022, Directionality in transformative innovation policy: Who is giving directions, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43, 1, 10.1016/j.eist.2022.02.005 · DOI
  51. Potting, 2017, Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain
  52. Reike, 2023, Understanding circular economy transitions: the case of circular textiles, Business Strategy and the Environment, 32, 1032, 10.1002/bse.3114 · DOI
  53. Rogge, 2016, Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis, Research Policy, 45, 1620, 10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Schot, 2018, Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change, Research Policy, 47, 1554, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011 · DOI
  55. Sepponen, 2023, Low-Carbon Circular Transition in the Nordics, 10.6027/temanord2023-504 · DOI
  56. Smith, 2012, What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability, Research Policy, 41, 1025, 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Tapia, 2021, Towards a territorial definition of a circular economy: exploring the role of territorial factors in closed-loop systems, European Planning Studies, 29, 1, 10.1080/09654313.2020.1867511 · DOI
  58. Wanzenböck, 2020, A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: alternative pathways through the problem–solution space, Science and Public Policy, 47, 474
  59. Weber, 2012, Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework, Research Policy, 41, 1037, 10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Wuyts, 2023, The development of spatial circularity discourse in Japan: ecomodernist, territorialised, or both? The story of onomichi’s wastescapes, Circular Economy and Sustainability, 3, 1649, 10.1007/s43615-021-00146-6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wardeberg, M., Brynthe Lund, H., Hanson, J., Kärki, R., Rekosuo, L., Tenhuen-Lunkka, A., & Palola, S.
Venue
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2024-06-13
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
443-457
ISSN
  • 1752-1378
  • 1752-1386
DOI
10.1093/cjres/rsae017
Cited by
14
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review