Master Thesis International Business and Management

Master Thesis International Business and

Management

SMART CITIES: ARE SLOWING LOOP INITIATIVES THE

SOLUTION TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE AND HOW CAN

A TBL, STAKEHOLDER AND CSV PERSPECTIVE

CONTRIBUTE?

Martine de Buck: S3186547

Supervisor: Dr. Bartjan Pennink Date: 18/06/2018

Table of contents:

1. Introduction ... 4

2. Literature review ... 6

2.1 Circular economy and smart cities ... 6

2.2 Circular economy and the slowing loop strategies... 7

2.3 Development of slowing loop initiatives from a TBL, stakeholder and CSV perspective ... 9

2.4 Access and performance model ... 11

2.5 Extending the product value ... 14

2.6 Classic long life-model and encourage sufficiency... 17

3. Methodology ... 20

3.1 Research design... 20

3.2 Research setting ... 21

3.3 Data collection ... 21

3.4 Data analysis ... 23

4. Development of slowing loops and the relevance of TBL, stakeholder theory and CSV ... 23

4.1 Sharing city Amsterdam ... 23

4.2 Amsterdam as pioneer of the CE ... 27

4.3 Challenges and lessons learned from Amsterdam... 32

4.4 Relevance of TBL, stakeholder theory and CSV for implementation of slowing loops ... 35

5. Discussion, limitations and future research ... 38

6. Conclusion ... 42 Bibliography ... 44 Appendices ... 49 A. Interview guides ... 49 B. Secondary data ... 60 C. Coding tree ... 62

This thesis is submitted for obtaining the master International Business and Management at the University of Groningen. I want to thank my supervisor for the feedback he has given during this process and his open and enthusiastic attitude. Furthermore, I want to thank all my interviewees for their time invested and valuable information provided. Without these interviewees this thesis would not have been possible. The information in this thesis is confidential and consequently sharing this thesis with others is not appreciated. Lastly, I hope you enjoy reading this thesis.

Abbreviations used in this thesis: APM= Access and performance model CE= Circular economy

CLLM= Classic long-life model CSV= Creating shared value EPV= Extending product value ES= Encourage sufficiency

SDGs= Sustainable development goals SE= Sharing economy

ABSTRACT

To tackle problems caused by our linear economy (smart) cities worldwide are recognizing the potential of a circular economy. Circular economy consists of two strategies: closing the loop and slowing the loop. So far, closing the loop has gained most attention and slowing the loop remained unexplored, while studies stress the importance of this strategy for circular economy. Moreover, both strategies are described as creating value for environment, society and economy and thus the involvement of various stakeholders is argued to be key. However, scholars state that it is unclear how perspectives like TBL impact slowing loop initiatives. The main purpose of this study is to research what challenges come along when implementing slowing loops in smart cities and how TBL, stakeholder and creating shared value perspectives contribute to the implementation of the slowing loop strategies. By analysing a pioneering smart city and conducting interviews with various important stakeholders involved in the slowing loops, this study found eleven main challenges. These challenges illustrate what is needed to implement and improve slowing loop initiatives. Moreover, we found that the three perspectives are very relevant for the implementation of slowing loops and ensure that these strategies move in the right sustainable direction.

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the last years circular economy (CE) has gained increased attention from academics, politicians, and practitioners. This rising popularity of CE can be explained by the current problems of our linear economy: overconsumption, waste, scarce resources and more. CE is seen as the solution to these problems (Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken, & Hultink, 2017; Homrich, Galvão, Gamboa, & Carvalho, 2018; Merli, Preziosi, & Acampora, 2018) and many actors, including smart cities, acknowledge the importance of CE nowadays. Moreover, cities will play a major role in tackling the problems of the linear economy as half of the world population will be living in cities (UN, 2018). This gives rise to the so called ‘smart cities’ who combine intelligence with sustainability to create a modern and healthy living (Angelidou, 2015; Kummitha & Crutzen, 2017). Despite this popularity there is still a long way to go with many challenges ahead, as the world is only 9% circular yet (Circle Economy, 2018).

and performance model (APM); extending product value (EPV); classic long-life model (CLLM); encourage sufficiency (ES). Where most attention has gone to recycling strategies, the slowing loop strategies are mainly overlooked and thus studies stress the need for more research on this strategy (Ghisellini, Cialani, & Ulgiati, 2016, 2016; Homrich et al., 2018; Merli et al., 2018). Besides, several scholars emphasize the importance of slowing loop strategies and even argue that slowing loop strategies are more efficient and sustainable than closing the loops (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2018; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Merli et al., 2018; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Moreover, they argue that recycling should only be an option when slowing loop strategies are not possible anymore. This stresses the importance of slowing loop strategies within CE and hence the need for more research focusing on this specific strategy. Furthermore, literature addresses the need of including a wide variety of stakeholders which is needed to make both slowing and closing loops work (Ghisellini et al., 2017; Merli et al., 2018). CE is promoted as a concept that contributes to social, environmental and economic wellbeing. However, studies argue that currently there is insufficient attention given to the social implications and balancing the three values (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Merli et al., 2018). Moreover, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) stresses the need to analyse how theories like triple bottom line (TBL) impact the slowing loops and how they contribute to increased sustainability for the slowing loops.

By performing a qualitative case study, this thesis addresses the abovementioned gaps and takes a holistic approach by interviewing different stakeholders and including all three values (environmental, social, economic). In turn, the obtained results can be very valuable for smart cities to improve and accelerate the implementation of slowing loop strategies. Moreover, the insights resulting from analysing the relevance and contribution of the three perspectives complements current knowledge and studies in this field.

The remaining of this study will be structured as follows. First, the main concepts of this study are explained and analysed in the literature review. Then, the approach and methodology of this study is described. Next, the results of this study are discussed. Lastly, a discussion and conclusion with limitations and opportunities for future research are given.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Circular economy and smart cities

We currently live in a linear economy: we take, make and dispose. The British economist Boulding already warned for the limits of the environment and its resources in 1966 and hereafter several other studies followed. However, it is only since recently that these calls are being heard. Since 2014 the number of articles in the CE field is gaining attention and in the same year the European Parliament adopted the programme ‘towards a circular economy: zero waste’ (European Commission, 2014; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). The negative effects caused by linear models have led to the increased necessity of a sustainable system, as the linear economy threatens the stability of economies, erosion of ecosystems, secure access of resources and more (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Pollard, Turney, Charnley, & Webster, 2016). CE is seen as the solution for the problems caused by the linear economy and is developed as a countermovement. Nowadays, CE is a main goal on the agendas of many smart cities and CE practices are being implemented worldwide.

In the 18th _{century the rise of cities already started. According to the UN (2014) most}

Krogstie, 2017). However, the smart city concept differentiates itself by integrating a fourth pillar: technology. This technology aspect makes smart cities ‘extraordinary’ as they give rise to smart solutions that in turn will help tackle the problems of urbanization and the linear economy and pave the way to a sustainable future that benefits society, environment and economy (Angelidou, 2015; Kummitha & Crutzen, 2017).

A smart city can be defined as: ‘an innovative city that uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social and environmental aspects’ (UNECE and ITU, 2015: 1). CE can be seen as a means that helps smart cities moving from the exhaustive linear economy to a circular one and thus tackle the problems of resource depletion, pollution and waste. CE, in turn, can be defined as: ‘a system in which the balance between environment, society and economy is key, and pursued by maintaining the value of products, materials and resources in the system as long as possible and by minimizing waste and emissions as far as possible’ (EC 2018: 1; Ghisellini et al., 2016: 11). By keeping products ‘alive’ as long as possible, through recycling, reuse, increased durability and more, CE wants to increase efficient use of resources and reduce waste and emissions (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Ghisellini et al., 2016). These three aspects (depletion of resources, waste and emissions) are seen as the main environmental problems in cities, showing the importance of CE for smart cities in reaching their goal of sustainability. Besides, the technology pillar where smart cities are known for is of importance for a CE as well. According to Homrich et al. (2018) technical breakthroughs are needed to move to a CE. Moreover, to minimize waste, keep products alive and make products more durable, radical and incremental innovations have been developed and are still being developed (Ghisellini et al., 2016). Together, this illustrates that the development of a CE and a smart city go hand in hand and foster each other.

2.2 Circular economy and the slowing loop strategies

the process as it is more efficient than recycling products immediately (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2018; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). This indicates that the slowing loop initiatives have a major role within CE as well and putting more focus on and efforts in these strategies will be of great value. Slowing loop initiatives are strategies developed with the aim of prolonging a product’s life and ‘changing the way a good is used and owned’ (Bocken et al., 2016; Merli et al., 2018). According to the Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2018) these strategies are of utmost importance as they retain most of the product’s complexity, integrity and embedded labour and energy. The idea behind this is that products with a longer a lifetime will eventually result in savings of energy, resources and labour and eventually decreases the amount of waste. Within slowing loop four strategies can be distinguished: access and performance model (APM); extending product value (EPV); classic long-life model (CLLM); encourage sufficiency (ES) (Bocken et al., 2016; Merli et al., 2018). Figure 1 illustrates the concept of CE. The green part of the image (extraction and regeneration) together with the outer blue line (recycling) form the closed loop within CE. The slowing loops are illustrated by the other blue lines: share; maintain/prolong; reuse/redistribute; refurbish/remanufacture. Share falls within APM, reuse/redistribute and refurbish/ remanufacture fall within EPV and maintain/prolong fall within the other two strategies CLLM model and ES.

2.3 Development of slowing loop initiatives from a TBL, stakeholder and CSV perspective

Many stakeholders are involved in making the slowing loop initiatives and the transition to a CE successful within smart cities. Several studies stress the importance of analysing CE, and thus the slowing loops, as a systematic and holistic approach (Homrich et al., 2018; Murray, Skene, & Haynes, 2017; Pollard et al., 2016). Besides, CE has been described as wanting ‘to achieve a better balance and harmony between economy, environment and society’ (Ghisellini et al., 2016: 11). Other studies agree as CE is described as a strategy to achieve sustainability (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Homrich et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2017; Pollard et al., 2016). However, many studies have ignored the social or society perspective on CE so far, and thus most attentions is gone to an economic and environmental point of view (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Homrich et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2017; Pollard et al., 2016). To address this imbalance, this study will take a TBL, stakeholder and CSV perspective. The three perspectives will be briefly discussed now.

The term TBL was developed by John Elkington in 1994. The idea of the TBL is that a corporation’s performance should not be based solely on economic values, but instead it should be based on social and environmental values as well (Elkington, 2013; Norman & Macdonald, 2014). Moreover, according to TBL advocates companies should not only measure, audit, calculate and report their economic compliance but also their overall compliance of obligations to their stakeholders (Norman & Macdonald, 2014). Together, this could make it a valuable tool to measure sustainability.

The concept of CSV was developed by Porter & Kramer in 2006 and aims at creating shared value by doing more than making profits. It is defined as: ‘policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates’ (Porter and Kramer 2011: 66). These authors blame companies for the problems in society by having a short term financial drive while ignoring broader societal needs. The core of this concept is about creating value for society while at the same time making profits. There are three ways in which shared value can be created (Porter & Kramer, 2011). First, companies need to serve customer needs again by making products that meet demands of society, also called reconceiving products and markets. Second, by redefining productivity in the value chain. For example, efficient use of resources could benefit both company and society. Third, by enabling local cluster development as companies and their clusters are intertwined and could mutually reinforce or weaken each other. However, the CSV concept has been criticized as well (Crane, Pallazzo, Spence, & Matten, 2014). First, we can debate about if it is fair to blame only the companies for the societal problems we have nowadays. Citizens may also have a responsibility. They have the power to vote with their wallet by buying only sustainable for instance. Furthermore, Crane et al. (2014) and Dembek, Singh, & Bhakoo (2016) argue that the concept has lots of resemblance with other theories like stakeholder theory and that it ignores the difficulties and trade-offs when aiming at both economic and social value. They made a fair point, as many articles stress the tension and trade-offs resulting from hybridity (Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014). Nevertheless, the number of social enterprises is growing rapidly (Deloitte, 2018). TBL, Stakeholder theory and CSV indeed have similarities but also their differences which are illustrated in Table 1 (Liel, 2015).

SIMILARITIES

- All three concepts address the need for long-term thinking and moving beyond economic values.

- They stress the importance and understanding of the intertwined relations of organizations and society/stakeholders.

- Both TBL and CSV address that sustainability should be integrated with the corporate strategy.

DIFFERENCES

- CSV asks for a fundamental change of doing business as organizations need to rethink their value chain or identify new business opportunities while stakeholder theory asks for a relatively minor change.

- CSV is focused on a more broad and general interest of society while TBL and stakeholder theory focus more on a lower level of stakeholders.

The focus of this study will be on the similarities of these concepts. The Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2018: 8) stated that ‘a circular value chain requires all stakeholders to contribute towards an outcome that achieves the best value for all parties’. Moreover, Ghisellini et al., (2016) argue that a successful transition to CE includes involvement of all actors and the ability to effectively collaborate with these actors. This means that the development of slowing loop initiatives within smart cities involves many stakeholders with intertwined relations and different drivers, making it a complex concept. To reveal and illustrate the different stakeholders, their connections, drivers and needs asks for a holistic approach with which these three perspectives can help. To come back to the heading of this section, the development of slowing loops from a TBL, stakeholder and CSV perspective means developing solutions, new business models and strategies that include and create value for all (relevant) stakeholders. Moreover, it means moving beyond economic values and including social and environmental values. As this is still very abstract this study intents to reveal how these perspectives contribute and relate to the development of the four strategies within the slowing loop of CE which is illustrated by Figure 2. The following sections will go into detail about the slowing loop literature and thoroughly describes the four slowing loop strategies: APM, EPV, CLLM and ES.

Figure 2. Theoretical relevance.

2.4 Access and performance model

resources within these cities. SE has been discussed as if it would solve all the problems we currently face and ads value for society, environment and economy (Cheng, 2016; Martin, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017). It has been described as a reaction to the current capitalistic system, a solution to the overconsumption and unsustainable economy, and a promotion of the empowerment of individuals and equality (Cheng, 2016; Martin, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017). However, criticism on this concept is increasing, questioning the ‘real’ added value for society and environment, wondering whether it is just another capitalistic model, sold under a sustainable, solidary story (Acquier, Daudigeos, & Pinkse, 2017; Murillo et al., 2017). Figure 3 represents the value chain of the SE. From this figure three main parties can be distinguished: the companies who provide the platform; the owner of the product which could be a citizen or company and the citizen that is making use of the service. Key stakeholders identified by literature will be discussed next.

The government can stimulate or hinder the development of the SE. They want to foster economic growth and innovation but also need to address the problems of climate change both on national and city level (Merli et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2017). Besides, both national governments and cities need to make sure that they fulfil their role in meeting the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Furthermore, on a local governmental level, they want to ensure but also create jobs, and improve the quality of life for citizens. However, SE is a relatively new concept and finds itself in a ‘grey area’ (Cheng, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017). Legislation is not aligned and studies stress the importance of addressing the legal concerns within this strategy (Cheng, 2016; Martin, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017). Problems like responsibility in case of accidents or damage remains unclear. Companies like Uber and Airbnb deny any responsibility justified by arguing that they are only ‘the platform’ that facilitates exchange. Employees are hired as independent contractors to shift risks from company to employees, causing a lack of insurance cover. Moreover, these companies are avoiding taxes by making use of tax havens, making it an ethical debate as well (Cheng, 2016; Martin & Scott, 2000;

Murillo et al., 2017). The government has definitely a role in the SE according to literature. However, what this role should be seems still questionable. One the one hand it is argued that government should intervene to enforce fair competition and protect society from ‘bad practices’ while on the other hand government interference should be minimalized as it might hinder the SE in future growth (Cheng, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017). From a CSV and stakeholder perspective it could be argued that government should intervene and develop regulations to address unfair, deceptive and exhaustive practices. These unfair, deceptive and exhaustive practices prevent the creation of shared value in the SE for all stakeholders.

Secondly, there are the companies: the party that provides a platform and offers a service. Companies are active within the SE for different reasons: companies driven by a social or environmental purpose, non-profit organisations who stand up for the rights of citizens or the environment (NGOs) and companies only driven by profit. The so-called profit driven companies are the main problem from a TBL, CSV and stakeholder perspective. They have short-term financial goals and neglect the importance of value creation for stakeholders. Literature is mostly concerned with companies like Uber and Airbnb which are portrayed as the bad examples of the SE as they only care about profits (Malhotra & Van Alstyne, 2014). They are disruptive, creating unfair competition and avoiding taxes and risks (Acquier et al., 2017; Cheng, 2016; Martin & Scott, 2000; Murillo et al., 2017), making their intentions for society and environment questionable. However, there are also promising examples of the SE which do create value by including social and environmental values. The case of Peerby illustrates this well. The company started with a motive beyond making profits namely: connecting people within their neighbourhood. With this idea in mind the owner started the platform Peerby, which offers the service of borrowing items from people in your neighbourhood like drills, bikes and more. Peerby is centred around three principles: the borrowing platform is better for your wallet, the neighbourhood and the planet (Peerby, 2018). In this way Peerby creates value for itself and society, it reconceives products and markets but also productivity in the value chain by stimulating smarter consumption on an innovative way within smart cities.

products and thus decreasing the total number of products needed, and by paying for performance, customers should be incentivized to only use the necessary amount of a product and thus save money. However, rebound and unintended side effects may play a role as well. It is argued that consumers may be less incentivized to treat products gently as they do not own it anymore (Acquier et al., 2017). Besides, as products become more easily accessible it may even increase the use of products instead of decreasing it (Acquier et al., 2017). The intensity of these rebound and unintended side effects may depend up on the knowledge and motivation of the consumer. ‘Green consumers’ will be more aware of and conscious about their behaviour than the average consumer may be. Lastly, an American study of 50,000 American consumers revealed that price, convenience and brand where the most important factors when choosing for the SE (Murillo et al., 2017). Moreover, around 70% of both the Europeans and Americans is estimated to be involved within the SE (OCU, 2016; Pew Research Center, 2016).

The SE has lots of potential and could create value for society, environment and economy if it moves in the right direction. For smart cities, it creates value as it helps solving problems like scarcity of spaces and makes many things more accessible and affordable for citizens. However, it remains unclear who is responsible and should take the lead in making sure that it is creating value for all. Besides, what role should the government take concerning this problem and how big this role should be remains debatable.

2.5 Extending the product value

promising as they create value for environment, society and economy, but there are also some challenges and barriers that need to be addressed (Abbey et al., 2015; Gharfalkar et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Key stakeholders will be discussed next.

Figure 4. Value chain reused products.

For governments reuse and remanufacturing is an effective strategy that can help meeting the SDGs of the UN, as reusing and remanufacturing extends a products life and thus reduces the usage of raw materials and energy (Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Furthermore, is it argued that this concept leads to an increase in jobs as it is more labour intensive (Gharfalkar et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Governments can push companies in the right direction by using legislation and give producers responsibilities (Gharfalkar et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). There is already some legislation in place at different governmental levels. The extended producer responsibility is a program at the European level which shifts the responsibility for disposal and waste to producers. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment is another mandate at the European level that created collection schemes for consumers to return their devices for free is aimed at increasing reuse and recycling (European Commission, 2018). However, despite these efforts there are still legal constraints and a lack of supporting policies (Gharfalkar et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). It is argued that governments could be supportive by taxing raw or non-renewable resources instead of labour (Raworth, 2017; Stahel, 2010; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). The CSV concept agrees as governments should set social goals and stimulate innovation, making the creation of shared value attractive (Porter & Kramer, 2011). These authors argue that this could be done by setting prices which reflect true costs for resources.

remanufacturing may cannibalize their market share, and decrease the sales of their new product market (Abbey et al., 2015; Gharfalkar et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Secondly, lack of experience and awareness is a barrier for companies to withdraw from reuse and remanufacturing (Gharfalkar et al., 2016). Companies may not be aware of the benefits it can bring or have the wrong idea of the concept. Third, companies question the perception of customers to reused and remanufactured products and do not want to damage their brand image (Abbey et al., 2015; Gharfalkar et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Fourth, setting up a programme to collect the waste and used appliances from consumers seems challenging and difficult (Matsumoto & Nasr, 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). A potential solution offered by the literature to cannibalization is a lease business model (Agrawal & Bellos, 2017; Matsumoto & Nasr, 2016). Services have higher margins, are harder to imitate and develop customer loyalty. Companies like Philips and Rolls Royce have already implemented such business models successfully.

Motivations for consumers to use or buy these products are lower prices or an internal motivation for sustainability (Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Citizens with a tight budget can save money by buying reused products, as they are cheaper than new products. However, there are also several reasons that withhold consumers for buying reused or remanufactured products. First, there is a lack of awareness about the benefits but also about the availability of these products (Abbey et al., 2015; Gharfalkar et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Moreover, consumers are not aware on how to participate in reusing practices and where they can drop their used products for reusing purposes. Second, consumers may have a biased negative perception about reused and remanufactured products. According to Abbey et al. (2015) consumers perceive these products as dirty, worn, broken and/or dangerous. Another study found that customers in India perceive these products as unsafe and unreliable (Veleva & Bodkin, 2017).

2.6 Classic long life-model and encourage sufficiency

CLLM aims at the durability and maintenance of products. It is about the lifespan of a product which can be defined as: the moment from the purchase of a product till the moment the product is discarded by the end-user or owner (Bakker, Wang, Huisman, & Den Hollander, 2014). The strategy of ES is closely related to the CLLM and therefore they are treated together in this thesis. ES aims at making products that last and make sure that users will hold on to it as long as possible (Bocken et al., 2016). Companies can do this by giving a high service level. They

rather sell a few high-end products than many products with a short life span to slow down sales and decrease environmental impact. Product lifetimes have decreased in the past decade, leading to an increased flow of materials and waste in cities (Bakker et al., 2014; Cooper, 2005; Wieser, 2016). This is partly caused by the rapid evolving technology and innovations we have nowadays (Bakker et al., 2014; Cooper, 2005). Many products are time and fashion related, like clothes and mobile phones in which (smart) cities have a major stake. These short life cycles of products lead to an increased amount of waste and usage of energy and resources in (smart) cities. Figure 5 illustrates the value chain of a CLLM combined with ES. This figure illustrates the complexity of the strategy and the importance of collaboration from the beginning to the end of the product with all stakeholders.

Figure 5. Value chain of durable products combined with sufficiency (information is based on the cases of Fair phone and Patagonia)

Companies have different motives for decreasing a product its lifespan. First, a shorter lifespan is beneficial for the manufacturer as it stimulates consumers to repeat purchases (Bakker et al., 2014; Cooper, 2005). A second motive is that companies are forced in order to keep up with competition (Bakker et al., 2014). In the mobile phone market companies compete on camera resolution, speed and many more to attract customers and stimulate purchases. Companies that do not participate may not survive. From a CSV and stakeholder perspective it can be argued that these arguments are caused by short-term thinking and by neglecting the needs of stakeholders. Short lifespans are (most of the time) bad for environment and society (Bakker et al., 2014; Moreno, De los Rios, Rowe, & Charnley, 2016). Therefore, companies should think in the long term and in terms of creating value. They can do this by reconceiving products and markets, resulting in new business models like servicing, which can lead to value creation for both company, environment and society (Porter & Kramer, 2011). Companies even argue that they are only reacting to consumer demand, making it a chicken and egg debate (Wieser, 2016). An important question remains why companies should increase product lifespan, what is in it for them? First, it could be argued that it is their job as companies should create value for all stakeholders from a TBL, CSV and stakeholder perspective. However, other motives are that there is an increasing pressure from stakeholders. Companies may be pressured and pushed by environmental organisations and governments to increase product lifespan (e.g. France with legislation). Second, some companies may have an intrinsic motivation to do more than making profits. The company Patagonia created an anti-consumerism strategy to decrease consumption. They mixed the strategy of durability with sufficiency by making high-quality products that lasts for years and can be repaired easily so that people do not have to buy new products (Patagonia, 2018). Companies may profit from strategies like this by asking higher prices for their products as they are high quality and will last for a long time. Furthermore, companies can gain from providing extra services like repair, remanufacturing, upgrading and so on (Bocken et al., 2016). This way companies can earn some extra money with services while also increasing customer loyalty.

Maitre-Ekern & Dalhammar, 2016). Durable products are most of the time more expensive than normal products.

Durable products combined with sufficiency can have a great and positive impact on reaching a CE within smart cities. However, challenges remain, and the role different parties should take is unclear. Should the European Union, national or local governments follow France in legislation for planned obsolescence? From a CSV and stakeholder approach it would make sense as planned obsolescence restrains value creation for all stakeholders and is unfair and exhaustive (Freeman et al., 2010; Porter & Kramer, 2011). Besides, consumers seem unaware of the depletion of resources in the various processes of products. More aware consumers may lead to better choices, but better choices should be provided by the companies. Companies should take responsibility by providing durable products that are easy to repair and maintain. However, who should take the lead in educating consumers? Is this a potential role for governments or should companies address this by being more transparent?

To conclude, the four slowing loop strategies seem very valuable for smart cities in solving the problems caused by a linear economy. Moreover, when applied with the right purpose and incentives they could create value for all stakeholders. However, many challenges still retain smart cities from reaping all the benefits of the slowing loop strategies. Figure 6 summarizes the main findings of these four strategies. Important and emerging questions that need to be answered are: are these the main challenges or are there important challenges neglected? And even more important, how can these challenges be overcome? In the next sections we will try to answer these questions by following the smart city Amsterdam in the implementation of slowing loop strategies. Moreover, by taking a TBL, CSV and stakeholder perspective we want to find out and illustrate how these perspectives contribute and relate to the development of the four slowing loop strategies discussed above.

.

3. METHODOLOGY

This study originates from the need for more insights on and understanding of the slowing loop strategies and the increasing development of CE within smart cities. The implementation of slowing loops and CE in general is described as complex and holistic. In present, qualitative studies are described and used to understand a complex phenomenon and allows the retaining of holistic and meaningful real-life situations (Yin, 2009).

3.1 Research design

creating an understanding of the motives and challenges of different actors involved and how these three perspectives help with the implementation.

3.2 Research setting

Amsterdam wants to be the frontrunner in the transition to a CE. In 2015, Amsterdam was the first city in the world that instructed an in-depth study to investigate the potential for the transitioning to a CE. This report led to the creation and development of two programmes: Amsterdam circular: Learning by doing, and the Circular Innovation programme. Furthermore, Amsterdam is mentioned as the international leader in this transition. They won the World Smart City Award in 2016 and are named the first sharing city of Europe. Moreover, they are asked to share their expertise with many cities worldwide. Amsterdam works together with many stakeholders to accelerate the process. They work together with universities and companies but also with other cities, nationally and internationally. Altogether, this makes Amsterdam an interesting case to study the implementation and development of slowing loop strategies. As a frontrunner they already have (many) programmes in place which makes it a valuable case to study the challenges and how Amsterdam is dealing with the implementation of slowing loops. In turn, these insights provide not only meaningful insights for other cities in tackling problems but also illustrate the challenges Amsterdam still needs to overcome.

Therefore, a single case study is chosen for the purpose of this research. Moreover, Amsterdam can be described as a unique case as it is considered as a pioneer in CE worldwide according to Yin (2009). To ensure an in-depth analysis and by answering our research question in the best way a single case study is most appropriate. However, we acknowledge the limitations of external validity that a single case study brings. Though, our literature used is not specific to Amsterdam and can be related to any smart city which increases the generalizability (Yin, 2009).

3.3 Data collection

transition and minimize potential bias (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Therefore, different stakeholders have been interviewed including: government, companies, NGOs, financial parties and independent experts. To increase external validity, at least two parties for each stakeholder group where contacted. However, as not every contacted party was able and willing to collaborate, the set standard of at least two parties for each stakeholder group could not be met. This may cause a lack of external validity. In the end we were able to conduct ten semi-structured interviews. Details about the ten semi-semi-structured interviews can be found in Table 2. To increase reliability and ensure the quality of this study interview guides have been developed which can be found in appendix A (Yin, 2009). Second, a rich selection of secondary data is collected through the internet. A wide range of relevant search terms have been used to find data including reports, articles, initiatives and more. The procedure, terms used, and sources used can be found in appendix B. Relevant secondary data is used to complement and confirm data of the interviews.

Type of organisation Role interviewees Slowing loop strategy

A. Municipality

Amsterdam Advisor sustainability and Circularity

All four

B. Municipality

Amsterdam Deputy manging director

SE, CLLM, ES

C. Municipality

Amsterdam Advisor sustainability and Circularity

All four

D. NGO Campaigner & Spokesperson Climate and Energy

All four

E. Financial institution Director sustainable banking All four F. Circular company Founder EPV, CLLM, ES

G. Platform Founder Sharing economy

H. Platform Founder Sharing economy

I. Platform Innovation manager All four J. Sustainable consultancy

agency Founder

All four

3.4 Data analysis

After data collection the semi-structured interviews have been transcribed. Data is carefully coded to analyse and categorize the transcripts. With the help of the three steps proposed by Strauss and Corbin (1990) (i.e. open coding, axial coding and selective coding) a code tree is developed (appendix C). First, transcripts have been analysed by performing open coding. This step includes the segmentation of data from the transcripts where after they are attached to concepts resulting in the first order concepts of the code tree. Second, axial coding is used to refine and differentiate the concepts and, in the end related concepts have been gathered in a category which lead to the second order themes. Lastly, selective coding is used to continue axial coding at a higher level. It involves the development and integration of the second order themes leading to the core concepts: the aggregate dimensions. These aggregate dimensions illustrate the story of the case, they illustrate the challenges and are used to show the relevance of the three perspectives for the implementation of slowing loops.

4. DEVELOPMENT OF SLOWING LOOPS AND THE RELEVANCE OF TBL, STAKEHOLDER THEORY AND CSV

This section describes the results from the case study of Amsterdam. The results illustrate the development of the four slowing loop strategies within Amsterdam. Furthermore, it describes how the different stakeholders contribute to these developments and which challenges they encounter. Moreover, this section discusses how TBL, stakeholder theory and CSV contribute to the implementation of the slowing loops. Results are based on interviews conducted and secondary data gathered.

4.1 Sharing city Amsterdam

with platforms, they also collaborate and exchange knowledge with other (international) sharing cities. Altogether, this illustrates that the municipality acknowledges the importance of collaboration and knowledge sharing and put effort in setting up collaborative networks.

Table 3. Identified opportunities and challenges by municipality Amsterdam (information adopted from municipality Amsterdam).

open and collaborative attitude of the municipality. Figure 7 illustrates the main activities that have contributed to the developments of the SE in Amsterdam.

The number of sharing platforms has increasingly grown the last couple of years and keeps on growing in Amsterdam (Figure 8). However, these platforms still encounter some barriers. First, it is mentioned that platforms suffer from outdated regulations. Consequently, they often operate in a way which is somehow in conflict with law and regulations. However, they also mention the solution seeking and collaborative attitude of the municipality. This does not mean that there are no improvements to be detected for the municipality. Lines of communication and decision-making power are argued to be long and the democratic nature can be quite exhaustive and hinder the pace of finding solutions. Second, the direction of the SE is argued to be questionable by different stakeholders interviewed. These negative perceptions are often fuelled by a limited number of global platforms like Airbnb and Uber which seems to be dominantly focused on economic values. However, Amsterdam shows that besides these giant platforms there are also many interesting and valuable platforms that indeed move towards this sustainable direction. The platform ‘WeHelpen’ is a good example of this. It is a platform for caregivers and health services in which citizens can help each other out (e.g. in times of illness or broken bones) by asking neighbours for assistance or by offering their own services. Moreover, the platforms interviewed mentioned that besides the economic opportunity they saw an opportunity to improve the market by making it more transparent, accessible and sustainable. Besides this, much more comparable platforms can be found, like Peerby, Snappcar and Vandebron.

However, without citizens willingness to share these platforms are doomed. ShareNL initiated a research under the citizens of Amsterdam which showed that 84% of the citizens are willing to take part in the SE. Besides, interviewees argue that citizens want convenience and a competitive price which they can have in the SE. In 2013 10% of the locals of Amsterdam was willing to share with a stranger while in 2017 this number already went up to 32% according to ShareNL. Interviewees argue that the younger generation is also more open and used to sharing than the older generation. This cultural shift will only increase. However, several platforms like Peerby and Barqo felt reluctance from citizens as a consequence of unclear responsibilities within the SE when products are damaged, or accident happens. Platforms addressed this issue by collaborating with insurance companies. In 2015, Centraal Beheer Achmea (a Dutch insurance company) started a pilot with Peerby, and in 2016 Barqo and Centraal Beheer Achmea collaborated to create an insurance package. Moreover, when insured by Centraal Beheer Achmea citizens are automatically covered for borrowed/shared products. At this point, several other insurance companies seize their opportunities within the SE. Parties like Allianz, Nationale Nederlanden and Aegon are developing and provide extra options to cover for carsharing or other sharing initiatives now (Huson, 2015). The next section describes the development of the other three slowing loop strategies (EPV, CLLM, ES) within Amsterdam.

4.2 Amsterdam as pioneer of the CE

Besides, being pioneer of the SE Amsterdam is also a frontrunner of the CE in total. This frontrunner title can be confirmed by winning the Smart City Award for circular economy in 2016. Moreover, interviewees address the fact that that Amsterdam is frequently asked by many international cities to share their ideas and best practices on CE. As with the SE the municipality has a progressive attitude towards the implementation of a CE as well. They acknowledge the opportunities of the CE as a whole (Table 4).

Moreover, they were the first city to develop a report (circle city scan) that illustrated the value of a circular economy for Amsterdam in 2015. The report argues that most value is added if Amsterdam focuses on the construction chain and the organic waste chain and thus mostly focuses on extending resource value and industrial symbiosis (part of closing the loop). Based on this report they initiated two circular programmes in 2017: learning by doing, and Circular Innovation Programme. Both programmes are again particularly focused on closing the loops while the importance of the slowing loops has mainly been neglected. However, the municipality initiated an evaluation of the two mentioned programmes in 2018 which finally recognised the importance of EPL, CLLM, ES. This recognition is operationalized by adding consumer goods as a key area and by stating explicitly that CE goes beyond recycling. Moreover, they even acknowledge the comparatively high costs of closing loops and the need for extending product lives. However, the report argues that business as usual still dominated the city and the need for additional knowledge and research to implement CE. Amsterdam’s next steps are described as scaling up initiatives within the three key areas (consumer goods, construction and organic waste). To visualize their ambitions, the municipality developed several policies related to the slowing loop strategies which can be found in Table 5.

The municipality itself could drive circular demand with its procurement. Therefore, the municipality developed an action plan to foster sustainable procurement. Circular procurement is one of the topics within this action plan and the associated criteria for circular procurement can be found in Table 6. The criteria are quite open for interpretation and could be more ambitious. Interviewees confirm this and argue that circular procurement is happening on a small scale and only in a few departments. They are still developing this process and figuring out how to procure circular and with which criteria. Besides, price remains an important (decisive) factor in tenders according to interviewees.

Table 6. Circular procurement ambitions of municipality Amsterdam (adopted from municipality Amsterdam).

The municipality acknowledges and underlines the necessity of knowledge exchange and collaboration. They collaborate with a wide range of stakeholders including knowledge institutes, start-ups, companies, financial institutions, other governmental levels and citizens. Moreover, they organized the event Eurocities Environment Forum in April this year. A number of deputy mayors, city practitioners, representatives of European and financial institutions

gathered to exchange knowledge and discuss on how to move forward within CE. Furthermore, they are collaborating with other Dutch cities and stress the importance of sharing best practices to prevent duplication. Together with The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht they joined forces to enforce the Dutch government on updating laws and regulations for example. To inform and connect people and to accelerate projects and tackle challenges the platform ‘Amsterdam Smart City’ has been launched which is a public private partnership. It provides an overview of activities performed and promotes future activities within the several key themes including CE. Furthermore, to make citizens more aware and stimulate reuse and repair of products (part of EPV, CLLM, ES), the municipality developed a campaign ‘product blijft product’ together with the organization ‘Natuur en Milieu’ and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. In line with this they initiated a swap party with two other actors to stimulate the use of second-hand products.

reparation. Besides, the dominance of linear business models funding is argued to be a challenge for companies. Setting up a circular company may entail high direct costs in the beginning and banks seem to have difficulty with accessing this value. Moreover, it is argued that most appreciation comes from international investors and that within Amsterdam possibilities are limited. According to a bank that was part of the interviews there has never been so much credit available including venture capital, crowdfunding and more looking for investments as nowadays. However, young companies are hard to finance by banks as they demand venture capital which is not the nature of banking money. This challenge is closely linked to another mentioned challenge: operationalization of ambitions. Many companies recognize the opportunities of this transition however, to translate these ambitions means like capital and people are needed. Moreover, companies need to rethink their business model and value chain. As a consequence, at this point it is mainly words instead of deeds. The mentioned challenges are further complicated by the linear tax and regulation system within the Netherlands and Amsterdam. The price of resources is low and does not cover the ‘true value’ while taxation on labour is high. As a consequence, repairing products is often more expensive than buying a new product. Many parties stress the importance of a ‘green and stimulating tax and regulating framework’ including the municipality Amsterdam. However, the municipality is dependent on the central government which has the authority to modify legislation.

Just like the municipality companies can boost circular demand as well. Within the network of B-Corporations this is already happening according to interviewees. B-Corporations procure from other B-Corporations to stimulate sustainable demand. Within the Netherlands there are 56 B-Corporations of whom 26 are settled in Amsterdam. B-Corporations are for-profit companies who are committed to meet rigorous standards of environmental and social performance, accountability and transparency. Moreover, ABN-AMRO developed Circle, a building in Amsterdam that has been built on circular grounds to foster circular demand and visualize their ambitions towards their clients and the environment. However, companies stress that they still face difficulties on how to perform and arrange circular procurement resulting in relatively little amounts of circular procurement at this point.

this as the concept did not succeed in Eindhoven. Moreover, interviewees stress the importance of price and convenience for citizens. Often citizens want to act green, but translation of action is many times based on price and convenience. Second-hand or reused products like refurbished phones or second-hand clothes are often cheaper than new products making it attractive for all kinds of incomes. However, repairing products is often expensive due to high tax on labour which restrains the stimulation of slowing loop strategies. Moreover, reusing or repairing is many times seen as effort while disposing products is easy and convenient. Another raised question is if the citizens are aware enough of the possibilities and need for EPV, CLLM and ES. Interviewees stress that the perception of citizens needs to increase, and consciousness of most stakeholders is still too little. An example that is making the need and importance of environmental consciousness very clear is the case of Dopper. The durable water bottle is a phenomenon in Amsterdam and almost everyone has heard of it. However, many unnecessary plastic water bottles are still bought each day.

To conclude Amsterdam can be seen as a pioneering circular city. However, they have their challenges and shortcomings as well. The results are summarized in Table 7. Moreover, this table addresses the unresolved questions at the end of the literature review ass well and illustrates the best practices of Amsterdam.

4.3 Challenges and lessons learned from Amsterdam

The case illustrates several important points and challenges for the implementation of the slowing loops. These elements and challenges are derived from the code tree (appendix C) and consists of the aggregate dimensions which will be discussed next. The aggregate dimensions can be illustrated as key factors which in turn can be a challenge. The challenges are visualized in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Aggregate dimensions coding tree.

Holistic problem – First, the implementation of slowing loops is a holistic challenge and involves everyone. The transition asks for a fundamental change of system including legislation and taxation, business models, mind-sets, responsibilities and more. Moreover, the case confirms that CE is often directly linked to closing the loop while slowing loops are neglected.

Commitment and responsibilities – Moving to the slowing loop strategies depends on the commitment of different stakeholders. Fist, progressive and ambitious leadership of both a municipality and a national government could really spur this implementation. Dedication of local governments promotes and attract citizens with the same ambition and may even persuade others to participate. Moreover, by visualizing this with policies and projects, the municipality illustrates the importance of this transition and that it needs to be taken seriously. However,

there are certain things that go beyond the jurisdiction of a municipality like legislation and taxation. Therefore, local governments are often dependent on the commitment of other authorities. Besides the different government levels, companies have an important role to play as well. They should provide circular supply and take their responsibility to create value for society. The case illustrates the growing presence of sustainable business models and companies, but linear/unsustainable business models are still dominant. Interviewees argue that companies are mainly profit-driven and practices like planned obsolescence and greenwashing still happen.

Foster circular slowing loop demand – Without demand, no solutions will be developed. Therefore, a key challenge is to stir demand of the slowing loop strategies. Besides the demand from citizens, (local) governments and companies have an important role to play according to interviews. Governments are often the biggest procurers of a country or city and can thus really drive this demand. By procuring circular they do not only stir the market but also fulfil the exemplary role. Besides governments, companies can procure circular as well and thus drive demand for slowing loops. Procurement policies can help to promote and embed this strategy within the organization. However, these policies need to be clear and ambitious to really make a difference. Besides, it is argued by interviewees that it needs to have the priority it deserves otherwise circular procurement will not reach its full potential. A common barrier for circular procurement is the lack of knowledge and experience for both the governments and companies. Providing space for experimenting and diffusing the knowledge gained are argued to be important for upscaling this strategy.

Foster circular legislation – Outdated and linear legislation and taxation restrains the slowing loop strategies from growing. Linear legislation and taxation makes the development and operationalization of circular business models more difficult. Moreover, linear taxation and legislation gives te wrong incentive to both companies and citizens as resources are not priced accordingly to their true value. Repairing is often more expensive than buying new products due to high taxation on labour and low taxation on (excessive) resources. Therefore, commitment of national governments is important as well as municipalities often do not have the authority to change this. In turn, national governments are dependent on transnational bodies for certain legislation. This shows the complexity of addressing challenges like this. To pressure or accelarate the process cities could join forces to show the importance and strengthen their voice.

needs to be overcome within different disciplines like procurement, development of new business models and so on. Collaboration is an important instrument to gain and diffuse knowledge. Interviewees argue that no party alone has all the answers and by bringing together different kinds of knowledge duplication can be prevented. Establishing public private collaborations convenes different knowledges and perspectives which in turn is valuable for finding solutions. This collaborative approach has many forms like between local governments, different governmental levels, public-private parties, coopetition, value chain collaboration and more. Moreover, making products durable and repairable (CLLM, ES) goes beyond one company and asks for collaboration along the value chain according to interviews. This is true for the SE as well, by collaborating with insurance companies the challenge of unclear responsibilities is partly solved. Altogether, the case shows that collaboration is an important success factor but also a challenge.

Operationalization of ambitions – Ambitions have no value if they are not operationalized. A growing number of stakeholders recognises the concerns of the linear economy and promotes their ambitions according to interviewees. However, the dominant number of operations is still linear. The case illustrates that this can be explained by several reasons. First, operationalization of ambitions means investing time, capital and people. Second, a lack of knowledge and experience withholds different stakeholders from translation of ambitions. Third, companies use these slowing loop ambitions to ‘greenwash’ their image. Lastly, awareness and consciousness are still at a low level. In turn, implementation of circular legislation and growing collaboration could foster the operationalization of ambitions.

Balancing TBL and new business models – The way we take, make, use and dispose is unsustainable. It causes depletion of raw materials and increases waste. Therefore, the need for circular business models is drastically needed. This involves new ways of thinking about products and new ways to create value which is not only based on consumption. These new business models entail the TBL. Companies need to have a sound and viable business model, without this they cannot survive. Moreover, slowing loop strategies ask for business models that create value for both society and environment. Interviewees state that this can be complicated by listed companies as they must answer their shareholders who are often only interested in dividend.

These aggregate dimensions together illustrate key challenges that are of importance and need to be addressed when implementing the slowing loop strategies. This answers the first part of this research. However, until now it remains unclear how TBL, stakeholder theory and CSV help implementing the slowing loop strategies. Therefore, the following section will address the second part of this research, the relevance of the three perspectives.

4.4 Relevance of TBL, stakeholder theory and CSV for implementation of slowing loops TBL, Stakeholder theory and CSV are three perspectives that in some way focus on creating . value. To date, how this value creation could be used in the implementation of slowing loops remains unclear. Table 8 illustrates the abovementioned three perspectives and indicates the relevance of each perspective for each challenge. The table will be briefly discussed and verified with relevant examples

TBL and slowing loop strategies – Slowing loop strategies already asks companies to move beyond profits and create value for society and environment. However, this may not be as easy as it sounds. Taking a TBL approach therefore can help organizations visualizing and operationalizing their business models and procurement policies in terms of economic, social and environmental values. As all three values are of importance, a TBL perspective can help organizations in finding the right balance. Moreover, a TBL perspective helps to ensure that policies and strategies include all values and stimulate a thorough approach. Furthermore, by seeking measurable criteria, companies should be more aware about their total performance and potential or necessary improvements. An example of a company that can be identified as an organization that takes a TBL approach is ‘MUD jeans’. MUD jeans is completely transparent about their process and ambitions. On the website seven sustainable topics are discussed and often verified with hard data. Table 9 illustrates the TBL approach of MUD jeans.

Stakeholder theory and slowing loop strategies – The implementation of slowing loops is described as a holistic challenge in which everyone is involved. Moreover, collaboration between these different stakeholders is key in this process. Taking a stakeholder perspective could help widen organization’s and government’s vision and enables them to move beyond their own organization. Stakeholders that may initially seem unimportant may be of great value when implementing slowing loops. The case of Fairphone shows for instance that making phones repairable and modular means working closely with different stakeholders in the value chain. Moreover, Barqo showed that new forms of collaboration are key in finding solutions. Barqo tackled the responsibility problem by collaborating with an insurance company. Lastly, ABN-AMRO illustrates the effectiveness and importance of diverse collaborative networks. They collaborate with their competitors Rabobank and ING to accelerate the transition but also collaborate with the public parties like the municipality to exchange knowledge and best practices.

5. DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The need for a CE is widely recognized in practice and literature as smart cities increasingly have to deal with waste, emissions and scarcity of resources (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Homrich et al., 2018). While most attention is gone to closing the loops, literature starts to acknowledge the importance of slowing loops and stresses the need for more research on this topic (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Therefore, this study analysed the implementation of slowing loops within a smart city that has been recognised as a worldwide pioneer of CE. By focusing on the challenges during this implementation, this study confirms and complements current knowledge and illustrate best practices, which in turn are valuable for smart cities to move forward with the implementation of the slowing loops initiatives. Moreover, by looking at it from the point of view of different stakeholders, eleven important challenges have been identified and by taking a TBL, stakeholder and CSV perspective, this study shows how valuable these three perspectives can be for the implementation of the four slowing loop strategies.

Literature argues that slowing loop strategies are more efficient than closing loop strategies and thus should be seen as the first step in this transition (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). The Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2018) confirms this and argues that with recycling much of the embedded energy and value is lost. However, literature also stresses that in practice most focus is on closing the loops while slowing loops are mostly neglected (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Veleva & Bodkin, 2017). Results confirm the point that slowing loop strategies are undervalued and most focus so far has gone to closing the loop within smart cities. Why these slowing loops are often initially overlooked and undervalued by smart cities remains unclear. A potential reason could be the that CE has no universal definition and consequently has been described in many ways (Merli et al., 2018). This may lead to biased perspectives of CE and in the end may lead to a focus on closing loops while overseeing the potential of slowing loops. However, results also show that the potential of slowing loops is slowly being recognized by smart cities. Moreover, the case confirms the potential of slowing loops for tackling climate problems (effective use of resources, increased affordability and accessibility, decreases waste etc.) and even complements this by arguing that it creates new jobs and provides new opportunities for growth.

models that are based on consumption but instead focus on additional services like upgrading, repairing and more. Consumers pay a fixed amount per month or even per ‘usage’ and in return they get convenience and affordability. Lastly, results show that a linear-mind set still prevails. Planned obsolescence and fast fashion are dominant business models caused by short-term thinking and profit driven minds. These problems are widely acknowledged by literature as well (Moreno et al., 2016; Wieser, 2016). To implement slowing loops on a large scale, these linear mindsets need to be tackled. To conclude, these challenges are important factors that need to be considered and overcome. Moreover, many challenges are intertwined, meaning that solving one challenge can partly solve another challenge. For instance, implementing stimulating or circular legislation means higher prices for non-renewable resources and lower prices on labour. In turn, this indirectly stimulates attitudes towards repairing as it becomes relatively cheaper. Moreover, it can stimulate companies to develop circular business models as they become more attractive and effective with stimulating legislation and taxation. Increased collaboration between stakeholders increases mutual understanding and diffuses knowledge. In turn this can lead to an increasing number of committed stakeholders and lead to new solutions like insurances for the SE. Therefore, it is more effective to see the challenges as mutually reinforcing instead as separate entities. Of course, some challenges may be more or less applicable to different smart cities. For instance, some countries may already have some circular legislation, like Sweden who implemented tax breaks last year for repair items like clothes, white goods, bicycles and more in order to fight the ‘throw-away-society’. Moreover, some smart cities may not have the luck of having progressive and open citizens. Veleve & Bodkin (2017) revealed that reused products where seen as dirty and unreliable in India. This does not take away the importance of these challenges for the implementation of slowing loops. Therefore, this study also complements current literature by illustrating best practices of a pioneering circular smart city.

different stakeholders for implementing slowing loops is acknowledged by both literature and practice (Ghisselini et al., 2016; Martin, 2016). Results show that collaboration can be enhanced by taking a stakeholder perspective. It helps companies and governments to move beyond their own field and explore new collaborative networks. These new collaborative networks in turn enable new solutions that are needed for this transition. Lastly, linear legislation, a linear organised culture, linear supply chains and more hinder the implementation of slowing loops (Homrich et al., 2018; Pollard et al., 2016). Results show that taking a CSV perspective can be profitable for both the company and society. Moreover, the three strategies (reconceive products and markets; redefining productivity in the value chain; enabling local cluster development) guide companies to create value and stimulate the adoption of a long-term strategy. It gives companies the opportunity to use their skills, resources and management capabilities to let the company as well as society benefit. Besides, CSV illustrates a clear role for government as well: supportive legislation and policies. That these three perspectives can be very valuable for the implementation of slowing loops has become clear. However, as Porter & Kramer (2011) mention: not all societal problems can be solved through CSV. This illustrates that these concepts have their limits as well. Moreover, balancing the TBL may not be feasible for everyone. Literature stresses the tension and trade-offs that can result from dual missions (Doherty et al., 2014). Aiming at both social and environmental values equally at a high level seems rather difficult. This does not mean that companies cannot pursue both values, however, often one value (social or environmental) dominates.

illustrate movements and best practices of these countries. Lastly, studies could focus on persuading and stimulating behaviour of business and citizens. By focusing on behavioural change, studies could address problems and potential solutions that could spur this shift.

6. CONCLUSION