Scholarlink

<p>Circular futures research has extensively mapped competing imaginaries, but often leaves the institutional conditions for plausibility and scaling insufficiently specified. This article shows how institutional diversity shapes circular futures. Using Jessop’s strategic–relational approach, we conceptualise the circular transition as a selection environment and develop eight scenarios that combine three axes (centralisation, growth orientation, and redistributive capacity), operationalised through six institutional dimensions. Through structured coding and pattern analysis, we derive propositions about which organisational archetypes (corporations, SMEs, commons/co-operatives, public sector) become central and how practice families (reduce, reuse, repair, remanufacture, recycle) manifest (e.g. OEM-authorised versus public–community repair). The article makes three contributions: (1) a replicable procedure for building plausible scenarios; (2) five propositions for testing organisational centres and practice variants; and (3) an explanation of why identical instruments (e.g. right to repair, modular eco-design) perform differently across contexts, advancing debates on circular futures and providing guidance for using futures research to design institutionally grounded circular economy policies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Circular futures under institutional diversity: which organisations and circular practice forms thrive, where and why

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月4日

查看全文
  • Brais Suárez-Eiroa,
  • Tommaso Calzolari,
  • Aitor Alonso-Rodríguez

摘要

Circular futures research has extensively mapped competing imaginaries, but often leaves the institutional conditions for plausibility and scaling insufficiently specified. This article shows how institutional diversity shapes circular futures. Using Jessop’s strategic–relational approach, we conceptualise the circular transition as a selection environment and develop eight scenarios that combine three axes (centralisation, growth orientation, and redistributive capacity), operationalised through six institutional dimensions. Through structured coding and pattern analysis, we derive propositions about which organisational archetypes (corporations, SMEs, commons/co-operatives, public sector) become central and how practice families (reduce, reuse, repair, remanufacture, recycle) manifest (e.g. OEM-authorised versus public–community repair). The article makes three contributions: (1) a replicable procedure for building plausible scenarios; (2) five propositions for testing organisational centres and practice variants; and (3) an explanation of why identical instruments (e.g. right to repair, modular eco-design) perform differently across contexts, advancing debates on circular futures and providing guidance for using futures research to design institutionally grounded circular economy policies.