Keywords

Introduction

Recently, stakeholder engagement has been proven to be necessary for a circular economy (CE) (Kujala et al., 2019; Marjamaa et al., 2021). A CE is a novel economic model that promotes sustainability principles by reducing the use of natural resources and waste generation (Ghisellini et al., 2016). Stakeholder engagement offers a useful lens for investigating how diverse stakeholders with differing interests can engage in CE goals (Kujala et al., 2019; Marjamaa et al., 2021; Salvioni & Almici, 2020). Although previous researchers on stakeholder engagement have investigated different engagement practices (Kujala & Sachs, 2019), theorisations and visualisations of how these practices are implemented over time in stakeholder engagement processes are scarce (see Lane & Devin, 2018) and conducted mainly in the field of environmental management and environmental policy research (Kujala et al., 2022). However, better understanding of stakeholder engagement processes, particularly in the CE context, is critical to effectively and strategically manage stakeholders, step-by-step, to achieve CE system-level goals. Understanding the necessary engagement practices and how they unfold throughout the stakeholder engagement process for achieving CE goals requires studying stakeholder engagement processes within and across specific industries, geographic areas, and contexts (Kujala & Sachs, 2019; Sloan, 2009; Sulkowski et al., 2018), and particularly in CE ecosystems owing to their systemic nature (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). Accordingly, our research objective was to investigate what kinds of processes engage stakeholders in a CE system-level goal in different CE ecosystems.

To understand how to manage stakeholders to achieve CE system-level goals, this chapter presents an ambitious effort to combine two complementary theoretical perspectives on stakeholder interactions: stakeholder engagement and ecosystem approach. First, stakeholder engagement refers to a process involving various practices that enhance understanding and alignment between a company and its stakeholders as they pursue common interests together (Andriof & Waddock, 2002; Kujala et al., 2019; Lees-Marshment et al., 2020). To highlight the process perspective, we explicitly discuss the stakeholder engagement process. Second, the ecosystem approach, a management research stream that considers business to be managed in evolving multi-actor systems, borrows the idea of biological ecosystems to examine the stakeholder interdependencies and interactions for a system-level goal in socio-technical settings, highlighting the co-evolutionary dynamics between stakeholders (see, e.g., Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017; Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021; Thomas & Autio, 2020). Drawing from and merging stakeholder engagement and the ecosystem approach, we examined diverse stakeholders and their engagement in ecosystem settings. In particular, we are interested in CE ecosystems because increasing circularity of the system demands engaging diverse stakeholders that can affect or be affected by the circular goal of a CE ecosystem, ranging from companies, industrial organisations, public and governmental organisations, universities, and non-profit organisations to consumer-citizen groups (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021).

Stakeholder engagement processes in a CE often take place in complex CE ecosystem settings, in which, by definition, communities of hierarchically independent yet interdependent heterogeneous actors collectively pursue a sustainable system-level goal (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). With the ecosystem approach, we comprehensively capture the nuances of stakeholder engagement in practice beyond the dyadic or network settings (Freeman et al., 2017), where stakeholder engagement traditionally has been studied from the perspective of a focal organisation (see, e.g., Lane & Devin, 2018). The ecosystem approach completes the stakeholder engagement approach by highlighting the constant evolution, co-evolution, and dynamics in stakeholders' interdependencies between the complementary stakeholders and a system-level goal (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). The system-level goal is the overarching goal of the entire ecosystem, to which stakeholders contribute while their individual goals may be same, similar, or different to the system-level goal. A successful systemic change to CE goals requires considering and engaging diverse, complementary, and interdependent stakeholders. Therefore, adopting the ecosystem approach allows for building the understanding of the system in which such complementary actors pursue a CE system-level goal. Ecosystems can vary according to the present stakeholders, their relationships, and structures (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017), pointing to the need for differing stakeholder engagement processes. To apply the most effective stakeholder engagement processes in practice and thus develop CE ecosystems towards their CE system-level goals, it is crucial to uncover which CE ecosystem characteristics impact stakeholder engagement processes.

This chapter addresses the significant lack of case studies on the implementation of stakeholder engagement processes (Kujala & Sachs, 2019) by empirically investigating how stakeholders engage in a system-level goal in six Finnish CE ecosystems. Analysing each ecosystem's stakeholder engagement process unfolding through various practices at each step of the process, we conceptualised four archetypes of the CE stakeholder engagement process. We propose a model that shows how these archetypes are present in different CE ecosystem settings, depending on the ecosystem structure and alignment of stakeholder interests with achieving the CE system-level goal. To stakeholder engagement research, we contribute empirically based insights into how stakeholder engagement processes unfold in complex systemic settings to achieve system-level goals (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2020; Kujala & Sachs, 2019; Lane & Devin, 2018). Our findings also add to ecosystem research, particularly ecosystem management and CE, with an understanding of ambiguous CE ecosystem characteristics and their impacts on the management and development of CE ecosystems (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). These insights provide practical advice on the appropriate actions in each step of the stakeholder engagement process to engage stakeholders in CE system-level goals in different CE ecosystems.

The chapter is structured as follows: After the introduction of the research gaps and objective, we shed light on the theoretical background of how the stakeholder engagement process is conceptualised and unfolds in CE ecosystem settings. Next, we explain how we conducted a multiple-case study to empirically examine the stakeholder engagement processes in six different CE ecosystems, present case-specific findings, and synthesise them as archetypes. Finally, we present the discussion, key contributions and limitations of this study, and future research suggestions.

The Stakeholder Engagement Process in CE Ecosystems

Stakeholder Engagement as a Process for Achieving a CE

Stakeholder engagement is considered a process that unfolds through specific steps (Andriof & Waddock, 2002; Greenwood, 2007; Johnston, 2010; Lane & Devin, 2018). Building on Lane and Devin's (2018) conceptualisation of this process, we identified a stakeholder engagement process in the CE context with four steps, each involving various stakeholder engagement practices.

In the first step, stakeholder(s) already committed to the CE system-level goal must identify other stakeholders who could contribute to the ecosystem. Identifying relevant yet diverse stakeholders has been recognised as especially important for achieving circularity (Brown et al., 2021; Salvioni & Almici, 2020). Potential stakeholders must be prioritised and then selected on the basis of, for example, their power, legitimacy, urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997), or circularity-related competencies (Brown et al., 2021). We consider the antecedent context of stakeholder engagement to be the background of the engagement process (Lane & Devin, 2018) rather than the starting step of the process (Johnston, 2010).

The second step involves an initial round of one-way communication aimed at catching the selected stakeholders' attention and securing their interests in further engagement (Lane & Devin, 2018). In the CE context, secured interests can be diverse, including expectations based on economic, ecological, social, legal, and ethical aspects (Marjamaa et al., 2021). Only when stakeholders' attention is caught and their interests are secured can the process proceed to the third step: the engagement practices for one- and two-way interactions and stakeholder integration, often pursued through relationship development, communication, and learning with and from stakeholders (Kujala & Sachs, 2019; Sachs & Kujala, 2021). These key engagement practices take different forms. For example, communication between stakeholders can include informing, educating, and awareness raising (Sulkowski et al., 2018), so the stakeholders learn from the CE and each other (Brown et al., 2021; Pucci et al., 2020), potentially leading to mutual learning and enhancement of organisations' innovation capabilities for circularity (Brown et al., 2021; Pantano et al., 2020). These engagement practices do not necessarily unfold linearly, as they build integrative stakeholder engagement interdependently and interrelatedly (Kujala & Sachs, 2019; Lane & Devin, 2018). In the CE context, stakeholder engagement through relationship development, communication, and learning practices may promote the adoption and development of circular innovations, circular-oriented decision-making, circular value capture models, co-creation, and diffusion of a sustainability culture via marketing and educational activities (Brown et al., 2021; Pucci et al., 2020). Moreover, a CE presents a particular need to focus on building long-term relationships with mutual trust and opportunities for solving problems and common CE issues (Brown et al., 2021; Kujala et al., 2019; Salvioni & Almici, 2020).

Finally, the stakeholder engagement process results in an outcome, such as control, collaboration, or co-determination (Lane & Devin, 2018; Sloan, 2009), which necessarily influences the antecedents and practices of future engagement processes (Johnston, 2010; Lane & Devin, 2018). In the fourth step of the stakeholder engagement process, the outcomes must be evaluated frequently (Lane & Devin, 2018) using evaluation measures (Johnston, 2010) because inter-stakeholder positions and strategic focuses can change over time (Preble, 2005). For example, stakeholders with marginal significance can become significant (Roloff, 2008) as their role changes from delivering and exchanging needed expertise and resources (Verbeke & Tung, 2013) to shaping industrial and institutional norms (Phillips & Ritala, 2019; Verbeke & Tung, 2013) towards achieving a CE. Applying practices specific to stakeholder engagement in the CE context may raise unsolved issues and even conflicts, which can be facilitated by collaboration, sharing of CE goals, and dissemination of CE-related knowledge (Kujala et al., 2019) in the stakeholder engagement process.

CE Ecosystems as a Setting for Stakeholder Engagement

In general, the ecosystem approach, viewed from the management research perspective, refers to complex systems of stakeholders, technologies, and institutions that develop in a co-evolutionary manner; the stakeholders of such an ecosystem can achieve a system level higher than any single stakeholder could deliver alone (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017). Ecosystems are also dynamic, emerging, evolving, and co-evolving as stakeholders and their interactions develop. Thus, in a key characteristic of ecosystems, the structure can vary from a hub-centric setting (a hub organisation, hereinafter ‘a hub’, coordinates or actively aims to manage other stakeholders) to a horizontal setting (where stakeholders interact in a self-organising manner, and the agency of management is distributed among them). The agency of management can thus vary in ecosystem structures (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017; Autio et al., 2018). The manageability of ecosystems is a controversial issue. Some studies have suggested that ecosystems can be managed to some extent (e.g., Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Ritala et al., 2013), but others argue that the ecosystem is a self-organising construct (Basole, 2009; Clarysse et al., 2014). Therefore, the agency to engage stakeholders in the ecosystem setting and its management is assumed to vary according to the ecosystem structure. Accordingly, we consider the ecosystem structure to be a key characteristic differentiating ecosystems and indicating who engages stakeholders and who is engaged to achieve the system-level goal.

We specifically examined CE ecosystems where interdependent, complementary stakeholders pursue increased circularity as a system-level goal, particularly through recycling, reuse, or reduction. Stakeholders in CE ecosystems can jointly contribute to resource circularity, CE knowledge, or CE business and business models at regional, national, and global levels (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). Therefore, expanding from, for example, circular supply chains (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2022; Kaipainen et al., 2022), as another key characteristic of CE ecosystems, diverse stakeholders typically have a wide range of premises, interests, and goals in joining. Accordingly, stakeholders' alignment with achieving the CE system-level goal varies in different CE ecosystem settings (Harala et al., 2021; Ingstrup et al., 2021). To summarise, CE ecosystems are of more than one kind. Their stakeholder diversity, structures, goals, and manageability can vary, with potential implications for stakeholder engagement and related processes: who engages who and how.

Synthesis

Drawing on insights from stakeholder engagement and ecosystem management research, particularly within the CE context, we approach stakeholder engagement in a CE as a process that brings together stakeholders with diverse interests into CE ecosystems to address a CE system-level goal. Based on this approach, we applied a theory-based a priori framework to examine the stakeholder engagement process for a CE goal (Fig. 7.1).

Fig. 7.1
A process flow model with 4 steps. 1. Identify, prioritize, and select key stakeholders. 2. Reach out to stakeholders and secure their interest. 3. Integrate and interact via the development of relationships, communication, and learning. 4. Evaluate the stakeholder engagement outcomes and processes.

A priori framework: Stakeholder engagement process for a CE system-level goal in ecosystem settings

Full size image

In this framework, the diverse stakeholders in a CE ecosystem gradually come together and can contribute (directly or indirectly) to the achievement of a CE system-level goal (the upper arrow in Fig. 7.1) and accordingly advance their CE goal (Brown et al., 2021; Kujala et al., 2019; Salvioni & Almici, 2020). Regardless of the types of stakeholders involved, the stakeholder engagement process consists of four steps: (1) identifying, prioritising, and selecting key stakeholders; (2) reaching out to stakeholders and securing their interests; (3) integrating and interacting through the development of relationships, communication, and learning; and (4) evaluating the stakeholder engagement outcomes and process. In practice, we assume that these steps can unfold non-linearly (Lane & Devin, 2018). The cyclic nature of stakeholder engagement indicates that the process is repeated (Greenwood, 2007; Lane & Devin, 2018), so stakeholder engagement can consider both stakeholders that are new and familiar with the CE ecosystem. The CE system-level goal can change during the stakeholder engagement process and affect the CE ecosystem structure and the stakeholder engagement process itself (the lower arrow in Fig. 7.1). Next, a more structured understanding of stakeholder engagement processes in a variety of CE ecosystems is pursued through an empirical investigation.

Methodology

Research Design and Case Selection

To explore what kinds of processes engage stakeholders in a CE system-level goal in different CE ecosystems, we applied a qualitative, multiple-case-study strategy. Empirical research on processes and cases is an established method to investigate stakeholder engagement (Sachs & Kujala, 2021) and provides empirical evidence of stakeholder engagement processes in a CE (Brown et al., 2021). A multiple-case study can help understand contextual differences and different patterns and reveal the interplay between the examined phenomenon and context (Aaboen et al., 2012), which, in this case, is the stakeholder engagement processes for achieving CE system-level goals in their varying empirical contexts of different CE ecosystems (Kujala & Sachs, 2019; Sloan, 2009; Sulkowski et al., 2018). Consequently, a multiple-case study enabled us to make cross-case comparisons while reducing the vulnerabilities regarding unexpected circumstances in the chosen cases (Yin, 2003). Furthermore, we applied a processual approach by investigating the sequence of the steps that unfolded in the stakeholder engagement processes for CE goals, to understand how these processes emerge and develop over time (Langley et al., 2013).

We utilised purposeful and theoretical maximum variation case sampling to select critical cases and capture common patterns, cutting across variations in the stakeholder engagement processes as they emerged while adapting to different conditions (Patton, 1990) in the varying CE ecosystems. Controlling for geographic variations, we selected Finnish cases based on their high system-level impacts on achieving the national goal to become a CE model country by 2035 (Finnish Ministry of Environment, 2018). The case selection comprised of CE ecosystems with perceived variations in the features cited as potentially important for stakeholder engagement processes in the literature review. First, we considered ecosystems where diverse stakeholders have presumably differing interests (i.e., stakeholders from academia, industry, and government; Ingstrup et al., 2021) that are needed for a CE system-level goal to be materialised at the regional, national, and/or global levels (see Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). We also ensured that our sampling was comprised of different ecosystem structures (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017; Autio et al., 2018), both hub-centric settings (cases A–C; Table 7.1) and self-organised CE ecosystems (cases D–F; Table 7.1), as we expected the structure to impact the emerging stakeholder engagement processes. On the basis of these criteria, we carefully selected six CE ecosystem cases on the regional (cases A and D), national (cases B, E, and F), and global levels (case C; Table 7.1). The chosen cases involved timely CE topics such as sustainable construction and urban development, food production and nutrients, and material circulation, which are featured prominently in European Union political discussions and the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (European Commission, 2020; Lafortune et al., 2021).

Table 7.1 Overview of cases and data sources
Full size table

Data Gathering and Analysis

Five researchers conducted data gathering and analysis, of whom one was responsible for two cases and four were responsible for one case each. The primary data sources (Table 7.1), which were purposively sampled individual and group interviews and ethnographic observations from 2019 to 2021, were complemented by an extensive, multisource secondary data set, including websites, presentations, news releases, theses, reports, and other documents. For each case, the multisource data allowed data triangulation to gain an objective, accurate understanding of the stakeholder interactions within the examined CE ecosystems. Research quality was also ensured by careful data handling (e.g., tape-recording and transcribing the interviews and writing field notes during ethnographic follow-ups). For highly different CE ecosystems, data had to be gathered with different methods and approaches. In general, for ecosystems with a distinctive hub, sufficient understanding could be built on data from the hub itself, supported and validated by stakeholder interviews and secondary data. Self-organised ecosystems required broader investigations through observations, workshops, and interviews with various stakeholders.

Following an abductive analysis approach not only enabled utilising a theoretical understanding of the steps and possible practices that would unfold in the stakeholder engagement processes (see Fig. 7.1) but also kept us open to new findings that emerged inductively from rich data (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). To improve the quality of the findings, all six authors mutually validated the interpretations throughout the analysis process through careful researcher triangulation. The analysis was performed in three key steps. First, each case was analysed to identify the varying practices related to the stakeholder engagement and ecosystem characteristics based on the researchers’ understanding of the retrospective data, real-time follow-ups, and visualisations of the CE ecosystems, as suggested by Phillips & Ritala (2019). The visualisations were made with the Kumu.io ecosystem software. In accordance with the ecosystem theory, the analysed CE ecosystem characteristics included the CE system-level goal, ecosystem boundaries, stakeholder diversity, and stakeholder interests. Second, we utilised the a priori framework (Fig. 7.1) to identify the stakeholder engagement practices in the cases and to structure and categorise them into different process steps. Two researchers carefully grouped and formulated the engagement practices for each engagement process step (Table 7.2). Third, the case-specific analyses were cross-analysed (Table 7.2). Based on the similarities and differences in the mapped stakeholder engagement processes, our analysis resulted in a model defining the stakeholder engagement processes by the ecosystem structure (hub-centric or self-organised) and stakeholder alignment with the CE system-level goal (aligned or non-aligned; Fig. 7.3). Finally, on the basis of the model and findings, we recognised and discussed four archetypes of stakeholder engagement processes with similar patterns in distinctive CE ecosystem settings. Next, we present the within-case analysis of the CE ecosystems, analyse the stakeholder engagement processes, and finally, conceptualise four stakeholder engagement archetypes in different CE ecosystems.

Findings

Case Analysis

Case A: Centrally Coordinated CE Ecosystem—Publicly Organised Regional Endeavour to Manage a Local By-Product in a Circular Way

In case A, a local Finnish city (Tampere) and other public organisations, companies, and research organisations explored how to solve a unique local environmental issue: 1.5 million m3 of cellulose manufacturing by-product lying at the bottom of a lake (see also Uusikartano et al. 2022). The by-product limits the free-time usage of the lake and has unclear future environmental impacts, so the city that owns the area has an interest in building a CE ecosystem with a system-level goal of discovering any potential for by-product removal and the competencies needed to utilise this by-product in an economically affordable, environmentally friendly, and socially safe way. With a focus on this location-specific material, the ecosystem primarily includes stakeholders within the boundaries of the city region, but the city is openly calling for diverse, interested stakeholders (e.g., start-ups, established companies, and research organisations) beyond those boundaries: ‘We [the city] have tried to find partners by actively telling and communicating in different projects that we are aiming for collaborators who want to promote a new kind of sustainable urbanisation’ (Representative, local city). For academics and companies, finding a solution and achieving the CE goal could provide new knowledge and business opportunities.

Case B: Centrally Coordinated CE Ecosystem—National Beverage Packaging Recycling

In case B, the system-level goal of a non-profit (Suomen Palautuspakkaus Ltd., Palpa) and other stakeholders (beverage producers, trade, consumers, and material utilisers) is to build a deposit-based recycling ecosystem for beverage packaging in Finland. Although legislation guides beverage packaging recycling, the brewery industry proactively initiated the ecosystem in the 1950s. Over time, the CE ecosystem has become a well-known national institution to which it is typically considered necessary to belong. The ecosystem boundaries are primarily national and industry-based (the brewery and retail industries). Stakeholder diversity consists of the brewery industry, retail industry, consumers, recycling and logistics operators, authorities, and industry associations. The major national companies in the brewery and retail industries own the hub through which they collaborate. Thus, the hub manages and supervises the recycling system and balances the diverse coopetitive interests of the brewery and retail industry stakeholders: ‘Palpa’s role is to be in charge of the return system’s operational side and to keep the balance between the incentives of retail and brewery industries, to maintain the ecosystem as efficient as possible, as well as consumer-friendly’ (Manager, brewery industry). Today, juice producers not covered by legislation also want to join the CE ecosystem to promote the CE.

Case C: Centrally Coordinated CE Ecosystem—Global Sustainable Fast-Food Business

In case C, a fast-food restaurant chain (Hesburger) and its value chain stakeholders have a system-level goal of increasing profitable and sustainable fast-food provision globally, specifically by fighting against the food and packaging wastes of the fast-food industry. To promote this system-level goal, the fast-food restaurant chain has acted as a hub for this CE ecosystem for over 40 years. The ecosystem boundaries are global; the Finland-based restaurant chain has more than 500 restaurants in nine European countries, and its supply chains have expanded globally. Stakeholder diversity consists mainly of traditional business-related stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, customers, and packaging companies that may be purely incentivised by profitability) and research partners and regulators aiming to create new sustainable solutions for local well-being. Despite these differing interests, these stakeholders have complementary expertise: ‘Regarding particularly sustainability issues, we are experts in frying burgers, whereas our partners are experts, for example, in work clothing. So, without them, we would not have been able to do those things [advancing the CE system-level goal], and we wouldn’t have all these ideas without the partners’ (Communications Manager, fast-food company).

Case D: Self-Organised CE Ecosystem—Regional Public–Private Collaboration for Shared Good

In case D, local companies facilitated by regional public organisations and research organisations pursue a system-level goal of enhancing local prosperity and public welfare through a regional industrial symbiosis (Envi Grow Park, Forssa, Finland). The ecosystem emerged organically as local public and private companies with various material flows (e.g., wood, glass, and biowaste) moved to a new landfill in the city. The ecosystem was later promoted by public organisations facilitating (e.g., funding, marketing, and consulting services) symbiotic material exchanges: ‘I know very well the environmental-oriented companies in Finland, so I personally have had a lot of negotiations during the years that we have an excellent area in Forssa, [saying,] “Please come and build your company here,” though it was not my job, rather a hobby’ (Senior Manager, local waste management company). The ecosystem boundaries and stakeholder diversity have since broadened, and the already engaged stakeholders consider stakeholders elsewhere within the city's region potential for the CE ecosystem. Regarding the stakeholder interests in joining the ecosystem, companies see business opportunities, while public organisations see a way to promote sustainable local societal welfare.

Case E: Self-Organised CE Ecosystem—National Nutrient Recycling

In case E, a wide range of stakeholders have a CE system-level goal of recycling nutrients sustainably in a national setting in Finland. The stakeholder diversity in the ecosystem includes private and public stakeholders (e.g., farmers, biogas producers, municipal waste treatment, and various interest groups) and research organisations and consumer-citizens. The ecosystem boundaries are national and generally formed around industrial and societal activities, with some regional differences. Only few stakeholders see in the CE an opportunity to shake up the status quo of nutrient recycling. Most stakeholders have other interests and priorities such as economic opportunities and sustainability, CE principles, nutrient self-sufficiency, safe waste management, and improved soil quality: ‘I think that emphasising the multiple benefits has a big role… not just that the nutrients circulate, but it affects the soil's growing conditions positively, reduces nutrient runoffs to the Baltic Sea, brings economic value—that's huge, acknowledging all the stakeholders of the chain simultaneously’ (Project Manager, non-profit).

Case F: Self-Organised CE Ecosystem—National Environmentally Sustainable Construction Sector

In case F, construction-sector ecosystem stakeholders pursue the system-level goal to decrease construction and demolition wastes and increase the industry's national recycling and recovery rates by exploring various subthemes such as wood, plastics, and demolition. Stakeholder engagement occurs within national ecosystem boundaries, where the preparation of material coordination, construction projects, and CE strategies, platforms, and roadmaps take place. Instead of a single hub, the goal is pursued through the distinct projects and value chains of the diverse public and private stakeholders such as construction companies, construction material manufacturers, cities, recycling companies, regulators, building users, and research organisations. Many projects, seminars, and organisations connect stakeholders to share information, collaborate, test, and promote the CE in different construction fields. Changing legislative standards force stakeholders to align their partly varying interests, some to gain competitive advantages in the changing industry and others only to meet the legal pressure. Some gain direct economic benefits by recycling construction waste, while others acquire brand and image benefits from joining the CE ecosystem. However, ‘it's not necessary that everybody knows what the CE is if the principles of the CE are followed in any case’ (Circular Construction Workshop Participant).

Steps of the Stakeholder Engagement Processes

Moving from the analysis of the characteristics of the CE ecosystem cases, we utilised the a priori framework to analyse the steps of the stakeholder engagement process in each CE ecosystem (Fig. 7.1). Table 7.2 provides the key findings in detail. Overall, in each engagement process, we found that the steps apply to engaging both new and existing stakeholders.

Table 7.2 Stepwise analysis of the stakeholder engagement processes in the examined cases
Full size table

On the basis of the analysis of the CE ecosystem cases, the stakeholder engagement process is typically defined by two key ecosystem characteristics: the CE ecosystem structure (y-axis) and the alignment of stakeholder interests with the CE system-level goal (x-axis). The latter refers to the extent stakeholders contribute to achieving the system-level goal, although their individual interests may differ and may not be shared. We propose that these two characteristics define the nature of the stakeholder engagement process for a CE goal. To categorise and visually present the examined cases according to these two key characteristics, they are placed in a framework (Fig. 7.2) that reveals distinct groupings of the cases, marked with partly overlapping circles in the framework.

Fig. 7.2
A chart of the Venn diagram between 2 axes, ecosystem structure versus stakeholders alignment with the C E system level goal. It represents five different scenarios. Case E is in Circle 1, Cases F and D are in Circle 2, Case C is in Circle 3, and Cases A and B are in Circle 4.

A framework for mapping CE ecosystems with differing stakeholder engagement processes based on their ecosystem structure and stakeholders’ alignment with the CE system-level goal

Full size image
Fig. 7.3
A 4-circle model diagram of ecosystem structure versus stakeholder alignment with the C E system level goal is illustrated in a chart. It represents four archetypes such as rush hour, chain reaction, sieve, and attracting magnets.

Model of the archetypes of the stakeholder engagement processes in different CE ecosystems (Note While the archetype circles share similarities and overlap, they are clearly separated here for the sake of clarity)

Full size image

Four Archetypes of the Stakeholder Engagement Processes for a CE System-Level Goal

Based on the detailed analysis of the stakeholder engagement processes in the six CE ecosystems, the case groups (Fig. 7.2) were further analysed to identify their commonalities and differences. The empirical analysis outcomes (Fig. 7.3) show that four archetypes characterise the stakeholder engagement processes in different CE ecosystem settings: Attracting Magnets, Sieve, Chain Reaction, and Rush Hour. These archetypes indicate which stakeholder engagement process is dominant in the management of various CE ecosystems. The archetypes are explained in the succeeding sections as follows: the stakeholder engagement process archetypes for hub-structured CE ecosystems with aligned (Attracting Magnets) or non-aligned stakeholder interests (Sieve) and the stakeholder engagement process archetypes for self-organised ecosystems consisting of stakeholders with interests aligned (Chain Reaction) or non-aligned (Rush Hour) with the CE system-level goal.

Attracting Magnets

The Attracting Magnets archetype describes the CE ecosystem that fundamentally consists of two aligned stakeholder groups that attract each other: a hub coordinating the existing CE ecosystem and new interested stakeholders. The hub creates and preserves a CE ecosystem that attracts new stakeholders to approach it to pursue the CE system-level goal (e.g., in case B, the hub facilitates coopetitive collaborations between the brewery and the retail industries). The hub, in turn, cannot reach the CE system-level goal alone and is therefore interested in new stakeholders (e.g., in case A, the city attracts companies to contribute to the environmental issue). Thus, the stakeholders share an interest and willingness to come together to advance the CE system-level goal.

In step 1, each stakeholder, encouraged by a broadly known CE system-level goal, recognises its potential to contribute and consequently converges with the hub. For example, new stakeholders can proactively approach the hub to join a well-known CE ecosystem to improve their visibility and image. In step 2 (possibly overlapping with step 1), the hub reaches out to and supports the interests of potential stakeholders (who were either previously identified or approached the hub on their own) through marketing and by openly sharing information on the clearly defined CE issue via multiple selected channels. To implement engagement in step 3, the trusted hub engages and supports stakeholders to co-develop CE solutions for the CE system-level goal by, for example, facilitating the necessary sharing of sensitive information. Finally, in step 4, stakeholders who play authoritative roles evaluate the compliance of the proposed solutions with the CE system-level goal as a prerequisite for the CE ecosystem to fulfil all the stakeholders' interests.

Sieve

In the Sieve archetype, the CE ecosystem forms around the operations of a single stakeholder that acts as a hub and handpicks (‘Sieves’) and approaches other stakeholders that fit the pursuit of the CE system-level goal. All stakeholders do not necessarily need to pursue the CE system-level goal, but their non-aligned interests do not impede achieving it (e.g., in case C, not all the customers and suppliers of the hub aim to create more sustainable fast food but nevertheless contribute indirectly to that goal).

In step 1, the stakeholder engagement process begins as the hub identifies potential stakeholders that fit its value chains and values. The hub prioritises stakeholders with perceived long-term potential for a relationship built on aligned values, trustworthiness, and economic impacts. In step 2, the hub actively promotes the CE system-level goal through multichannel marketing and the stimulation of broader societal discussions. In step 3, the hub encourages and educates stakeholders with diverse interests about awareness of the CE system-level goal (e.g., by offering new products with smaller environmental impacts) and initiates circular projects in long-term stakeholder relationships within the value chain. Finally, in step 4, the hub evaluates the stakeholder engagement outcomes against its own sustainability guidelines.

Chain Reaction

The Chain Reaction archetype emerges in a CE ecosystem setting that has no hub but consists of stakeholders with interests aligned with the CE ecosystem, so engagement in the CE system-level goal happens organically in smaller stakeholder groups (e.g., in case F, the sustainability demands for the construction sector set by the value chain stakeholders are realised in independent construction projects). In a Chain Reaction, these smaller engagement endeavours lead to new ones, and the stakeholders become more aligned with the CE system-level goal (e.g., in case D, the local city engages in the CE ecosystem because it sees the ecosystem as useful for pursuing the CE system-level goal).

In step 1, after gaining increased knowledge of the CE requirements, facilitating organisations (e.g., regional- and national-level authorities) envision the CE system-level goal and the stakeholders needed to achieve it. The facilitating organisations identify potential stakeholders through, for example, seminars, meetings, and projects. In step 2, the facilitating organisations conduct targeted marketing and enable the stakeholders with the highest potential for the CE ecosystem to discover the ecosystem's benefits through platforms (i.e., physical/online venues for stakeholders to meet and communicate, such as workshops in case F). In step 3, the stakeholders continuously interact and openly communicate, often on a personal level, building trust and contributing to a feeling of a shared community. The CE ecosystem may consist of many separate sub-groups with their own engagement processes, but as the stakeholders become more aware of each other and how the CE ecosystem strengthens their capability to pursue the CE system-level goal, they become more motivated to engage in the CE ecosystem and create a shared pool of resources. In step 4, stakeholders—mainly public organisations with expert roles, authorities, and funding stakeholders—evaluate the engagement process outcomes situationally and individually, often using indicators from stakeholders' strategies, reports, publications, and statistics.

Rush Hour

The Rush Hour archetype models a CE ecosystem of stakeholders that have non-aligned interests and engage in the CE system-level goal in a self-organised manner (e.g., in case E, nutrient recycling involves multiple sectors, from agriculture to biogas producers, that directly/indirectly pursue the CE system-level goal). No hub guides the stakeholders, and the traffic of different stakeholders may occasionally become jammed because of co-existing different directions, vehicles, and speed preferences (i.e., non-aligned, even controversial premises, interests, and goals). However, as multiple stakeholders move, various avenues for the CE ecosystem to pursue the CE system-level goal emerge, allowing stakeholders to drive in the same direction in a synchronised way, possibly reaching the highway (i.e., the CE system-level goal).

In step 1, interested individuals in the stakeholder organisations seek known stakeholders with the potential to address the CE system-level goal, particularly stakeholders who have existing operations related to the CE system-level goal and can join in responding to the goal, challenging the status quo. In step 2, expert and/or authority stakeholders justify the importance of the CE system-level goal and disseminate the necessary information to reach out to potential stakeholders. Simultaneously, forerunner stakeholders, who are the first to engage in the CE system-level goal, teach circular practices to encourage others, beginning with their closest existing contacts. In step 3, the facilitator stakeholders drive stakeholder engagement by initiating networking opportunities and agendas for achieving the CE system-level goal. Meanwhile, self-organised stakeholders voluntarily engage in inclusive, direct dialogue and practice sharing to address the CE system-level goal. In step 4, primarily national-level stakeholders review the development towards achieving the CE system-level goal, while other stakeholders evaluate the engagement process outcomes against their individual interests.

Discussion

In this chapter, we analysed what kinds of processes engage stakeholders in a CE system-level goal in different CE ecosystems. We uncovered empirically based, four-step stakeholder engagement processes with multiple practices in six carefully selected CE ecosystems. We also identified the key characteristics of CE ecosystems that determine how the stakeholder engagement processes unfold: the ecosystem structure (hub-centric or self-organised) and the alignment of stakeholders' interests with the CE system-level goal (aligned or non-aligned). We conceptualised these findings into four archetypes describing how the stakeholder engagement processes in a CE can unfold in four steps, depending on the CE ecosystem's characteristics. Together, these findings, which constitute the main contributions of this research, emphasise how the CE ecosystem's structural aspects (the ecosystem structure and alignment of different interests) greatly affect the processes of engaging stakeholders in the CE and its system-level goal. Accordingly, this study makes several contributions to research on stakeholder engagement, ecosystem management, and the CE.

First, this research developed an understanding of stakeholder engagement in ecosystem settings. To stakeholder engagement research, the a priori framework (Fig. 7.1) and archetype model (Fig. 7.3) contribute an understanding of stakeholder engagement as a process for managing stakeholders in ecosystems, considering the interdependencies and co-evolution between the complementary stakeholders and their actions when pursuing a system-level goal (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). Analysing stakeholder engagement with the ecosystem approach goes beyond dyadic or networked settings (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2020) and enables uncovering the complexity of all interactions in one ecosystem between the involved stakeholders. Analysing stakeholder engagement in a CE ecosystem context also generates valuable new knowledge from the CE research perspective, as the systemic nature of a CE requires considering and engaging diverse complementary interdependent stakeholders (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021).

Second, our findings contribute to the process perspective of stakeholder engagement research, which recognises the processual nature of stakeholder engagement (Greenwood, 2007; Johnston, 2010; Lane & Devin, 2018; Verbeke & Tung, 2013) but often neglects the identification and visualisation of the steps of this process in practice. By examining and mapping the process steps from six empirical CE ecosystem cases (Table 7.2) based on the a priori framework, we uncovered the steps of the stakeholder engagement processes, particularly for achieving CE system-level goals, building on Lane and Devin (2018): (1) identifying, prioritising, and selecting key stakeholders; (2) reaching out to stakeholders and securing their interests; (3) integrating and interacting through the development of relationships, communication, and learning; and (4) evaluating stakeholder engagement outcomes and the process itself. For each step, particularly step 4, we found various empirical-based practices (Table 7.2) extending those recognised by Lane and Devin (2018). These findings from analysing CE ecosystems address the lack of an empirical understanding of stakeholder engagement processes based on case studies (Kujala & Sachs, 2019) and help to understand the differences among industries, geographic areas, and contexts (Kujala & Sachs, 2019; Sloan, 2009; Sulkowski et al., 2018). These insights spill over from stakeholder engagement to CE research by building an understanding of stakeholder engagement as a collaborative process that advances circular solutions (Brown et al., 2021), fostering systemic change towards building a CE.

Third, the findings from the six extensive CE ecosystems point to the key characteristics of CE ecosystems and the resulting stakeholder engagement processes conceptualised as archetypes (Fig. 7.3). These findings contribute to ecosystem research by showing that, to an extent, ecosystems can be managed by applying a stakeholder engagement process archetype depending on the alignment of stakeholder interests and the CE ecosystem structure. First, it seems that the clearer the CE system-level goal was for the stakeholders, the more aligned their interests were towards it, and the less sense-making was needed in the stakeholder engagement process. Second, the structural aspects of a CE ecosystem also appeared to affect the development of the stakeholder engagement process in a CE system-level goal. Self-organised ecosystem structures (Basole, 2009; Clarysse et al., 2014) seemed to organically evolve through the engagement of the closest known stakeholders, whereas in hub-centric ecosystems (Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Ritala et al., 2013), a hub can facilitate the engagement of a broader audience. These findings from the different types of CE ecosystems show how and by whom interactions among stakeholders can be initiated, coordinated, and managed in practice under different conditions (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). Within CE research, these findings strengthen the understanding that creating value in a CE is a systemic challenge that no stakeholder can address alone (Kujala et al., 2019) and requires implementing different stakeholder engagement processes in ecosystem settings.

This study provides pragmatic contributions, aligned with the core of stakeholder engagement: applying the stakeholder theory in practice (Freeman et al., 2017). The findings support organisations and personnel, from business managers to public decision makers, to act during each step of the stakeholder engagement process to engage others or themselves in a CE. By identifying the key characteristics of the CE ecosystem (the ecosystem structure and the alignment of stakeholders' interests), organisations can learn its dominant stakeholder engagement process archetype (Fig. 7.3), understand their role in this process, and apply the typical stakeholder engagement practices for each process step to reach the CE goals in their CE ecosystem (Fig. 7.3). Thus, with the insights of this research, diverse types of organisations can learn how to contribute to a CE goal.

Although this extensive multiple-case study permits drawing analytical generalisations, it is limited to Finland, leaving room for investigations in other institutional contexts. Similarly, the archetypes are necessarily generalisations, and CE ecosystems may display characteristics not limited to a single archetype. Therefore, we suggest that future research explores the possible interlinks, overlaps, and dynamics between the proposed archetypes (Fig. 7.3). Addressing the archetypes as hybrid organisations (see e.g., Johanson & Vakkuri, 2018) presents another way of comparing and further investigating them. Furthermore, we consider the cases in snapshots of their current form, excluding considerations of whether some archetypes might be stable, and others temporary in the ecosystem development. We also do not consider the success of the cases at achieving CE system-level goals, so the archetypes may not represent the ideal models for developing stakeholder engagement processes in any given circumstances. Therefore, it would be beneficial to use global data sets to further test the archetypes, particularly their temporal and performance aspects. Finally, we emphasise the need to apply process and strategic management perspectives to investigate stakeholder engagement (Greenwood, 2007; Johnston, 2010; Lane & Devin, 2018; Verbeke & Tung, 2013) and implement circularity (Brown et al., 2021; Kaipainen & Aarikka-Stenroos, 2021, 2022). The implementation of a CE requires more processual investigation at not only the ecosystem level, as examined in this chapter, but also at organisational and supply chain levels within the strategic development of organisations and ecosystems.

Conclusions

This chapter investigated what kinds of processes engage stakeholders in a CE system-level goal in different CE ecosystems. This was achieved by an ambitious effort to combine two complementary theoretical perspectives on stakeholder interactions: stakeholder engagement and the ecosystem approach. Combining them with CE research as theoretical background, we proceeded to abductively analyse the stakeholder engagement processes that unfolded step-by-step in the six carefully selected empirical CE ecosystems. We discovered and conceptualised four archetypes of the CE stakeholder engagement process: Attracting Magnets, Sieve, Chain Reaction, and Rush Hour. These archetypes are found in CE ecosystems depending on the ecosystem's structure, which varies from hub-centric to self-organised structures, and the alignment of stakeholders' different interests to the CE system-level goal.

After synthesising our findings, we created a model of the stakeholder engagement process archetypes in different CE ecosystems. The empirically based insights into how stakeholder engagement processes unfold to achieve system-level goals in complex ecosystem settings expand the current understanding from dyadic or networked settings of stakeholder engagement (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2020; Kujala & Sachs, 2019; Lane & Devin, 2018). Furthermore, our findings not only complement stakeholder engagement research with the much-needed empirical evidence of stakeholder engagement as a process (Andriof & Waddock, 2002; Greenwood, 2007; Johnston, 2010; Lane & Devin, 2018) within and across specific industries, geographic areas, and contexts (Kujala & Sachs, 2019; Sloan, 2009; Sulkowski et al., 2018). The findings also add to the research on ecosystem management and CE, as our findings build understanding of the characteristics, management, and development of CE ecosystems (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021). Finally, our insights provide practical advice to organisations and managers on the actions to take step-by-step when engaging stakeholders in emerging or established CE ecosystems.