Introduction

The global textile industry causes a significant negative impact on the environment [1, 2]. The total amount of textiles is estimated to increase by up to 148 million tonnes by 2030 and the amount of textile industry waste by 60% between 2015 and 2030 [3]. In addition to waste generation, the entire textile value chain contributes to a large number of various environmental challenges through its excessive use of natural resources and harmful substances. Changes in current practices are required because the consumption of textiles is growing [4,5,6,7]. The circular economy (CE) has been acknowledged as a possible approach to tackle the wasteful use of resources [see, for example, 8, 9]. In the textile industry, digitalization, circularity, for example, reuse and recycling, and new business models have been estimated to have significant potential in reducing the use of virgin materials [8,9,10,11]. The European Union (EU) has responded to the challenges (Appendix 1, Table 2) by selecting textiles as one of the key product value chains in promoting CE. Despite the strengthening prospects of EU policy, the industry is global and widely networked, making it difficult to create changes at the EU and national level alone. Overall, several scholars have noted that the implementation of the CE has remained moderate so far [e.g., 12–14].

The process of change toward circularity in the textile value chain can be defined as a socio-technical transition [15], which influences how clothing and textiles are produced and used. Transitions are complex and long-term processes that involve multidimensional changes in, e.g., technology, regulation, markets, and culture [15]. Transitions take place through the emergence of radical innovations that are hoped to become mainstream practices but also incremental changes of current practices, despite occasional resistance [15]. Geels [16] emphasizes the significance of empirical and sectoral knowledge in supporting the transition. Many transition studies focus on the energy and low-carbon field, but some have examined textiles and clothing [17]. Studies that examine the circularity of the textile sector have addressed various specific perspectives: consumer habits [18], business models [19], supply chains [20], social aspects [21], and CE barriers [4, 9, 22, 23] in different levels.

Although there is no standardized method to accelerate the transition, various policies need to be directed at both the innovation and the destabilization of established systems [24, 25]. National initiatives and policies are essential in enabling the transitions, even though it has been stated that governments can also act as part of the problem. As complex processes, transitions are also affected by political conflicts, changing power relations between actors or mismatches and synergies between policies [26,27,28]. These contestations then are played out in the governance context in question. The literature on governance emphasizes the shift from hierarchical governing to non-hierarchical and collaborative governing [e.g., 29]. Thus far, state-led governance of sustainability (e.g., enforcement or regulations) within the textile industry has been limited, while the private sector and civil society have been active in developing various measures (e.g., agreements) to foster the change globally [7]. Meanwhile, there is a need for insights into how various interventions strengthen or challenge the status quo in the transition of the textile industry [7].

Understanding actors’ expectations is essential in steering transitions [30,31,32]. Expectations refer to statements about upcoming conditions or developments, and they can indicate acceptance but also doubts and opposition [33]. The power of expectations is tied to their ability to strengthen the favorable future direction and reduce hesitation among actors, and expectations can also be used to legitimize actions and choices [34, 35]. Therefore, expectations can also be subject to strong social dynamics [35]. As both Hielscher and Kivimaa [36] and Konrad [37] state, shared expectations are important in creating momentum for science and technology innovations; expectations can similarly play a decisive role in governing [31, 37]. Also, stakeholders’ concerns are crucial in these policy processes of transition as they not only hinder the change but also deepen the conflicts between actors [38]. Thus, studying these expectations can help to understand the governance of transitions.

This empirical study contributes to the literature on transition governance that enhances the implementation of circular practices and the transition to CE in the textile industry. The research questions are as follows: What are the expectations of niche and regime textile companies for the governance that aims for more circular practices and how do their expectations differ? This was examined through a qualitative case study in which 27 regime- and niche-level companies in Finland were studied. The data was analyzed with a framework that combined two actor groups, circular activities and governance modes. By studying companies’ expectations, a better understanding of the actors in different positions can be gained to ensure that governance for transition to the CE; proper policy tools and processes can be designed and supported.

Analytical Background

This empirical paper contributes to the literature on CE transition governance in the textile sector. In this study, circularity represents the collective interest, i.e., the aim of governance. The MLP is utilized to frame the study and position incumbent companies operating at the regime level, as well as companies working with niche innovations. The focus is on the companies’ future forecasts that express acceptance or hesitation and on the differences between niche- and regime-level companies. This study further uses the concept of governance to examine actor-based insights into the various steering mechanisms from traditional state intervention to collaboration and self-governance.

Circularity

The CE has been defined as an economic system within which materials and products designed are used efficiently to retain their value in regenerative and restorative cycles [12, 39,40,41]. Scholars [e.g., 40, 42] describe the CE as a change of paradigm in the way society uses natural resources. Within CE, the value of materials is maintained at each point in a product’s life, minimizing the generation of waste and emissions and closing the loop of materials through high-value recycling [43,44,45,46]. The endorsed 3R (reduce, reuse, and recycling) taxonomy, including long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, remanufacturing, and refurbishing, are defined as key activities within the CE [e.g., 12, 13, ], and also how the textile value chain is considered in this study. Alongside the individual CE activities, the transition to the CE requires an overall systemic change [39], involving technological and socio-cultural solutions, as well as strategies of the unit to be changed (e.g., country, industry, product) [48]. Although CE is a widely studied concept, its interpretations are highly varied. Furthermore, CE and sustainability may become mixed up in our everyday conversations. Geissdoerfer et al. [40] consider the CE conceptually as a condition to sustainability, even though the relationship between these concepts is also blurred in the academic literature. According to Korhonen et al. [49], a successful CE contributes to sustainable development in all three dimensions: economic, environmental, and social. In this study, the main focus lies in circularity, while references to sustainability are considered in appropriate contexts.

Understanding Sustainability Transitions.

Within socio-technical research, the MLP has become a widely used framework to explain socio-technical transitions to sustainability [15, 16, 50]. The MLP describes a process of change to consist of the interplay between three nested levels: (1) landscape, which forms an exogenous environment beyond the direct influence of niche and regime actors; (2) regime level, where established practices lie; and (3) niche level, where radical novelties can exist despite stiff regime-level practices [15, 50]. A transition can happen when landscape developments put pressure on a regime, creating a window of opportunity for new innovations to break their way through to the regime level [15]. In the regime, the change occurs incrementally because of various lock-ins and the system alignments, such as technologies, regulations, practices, and beliefs, also favor incumbents and create an unfair operating environment for newcomers [27]. Regimes can take a defensive, a reactive, or even an innovative approach by contributing to the transition [32].

The MLP has been criticized for inadequate attention to power, politics, and agencies that support the development and implementation of specific policies [51, 52]. As much as actors are challenged by conflicting goals and interests, they play a key role in the technological transition [for example, 27, 28, 53, 54]. According to the MLP, transitions are affected by alignments of actor groups, e.g., users, policymakers, companies, scientists, and their flexibility or stability in change [15]. Interpretations and beliefs affect the social acceptance of transitions, and the incumbent companies can typically resist the change but also reorient toward innovations [27]. Therefore, individual actors, such as companies or local governments, can be catalysts in the transition process [32]. Fischer and Newig [54] perceive the MLP approach as a systemic way to cluster actors in transition research, but other actor classifications also exist, for example, the state, the private sector, and civil society.

This study uses the regime and niche breakdown because it enables the examination of the expectations of different company groups in the transition process. This study defines expectations as statements, either positives or negatives, associated with the future [34], diverging from actor’s interests that refer to political engagement, or building dominance and power relations [55]. Expectations arise from social interaction, but they can also depend on individual experience [35]. As shared expectations of stakeholders are powerful in creating common visions for action [34], fragmented expectations, in turn, can slow down the process. By combining the MLP and actor expectations, this study responds to the criticism of insufficient attention to the role of actors in transitions.

Governance of Transitions

The literature on political science presents numerous definitions of governance [e.g., 29, 56, 57]. Over the past decades, theoretical approaches have observed the changes from a traditional hierarchical governing to a non-hierarchical, and governing has become a shared responsibility of the state, market, and civil society [e.g., 29, 56, 57]. Governance can be defined as the steering processes for a common goal, e.g., solving societal problems or creating opportunities through diverse interventions and interactions between public and private actors [29]. The current literature associates a wide variety of different phenomena with the concept of governance from different institutional structures and actor systems in decision-making to varying policy instruments [58].

Governance for sustainability has developed into an extensive research area [e.g., 55, 59–61]. According to Driessen et al. [62], the concept of “governance of sustainability” refers to how society determines and acts on goals related to the management of environmental challenges. Meadowcroft’s [60] definition stresses the significance of public debate, political decision-making, policy formation and implementation, and complex interactions among public authorities, private businesses, and civil society. These aspects reflect the complexity of the sustainability goal; that is, it is difficult to agree on them [61]. Similar challenges are also related to how actors can influence the course of the transition [63]. Weber and Rohracher [63] identify key failures in the governance of sustainability transitions: directionality, articulation of demand, policy coordination, and reflexivity. The difficulties of directionality and reflexivity can be resolved by utilizing close interaction between actors where existing rules and practices are reconsidered during the process [64]. The state is ultimately an actor influencing the process together with companies and citizens, and not merely a steering force above others.

Most approaches to understanding governance focus on the role of different actors, institutional processes, and who has the power to steer others in society [e.g., 29, 55, 58, 65]. For example, Lange et al. [55] introduce a multidimensional approach including three modes of governance: political processes, institutional structures, and policy content. Kooiman [29] separates hierarchical (state coordination), co-governing (e.g., interaction and networks), and self-governing (governing by society) and reminds us that, in reality, different modes of governing are often mixed. Hysing [65] adapts Kooiman’s approach and presents a continuum (Table 1) from strong state intervention to societal autonomy in which governing modes and instruments, public–private relationships, and policy levels change. On the left side, the government dominates, and on the right side, there is stronger societal autonomy with voluntarism and no state intervention. In the middle, there is moderate state involvement and integration of private actors into policy processes.

Table 1 Modes of governing (adapted from Hysing [65], expressing the continuum from state intervention to societal autonomy)
Full size table

This study uses the thinking of Hysing’s continuum with an emphasis on governing styles and tools and public–private sector relations. A suitable combination of policy tools, a policy mix, has been identified as essential in governance [e.g., 25, 66]. Specific instruments (regulations, economic instruments, and information [e.g., 67]) affect phases of transition in diverse ways, and policy mixes that combine multiple policy approaches (top-down, bottom-up, and network governance) need to be used strategically [27]. Yet, it should be noted that governance of transitions is much more than policy instruments. More understanding can be drawn from the ways how private and public actors interact, collaborate, and network. For example, Kemp et al. [68] suggest that new ways of interaction can deal with various problems of managing the transition to sustainability (e.g., dissent, distributed control, and short term-steps). This study investigates whether companies express ideas about the different forms and need for interaction between the public and private sectors.

Governing transitions is challenging due to their complicated nature [e.g., 6, 16, 69]. Influencing the course of things is uncertain, for example, due to the different goals of many actors. The mechanisms of governance can also be interfered with by power relations between actors [28], where the government may play different roles, from enabler to inhibiter [69]. Additionally, Smith et al. [52] study the agency and power in the governance of regime transformation and discover that the power to affect the transition depends on the regime membership, the distribution of resources for change, and expectations. Smith and Stirling [70] suggest that both regime incumbents and niche innovation actors need specific but differing foci when it comes to governing the transition. This is the point where the MLP approach links to governance in this study by examining the views of niche and regime companies regarding governance.

Materials and Method

Data Collection

This study uses empirical data on textile industry companies in Finland, a country which not only has ambitious aspirations to become a CE forerunner [71] but also wishes to develop sustainability engagement within the textile industry. Apart from some differences between countries in their national politics and policies, the practices affecting the sustainability of the textile industry are globally similar which facilitates the generalizability of the results.

Qualitative data on actors’ expectations and opinions was collected with the semi-structured interview method. Two national textile industry and commerce organizations helped to contact the companies. In addition, a snowball sampling [72], where interviewees and an expert network proposed possible participants, was used to find more interviewees. Sampling continued until a rich data set ensured by the semi-structured interviews of a wide range of textile companies was gathered and data saturation achieved. I contacted 41 companies to request an interview. In addition to this, I informed about the possibility of participating in a research interview through a newsletter but also by presenting the research plan at two meetings of textile industry associations. In total, 27 actors in the textile industry were interviewed, covering 26 private companies and one non-profit organization. A description of the interviewees is presented in Appendix 2, Table 3. All the interviews were performed by one researcher, and 25 interviews were carried out through an online meeting, one by telephone, and one meeting in person. Altogether, 30 people participated in the interviews and each interview lasted between 50 and 70 min. The interviews were transcribed with the aid of recordings. The interviewed companies were divided into regime- and niche-level actors. Apart from one actor, the niche-level companies represented the Finnish sustainable textile business [73]. The regime level represented companies with a traditional business concept, e.g., manufacturers, importers, retailers, and textile service providers. The niche level represented companies that relied on an innovative business idea with a strong focus on sustainability, and many of these companies operate in the field of eco-design, the use of sustainable materials, or provide renting, reuse, and repair services. Other possible breakdowns for company groups exist, but niche-regime division enables viewing the transition through the MLP framework as I wanted to study actors at different levels, and how much their views differ from one another. The regime-level companies in this study were either small and medium-sized (SME) or large enterprises, whereas the niche-level companies were either SME or micro enterprises (Appendix 2, Table 3).

The data collection followed the principles of thematic interviews [74]. Appendix 3 shows the topics that guided the interviews. The interviewees were asked to describe the work for sustainability in their company and the factors that functioned as the main drivers and obstacles. They were also asked if their company would need to adopt new practices in circularity and what kind of support was required in their development toward a more circular business.

While the response rate to interview requests was high, some limitations can be identified. The interviewed niche actors represented a wide range of business activities, from management to design and marketing, whereas regime actors were mostly managing directors or sustainability managers. This may have affected the results because the interviewees did not represent similar positions. Additionally, despite attempts to persuade them, many global fast fashion brands did not participate in the interviews. The regime companies in this study represent mainly traditional Finnish textile companies and trade, and only a few importers of international clothing brands.

Thematic Analysis

This study used a thematic analysis because it is a suitable and theoretically flexible method for identifying themes and patterns in a qualitative dataset when analyzing a person’s perceptions and experiences [74]. Here, a deductive, theory-based approach was used in coding the data, and an analytical framework, see Fig. 1, was developed. A detailed coding framework is presented in Supplementary Table S1. Coding and analysis proceeded followingly. Firstly, the welcomed state intervention but the option for no intervention was noted, and hesitations connected to expectations were recorded. In the second phase, the expectations were contextualized by locating the perceptions of governance in promoting circularity: systemic change, product design, longer and efficient use, and collection and recycling. These categories of circularity followed the 3R principals from the CE literature as applicable. Systemic change refers to large-scale changes in the structures and practices of society and the value chain of textiles. This category was formed from the data inductively because many of the interviewees generally talked about upcoming, big societal change. Additionally, the expectations of governance were analyzed by using a continuum adapted from Hysing [65] from state invention to societal autonomy, but also the occurrence of joint and collaborative modes of governing between the government and private operators. Shared expectations of company groups were also analyzed.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Phases of the thematic analysis

Full size image

Results

The structure of the results section follows the governance expectations of niche and regime companies on four perspectives to the CE: circular systemic change, product design, longer and efficient use, and collection of textile waste and recycling. Expectations are described comprehensively to reflect the diversity of perspectives on increasing aspects of circularity through different modes of governance. Some expectations refer to upcoming or debated policy measures (Appendix 1, Table 2) and some to existing voluntary measures. Lastly, a comparison of company groups is presented.

Niche Actors

Enhancing circular systemic change is a process in which the use of various governance modes is considered necessary by niche-level companies. However, they may have limited possibilities to follow policy developments and to recognize diverse means to govern the change. In this study, they perceive that systemic change is slowly happening, but an intervention by the EU and the Finnish government is required to regulate the regime actors and to make the operational environment favorable for small and sustainable companies. Economic support is a prerequisite for this systemic change. However, expectations encompass worries that strong state intervention can also hamper small companies’ fragile businesses. While a public discussion about the sustainability of textiles is considered important, companies also see themselves as game-changing actors in raising awareness. Different ways of self-governing, e.g., novel procurement and marketing practices, social media, company networks, and cooperation aimed at new innovative services, products, or practices, are identified as leading the way toward systemic change. Niche actors advocate a mix of state intervention and societal autonomy in the transition to circularity.

Regarding governance in product design, expectations are related to informational policy instruments like labeling and communication and clear economic support to steer the choices of material. The use of an eco-tax on products containing hazardous substances or a lower value-added tax (VAT) for products which include recycled materials is mentioned as possible tools. Niche companies lack clear information to support the material choices between tested, durable materials and organic or certified materials, for example, which leads to expectations of various certifications and labeling but also causes concern since certification systems can be too heavy and expensive for them. Furthermore, the ambition level of voluntary agreements is considered the most critical element, as the criteria should be neither too complicated nor too general. Other problems, such as coverage or trustworthiness, are also linked to these agreements. Collecting and managing sustainability data is an area where niche actors seem to be both puzzled by and isolated from the practices of the regime. Expectations of collaboration between state and private companies in product design are missing, but networking with non-governmental organizations is considered stimulating.

According to interviewees, there is a lack of viable concepts for services promoting longer and efficient use of textiles, and the development of circular services next to the main business concept requires financial support. Actors operating with innovative service concepts point out that circular businesses should have tax relief, e.g., lower VAT, or the possibility of applying for a household deduction when buying circular services. As circular textile business services lack professionals and vocational training, it is suggested that cooperation between companies and universities and vocational schools could fill this gap in expertise. One solution for strengthening a business around efficient use can be found in new ways of networking between other companies.

The regulation for the collection of textile waste is not given much attention, nor is there any strong expectation for recycling. Only some more established actors are familiar with the topic, suggesting that a mandatory extended producer responsibility (EPR) would be required to create a functioning system in which large volumes of used textiles were collected, sorted, and recycled. Recycling schemes and establishing industrial recycling can also be considered distant issues from the perspective of a small-scale actor who focuses solely on building their business and believes that they may have already solved their product’s sustainability challenges. According to most of the interviewees, innovative and circular solutions, such as recycling technology and building new facilities, require the government’s economic support. In contrast, co-governing possibilities when implementing new practices in the procurement process including a market dialogue about the circularity criteria emerged in only one interview.

Regime Actors

Regulations receive little emphasis in promoting systemic change that companies may experience as a phenomenon where governments play only a limited part. Many of the regime companies represent established businesses that have experienced many changes over the years, e.g., the transfer of production to Asia or digitalization. Earlier experiences may be linked to the thinking that promoting circular systemic change may be a challenge for business, not a possibility. Regime actors are struggling with many conflicting powers – economy, technology, attitudes – that make sustainability work difficult. In the end, the demand from consumers is considered the most powerful driver for systemic change. Actors see that the politics at the regime level do not contribute coherently to the transition to circularity. Current competition legislation is highlighted as a possible obstacle to the transparency of responsibility information. As the regime level is multinational, the regulations are preferred to be given at least at the EU level to maintain competitiveness. The regime actors show a special interest toward private–public cooperation. For example, a recent roadmap for the carbon–neutral textile industry, the result of a collaboration between the ministries and industry associations, is mentioned as a valuable initiative in creating a common mindset. Lobbying is used as a means of participating in governing. However, there are fears that collaborative governance becomes a burden due to the growing amount of work and reporting. Furthermore, public procurements or cooperation with research institutions in publicly funded projects are well-accepted partnerships. Competition in the textile business is fierce, but some actors also see opportunities when striving for sustainability. The importance of a new openness in business culture is welcomed as a form of dialogue between companies in creating a common view of possible policy measures or even sharing information on international suppliers. Finally, there are many hopes and fears for voluntary measures. An agreement could bring added value for companies, acting as a stimulator of development. Various uncertainties over the impact of agreements on global trade or the supply chain are recognized.

Product design remains an arena of normal business practices which does not need a strong governmental push. Yet, there is a consistent wish for economic support for the development of innovative materials and new machinery for experimenting with new recycled fibers. Long guarantees and tax or ban on hazardous substances are identified as possible risks for established practices and products. Regime companies manufacturing outside the EU or importers and resellers can have limited possibilities to influence products. Results also show that there is insufficient information to make sustainable material choices and the range of certifications and eco-labels are challenging the actors. Depending on the business model and how globally a company operates, it varies how useful the different schemes are considered. In some cases, companies simply cannot neglect using certain labels despite the high costs. Many fear that a uniform system can never be introduced globally, in which case the fragmentation of systems will continue to confuse companies.

The regime actors interviewed perceive little need for state intervention in increasing the longer and efficient use of textiles. Results show that there is a need for new business concepts around renting or repairing and that the services are not necessarily easily joined with the main business model. There are also possibilities to launch circular services as cooperation between existing and new companies. However, consumers are not deemed ready for these yet.

Collection and recycling are traditionally steered with strong policy instruments and that may be why the regulation for the separate collection of textile waste was accepted easily. Moreover, waste regulations do not necessarily affect the producers. Interestingly, the idea of a mandatory EPR scheme was also considered as a possible instrument for governing the waste issue, although there are various concerns about EPR’s existence, such as the need for clear responsibilities for key operators, the avoidance of an overly burdensome system, and company-specific requirements. It is recognized that strong cooperation between municipalities and waste companies is needed in the case of EPR. However, it is unclear for actors whether EPR is enough to create innovations around using recycled fibers or whether there will be a demand for recycled materials. Also, other possible measures are identified which could increase recycling and boost the markets, for example, lower VAT for recyclables, investment support for recycling technologies, or the increased education of textile industry professionals. Even though companies perceive that the major change is strongly dependent on global markets, they follow government plans to promote textile recycling and participate in public discussion. Voluntary take-back measures, e.g., permanent systems and pilot schemes with research institutes or consultants, have taken place in some regime companies, and these collaborative activities are seen to bring added value to the company’s image as a responsible operator.

Comparison Between Company Groups

Figure 2 visualizes the results by dividing the forms of governance into different circularity activities that were tackled by different actor groups. The expectations are categorized by acceptance and hesitation according to the number of coded references in the studied data.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Expectation of governance of the regime and the niche companies

Full size image

Regime and niche companies express various expectations on governing the systemic change to circularity. Many of them reflect on the public discussion about EU policy (Appendix 1, Table 2) on the sustainability of textiles, while some fears and worries about upcoming regulations exist. There is a lack of shared expectations between company groups which can act as a lock-in in the transition to the circularity of textiles. The niche actors expect top-down steering to make the operating environment favorable to them and, on the other hand, unfavorable to the regime actors. For example, product design is an area where niche companies expect state intervention in the form of financial instruments and bans. The regime companies accept the regulations for waste collection and recycling, but otherwise, strong state intervention is considered a possible threat. Tightening waste regulations are not necessarily a major threat to business. Both company groups have little expectation of governance for the long-term and efficient use of textiles, apart from niche-level companies whose business is based on efficient use concepts.

The number of opinions on policy instruments is high, and expectations are connected mainly to state intervention and self-governing, not so much to public–private collaboration. Compared to the regime companies, the niche companies have even fewer expectations toward collaborative governance. Some regime companies express their willingness to participate in the public discussion on sustainable textile politics, but also in networking and building common strategies. The influential role of industry associations and lobbying is mentioned in connection with interaction in governing, as participation can be time-consuming for companies. Furthermore, few niche companies perceive that networking with other small companies increases their power to strengthen sustainable business in relation to the regime.

Both groups have clear acceptance but also doubts and some mistrust regarding informational policy instruments, e.g., product labeling. Many concerns relate to certification practices that extend far into the international supply chains. Other shared expectations of governance are linked to the steering of systemic change and collection and recycling with regulations and economic instruments. This shows that companies’ mindsets are approaching each other. However, the expected way of steering is not likely to destroy the practices of regime companies. These expectations partly reflect the moderate ambition level for the promotion of circularity among regime companies.

Discussion

The research question asks what the expectations of various textile companies for governance toward more circular practices are. The analysis shows that regime and niche companies’ acceptance and doubts vary depending on the circular activity and mode of governance. The expectations of the studied company groups are still quite far apart. Struggling niche companies call for strict regulations to create a supportive operating environment for sustainable business, whereas regime companies expect regulations only on waste collection and recycling. However, incumbent companies identify some possibilities of collaborative governance. Both company groups have doubts about agreements and certificates, and the government is welcomed to provide more open and trustworthy information on sustainable materials and raise consumer awareness. The reasons for the differences between the company groups are no doubt multifaceted though connected tightly to the operating environment and the position in regime and niche level. The expectations reflect that the transition to CE within the textile industry is still in the early phase, but despite the division in the business field, there are also notions of favorable thinking. For example, there is a strong niche-level activity, and some regime companies also have ideas about reorienting their operations toward circularity.

The results show that textile companies are well aware of the diverse means for governing circularity and that state intervention, but also self-steering are required. However, what has been found to be essential in governing the sustainability transition, i.e., interaction and reflexivity [55, 60, 64], does not stand out clearly in the expectations of textile companies. Close participation and collaboration may even be feared, and the benefits of interactive governance, where objectives are collectively defined and refined, as Meadowcroft [60] describes, are not clear. However, public–private interaction may be an unfamiliar concept of governance for companies, and their wish to be heard in policy processes may indicate some expectations on interaction. In their study on stakeholder perspectives in transitioning to a local CE, Rincón-Moreno et al. [75] emphasized the key role of creating wide stakeholder networks but did not highlight the stakeholders’ special concerns about the possible burden caused by cooperation. Yet, companies talk about traditional, top-down instruments, and the expectations are linked to current discussions on upcoming EU policy for circular textiles. Results show that companies do not see all circular measures as equally urgent and requiring interventions. For example, certain disinterest in the governance of longer and efficient use of textiles may reflect the lack of attention also in CE target setting so far [76]. Also, the benefits of tax reliefs such as lower VAT for repair may seem controversial to stakeholders [77]. However, the situation on EU’s CE policy of textiles is changing (Appendix 1, Table 2), and a certain pressure is directed on the regime, which can change long-established expectations about regime functioning and create space for alternative visions [52]. Various and partly conflicting expectations indicate dissent and inadequate directionality on policy goals and means, which is considered to hinder transition governance [63, 68]. However, dissent may also have positive contributions to accelerating processes of change, as Smith et al. [52] state. Thus, understanding actors’ expectations is not unambiguous and schematic. Fragmented governance expectations of companies confirm that the transition to a circular economy in the textile sector is a major societal challenge.

In steering the sustainability transition, both scaling innovations and obstructing current practices are needed [7, 25]. According to the results, economic support for upcycling innovations, such as developing recycled materials, is collectively accepted. Both company groups expect that innovative circular materials are going to change the textile markets and bring benefits for business in general. However, shared expectations apply mainly to governance that does not complicate companies’ economies too much. The results show that a few of the regime companies are on the brink of accepting governance, e.g., mandatory EPR or lower VAT for recyclables, that hampers certain prevailing practices. These small steps ahead may be more significant than it first seems because of the regime incumbents’ explicit power over prevailing practices and mindset in transition [28, 78]. But then, fragmented expectations, fears, and hesitations can again act as lock-ins in the transition process [38]. The regime actors are more hesitant toward strict product regulations compared to niche actors, while niche companies call for regulations to restrict the regime. Also, self-steering for circularity divides companies’ visions. Expectations regarding certifications and agreements seem to be simultaneously loaded with acceptance and worries. Such confusion can also be seen in the findings of Johansson [79] or Buchel et al. [7] who criticize the self-steering by stating that it is being weakened by the industry’s attempts to optimize the current standards and agreements, which only reinforces the operating environment. Thus, companies’ low expectations of voluntary certificates and agreements combined with their many worries and incumbents’ lobbying for moderate ambition level may hamper the circularity of textiles and decrease the likelihood of obstructing current practices.

Active public–private cooperation is not widely recognized as a way to govern the transition to circularity. Yet, specific possible interactions are identified. Larger companies with a suitable product category and B2B concept have a special interest in public procurement or collaborative governance. In addition to procurement, building sector-specific policy strategies with public authorities is identified as welcome cooperation. Some companies hope for open and reliable networks where information and viewpoints are shared. As Beyers and Heinrichs [80] call for a more holistic approach to studying and developing governance partnerships, public procurement and other public–private cooperation are regarded to include much potential to govern the transition to circularity because of their border-breaking practices. Collaborative forms of governance could also strengthen the trust of actors in policy measures (e.g., in the case of voluntary certificates), as Franzeskaki et al. [69] indicate. However, strong cooperation between government and incumbent actors may also function as a lock-in in transition [25, 28]. This study shows that regime companies expect some collaboration in governance, also lobbying, more easily than niche companies who may not have the resources to participate in political processes. Furthermore, there are some expectations also toward more open collaboration between companies. Especially niche companies perceive the possible and diverse benefits of networking between other small companies. Although cooperation may be challenged by competition and other conflicting interests, this study maintains that dialogue and networking between firms could also be enabled and encouraged by the government, as proposed by Rotmans et al. [32].

Even though the niche-regime breakdown provides useful observations for the purposes of transition governance research, the transition in the textile sector is not necessarily analogous to the energy or transport transitions with big investments and political struggles. It may also be necessary to explore different company breakdowns (e.g., business sizes) than niche-regime. The transition governance studies also need to cover the complex supply chain system of the textile industry and the global fast fashion companies. Additionally, the textile industry’s transition needs to be studied further, with extra attention to niche companies’ possibilities in co-governing processes, and the benefits and disadvantages of collaborative governance.

Conclusions and Implications

A better understanding of actor’s expectations facilitates transition governance in all its modes. This study shows that textile companies have various expectations for transition governance to circularity. Strong state intervention to destabilize the current business practices is not welcomed by regime companies, whereas niche companies call for more radical interventions to change the operational environment. Companies’ mistrust of labels and agreements can delay the transition. Regime companies have more expectations and experiences of public–private collaboration compared to niche companies and that can entail a political lock-in in governing the transition. The policy regime of the CE of textiles is changing, and transition governance needs special attention. In planning the governance, the following aspects should be paid attention to (1) interaction in the policy processes should also involve niche companies; (2) the governance may be hampered by actors’ mistrust and doubts, for example, the design of voluntary measures needs careful groundwork and communication; (3) interactive and reflexive governance practices must be developed keeping in mind the limited resources of companies. Furthermore, companies should actively follow the development of CE textile policy and interact with policymakers when possible.

Appendix 1

Table 3

Table 2 Policy Framework for Textiles in EU and in Finland
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 4

Table 3 List of Interviewees
Full size table

Appendix 3 Topic Guide for Interviews

In this interview, “sustainable” primarily refers to the product – if it is designed to be durable, repairable, reusable, recyclable, and the kind of concepts there are for the efficient use of product and take-back and recycling.

Table 4 Business concepts to increase the circular use of textiles
Full size table

Background Information on Companies

  • 1) What is the company’s business idea?

  • 2) What role does the interviewee play in the company?

  • 3) How is environmental responsibility currently reflected in business operations and products/services?

Requirements for Sustainable Operations

  • 4) Does the company use the elements mentioned in its products and operations, and what external factors have promoted the development?

    • Are these activities “core business activities,” or are they value-added services?

    • Have the activities been economically promising, innovative, or difficult to implement?

    • Are the activities based on the company’s systematic responsibility strategy?

  • 5) If your company has not implemented the measures in the table or has only partially implemented them, what should change for the company to decide to include these issues more widely in its products/activities?

    • Are some things such that they are not even desirable for the company?

    • What things would be easiest to start changing first?

The Need for Support on the Road to Change

  • 6) What things could change the operating environment so significantly that it would encourage companies to change their operations?

    • What regulations would be required?

    • What voluntary activities would be required?

    • Something else?

  • 7) What would be the desired role of the public sector in this change? How could the public sector support this development?

    • What kind of measures?