Contemporary Social Science

Circular Economy Innovation: Missions, Governance and Practice

Over the past decade, the circular economy (CE) has become a central organising concept within sustainability, industrial and innovation policy at global, national and regional levels. More recently, CE strategies have increasingly been framed through mission-oriented innovation policy, positioning circularity as a systemic transformation rather than a collection of discrete technological or business model interventions (Hekkert et al., 2020). This has been accompanied by a rapidly expanding academic literature.

However, despite this growth, important social science gaps remain. Recent reviews confirm that CE research continues to be dominated by technical, managerial and environmental perspectives, with comparatively limited attention to the social, institutional, political and governance dynamics that shape how circular economy ambitions are translated into practice (Kirchherr et al., 2023; Padilla-Rivera et al., 2024). While firm-level studies increasingly provide insight into CE processes, business models and operational practices, evidence suggests that companies continue to face persistent challenges relating to capabilities, resources, coordination and learning, often in the absence of clear standards or sustained policy support (Liu et al., 2025). These challenges are also echoed in studies examining the application of the circular economy in wider sectors—such as wind energy—where governance and business model barriers that hinder practical implementation have been identified (Mendoza et al., 2022). As a result, circular economy innovation remains fragmented, uneven and often short-lived, particularly outside core regions and well-resourced contexts.

Emerging work has begun to address questions of directionality, governance and mission-oriented innovation systems in relation to the circular economy (Hekkert et al., 2020; Kattel & Mazzucato, 2023; Clifton et al., 2024; Bailey et al, 2026). At the same time, recent empirical research has advanced understanding of how firms implement CE principles through internal processes, external collaboration and organisational learning, highlighting the importance of facilitated networks and communities of practice for capacity-building (Liu et al., 2025). Yet taken together, this literature also reveals new challenges. In practice, many CE “missions” remain partial or nascent: limited in scale, scope, temporal horizon or resources; weakly institutionalised; and heavily dependent on informal networks and intermediaries (Clifton et al., 2024). The persistence of these partial missions raises important questions about the conditions under which firm-level circular economy initiatives can scale, connect and endure, and about the limits of top-down policy steering in complex, place-based settings.

At the same time, recent scholarship highlights persistent multi-level governance failures, misalignments between policy ambition and delivery, and unresolved tensions between top-down directionality and bottom-up experimentation (Borrás & Edler, 2020). Calls to integrate circular economy approaches with social innovation, equity and justice concerns further underscore the need for deeper social science engagement (Pel et al., 2023; Savin and van den Bergh, 2024). These issues are particularly acute in peripheral, post-industrial and resource-constrained regions, but are increasingly visible across a wide range of geographical and sectoral contexts (De Laurentis et al, 2024; Hansen & Coenen, 2015; Liu et al, 2025; Clifton et al., 2024).

This Special Issue seeks to advance critical, empirically grounded social science perspectives on circular economy innovation. It focuses on how circular economy missions are shaped, contested and enacted in practice; why many remain partial rather than fully transformative; and how place, governance, power and institutional capacity condition outcomes across organisational, network and system levels. By doing so, the special issue aims to move beyond aspirational policy narratives and contribute to more realistic, context-sensitive understandings of circular economy transformation.

We welcome original theoretical, conceptual and empirical contributions from across the social sciences and related disciplines, using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. Contributions may focus on any geographical scale and are encouraged to adopt comparative, longitudinal or place-based approaches.

Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following themes:

Circular economy missions and directionality

• How is circular economy directionality defined, interpreted and re-worked across different institutional, organisational and territorial contexts?
• In what ways can circular economy initiatives be understood as partial, nascent or incomplete missions, and what are the implications for mission-oriented innovation theory?
• What limits the progression from partial to more fully articulated circular economy missions?

Governance, coordination and power

• How do governance structures, coordination mechanisms and political leadership shape circular economy innovation across firm, network and system levels?
• What forms of steering, orchestration and intermediation are most effective — and where do they fail?
• How do power relations, institutional inertia and competing priorities influence circular economy trajectories?

Firms, networks and implementation processes

• How do firms operationalise circular economy principles in practice, and how do these processes interact with policy, regulation and innovation systems?
• What organisational capabilities, learning processes and resource configurations enable firms to move beyond pilot projects?
• What role do facilitated networks, communities of practice and intermediaries play in connecting firm-level initiatives to wider circular economy missions?

Place-based and peripheral perspectives

• How does circular economy innovation unfold in peripheral, post-industrial or resource-constrained regions?
• In what ways do local capabilities, institutional thickness and historical legacies shape firm and system-level circular economy outcomes?
• How transferable are circular economy policy and business model frameworks across places?

Social innovation, justice and inclusion

• How can circular economy innovation be better aligned with social innovation, equity and just transition agendas?
• Who benefits — and who is excluded — from prevailing circular economy strategies?
• How do circular economy missions intersect with labour, skills and community development?

Multi-level and comparative perspectives

• How do circular economy missions operate across local, regional, national and supranational scales?
• What can comparative or international studies reveal about divergent circular economy pathways?
• How do Global North and Global South experiences challenge dominant circular economy narratives?

 

We invite submissions from researchers across all fields of social science and management studies, and related fields. Conceptual, theoretical and empirical submissions – qualitative and quantitative are welcome, as well as case studies from different regions/cities and contexts.

 

References

• Bailey, D., De Propris, L., Dimos, C., Fai, F. M., Hardy, S., & Tomlinson, P. R. (2026). A critical review of the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy: lessons for ‘place-based’ policy. Regional Studies, 60(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2025.2597466
• Borrás, S. and Edler, J., (2020) The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation. Research policy, 49(5), p.103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103971
• Clifton, N., De Laurentis, C., Beverley, K. & Walpole, G. (2024) Missing missions or partial missions? Translating circular economy directionality into place-based transformative action. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy & Society. 17(3), pp.649-665. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsae027
• De Laurentis, C., Beverley, K., Clifton, N., Bacon, E., Rudd, J. and Walpole, G., (2024) Exploring opportunities for public sector organisations to connect wellbeing to resource loops in a regional circular economy. Contemporary Social Science, 19(1-3), pp.303-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2024.2356190
• Hansen, T. and Coenen, L., (2015) The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 17, pp.92-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001
• Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H. and Negro, S. O. (2020) Mission-oriented innovation systems, Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 34: 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.011
• Kattel, R. and Mazzucato, M., (2018) Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and corporate change, 27(5), pp.787-801. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty032
• Kirchherr, J., Yang, N. -H. N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M. J., Hartley, K. (2023) Conceptualizing the circular economy (Revisited): an analysis of 221 definitions, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194: 107001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001
• Liu, Z., Clifton, N., Faqdani, H., Li, S. and Walpole, G., (2025) Implementing circular economy principles: evidence from multiple cases. Production Planning & Control, 36(13), pp.1774-1791. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2024.2415417
• Mendoza, J.M.F., Gallego-Schmid, A., Velenturf, A.P., Jensen, P.D. and Ibarra, D., 2022. Circular economy business models and technology management strategies in the wind industry: Sustainability potential, industrial challenges and opportunities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 163, p.112523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112523
• Padilla-Rivera, A., Russo-Garrido, S. and Merveille, N., (2020) Addressing the social aspects of a circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(19), p.7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197912
• Pel, B., Wittmayer, J.M., Avelino, F., Loorbach, D. and De Geus, T., (2023) How to account for the dark sides of social innovation? Transitions directionality in renewable energy prosumerism. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 49, p.100775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100775
• Savin, I. and van den Bergh, J., 2024. Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?. Ecological Economics, 226, p.108324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108324