The ‘need for speed’: Towards circular disruption—What it is, how to make it happen and how to know it's happening

Blomsma, Fenna; Bauwens, Thomas; Weissbrod, Ilka; Kirchherr, Julian Article — Published Version The ‘need for speed’: Towards circular disruption—What it is, how to make it happen and how to know it's happening Business Strategy and the Environment Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Blomsma, Fenna; Bauwens, Thomas; Weissbrod, Ilka; Kirchherr, Julian (2022) : The ‘need for speed’: Towards circular disruption—What it is, how to make it happen and how to know it's happening, Business Strategy and the Environment, ISSN 1099-0836, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 32, Iss. 3, pp. 1010-1031, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3106 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/287845 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE The ‘need for speed’: Towards circular disruption—What it is, how to make it happen and how to know it's happening Fenna Blomsma 1 | Thomas Bauwens 2 | Ilka Weissbrod 3 | Julian Kirchherr 2 1 University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany 2 Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3 Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany Correspondence Fenna Blomsa, Universität Hamburg Fakultät für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften Sozialökonomie, Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Rentzelstraße 7 20146 Hamburg E-mail: [email protected] Thomas Bauwens, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. Email: [email protected] Funding information Dutch Research Council (NWO), Grant/Award Number: 438.17.904 [Correction added on 16 September 2022, after first online publication: Accepted date has been corrected in this version.] Abstract The environmental, social and economic limits and shortcomings of the current linear model of production and consumption highlight the necessity of a rapid transition towards a sustainable paradigm. The concept of a circular economy has recently gained traction among scholars, policy-makers and businesses as a promising alternative. Yet our understanding of how to speed up the systemic transition from a linear economy paradigm towards a circular economy paradigm is lacking. In this paper, we address this research gap by introducing the concept of ‘circular disruption’and by describing how such a disruption may unfold. To do so, we build on S-curve thinking and the concept of panarchy. Based on the resulting synthesis, we propose three phases that constitute the core of the disruption process: (1) the release phase, (2) the reorganisation phase and (3) the eruption phase. We then operationalise these three phases for different enabling innovation system functions and illustrate our observations with examples for the textile and fashion sector. We discuss how each of the three disruption phases can be accelerated to quickly create an opening for the new circular paradigm. The proposed circular disruption framework offers novel insights on socio-technical transitions and changes and contributes to strengthening a systemic and theoretically grounded approach to circular economy research. Scholars and practitioners alike may take advantage of this work to focus circular economy efforts on speed and scale—an urgently needed focus to start tackling the sustainability challenges humankind is currently facing. KEYWORDS circular economy, disruption, system innovation, sustainability transition, Technological Innovation Systems, urgency 1|INTRODUCTION The dominant linear economic model is reaching its environmental, social and economic limits. From an environmental perspective, accelerating material use in the last decades has put unprecedented strains on the Earth's natural resources. During the last century, global use of fossil fuels, ores, minerals and biomass increased eightfold (Krausmann et al., 2009). Global materials consumption reached 100 billion tons a year in 2017 for the first time ever (Circle Economy, 2021), whilst nature declines at unprecedented rates in human history (IPBES, 2019), resulting in the man-made mass estimated to exceed all global living biomass in 2020 (Elhacham Bauwens and Blomsma should be considered joint first author. Received: 5 April 2021 Revised: 10 December 2021 Accepted: 22 December 2021 DOI: 10.1002/bse.3106 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2022 The Authors. Business Strategy and The Environment published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1010 Bus Strat Env. 2023;32:1010–1031. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse et al., 2020). This went hand in hand with increasing amounts of waste and air, water and soil pollution. Material handling and use also account for the vast majority (70%) of greenhouse gases emitted, contributing to the on-going climate crisis (Circle Economy, 2021). From a social perspective, the current linear economy is not meeting the requirements for a foundation that provides basic needs and wellbeing (Raworth, 2017; Velenturf & Purnell, 2021). From an economic perspective, the linear economy leads to significant financial value loss in the form of material and energy waste (EMF, 2013). The pressure on natural resources also drives volatility in resource prices (Ecorys, 2012) and generates supply risks (Seuring & Müller, 2008). These pressing problems require a rapid resolution. As such, a new consumption and production paradigm that operates within the limits of the planet and that safeguards social and economic prosperity is urgently needed. One avenue to accomplish this that has recently gained traction is the concept of a circular economy (CE) 1 (EMF, 2013). From an environmental perspective, implementing CE in food, construction and mobility sectors has the potential to cut 39% of total global emissions (Circle Economy, 2021). From a social perspective, the potential of the CE for job creation has been highlighted, especially in reuse and repair activities, which are more labourintensive (Llorente-González & Vence, 2020), although effects on different parts of the world may differ (Repp et al., 2021). As such, a rapid transition towards a circular way of dealing with waste and resources could contribute to bringing about a new consumption and production paradigm. Crucially, the ‘need for speed’ in systemic transitions has been under-researched, and this may hold true in particular for the CE transition. While circular strategies have been applied within industry for a long time (Blomsma & Brennan, 2017), no major shift towards a CE has occurred, and the economy has become less circular in recent years (Circle Economy, 2021; Haas et al., 2015). Meanwhile, research remains focused on discussing definitional nuances of the CE concept (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Furthermore, literature describing barriers preventing the CE transition has emerged in recent years (e.g., de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018), also failing to outline practical pathways for accelerating CE implementation. We, thus, propose the concept of a ‘circular disruption’to help shift the scholarly focus in CE research towards a conversation on how to achieve a circular economy with speed and scale. This concept builds on previous work that explores different developmental trajectories towards circularity as well as circular futures (Bauwens et al., 2020; Blomsma & Brennan, 2017; Reike et al., 2018) and responds to calls for more theoretical grounding of the CE literature (Korhonen et al., 2018). The questions explored in this paper are (a) how to define ‘circular disruption’, (b) how it can be brought about and (c) how progress towards it can be monitored and course adjustments be made. In the subsequent sections, we address these questions in turn. The transition towards a CE requires interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary solutions (Wasieleski et al., 2021), and we follow in the tradition within organisation science that links management theory with the natural and system sciences (e.g., Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 2006). First, we offer a definition of the concept of ‘circular disruption’. We then present a synthesis of S-curve thinking and the concept of panarchy to create a processual approach to the needed transition. The subsequent section applies this synthesis to circularity and operationalises it for the seven circular system innovation functions, hence offering an approach for assessing and directing the systemic transition. We close with a summary of our contribution and highlight how both practice and academia benefit from this work. 2|BACKGROUND: DEFINING A ‘CIRCULAR DISRUPTION’ We propose that the rapid transition that is needed can be conceptualised as a circular disruption: the period where a break away from a linear paradigm is accomplished, and an opening for a circular paradigm is created. Accordingly, a circular disruption is as follows: A transformation in a socio-technical system which causes the systemic,widespread, and fast change from the harmful ‘take-make-use-dispose’model to a socially and environmentally desirable and sustainable model that reduces resource consumption and address structural waste through the deployment of circular strategies. As indicated by the underscoring, there are five key components of circular disruption. First, it is systemic, meaning that it encompasses all technical and operational aspects of the industrial life-cycle, from production to consumption to end-of-use/life, and the relevant circular strategies. This also includes the accompanying changes in social institutions, as the way in which resources' flow is shaped by the social context in which they occur (Boons & Howard-Grenville, 2009; Meadows, 1999). After all, it is people that ‘make flows flow’ (Baumann, 2004). Second, the change from a linear paradigm to a circular paradigm needs to be widespread, that is, across sectors, as well as across geographic regions. A relevant scale is one that covers a grouping of regions and/or countries, allowing for local experimentation and adaptation, whilst facilitating the exchange of best practices so they can have a wide impact (Circular Economy Initiative Deutschland, 2021; Haas et al., 2015). Third, circular disruption has to be desirable (Hoffman & Ehrenfeld, 2013). That is, it is not only about being able to preserve, continue or sustain something (e.g., to be non-destructive) but also to be a process in service of creating a new and better version of ‘the good life’(Perez, 2002), of human ‘flourishing’(Jackson, 2009) and of growth that has a ‘certain direction’(Mazzucato, 2021). This can also include moving ‘post-growth’towards more meaningful indicators of human progress (Bauwens, 2021). Fuller (1969) already put it thus for change to come about one has to build ‘a new model that makes the 1 Note that we group the ‘recycling economy’(Type II ecology) with the linear economy (Type I ecology), as it primarily adds a delay to linear processes. A ‘circular economy’ approaches what Graedel (1994) refers to as a Type III ecology. BLOMSMA ET AL.1011 existing model obsolete’. Such a reorientation enables changes in the preferences of ‘consumers, citizens and workers’(Ashford & Hall, 2011, p. 679) and, thus, aligns consumer aspirations with sustainable behaviours, attunes citizen demands to sustainable policies and harmonises worker actions with embedding sustainable practices at the core of business activities. Fourth, only a circular disruption with sustainability at its core will enable the creation of an economic approach fit to ensure environmental, social and economic prosperity (Circle Economy, 2021; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017). Circular disruption needs to create environmentally beneficial outcomes, meaning to negate environmental destruction and, wherever possible, take restorative action; be socially just and inclusive (Kirchherr, 2021) and take care of the needs of all whilst excluding none; and allow for economic value creation, delivery and capture of value whilst creating healthy circular markets. This includes that a circular disruption is set up in a way that prevents circular rebound (Zink & Geyer, 2017) and other negative (side) effects that reduce or negate its benefits. Finally, and crucially, circular disruption must be fast. The transformation needs to be well on the way or completed by the year 2030 to address the range of pressing problems, first and foremost among them to meet the global heating threshold of 1.5C called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2018). The IPCC asserts that the year 2030 is a benchmark of the ‘point of no return’to avoid irreversible and run-away climate change with devastating impacts for human, animal and plant life (IPCC, 2018). The current linear paradigm, however, will result in a three to six degree Celsius temperature increase by the 2040s (Circle Economy, 2021; Meinshausen et al., 2011). Global carbon emissions needed to peak in the year 2020 and drastically reduce afterwards, to keep global heating below 1.5C (IPCC, 2018). Others have previously shed light on the aspects of systemic innovation (e.g., Colvin et al., 2014; Hellström, 2003; Wieczorek & Hekkert, 2012), the need for a widespread transition (Haas et al., 2015), desirability (e.g., Nikas et al., 2020) and sustainability (e.g., Jacobsson & Bergek, 2011; Schroeder et al., 2019). Although further development in each of these areas is still needed, the aspect of speed, in particular, has so far received little attention, whilst it poses a major unresolved challenge. Looking at historical transitions of the type and magnitude required, we see that a longer time-frame is indicated for this, with estimates ranging from 20–30 years for productsystems (Brezet et al., 2001) and over 20 years for sustainable technology innovations (Gross et al., 2018), and from ‘one generation or more’(Grin et al., 2010)to60–70 years (Kondratieff & Stolper, 1935) for a socio-technical paradigm shift. As such, there is an apparent contradiction between the ‘need for speed’and the possibility of accelerating socio-technical transitions based on historical observations. This paper attempts to resolve this contradiction and conceptualises the acceleration of the transition from a linear paradigm to a circular paradigm, which due to the speed can be thought of as ‘disruption’. We note that the change occurs via the deployment of circular strategies by businesses, policy-makers and other societal stakeholders, operationalised by such circular strategies as, but not limited to sufficiency, reduction, reuse, intensified product use, increased robustness, longevity, upgrading, remanufacturing, recycling, composting, cascading and industrial symbiosis—as is in line with the umbrella concept of CE (Blomsma & Brennan, 2017). The definition of circular disruption offered in the above is our vision for ‘the change we want and need, all around us, as quickly as possible’, and it is our starting point for the remainder of this paper. Circular disruption, however, may be a stretch goal in the sense that although difficult to achieve, it is nevertheless worthwhile pursuing. 3|THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT: THE PHASES OF A DISRUPTION 3.1 |Starting point Following Sterman (2002, p. 521), we ground our approach in process models and argue that ‘focusing on the process of modelling rather than on the results of any particular model speeds learning and leads to better models, policies, and a greater chance of implementation and system improvement’. Since the outcomes of circular disruption are impossible to predict with any precision, we focus on the ‘how’of disruption as opposed to defining the ‘what’of the outcomes. 2 This aligns with the science of decision-making, where it has long been asserted that in complex situations, a focus on the process rather than the outcomes is the basis for making decisions (van de Ven, 1986). This is furthermore in line with thinking on sensemaking and innovating for complexity (Snowden & Boone, 2007). In the following, we draw on and synthesise two prominent models for conceptualising socio-technical change: (1) the S-curve model, which is well known in management studies, and (2) the concept of panarchy, which we use to extend the S-curve model. Both the S-curve model and the panarchy concept describe socio-technical change, consider the element of time and are, therefore, well suited to meet the key objective of this paper: conceptualising the acceleration of the transition from a linear to a circular paradigm. Furthermore, the S-Curve model indicates systemic change driven from the inside of the system with technology as enabler, whereas the panarchy concept shows how systemic change happens based on both internal and external forces applied onto a system. These complementary insideout and outside-in perspectives, the time element and the systemic approach make S-curve and panarchy highly suitable to address the ‘systemic’,‘widespread’and ‘fast’components of the proposed circular disruption definition. Next, we briefly introduce the two models, highlight their common ground, as well as their complementarity, and show how they can be synthesised to understand the process of disruption. Note that we take a broad interpretation of ‘technology’and include in this not only high-tech innovation, but any innovation that serves as an enabler or as an aid in overcoming constraints. Technology, after all, is the application of ingenuity to overcome barriers in achieving a task 2 cf. Bauwens et al. (2020), for an in-depth discussion of outcomes. 1012 BLOMSMA ET AL. or a purpose (Kelly, 2010) and can be seen as ‘configurations that work’(Rip & Kemp, 1998). We understand technology, therefore, more broadly as ‘enablers’. Moreover, we acknowledge, in line with the frameworks drawn on, that the details may differ locally but that a heuristic device in the form of the proposed model is of value to orient analysis and decision making. 3.2 |S-curves: Strengths and limitations Foster (1986), the creator of the S-curve innovation model, has suggested that customer benefits shape the rate of new technology adoption along successive curves that resemble a forward leaning ‘S’ (Chandy & Tellis, 2000). In this model, the increase of customer benefits (Chandy & Tellis, 2000) and, hence, performance in the marketplace (Foster, 1986) is plotted against time (Chandy & Tellis, 2000) and the associated resources spent (Foster, 1986) by the firm during the development and adoption of the technological invention. The curves can be made steeper through faster processes and through launching new products and services faster into the marketplace (Foster, 1986). The S-shape, therefore, indicates the maturity of a market operating under a given technological paradigm and is indicative of the maturity of a particular solution space (see Figure 1a). Within S-curve thinking, the transition from one paradigm to the next is illustrated by sequential but separate S-Curves (Chandy & Tellis, 2000). It is this break that indicates the technological discontinuity, impacting both the micro level of firms and the macrolevel of the marketplace, resulting in the transition from one technological paradigm to another (Kuhn, 1962). Only discontinuities between curves may lead to novelty (Foster, 1986), disruption (Christensen, 1997)and,hence, ‘chaos’for people within organisations (Foster, 1986,p.103). In a period of fast change, the unsettling period of ‘breaking with the old’creates room for experimentation, the creation of new practices and innovations (Drucker, 1985). Only radical technological inventions can change the competitive landscape in the marketplace because these inventions make established technologies obsolete (Dahlin & Behrens, 2005, p. 725): They must be novel (‘dissimilar from prior inventions’), unique (‘dissimilar from current inventions’) and, perhaps most importantly, they have to be adopted (‘influence the content of future inventions’). The S-curve model has been extended beyond technology inventions to include architectural innovation (Christensen, 1992), service innovation (Bettencourt, 2010) and systems thinking approaches (Forrester, 1964). Others such as economist Perez (2002) and transition management scholars (e.g., Geels & Schot, 2007) operationalise S-curves for systemic change in the areas of socio-technical change and sustainability transitions. That is, not just technological paradigms are characterised by profound paradigm shifts but similar S-curve shifts can be observed in socio-technical systems. It is this systemic tradition that we draw on. The S-curve model, however, leaves unexplored the emergence of new needs and new problems that arise. Although it provides insight into how paradigms for solutions change, it does not pay attention to fundamental new challenges that require an examination of the constraints and a redefinition of what constitutes a solution. Given that sustainability is a challenge of how to deal with new constraints, this needs to be included as part of our approach to circular disruption. In addition, the S-curve model does not allow for understanding the relationships of the new paradigm with the old, as a new paradigm is conceptualised as gestating separated from and ‘in the background’of the dominant paradigm until it is ready to burst onto the scene. Therefore, we turn to a model that remedies these shortcomings: panarchy. 3.3 |Panarchy: Strengths and limitations Insightful for systems change is the panarchy model. This model, developed by Gunderson and Holling (2002), describes how connections between the parts of self-organising systems periodically reorganise as a result of different pressures. The model considers two main dimensions representing two forces that interact and create different system behaviours, depending on the relative strength of each force. The first dimension is the degree to which potential is achieved: It describes the number of options available for the future, and, as such, it describes the availability of ‘enablers’. The second dimension of the model is the degree to which a system can control its own developmental trajectory and, as such, describes ‘constraints’. Panarchy proposes two main phases of change. The first phase is the ‘forward loop’—the blue part of the curve in Figure 1b. This phase is characterised by (relative) stability, certainty, predictability, construction and accumulation, and it establishes and builds systems (Walker & Salt, 2006). The second phase is the ‘back loop’; see the green part of the curve in Figure 1b. This phase is characterised by uncertainty, experimentation, emergence and novelty. It revitalises a system that has become stagnant, brittle and where resources have become ‘locked up’or unavailable. This phase entails either destructive or creative change. Together, the forward and the back loop form a lemniscate describing what is titled the adaptive cycle. This cycle is an everrepeating rhythm where first connections form and tighten such that favourable conditions can be exploited and solutions can freely develop. Inevitably, as conditions slowly change and new constraints assert themselves, this is followed by the loosening, breaking and reorganising of those connections, and a system is forced to reorient itself to a different set of solutions that are demanded by the new constraints. This framework, thus, describes the transition from one paradigm to another, whilst acknowledging both the importance of the restructuring of existing elements as well as new elements being added to the system. The panarchy model, however, merely implicitly references the dimension of time—posing that the back loop can take place much faster than the forward loop. Without acknowledging this explicitly, it is difficult to track and understand a systems' evolution over time, and the appearance is created that no thresholds are crossed. Gunderson and Holling (2002) acknowledge these limitations in their application BLOMSMA ET AL.1013 FIGURE 1 Visual synthesis of the S-curve and Panarchy models (logic on insert inspired by an image found at https://starecat.com/this-is- true-this-is-truth-square-circle-please-consider-before-talking-typing/) 1014 BLOMSMA ET AL. of the framework, by allowing for a sequential connection of different lemniscate-curves. 3.4 |Synthesis: The waveS model For our synthesis, we depart from previously attempted efforts in 2D (e.g., Curry & Tibbs, 2010; Doyon, 2018). Instead, we take a 3D approach and offer the ‘waveS’model to describe, analyse and steer what happens during a period of circular disruption (see Figure 1c). The name of the ‘waveS’model is derived from merging the panarchy curves with the S-curve shape through visual and content synthesis in a form that resembles a wave. Our synthesis is based on the observation that the S-curve and panarchy model share an overlapping dimension (‘enablers’) and that two complimentary dimensions can be seen (‘time’and ‘constraints’). The overlapping dimension of ‘enablers’is used as the yaxis, the xaxis represents ‘constraints’and the zaxis depicts ‘time’. The inset in Figure 1d shows the perspectives of this synthesis logic. Our synthesis corrects the wrongly assumed one-to-one mapping of the four S-curve phases directly onto the four panarchy phases in previous synthesis attempts (Curry & Tibbs, 2010). In our view, treating the phases of both models as equivalent to each other loses their unique contribution. Instead, the proposed 3D synthesis highlights the importance of acknowledging, in the ‘back loop’, that the demands placed on new solutions have changed. For example, the innovation processes for addressing linear concerns become ineffective when applied in the search for circular solutions. What is required as an outcome is not just a bigger and/or better version of the same solution, but what constitutes a solution has to be fundamentally changed. S-curves and panarchy have other conceptual similarities that aid synthesis. For one, both models operate at levels from the microscale to the macroscale, frequently depicted as nested versions of these models. The two models both acknowledge their intellectual roots Schumpeterian ‘creative destruction’. Equally, both models are furthermore subdivided into sub-phases (e.g., for S-curves, we draw from Perez, 2002, and for panarchy, we use Gunderson & Holling, 2002, with particular importance given to the inflection points as they point to key thresholds within a systemic transition). In addition to these similarities, extensions of both models have been previously proposed that are in line with our synthesis. For example, the panarchy model has been extended to include additional dimensions apart from the two main dimensions (e.g., ‘time’and ‘resilience’; Gunderson & Holling, 2002). Similarly, work on S-curves has indicated a need to acknowledge repurposing elements from the old paradigm for the new one (Perez, 2002) and to extend the model to include a reverse curve (Luo et al., 2018). 3.5 |The phases of disruption Here, we focus on the process of disruption in general, which is then applied to the transition from a linear to a circular paradigm in Section 4. To better understand the general process of disruption, we highlight the ‘back loop’of panarchy (Gunderson & Holling, 2002), as well as its connections with the ‘maturity’phase of the old paradigm and the ‘eruption’ 3 phase of the new paradigm. For clarity, we simplify Figure 1c into the Figure 2waveS model: preserving the main dynamics from the synthesis, whilst acknowledging—as indicated by panarchy—that the transition from one paradigm to the next happens in a different ‘state space’represented by a shifted plane at the top in Figure 2. The middle and bottom of Figure 2show how a new paradigm emerges and how it uses elements from the preceding paradigm, as well as adding new elements. In the three phases of disruption of the waveS model, a recalibration is accomplished: The new constraints are acknowledged and internalised, and as a result, the meaning of ‘solution’is redefined. The ‘release’,‘reorganisation’and ‘eruption’phases are powered by fast, action-based learning cycles. The beneficiaries of these learnings are the makers, interpreters and implementers of social rules: key actors in society, business and policy. At the level of the individual business and business unit, the action-based learning cycles are looking to create a fit between new solutions and customers (Blank, 2005). Table 1describes the waveS phases. Along the waveS model, various inflection points are indicated; see Figure 2(middle, pink flashes). Such an inflection point usually indicates unrest and uncertainty—even crisis. Inflection points No. 1 can be characterised by bubble-and-crash dynamics where markets get over-excited by the promise and the quick growth of the new paradigm. Bankruptcies, unemployment, inflation, despair, inadequate policies, etc. may be seen when these bubbles burst. Similarly, inflection point No. 2 indicates a climax in discursive struggles: various alternative narratives are proposed, each of which is also heavily critiqued (Bauwens et al., 2020; Blomsma & Brennan, 2017; Calisto Friant et al., 2020). In short, at several points in a transition, difficulties can be expected. At these times, it is important to both address the fall-out of the disturbance and put together innovation teams that utilise the opening they represent for creative change (Snowden & Boone, 2007). 4|CIRCULAR DISRUPTION: MAKING IT HAPPEN AND HOW TO KNOW IT'S HAPPENING Now that the process of disruption with focus on ‘systemic’,‘widespread’and ‘fast’is better understood in general, we investigate the process more closely for the transition from a linear to a circular paradigm. Specifically, we examine the phases of circular disruption in more detail, how circular disruption can be accelerated and what the tell-tale signs are of this acceleration to bring clarity to the ‘desirable’ and ‘sustainable’components of the circular disruption definition 3 We use ‘eruption’instead of Perez's ‘irruption’here as we think the term is clearer and easier to relate to. BLOMSMA ET AL.1015 FIGURE 2 The waveS model shows the disruption phases Release, Reorganisation and Eruption during the shift/transition from the old to the new paradigm 1016 BLOMSMA ET AL. TABLE 1 Phases of the waveS model: A synthesis of Perez (2002) and Gunderson and Holling (2002), unless indicated through additional references Note: Colour coding in line with Figure 2. BLOMSMA ET AL.1017 takes place with the aim to scale-up solutions and to learn about how to overcome the selection pressures operating in the mainstream market (Ansell & Bartenberger, 2016; van den Bosch, 2010). Circular firms newly created by entrepreneurs proliferate, as do circular initiatives by individuals or small teams in established businesses. The circular value propositions at the heart of the circular business models are being tested ‘in a real-life context with customers and stakeholders, starting with a shared goal’(Bocken et al., 2021). In the fashion and textile industry, online retail platforms are being used by a growing number of new circular companies and individual designers to reach potential consumers directly and without needing retail space, resulting in the stagnation and eventual decline in the market shares of large existing brands and retailers that could not adapt to the emerging paradigm. This is paralleled by a proliferation of second-hand online shops and fashion-as-a-service offerings (Strähle & Klatt, 2017). In terms of knowledge development, integrated circular solutions are becoming more and more mature, while in terms of knowledge diffusion, circular knowledge experiences a wide diffusion and activities that were previously in niche activities now find themselves on the threshold of the regime. The extent and the depth of the collaborations initiated in the previous phase to diffuse knowledge expand rapidly. In the fashion industry, this knowledge diffusion can, for instance, take place through ‘frontrunner in residence’ strategists in mainstream companies. Frontrunner innovators temporarily work in-house for mainstream companies to show them the needs and opportunities of change (Buchel et al., 2018). This also contributes to successful early market formation. In the eruption phase, targeted learning identifies what works under which social conditions, with the goal to create transferable circular options. As for resource mobilisation, laid-off workers in materialintensive sectors are retrained and reoriented towards more labour-intensive and circular activities, which also increasingly attract funding. Regarding guidance of the search by circularity principles, the early measures implemented to ‘destabilise the old’and ‘create the new’ in the previous phase are further reinforced, becoming less siloed and increasingly interconnected to create systemic change. For example, the aforementioned extended producer responsibility policies can be combined with the large-scale introduction of a ledger system of materials and materials passports using blockchain or other decentralised, open information technologies, allowing for an enhanced traceability of material flows (Wieczorek & Hekkert, 2012). As for social and political mobilisation, there is now a firm shared vision around the circular paradigm and strong coalitions of powerful actors to support it. Key actors of the linear paradigm are starting to be replaced or proclaim necessary changes to the linear paradigm. In the fashion industry, this shared vision translates into new industry standards regarding, for instance, standards for organic and non-toxic materials (e.g., the Global Organic Textile Standard). Coalitions of fashion companies lobbying for a joint agenda for taxes on resource use and mandatory living wages are starting to bear fruit. 4.3.4 | How to accelerate and tell-tale signs of acceleration The key to the acceleration of this phase is to catalyse business experimentation, aiming at exploring how to best deliver the circular solutions developed in previous phases and how to best ‘survive’the selection pressures in the mainstream market. A success factor for business experimentation in the eruption phase is to let cooperation structures and temporal structures (i.e., amount of time allocated to specific tasks) emerge within a set total time limit. So no detailed timeline planning should take place within the total experimentation time. This has proven to create useful product and service solutions during a study that observed hackathon teams (Lifshitz-Assaf et al., 2020). In terms of knowledge development and diffusion, ways to accelerate this phase from actors operating in or otherwise influencing firms is to foster the interactions between and combinations of multiple innovations beyond the development of single innovations to trigger larger changes (Geels, 2018). This facilitates cross-sector innovations, and spill-overs between technologies enable firms to compensate for the scale and learning gap of the innovations. To illustrate, the textile industry can benefit from the advances of chemical recycling, used in the plastics industry to turn plastic polymers back into individual monomers, to depolymerise textile fibres of fabrics into monomers and produce virgin textile fibres of much superior quality than that from mechanical recycling methods (Asaadi et al., 2016). These spillovers considerably shorten the timescale from invention to widespread commercialisation of new technologies. In the circular growth phase, some circular business models and technologies are increasingly exposed to selection pressures of the regime. Those which are successfully selected start scaling and, ultimately, reach a tipping point where they become better in quality and in price than their linear counterparts, in addition to being environmentally more sustainable. They are then able to ‘cross the chasm’, that is, to appeal to the mainstream market due to this superior customer experience (Moore, 2002). Policy-makers accelerate this selection process by picking the ‘winners’that are increasingly succeeding in the market, while increasingly ruling linear companies out of the market (e.g., via the introduction of mandatory circular design standards, preferential tax regimes for circular products, etc.; Hartley et al., 2020). Circular knowledge diffusion takes off beyond protected niches and becomes widely available within mainstream markets. There is a large-scale mobilisation supported by a majority of the population and social tipping points. The majority of key actors work to replace the linear paradigm or actively pursue the circular paradigm. This process eventually leads to the circular synergy phase, in which circular business models have been proven and scaled. In the fashion and textile industry, this phase is characterised by a dramatic extension of the lifetime of clothes, as fashion-as-a-service schemes such as MUD Jeans and online second-hand clothing shops become mainstream. Policy-makers strongly back a resilient circular system and there are significant policy barriers for linear companies to operate—including limited consumer awareness and interest, currently 1024 BLOMSMA ET AL. the main barrier for circular textiles companies (Hartley et al., 2022). At this point, a return to a linear paradigm becomes increasingly unattractive and unfeasible. For a summary of actions to accelerate this phase, see Table 5. 5|DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In this paper, to help shift the scholarly focus in CE research towards a conversation on how to achieve a circular economy, we offered the concept of circular disruption as ‘A transformation in a socio-technical system which causes the systemic,widespread, and fast change from the harmful “take-make-use-dispose”model to a socially and environmentally desirable and sustainable model that reduces resource consumption and addresses structural waste through the deployment of circular strategies’. This includes that a circular disruption prevents circular rebound (Zink & Geyer, 2017) and other negative effects that reduce or negate its benefits. In addition, we described the process through which such a circular disruption can unfold, drawing on a synthesis of S-curve thinking (Foster, 1986) and the concept of panarchy (Gunderson & Holling, 2002). Based on this synthesis resulting in the waveS model, we identified the three phases of the disruption itself (release, reorganisation and circular eruption), whilst highlighting the predisruption phase ‘linear maturity’and the post-disruption phases ‘circular growth’and ‘circular synergy’. We explained these phases using the seven Technological Innovation System (TIS) functions by Hekkert et al. (2007) to unpack the implications of waveS for systemic innovation. For each phase, we pointed to ways for accelerating the process of circular disruption and illustrate these by drawing on examples from the textiles industry. With this, we address the apparent contradiction between the ‘need for speed’—the necessity to quickly address the many pressing issues facing societies today—and the seeming impossibility of accelerating socio-technical transitions based on historical observations, traditionally put anywhere between 20+to 70 years (Brezet et al., 2001; Grin et al., 2010; Gross et al., 2018; Kondratieff & Stolper, 1935). With this, we support unlocking agency in the face of complex systems change and provide pathways for businesses and other change agents to accelerate the needed change. The waveS model can contribute to greater awareness with regards to what phase (part of) a system is in, and what actions could be leveraged to reduce the time spent from our current linear model to a circular future. Scholars and practitioners alike may benefit from using the waveS model to assess the current status of a system as well as build and prioritise a set of actions accordingly. For academia, our proposed waveS model contributes to the literature on transitions and socio-technical changes, exemplifying how interdisciplinary work can draw from the tools and approaches of multiple disciplines to provide new insights. Our synthesis enabled us to illuminate different aspects of the process of disruption. We argue that S-curves and panarchy represent different perspectives on transitions, each highlighting different dimensions of this phenomenon. Combining the waveS model with TIS connects transition dynamics and mechanisms from systemic (sub)domains to allow understanding how these dynamics and mechanisms align, so that virtuous feedback loops, or positive leverage points (Lenton et al., 2022), can be created. While our synthesis is applied to circular disruption, it may have broader significance for other transitions, such as those in the energy, food and transport sectors (Köhler et al., 2019). Indeed, the ‘need for speed’is a need that has generally been stated in the transitions research community, most recently by Markard et al. (2020). So far, this scholarly community has largely focused on describing change that occured over many decades and more work is needed to outline the conditions necessary for accelerating change. Our model and the suggested set of actions for a circular disruption are not meant to be deterministic or exhaustive. Indeed, the whole curve of the waveS model need not be utilised: a disruption can get stuck in one phase, phases may overlap or be skipped, or even revert back to a previous phase if the conditions prove unstable, as also indicated by Perez (2002) and Gunderson and Holling (2002). Moreover, within each disruption phase, further detail can be added. It is important that the newly adopted circular practices and technologies, while being subject to continuous adaptation and change toward further sustainability and desirability, are soundly entrenched into individuals' habits and companies' routines, previously identified as among the core barriers to a CE transition (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018) to ensure the adoption and resilience of the circular paradigm. There are multiple options, as our model outlines, on how this embedding may occur—provided that they result in the seven innovation functions aligning to push the system in the same direction. Importantly, our work highlights the centrality of emerging new constraints as part of the change dynamics. By shedding light on the systemic processes for circular disruption and grounding this in three theoretical frameworks, the paper furthermore contributes to the literature on CE, a literature which has been frequently criticised for lacking theoretical underpinning (Korhonen et al., 2018). We aim to move the discourse away from a passive, descriptive account of the definition of CE and its barriers towards actively shaping the needed change. Indeed, our model highlights the importance of the evolution of solutions that fit the new constraints—whether embodied through new business models, repurposed and adapted solutions, or new inventions and technologies— TABLE 5 How to accelerate the circular disruption in the eruption phase for actors operating in or otherwise influencing firms (e.g., policy-makers and funders) How to accelerate the eruption phase •Catalyse circular business model experimentation to explore how to best survive the selective pressures of the mainstream market. •Foster the interactions between and combinations of multiple technologies. •Facilitate cross-sector resource optimizing innovations and spillovers between (technological) innovations. Note: Post-disruption overview: circular growth and circular synergy. BLOMSMA ET AL.1025 and emphasises the need for alignment of the different functions of innovation systems to trigger systemic change. We hope scholars will increasingly adopt such a systemic perspective when studying the CE in their respective contexts. Several other avenues for further research are worth highlighting that address limitations and gaps not covered by this work. First, our paper implicitly focuses on how the process of circular disruption may unfold in high-middle and high-income countries, the countries of origin of the authors. The implications for the Global South, however, are numerous, given the integrated nature of global supply chains. Thus, the implications of circular disruption for Global South countries require further investigation. Second, the waveS model assumes, as does the TIS framework, that the systems of production and consumption replacing the existing paradigm are largely the same from an institutional perspective, with organisations embedded in market and corporate logics (Thornton et al., 2012). A fruitful avenue for further research would be to explore the roles of organisational forms embedded in different institutional logics, beyond the institutional logics dominant in the contemporary market economy (Feola, 2020). Third, providing further empirical insight is crucial: for example, the waveS model can be used as a basis for working with practitioners with regards to their views on what is needed for a circular disruption to happen in their respective industry or region, further refining the set of actions that can be taken to accelerate developments. An alliance of scholars and practitioners is needed to bring this about and we hope that the concept of 'circular disruption' proposed here will help to catalyse both theory and practice efforts to make this rapid change happen, since ‘Theory without practice is empty; practice without theory is blind’(paraphrased from Kant). Open questions also remain with regards to how to identify which parts of linear systems should be repurposed as well as how to deal fairly with both ‘winner’and ‘losers’of a circular disruption. Lastly, we encourage sustainability transitions scholars to also engage with the proposed concept of circular disruption to possibly help illuminate pathways for acceleration in the respective sustainability fields they are studying. Further work such as this would allow society to not only, as Tom Cruise in his role as Maverick said, ‘feel the need for speed’, but all can become change agents and act to bring about a more sustainable and circular world. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was partially funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) via the research programme DBM II (file number: 438.17.904). Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. REFERENCES Adidas. (2019). Adidas unlocks a circular future for sports with futurecraft.loop. https://news.adidas.com/running/adidas-unlocks-a- circular-future-for-sports-with-futurecraft.loop–a-performance- running-shoe-made-t/s/c2c22316-0c3e-4e7b-8c32-408ad3178865, accessed: 5/27/2021 Ahmadjian, C. L., & Robinson, P. (2001). Safety in numbers: Downsizing and the deinstitutionalization of permanent employment in Japan. Administrative Science Quarterly,46(4), 622–654. https://doi.org/10. 2307/3094826 Ansell, C. K., & Bartenberger, M. (2016). Varieties of experimentalism. Ecological Economics,130,64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2016.05.016 Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management,25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00004-5 Asaadi, S., Hummel, M., Hellsten, S., Härkäsalmi, T., Ma, Y., Michud, A., & Sixta, H. (2016). Renewable high-performance fibers from the chemical recycling of cotton waste utilizing an ionic liquid. ChemSusChem,9(22), 3250–3258. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc. 201600680 Ashford, N., & Hall, R. (2011). Technology, globalization, and sustainable development: transforming the industrial state. In Technology, globalization, and sustainable development: Transforming the industrial state. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429468056 Aßländer, M. S., Roloff, J., & Nayır, D. Z. (2016). Suppliers as stewards? Managing social standards in first- and second-tier suppliers. Journal of Business Ethics,139(4), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 016-3148-0 Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals,3(1), 65–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19416520903053598 Baumann, H. (2004). Environmental assessment of organising: Towards a framework for the study of organisational influence on environmental performance. Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal, 1(1–3), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1504/PIE.2004.004684 Bauwens, T. (2021). Are the circular economy and economic growth compatible? A case for post-growth circularity. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,175, 105852. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC. 2021.105852 Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2020). Circular futures: What will they look like? Ecological Economics,175, 106703. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106703 Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy,37(3), 407–429. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003 Bettencourt, L. (2010). Service innovation: How to go from customer needs to breakthrough services. McGraw Hill Professional. Bidmon, C. M., & Knab, S. F. (2018). The three roles of business models in societal transitions: New linkages between business model and transition research. Journal of Cleaner Production,178, 903–916. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.198 Bland, D. J., & Osterwalder, A. (2019). Testing business ideas: A field guide for rapid experimentation. John Wiley & Sons. Blank, S. (2005). The four steps to the epiphany: Successful strategies for products that win. K & S Ranch. Blomsma, F., & Brennan, G. (2017). The emergence of circular economy: A new framing around prolonging resource productivity: The emergence of circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12603 Blomsma, F., & Tennant, M. (2020). Circular economy: Preserving materials or products? Introducing the Resource States framework. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,156, 104698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2020.104698 Blomsma, F., Tennant, M., & Brennan, G. (2021). Exploring resource/service-systems—Beyond product/service systems and towards configurations of circular strategies, business models, and actors. In Circular economy and sustainability (Vol. 1). Elsevier. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819817-9.00017-X Bocken, N. M. P., Pauw, I. d., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,33(5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124 1026 BLOMSMA ET AL. Bocken, N. M. P., Weissbrod, I., & Antikainen, M. (2021). Business model experimentation for the circular economy: Definition and approaches. Circular Economy and Sustainability,1,49–81. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s43615-021-00026-z Boons, F., & Howard-Grenville, J. A. (Eds.) (2009). The social embeddedness of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781848449060 Brezet, H., Vergragt, P., & van der Horst, T. (2001). Vision on sustainable product innovation. BIS Publishers. Buchel, S., Roorda, C., Schipper, K., & Loorbach, D. (2018). The transition to good fashion. DRIFT, C&A Foundation and Fashion for Good. https://drift.eur.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FINAL_report.pdf Bukhari, M. A., Carrasco-Gallego, R., & Ponce-Cueto, E. (2018). Developing a national programme for textiles and clothing recovery. Waste Management & Research,36(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0734242X18759190 Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Salomone, R. (2020). A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,161, 104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917 Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,1, 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01224915 Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent's curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing,64(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.1.18033 Christensen, C. M. (1992). Exploring the limits of the technology S-surve. Part II: Architectural technologies. Production and Operations Management,1(4), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.1992. tb00002.x Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press. Circle Economy. (2021). The Circularity Gap Report 2021: Solutions for a linear world that consumes over 100 billion tonnes of materials and has warmed by 1-degree. Circle Economy. Circular Economy Initiative Deutschland. (2021). Circular business models: Overcoming barriers, unleashing potentials. acatech/SYSTEMIQ. Colvin, J., Blackmore, C., Chimbuya, S., Collins, K., Dent, M., Goss, J., Ison, R., Roggero, P. P., & Seddaiu, G. (2014). In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry. Research Policy,43(4), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.010 Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin's legacy for change management. Human Relations,69(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726715577707 Curry, A., & Tibbs, H. (2010). What kind of crisis is it? Journal of Futures Studies,14(3), 75–88. Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Research Policy,34(5), 717–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol. 2005.03.009 de Jesus, A., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco-innovation road to the circular economy. Ecological Economics,145,75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001 Doyon, A. (2018). Niches: Small-scale interventions or radical innovations to build up internal momentum. In Enabling eco-cities (pp. 65–87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7320-5_5 Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Routledge. Ecorys. (2012). Mapping resource prices: The past and the future. Summary report–Final report. European Commission -DG Environment. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/resource_efficiency/pdf/ studies/summary_mapping_resource_prices.pdf Elhacham, E., Ben-Uri, L., Grozovski, J., Bar-On, Y. M., & Milo, R. (2020). Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass. Nature, 588(7838), 442–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A new textiles economy. Ellen Mac- Arthur Foundation. https://emf.thirdlight.com/link/2axvc7eob8zx- za4ule/@/preview/1?o Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). (2013). Towards the circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/pv7q7l4 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). (2021). Circular business models: Making the economics work (No. 29). Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1w bGVjYXN0LmNvbS9BXzNwQV9hVw?sa=X&ved=0CAMQ4aUDahcK EwiQ75CuvOrwAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ&hl=en-DE Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing. (2021). Circular design for fashion (pp. 224). Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Fashion for Good and Boston Consulting Group. (2020). Financing the transformation in the fashion industry: Unlocking investment to scale innovation. Fashion for Good and Boston Consulting Group. https://fashionforgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Financing TheTransformation_Report_FINAL_Digital-1.pdf Fastco, A. K. (2015). These Sneakers Entirely From Ocean Plastic Trash. https://www.fastcompany.com/3048033/adidas-knit-these-sneakers- entirely-from-ocean-plastic-trash, accessed 5/27/2021 Feola, G. (2020). Capitalism in sustainability transitions research: Time for a critical turn? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,35, 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.02.005 Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,36(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435 Fletcher, K. (2010). Slow fashion: An invitation for systems change. Fashion Practice,2(2), 259–265. https://doi.org/10.2752/ 175693810X12774625387594 Forrester, J. W. (1964). Industrial dynamics. M.I.T. Press. Foster, R. (1986). Innovation—The attacker's advantage. McKinsey & Company. Fuller, R. B. (1969). Operating manual for spaceship earth (New ed.). Müller. Geels, F. W. (2018). Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the multi-level perspective. Energy Research & Social Science,37, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.010 Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy,36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2007.01.003 Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M. P. P., Pigosso, D. C. A., & Soufani, K. (2020). Circular business models: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production,277, 123741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741 Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production,143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016. 12.048 Graedel, T. E. (1994). Industrial ecology: definition and implementation. In R. Socolow, C. Andrews, F. Berkhout, et al. (Eds.), Industrial Ecology and Global Change (pp. 23–41). Cambridge University Press. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. W. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203856598 Gross, R., Hanna, R., Gambhir, A., Heptonstall, P., & Speirs, J. (2018). How long does innovation and commercialisation in the energy sectors take? Historical case studies of the timescale from invention to widespread commercialisation in energy supply and end use technology. Energy Policy,123, 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018. 08.061 Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press. BLOMSMA ET AL.1027 Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global economy?: An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the european union and the world in 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology,19(5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10. 1111/jiec.12244 Hansen, E. G., & Revellio, F. (2020). Circular value creation architectures: Make, ally, buy, or laissez-faire. Journal of Industrial Ecology,24(6), 1250–1273. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13016 Hartley, K., Roosendaal, J., & Kirchherr, J. (2022). Barriers to the circular economy: The case of the Dutch technical and interior textiles industries. Journal of Industrial Ecology,26(2), 477–490. https://doi.org/10. 1111/JIEC.13196 Hartley, K., van Santen, R., & Kirchherr, J. (2020). Policies for transitioning towards a circular economy: Expectations from the European Union (EU). Resources, Conservation and Recycling,155, 104634. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104634 Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,74(4), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006. 03.002 Hellström, T. (2003). Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technology in Society, 25(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(03)00041-1 Henry, A. D. (2009). The challenge of learning for sustainability: A prolegomenon to theory. Human Ecology Review,16(2), 131–140. Henry, M., Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2020). A typology of circular start-ups: An Analysis of 128 circular business models. Journal of Cleaner Production,245, 118528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2019.118528 Hoffman, A., & Ehrenfeld, J. (2013). Flourishing: A frank conversation on sustainability. In Flourishing: A frank conversation about sustainability. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351277242 IKEA. (2021). Recycled jeans are turned into new sofa covers. https:// www.ikea.com/ch/de/new/aus-recycelten-jeans-werden-neue- sofabezuege-pub5a498c10, accessed 5/27/2021 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services (summary for policy makers). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO. 3553579 IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5C. International Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/download/ Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774338 Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2011). Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,1(1), 41–57. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.006 Kanter, R. M. (2003). Challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. Simon and Schuster. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-015-8054-0_8 Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. Viking. Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,10(2), 175– 198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310 Kirchherr, J. (2021). Towards circular justice: A proposition. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,173, 105712. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. RESCONREC.2021.105712 Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the circular economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological Economics,150, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018. 04.028 Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,127, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017. 09.005 Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008 Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M. S., …Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,31,1–32, ISSN 2210‐4224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 Kondratieff, N. D., & Stolper, W. F. (1935). The long waves in economic life. The Review of Economics and Statistics,17(6), 105–115. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1928486 Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111 Kozlowski, A., Bardecki, M., & Searcy, C. (2012). Environmental impacts in the fashion industry. Journal of Corporate Citizenship,2012(45), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2012.sp.00004 Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecological Economics,68(10), 2696–2705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007 Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Labowitz, S., & Baumann-Pauly, D. (2014). Business as usual is not an option: Supply chains and sourcing after Rana Plaza. 65. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030 Lenton, T. M., Benson, S., Smith, T., Ewer, T., Lanel, V., Petykowski, E., Powell, T. W. R., Abrams, J. F., Blomsma, F., & Sharpe, S. (2022). Operationalising positive tipping points towards global sustainability. Global Sustainability,5, E1. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.30 Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Lebovitz, S., & Zalmanson, L. (2020). Minimal and adaptive coordination: How hackathons' projects accelerate innovation without killing it. Academy of Management Journal,64(3). https://doi. org/10.5465/amj.2017.0712 Llorente-González, L. J., & Vence, X. (2020). How labour-intensive is the circular economy? A policy-orientated structural analysis of the repair, reuse and recycling activities in the European Union. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,162, 105033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2020.105033 Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2019). A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology,23(1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763 Luo, B. N., Lui, S., Liu, C.-H., & Zhang, R. (2018). Knowledge exploration and innovation: A review and an inverse S-curve proposition. Journal of Management & Organization,24(6), 870–892. https://doi.org/10. 1017/jmo.2016.39 Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. The Academy of Management Journal,52(1), 148–178. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461993 Markard, J., Geels, F. W., & Raven, R. (2020). Frank W Geels and Rob Raven, Challenges in the acceleration of sustainability transitions. Environmental Research Letters,15, 081001. Materialtrader. (2020). H&M and Adidas join forces towards circularity in fashion textiles. https://community.materialtrader.com/fashiontextiles/, last accessed: 5/27/2021 1028 BLOMSMA ET AL. Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capitalism. Penguin UK. McDowall, W. (2012). Technology roadmaps for transition management: The case of hydrogen energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,79(3), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011. 10.002 Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points—Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute. https://donellameadows.org/wp-content/ userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf Meinshausen, M., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T., Lamarque, J., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Velders, G. J. M., & van Vuuren, D. P. P. (2011). The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change,109(1), 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/ S10584-011-0156-Z/TABLES/5 Metabolic Institute. (2021). Financing circular economy innovation in the Netherlands: The need for an ecosystem approach. Metabolic Institute/Goldschmeding Foundation. https://www.metabolic.nl/ publications/financing-circular-economy-innovation-netherlands/ Milios, L. (2018). Advancing to a circular economy: Three essential ingredients for a comprehensive policy mix. Sustain Science,13, 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0502-9 Moore, G. A. (2002). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling disruptive products to mainstream customers. HarperCollins. Nikas, A., Lieu, J., Sorman, A., Gambhir, A., Turhan, E., Baptista, B. V., & Doukas, H. (2020). The desirability of transitions in demand: Incorporating behavioural and societal transformations into energy modelling. Energy Research & Social Science,70, 101780. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.erss.2020.101780 Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies,13(4), 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 017084069201300403 Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. E. Elgar Pub. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781781005323 Pinkse, J., Bohnsack, R., & Kolk, A. (2014). The role of public and private protection in disruptive innovation: The automotive industry and the emergence of low-emission vehicles. Journal of Product Innovation Management,31(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12079 Porritt, J. (2007). Capitalism as if the world matters. Earthscan. Puma. (2012). Business and sustainability report. https://about.puma.com/ en/sustainability/reporting Rainville, A. (2021). Stimulating a more circular economy through public procurement: roles and dynamics of intermediation. Research Policy, 50(4), 104193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104193 Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st- century economist. Random House Business Books. Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,135, 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017. 08.027 Repp, L., Hekkert, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2021). Circular economy‐induced global employment shifts in apparel value chains: Job reduction in apparel production activities, job growth in reuse and recycling activities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,171, 105621, ISSN 0921‐ 3449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105621 Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In Human choice and climate change (pp. 327–399). Batelle Press. https://kemp.unu-merit.nl/ docs/Rip%20and%20Kemp.pdf Sarasini, S., & Linder, M. (2018). Integrating a business model perspective into transition theory: The example of new mobility services. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,27,16–31. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.004 Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Systems Practice,9(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02173417 Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K., & Weber, U. (2019). The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology,23(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732 Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. and updated). Random House Business Books. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production,16(15), 1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2008.04.020 Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science,51(5), 756–770. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0349 Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy,41(6), 1025– 1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012 Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review,85(11), 68–76. Snowden, D., Greenberg, R., & Bertsch, B. (2021). Cynefin ® weaving sense-making into the fabric of our world. Sterman, J. D. (2002). All models are wrong: Reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynamics Review,18(4), 501–531. https:// doi.org/10.1002/sdr.261 Strähle, J., & Klatt, L. M. (2017). The second hand market for fashion products. In J. Strähle (Ed.), Green fashion retail (pp. 119–134). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2440-5_7 Szmydke-Cacciapalle, P. (2018). Making jeans green: Linking sustainability, business and fashion. Routledge. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. OUP Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001. 0001 van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science,32(5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.32.5.590 van den Bosch, S. (2010). Transition experiments: Exploring societal changes towards sustainability. Erasmus Univ. Velenturf, A. P. M., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption,27, 1437–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018 Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Island Press. Wanzenböck, I., Wesseling, J. H., Frenken, K., Hekkert, M. P., & Weber, K. M. (2020). A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem–solution space. Science and Public Policy,47(4), 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/ scipol/scaa027 Wasieleski, D., Waddock, S., Fort, T., & Guimar˜aes-Costa, N. (2021). Natural sciences, management theory, and system transformation for sustainability. Business & Society,60(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0007650319898384 Weissbrod, I., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2017). Developing sustainable business experimentation capability—A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production,142, 2663–2676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 11.009 Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Wieczorek, A. J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2012). Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy,39(1), 74–87. https://doi. org/10.1093/scipol/scr008 BLOMSMA ET AL.1029 Working Group finanCE. (2016). Money makes the world go round (and will it help to make the economy circular as well?). Working Group FinanCE. Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2017). Circular economy rebound: Circular economy rebound. Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 593–602. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jiec.12545 How to cite this article: Blomsma, F., Bauwens, T., Weissbrod, I., & Kirchherr, J. (2023). The ‘need for speed’: Towards circular disruption—What it is, how to make it happen and how to know it's happening. Business Strategy and the Environment,32(3), 1010–1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 3106 APPENDIX A: THE INNOVATION FUNCTIONS OF CIRCULAR DISRUPTION A Technological Innovation System is defined by Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1991, p. 94) as ‘a network or networks of agents interacting in a specific technology area under a particular institutional infrastructure to generate, diffuse, and utilize technology’. Hekkert et al. (2007) distinguish seven functions required for actors to build a supportive innovation system for new technologies to develop and diffuse. Hence, this framework enables us to unpack innovation from a systemic perspective. We amended the TIS in four ways. First, we replaced the function ‘entrepreneurial activities’by ‘circular business model evolution’. By doing so, we aim to highlight the centrality of business model innovations and experimentation for disruption, especially in relation to the circular economy (Bocken et al., 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2020; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019), whereas the TIS lacks an explicit business model analysis, leaving little room for firm-level perspectives, particularly on business models (Bidmon & Knab, 2018; Sarasini & Linder, 2018). We use the term ‘evolution’to highlight that this function is concerned with both the destabilisation of established business models that have become economically, socially or environmentally unsustainable and the creation of superior ones. Second, we specified the guidance of the search, which has to be conducted according to the five key principles of circular disruption as presented in Section 2, namely, the adoption of a systemic perspective, widespreadness, celerity, desirability and sustainability. Third, we replaced the functions of ‘market formation’and ‘resource mobilisation’by ‘market (de)formation’and ‘resource (de)mobilisation’, respectively, to emphasise that these functions are concerned with both the decline of the old paradigm and the emergence of the new one, while the TIS framework mainly focus on the emergence of innovation and overlooks the decline of established socio-technical systems. Fourth, we replaced the function ‘creation of legitimacy/ counteract resistance to change’by ‘social and political mobilisation’. By doing so, we seek to emphasise not only the outcome of this function (i.e., the creation of a powerful coalition advocating the new paradigm), but also the mechanisms through which advocacy coalitions are formed (consensus formation, followers mobilisation and motivation). Indeed, the TIS framework provides little insight into these mechanisms. TABLE A1 The innovation functions of circular disruption Number Functions in the TIS framework Description in the TIS framework Corresponding system function of circular disruption Justification for change 1 Entrepreneurial activities Activities undertaken by entrepreneurs to turn the potential of new knowledge, networks, and markets into concrete actions to generate— and take advantage of—new business opportunities Business experimentation Highlights the centrality of business model innovations and experimentation for disruption, especially in relation to the circular economy (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Weissbrod & Bocken, 2017), whereas the TIS lacks an explicit business model analysis (Bidmon & Knab, 2018; Sarasini & Linder, 2018). 2 Knowledge development Learning mechanisms necessary to develop the innovation, embodied into R&D projects, patents, and investments in R&D Knowledge development No change made. 3 Knowledge diffusion through networks Network interacting in order to diffuse knowledge about the innovation Knowledge diffusion through networks No change made. 1030 BLOMSMA ET AL. TABLE A1 (Continued) Number Functions in the TIS framework Description in the TIS framework Corresponding system function of circular disruption Justification for change 4 Guidance of the search Activities within the innovation system that can positively affect the visibility and clarity of specific wants among technology users Guidance of the search by circular disruption principles Guidance of the search activities are equally important in the circular disruption framework, but are primarily guided by circular disruption principles, namely the adoption of a systemic perspective, widespreadness, celerity, desirability and sustainability. 5 Market formation Protected spaces created for the development of new technologies, for example through the formation of temporary niche markets and favourable tax regimes Market (de)formation Highlights that this function is concerned with both the shrinking of markets for established technologies and products that have become unsustainable and the formation of markets for superior alternatives, while the TIS framework mainly focus on the latter process while overlooking the former. 6 Resources mobilisation Acquisition of the financial and human capital necessary to all activities within the innovation system Resources (de) mobilisation Highlights that this function is concerned with both the demobilisation of resources for established technologies and products that have become unsustainable and the mobilisation of resources for superior alternatives, while the TIS framework mainly focus on the latter process while overlooking the former. 7 Creation of legitimacy/ counteract resistance to change Creation of a powerful advocacy coalition which will push for a new technology trajectory Social and political mobilisation This function is also crucial in the circular disruption framework and emphasises the creation of a social movement as the main mechanism through which the building of this coalition takes place. BLOMSMA ET AL.1031