In recent years, the circular economy (CE) model has emerged as a central approach to reconcile ecological sustainability with the organisation of production and consumption. In industrial contexts, CE transformation represents a move away from linear throughput models toward systems that recirculate materials, redesign production, and align technological, institutional, and market structures with regenerative principles. However, industrial change unfolds within inherited production, governance, and spatial arrangements that constrain what firms perceive as feasible. In this perspective paper, we examine how CE ambitions interact with the structural realities of process industries. We consider whether sectors such as steel and pulp and paper can achieve comprehensive circular transformation without addressing the technological, institutional, and temporal tensions that operate within specific spatial contexts.

We argue that despite the well-intentioned goals of CE, its implementation can encounter persistent structural challenges. We identify three core structural tensions related to technology, institutions, and time, each of which is shaped by spatial conditions. These tensions influence how organisations balance efficiency, legitimacy, and long-term adaptation. The analysis shows that pulp and paper benefits from regional governance, coordination, and gradual experimentation. In contrast, steel faces technological lock in, centralised systems, and long investment cycles that restrict transformative outcomes and often produce symbolic rather than systemic circular progress.

The mining sector, like other sectors of the economy, is under increasing pressure to adopt circular economy (CE) principles across its value chains and core operations. This paper offers a critical and conceptually grounded contribution to understanding how CE can support systemic transformation in one of the most resource-intensive and path-dependent sectors of the global economy. It examines the structural and institutional conditions that shape the adoption of CE in mining and identifies key tensions that constrain or enable transformative change. In parallel, the paper explores emerging pathways informed by technological innovation, shifts in production routines, and the rise of new circular business models. These insights are synthesised into a multi-level framework that captures the dynamic interactions between micro-, meso-, and macro-level processes shaping CE transitions. In addition to offering a diagnostic perspective, the framework outlines concrete action points for advancing systemic change.

 The circular economy (CE) is now a cornerstone of global environmental policy. However, current debates often frame CE as a future-oriented strategy to be adopted or scaled, implicitly assuming that emerging economies and the Global South are starting from strictly linear conditions. Drawing on practice-oriented and institutional perspectives, this paper reconceptualizes CE as a set of already-operating, economically rational practices—such as repair, reuse, and informal material circulation. We argue that the central governance challenge in these contexts is not the introduction of CE from scratch, but understanding how existing circularity is recognized, reorganized, or displaced during institutionalization. By synthesizing research across capability, governance, transition, and justice-oriented framings, we illustrate how dominant models neglect everyday circularity as “informal” rather than constitutive of the system. We develop a practice-based translation perspective to distinguish between practices of CE and CE in practice, elucidating how these processes shape value creation and power relations. Ultimately, this paper posits that emerging economies are not merely “catching up,” but are analytically informative settings for understanding circular governance under constraint. We conclude by outlining implications for transformative and mission-oriented innovation policy. 

This paper reorients the focus of circular economy (CE) transitions by introducing the concept of locally embedded circular economy systems (LECES). Rather than treating local economies as passive recipients of global CE strategies, the paper positions them as active arenas for reconfiguring industrial logics, institutional arrangements, and resource flows. It argues that a shift toward LECES is essential for fostering inclusive, resilient, and context-sensitive pathways to circularity. The paper develops a framework to explore how circularity can serve as a catalyst for local economic revitalisation. It highlights the significance of place-based capabilities, traditional practices, local innovation systems, and inter-firm collaboration in shaping circular trajectories grounded in local specificities. The analysis identifies three interrelated pillars for embedding CE within local economies. First, Institutional anchoring refers to how local governance structures and civic engagement shape norms, policies, and regulatory frameworks. Second, Industrial integration highlights how firms collaborate to establish closed-loop systems within and across sectors. Third, Cultural and material embeddedness underscores how local traditions, identities, and resource regimes inform circular practices.

Over the past few decades, the circular economy (CE) has shifted from a normative sustainability vision to a dominant framework in policy agendas, corporate strategies, and academic research. In Europe, for instance, CE has evolved into a pivotal strategy for tackling environmental issues and decreasing the negative impact of high-emitting sectors by translating CE principles into proactive tools encouraging the green transition of European economies. However, while widely promoted as a response to climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion, the CE has also attracted increasing scrutiny due to limited real-world impacts, rebound effects, and the persistence of efficiency-oriented approaches that leave prevailing production and consumption patterns largely unchallenged. To address this tension, this paper presents an analysis of 1,533 CE papers in the context of European countries, focusing on dominant research themes, intellectual structures, and emerging trends in the field. Our findings demonstrate the growing role of the “utopia – paralysis” tension, the relational turn beyond technocentric circularity, circular business model innovation, coopetition initiatives, platformization of the CE, just transition, and circular justice. Furthermore, alongside these dominant themes, we assess the visibility and positioning of sufficiency and regenerative economy perspectives within the broader CE literature. By situating these emerging concepts within the evolving research landscape, the paper contributes to ongoing debates on the maturity, direction, and transformative ambition of the CE as a sustainability paradigm.

 Green finance (GF) has emerged as a key policy instrument for advancing the circular economy (CE), yet its impact varies considerably across OECD countries. Existing research has not sufficiently examined how institutional, technological, and cultural contexts shape this relationship. This paper addresses this gap by integrating multiple theoretical perspectives: neo-institutional theory, green multi-stakeholder theory, innovation diffusion theory, and the technology–organization–environment framework, to investigate the moderating and mediating roles of cultural diversity, technological innovation, and digitalization in the GF–CE nexus. Drawing on a panel dataset covering OECD countries from 2014 to 2023 and applying fixed-effects regression analysis, we find a generally positive association between GF and CE investments. However, moderated-mediation effects reveal more complex dynamics. Technological innovation and digitalization significantly moderate the GF–CE relationship, while only digitalization exerts a positive mediating influence. Cultural diversity exhibits a dual effect: It mediates the GF–CE relationship positively but moderates it negatively. Moreover, subgroup analysis indicates that in highly circular OECD economies, GF may generate diminishing or even negative returns, particularly by constraining technological innovation. These findings highlight the contingent nature of GF effectiveness and carry important implications for tailoring CE policies to different institutional and technological contexts.

 Purpose

The innovation activities of firms are shaped by a variety of barriers that can, paradoxically, either stimulate or hinder their innovation performance. Collaboration among ecosystem partners is often essential for navigating these challenges, particularly in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, where persistent shortages of resources and skills make external support crucial. Despite its importance, collaboration does not uniformly yield positive outcomes and can exert a double-edged influence on innovation processes. This study examines whether innovation barriers are transformed into product and process innovations through different types of collaboration and how these mediation patterns unfold in catching-up CEE economies

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze how innovation barriers influence the innovativeness of firms, using a sample of 4,230 firms across eight CEE states. Firm-level data are drawn from the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) and capture innovation barriers, product and process innovations, and three collaboration types: private market, value chain and public research. The model focuses on the mediating role of these collaboration types and includes a multi-group comparison between firms collaborating only domestically and those engaged with foreign partners

Findings

Our findings show that value-chain ties consistently channel innovation barriers into process innovation, while product innovations require public research linkages to be present. Interestingly, we show that private market ties can boost process innovation but also play an unsuccessful role in mediating innovation barriers to new products. When considering firms' international engagement, those linked with foreign cooperation partners benefit more from the public research route to product novelty, while domestically oriented firms rely more strongly on value-chain collaboration for process upgrading

Originality/value

This paper contributes by treating collaboration as a partner-specific mediating mechanism rather than a generic enabler and by introducing a threefold distinction between private market, value-chain and public research collaboration. It provides context-sensitive evidence from underexplored CEE innovation systems on how distinct collaboration modes convert innovation barriers into product and process innovations and how these effects differ between nationally and internationally oriented firms.

Purpose

This study aims to analyze the implications of the recent European Union Regulation 2023/1542 on the circular economy and stakeholder strategies within the electric vehicle lithium-ion battery (EV-LIB) sector. It aims to explain the policy intentions, recommend practical strategies for stakeholders and examine how the new regulation exerts pressure on stakeholders to transition from older directives to more sustainable practices and operational standards, while also highlighting policy gaps.

Design/methodology/approach

The research employs a dual-method approach, combining text analysis of EU legislation with semi-structured interviews of industry stakeholders. This methodology allows for a comprehensive understanding of the regulatory impacts by integrating legislative intent with practical, on-the-ground insights from key players in the EV-LIB sector.

Findings

Our findings show that the three aggregated dimensions of operational sustainability, R&D and new technologies and collaborative dynamics are the key dynamics underlying the intended outcomes. The findings also highlight the policy’s historical development, the stakeholder categories, the implications for each and practical recommendations in responding to the policy requirements. Additionally, the findings identify policy gaps, such as weak incentives and broad economic operator classifications, with examples from international markets. The regulation creates proactive stakeholders driving innovation and collaboration and reactive ones adapting to changes, where static implicit implications may affect their viability by imposing unequal burdens.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to analyze the new EU Regulation 2023/1542, offering novel insights into the strategic responses required by stakeholders to adapt to the regulatory pressures. By focusing on the latest regulatory framework and its practical implications, the study bridges the gap between policy and practice, providing valuable guidance for industry players navigating the evolving regulatory environment.Highlights 

(1) EU’s policy shift from Directive to Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 has extended implications on the Electric Vehicles battery sector.

(2) Duel qualitative methods of text analysis and semi-structured interviews validated three aggregate dimensions and policy gaps.

(3) R&D with advancing technology, Operational sustainability and safety and Collaboration dynamics are dominating the scene.

(4) Emergence of Proactive vs Reactive stakeholder dynamics.

(5) The broad classification of “economic operators” and insufficiently detailed incentives, hinting at potential competitive imbalances and underexplored roles of end-users in achieving circular economy goals are appearing policy’ gaps.

The global expansion of solar energy presents a paradox: while it is a key sustainable technology, a comprehensive waste management strategy for decommissioned solar panels remains insufficient. Previous studies have examined this issue, yet waste volume estimations remain incomplete due to the exclusion of early waste streams and the failure to account for temporal fluctuations in key variables. This study addresses these gaps by employing System Dynamics Modelling (SDM) to capture a more nuanced understanding of the heterogeneity of decommissioned panels. The findings reveal significant discrepancies between projections from conventional static models and those generated by the developed model, underscoring the need for more adaptive forecasting methods that account for temporal variations and the evolving characteristics of decommissioned panels. Furthermore, this paper highlights the inefficiencies of uniform waste management approaches, emphasizing the need for differentiated strategies based on panel characteristics. Crucially, the findings challenge the recycling-centric paradigm by exposing the overlooked potential of functional discarded panels, advocating for circular strategies that prioritize reuse and secondary markets.