Markku Anttonen

The Triple Helix concept of innovation systems holds that consensus space among industry, government and university is required to bring together their competences to achieve enhanced economic and social development on a systemic scale. In line with this argument, this article analyses empirically how the concept of circular economy is conceived in the institutional spheres of “industry”, “government” and “university”. Innovation systems are constantly being reconstructed through knowledge production and communication, which is reflected in how concepts develop in the different spheres. By applying natural language processing tools to key contributions from each of the three spheres (the “Triple Helix”), it is shown that, although institutional backgrounds do contribute to differing conceptualizations of circular economy, there is a substantial but limited conceptual consensus space, which, according to the Triple Helix, should open new opportunities for innovations. The consensus space shared across the three spheres focuses on materials and products and sees circular economy as a way to create new resources, businesses and products from waste. The industry sphere highlights business opportunities on global scale, which are also evident in the government sphere. The government sphere connects circular economy to waste-related innovation policies targeted at industrial renewal, economic growth, investments and jobs. The university sphere, in turn, focuses on production and environmental issues, waste and knowledge, and is rather distinct from the two other spheres. The importance of the differing conceptions of circular economy is based on the logic of Triple Helix systems. Accordingly, sufficient consensus between the Triple Helix spheres can advance the application of the concept of circular economy beyond the individual spheres to achieve systemic changes.

Lack of Congruence between European Citizen Perspectives and Policies on Circular Economy

Though services and product–service systems have been promoted as a promising way towards more eco‐efficient and sustainable societies, they have not turned into reality as expected. Chemical and resource management services are among the few operational examples. They aim to align the service provider's and customer's actions to reduce chemical usage and waste, improve supply chain management and increase resource efficiency. Arguably, they also create new business and higher profit margins compared with merely selling chemicals or handling industrial waste. Thus far they have been viewed as a single business model. In contrast, this study shows through the construction of five ideal types that the actual services and their focus vary. They range from the management of the chemical supply to operations, waste reduction, combined logistics services, process management, IT and other technologies. Consequently this affects the value creation, organization and environmental efficiencies of these services. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.