Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Regulatory push-pull and technological knowledge dynamics of circular

economy innovation
Christian Gnekpe, Quentin Plantec *
TBS Business School, Strategy, Entrepreneurship & Innovation Dept., 20 Bd Lascrosses, 31000 Toulouse, France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Addressing climate change and resource scarcity necessitates a transition toward a circular economy (CE). While
Circular economy regulatory push/pull policy effects on eco-innovation are well-documented, the specific case of diverse CE-
Eco-innovation related inventions—classified into biological and technical cycles—remains understudied. Through a qualita­
Patent citation network analysis
tive content analysis of 528 core patents and a citation network analysis of 5655 CE-related patent families, we
Technological trajectory
probed 14 significant categories of CE-based inventions. Our results highlight the strong impacts of CE regula­
tions on recycling technologies within the technical cycle, its inherent energy inefficiencies notwithstanding.
Additionally, a limited share of inventions targets more efficient loops, such as prolonging, reusing, and redis­
tributing materials. The biological cycle, dominated by fertilizer production-related inventions, shows a less
diverse trajectory. Comparing the cycles reveals similar technological knowledge dynamics but varying stability
in reaction to regulatory policies, suggesting technical cycle maturity and a nascent biological cycle. Policy­
makers are urged to encourage efficient CE loops and to foster a stable technological knowledge trajectory within
the biological cycle. Our findings have crucial implications for research on technological knowledge trajectories
and policy planning in the CE.

1. Introduction The literature discussing the effects of regulations on eco-innovation

According to several studies, eco-innovation, which is a type of
innovation that addresses ecological concerns and/or results in positive
environmental outcomes on a lifecycle basis (e.g., Kemp and Oltra,
2011), is pivotal in addressing current environmental issues (e.g.,
Scarpellini et al., 2020). To encourage eco-innovation, policymakers
have established numerous regulations, and previous research has
documented such policies and their effects on technological develop­
ment (e.g., Garrido-Prada et al., 2021; Peters et al., 2012; Nunez-Jime­
nez et al., 2022; Costantini et al., 2015). Among eco-innovations, those
related to a circular economy (CE)—“[a] regenerative system in which
resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized
by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops” (Geiss­
doerfer et al., 2017, p. 759)—are considered critical (Ghissellini et al.,
2016; Peters et al., 2012). However, such eco-innovations have been less
studied, encompass very diverse technologies (e.g., from recycling to
fertilizers based on organic products), and have been encouraged by a
dedicated set of regulations whose impacts on subsequent technologies
have yet to be characterized (De Jesus et al., 2021).
considers two key regulatory instruments: technology-push and
demand-pull policies (Frondel et al., 2007). Technology-push policies
aim to increase the supply of eco-innovation by reducing its cost for
companies through public R&D expenditures (Garrido-Prada et al.,
2021; Nemet, 2009). Demand-pull policies aim to stimulate the demand
for eco-innovation using economic incentives, such as tax reduction or
public subsidies, for end consumers (Nunez-Jimenez et al., 2022). For
example, extended producer responsibility (EPR) (Gehin et al., 2008; Li
et al., 2021) holds companies responsible for the end of life of their
products and has pushed them to innovate when designing their prod­
ucts to facilitate recycling or reuse (Rahmani et al., 2021). Overall,
previous research has shown that regulation plays a crucial role in
shaping eco-innovation dynamics by creating incentives and favorable
market conditions and setting standards.
In this regulatory context, we intend to explore the technological
changes associated with CE-related innovation, which is a more specific
and potentially complex case than eco-innovation in general. Notably, as
technological change takes place along certain trajectories, depending
on directions in the evolution of the technological knowledge stock

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: c.gnekpe@tbs-education.fr (C. Gnekpe), q.plantec@tbs-education.fr (Q. Plantec).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122767
Received 17 May 2022; Received in revised form 21 July 2023; Accepted 28 July 2023
Available online 4 September 2023
0040-1625/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec
(Dosi, 1982), we specifically explore technological knowledge trajectories.
Taking the case of regulatory push and pull policies to promote the CE,
we posit that the knowledge trajectories of multiple technologies can be
affected, such as biogas production, water cleaning, and various recy­
cling activities, potentially in various directions. Better understanding
what affects the evolution of these technological knowledge trajectories
is critical for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, particularly
in the transition context. Notably, Malhotra et al. (2021) pointed out
that few studies have explored this specific aspect of technological
change while focusing more extensively on the evolution of artifacts and
the emergence of a dominant design. Therefore, in this study, we ask the
following: “How do multiple CE-related innovations and technological
knowledge trajectories evolve over time following a common set of regulations
promoting such a paradigm?”
We focus on CE-related eco-innovations to study the effects of
regulation on technological knowledge trajectories for several theoret­
ical reasons. First, to the best of our knowledge, despite the key role of
CE-related innovation in the transition toward a greener economy, no
systematic study on the dynamics of such technologies has been per­
formed. As the CE literature is quite fragmented (Soni et al., 2023), with
studies focusing only on specific cases, De Jesus et al. (2021) call for
advancing the research agenda on “circular innovation studies” to
extend knowledge in the area of innovation for the CE. Second, although
regulations pushing or pulling the adoption of the CE paradigm are still
emerging, such regulations are being strongly promoted by authorities
worldwide (e.g., Cui et al., 2022). Third, as the purposes of CE-related
technologies differ, despite overall similar institutional push and pull
policies and due to path-dependency effects, it is relevant to explore how
various technologies associated with the CE evolve differently. Indeed,
this work appears to be a more complex case study than are prior studies
focusing on a single technology (e.g., semiconductors; see Fontana et al.,
2009).
We first collect data on the inventions contributing to the CE
(hereafter, CE-related inventions) to answer our research question.
Second, we then develop a methodology to classify each invention ac­
cording to two key dimensions of the CE, biological (i.e., elements that
can re-enter the environment without damage) and technical cycles (i.e.,
materials that cannot fit into the environment as it is). These dimensions
have largely been used in previous research but have only occasionally
been applied to the analysis of CE related inventions (Sehnem et al.,
2022). Several studies have focused on patent analysis for eco-
innovation (e.g., Barbieri et al., 2020; Durán-Romero and Urraca-Ruiz,
2015). However, there is a lack of studies focusing solely on CE-
related inventions, and a dedicated methodology needs to be devel­
oped to capitalize on the richness of the constructs of the CE paradigm
(e.g., Sehnem et al., 2022). Our approach requires necessary qualitative
coding operations on 528 patents. Third, we analyze and compare the
technological knowledge trajectories of the two different cycles of this
technological paradigm and notably discuss the stability of the techno­
logical knowledge trajectory and effectiveness regarding CE objectives,
geographies, and involved actors.
Our study makes several contributions. First, we contribute to the
literature on the link between regulation and eco-innovation. By char­
acterizing inventions contributing to the CE, we show that despite
overall similar institutional push and pull policies, different technolo­
gies of a given technology paradigm might evolve differently according
to their purpose. In our case, while we show that overall, eco-innovation
efforts are approximately equally split between the biological and
technical cycles, associated technologies differ regarding technological
knowledge trajectories and stability. Second, our research informs the
literature on the CE, notably by reviewing how leading groups of in­
ventions contribute to different CE loops. This later work helps assess the
extent to which eco-innovations cover the variety of CE loops and,
particularly for the technical cycle, the most efficient ones. Specifically,
we note significant discrepancies between the loops targeted by those
innovations. In the CE technical cycle, for example, inventions in this
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767
area extensively cover the recycling loop. At the same time, there is a
lack of inventions that focus on more efficient loops, such as reusing or
prolonging the lifecycle of products.
Finally, our study has implications for policymakers and practi­
tioners. Governments and institutions such as the European Commission
have launched large funding programs for projects to develop the CE,
especially to foster innovation to solve environmental challenges. Our
study analyzes those efforts that have been made thus far in terms of
innovation for the CE, which can help allocate public and private in­
vestments more efficiently to promising and strategic innovations to
foster the transition to a more resilient and ecological economy.
2. Theoretical background
To explore the technological knowledge trajectories of CE-related
inventions in the context of policymakers’ regulatory efforts toward
this paradigm, we first discuss the connection between technological
change and the transition toward a greener economy, as doing so en­
ables a better understanding of the specific technological knowledge
trajectory dynamics in a context of ecological transition and in­
novations. This research points out the key role that regulations play in
favoring these eco-innovations (Ren and Albrecht, 2023; Cantner et al.,
2016). Then, we focus more precisely on the case of CE-related eco-in­
novations, which are considered a key type of eco-innovation (De Jesus
et al., 2021) and whose technological trajectory dynamics are less
studied. The objective is to explore in depth the specificities of CE-
related eco-innovations. Moreover, we aim to explore how the regula­
tions on CE that are currently extensively elaborated by policymakers,
notably push/pull policies, interact with the technological trajectory
dynamics of CE-related eco-innovation.
2.1. Technological change and regulations in the transition context
Technological change, as the evolution and innovation of technol­
ogy, processes, and systems, is a critical driver of economic growth (e.g.,
Schumpeter, 1934) and is presented mainly as essential for the transition
to a greener economy (e.g., Pearson and Foxon, 2012; Barbieri et al.,
2020).
2.1.1. Technological change and technological knowledge trajectories
As Martinelli (2012) pointed out, the concepts of technological
paradigms and trajectories have been highly performative in the man­
agement science literature and are interpreted mainly in terms of
knowledge flows in a given industry (e.g., Mina et al., 2007).
Technological change can be defined as a cumulative process, with
inventors drawing on an established and evolving knowledge stock (i.e.,
industry knowledge base) to generate subsequent advances (Trajtenberg
et al., 1997). Furthermore, technology entails particular knowledge,
procedures, and artifacts, including scientific, engineering, and tech­
nical knowledge (Dosi and Nelson, 2009; Mokyr, 2002). Hence, tech­
nological innovation takes place along certain trajectories, depending on
the directions in the evolution of the knowledge stock (Dosi, 1982), i.e.,
technological knowledge trajectories. As technological change studies
notably aim to better understand how technological change is propa­
gated and generated in society (Griliches, 1957; Arthur, 2007; Nelson
and Winter, 1982), it is critical to explore the factors affecting such
technological knowledge trajectories (Malhotra et al., 2021).
Drawing a parallel with the Kuhnian scientific paradigms, Dosi
(1982) defined technological knowledge trajectories as “the pattern of
‘normal’ problem-solving activities (i.e., progress) on the ground of a tech­
nological paradigm” (Dosi, 1982, p. 105). By focusing especially on the
industry knowledge base associated with such a technological paradigm,
Malhotra et al. (2021) pointed out that many studies on technological
change have focused on the evolution of technological artifacts, using
notably the concept of dominant design and technology lifecycle (e.g.,
Murmann and Frenken, 2006), rather than exploring the technological
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec
knowledge trajectories associated with technological change in more
depth. Notably, the literature considers technological change as occur­
ring in two distinct phases (Anderson and Tushman, 1991, 2018). First,
in an “era of ferment,” there is high instability and uncertainty regarding
the technology until a dominant design is established, implying signif­
icant changes and variance in the knowledge base. Second, in an “era of
incremental change,” innovation efforts shift from the system architec­
ture level to more subsystem parts (Clark, 1985) and products toward
process innovation (Utterback and Abernathy, 1975). The knowledge
base of the industry also remains more stable, being both enriched and
reinforced (Malerba, 2007).
More precisely, regarding technological knowledge trajectories,
Huenteler et al. (2016) explored the effects of different technology
lifecycle stages on the technological knowledge trajectories of eco-
innovations. Moreover, Lee and Berente (2013) examined the evolu­
tion of industry knowledge trajectories, specifically during the “era of
incremental change,” while Martinelli (2012) developed techniques to
identify the technological knowledge trajectory modifications associ­
ated with a given technological paradigm. Finally, Malhotra et al.
(2021) defined the effects of change in the sociotechnical environment
of artifact usage on technological knowledge trajectories.
Dosi (1982) considered that three elements might affect technolog­
ical knowledge trajectories in the case of technological change: (1) the
economic interest of the companies involved in the associated R&D
field, (2) companies’ past technological choices (i.e., path-dependency
effects), and (3) institutional and political forces, taking the example
of semiconductors and the computer industry and the effects of the
military and space institutional push. In this work, we focus specifically
on this third force, as the interplay between regulatory policies and
technological knowledge trajectories has drawn considerable attention
(e.g., Nill and Kemp, 2009; Berrone et al., 2013; Rennings and Rammer,
2011; Fagerberg, 2018). For example, Teece (1986) explored how reg­
ulatory contexts can influence firms’ profitability from technological
innovation, impacting the trajectory of technological development.
More recently, research has focused explicitly on the case of eco-
innovation and the transition toward a greener economy. Indeed,
“fostering technological innovation is often considered as an important
element of policies towards sustainable development” (Nill and Kemp,
2009, p. 668). Hence, regulation is a critical driver of technological
change for greater sustainability and eco-innovation (e.g., Rennings and
Rammer, 2011), necessarily influencing the path that technologies take
and how knowledge unfolds in certain fields (Acemoglu et al., 2012).
Notably, regulations can realign economic interests and past techno­
logical choices, steering innovation toward more sustainable pathways
(Berrone et al., 2013). Indeed, technologies related to eco-innovation
still require substantial R&D investment until reaching a level of
competitiveness, which can be achieved through various regulations
(Kemp, 1997; Rennings, 2000), but their technological knowledge tra­
jectories are highly uncertain (Jaffe et al., 2002; Peters et al., 2012).
Echoing the latter point, we explore in more depth the effects of regu­
latory push and pull policies for a greener economy on technological
knowledge trajectories.
2.1.2. Regulation as a determinant of eco-innovation
Extensive research has shown the crucial role of environmental
policies or regulations in the dynamics of innovation (Hall and Kerr,
2003). Some of such studies have analyzed eco-innovation as a type of
innovation (Costantini et al., 2017). Technology-push and demand-pull
policies are key to the development of eco-innovation (Rogge and
Schleich, 2018).
From a technology-push perspective, research has emphasized that
regulation may help companies overcome various barriers encountered
by companies in the decision to invest in eco-innovation. Market failures
(e.g., externalities and the public good nature of eco-innovation-related
technology) may render technological change related to eco-innovation
costly and uncertain, impeding companies’ willingness to invest in such
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767
innovation (Peters et al., 2012; Jaffe et al., 2005; Rennings, 2000). In
addition, eco-innovation-related technology appears more complex to
design compared to other types of technology (Barbieri et al., 2020). By
providing public R&D expenditures, policymakers increase the willing­
ness to make private R&D investments, the available knowledge stock,
and the technological capabilities necessary to produce and influence
the technological knowledge trajectory of eco-innovations (Cantner
et al., 2016), especially in their early stage of development (Costantini
et al., 2017).
From a demand-pull perspective, policymakers can enhance end
consumers’ demand for eco-innovative goods and services through
various mechanisms ranging from public subsidies to tax reductions
(Nunez-Jimenez et al., 2022: Horbach, 2008). For instance, many gov­
ernments have long promoted the use of renewable energies by
providing customers with incentives for installing such technologies
(Frondel et al., 2010). As such, policymakers have indirectly encouraged
companies to invest in their development and production, considerably
lowering their prices while increasing their accessibility and appeal to
end consumers (Cantner et al., 2016). Thus, demand-pull policies seem
more favorable for eco-innovations in their mature stage of development
than in other stages (Costantini et al., 2017).
Overall, several empirical studies have shown that regulatory push/
pull has a significant impact on the dynamics of eco-innovation-related
technologies, although this impact varies according to the type of
environmental concern. Hence, prior research has advocated for
analyzing this effect by distinguishing the various eco-innovation areas
(Krammer, 2009). Therefore, investigating the impact of regulatory
policies on the technological knowledge trajectories of CE-related
technologies as an eco-innovation is of critical interest.
2.2. Regulation and CE-related eco-innovation
The CE has been subdivided into two blocks, namely, technical (i.e.,
materials that cannot fit into the environment as it is) and biological (i.
e., elements that can re-enter the environment without damage) blocks
(Scarpellini et al., 2020; Sehnem et al., 2022). Within these blocks,
several circular strategies and their associated eco-innovations are often
highlighted (De Jesus et al., 2021; Rodríguez-Espíndola et al., 2022).
The first aim is to innovate in terms of the reduction in waste by using it
for other functions (e.g., closed-loop recycling and heat production from
combustion). Other aims concern innovation related to the extension of
the lifecycle of products (e.g., reuse, remanufacture, and repair) or
product and service design (e.g., eco-design) (Chauhan et al., 2022; Behl
et al., 2023).
We provide an overview of existing studies on CE-related eco-inno­
vation in Table 1.
In this paper, we specifically focus on the link between push/pull
regulations and the technological knowledge trajectories of CE-related
eco-innovation, which has been less studied. The regulation settlement
has implications for these critical innovations.
2.2.1. Regulation push for CE-related innovation on closed-loop recycling
A closed-loop recycling strategy involves recovery operations by
which waste materials can be reprocessed into products or materials for
their original or any other purpose (Chauhan et al., 2022; Deng et al.,
2021). Numerous industries have been concerned mainly with the reg­
ulations implemented to push for these circular strategies (Li et al.,
2021). Various countries worldwide, such as those in the European
Union (EU) (e.g., waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)),
the US (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or laws
regarding the recycling of cathode ray tubes (CRTs)), and China (e.g.,
Notice on strengthening the environmental management of the WEEE),
have set up regulations for an efficient recycling process. Hence, the
companies in these countries have been pushed to innovate accordingly.
For example, the electronics industry, which has the most important
waste in terms of both volume and growth and products containing
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

Table 1
Overview of existing studies on circular economy-related eco-innovation.
Type of Studies Themes of the studies Authors Journal Overview of studies’ findings

Qualitative • Benefits of CE-related Bauwens et al. (2020); Garmulewicz Ecological Economics/California • Benefits of CE-related technology as en­
studies (e.g., eco-innovations (prod­ et al. (2018); Jabbour et al. (2022); Management Review/Research ablers (3D technology, artificial intelli­
case studies) uct, process, radical, Böhmecke-Schwafert et al. (2022); Policy/Business Strategy and the gence, blockchain)
incremental) Bocken et al. (2014); Katz-Gerro and Environment/Technological • The development of product reuse and
• Business model López Sintas (2019) Forecasting and Social Change sharing practices enabled by
innovation for CE technological knowledge, governed by
• Systemic CE innovation multilevel institutions, and combined
• Regulations as enablers with moderation in consumerist lifestyles,
of/barriers to CE- is a key preferable scenario of a circular
related technology future
• Development of a model (ReSOLVE) to
favor the transition toward a CE by
capitalizing on big data innovation
• Business model innovation is critical for
CE development
• Push/pull regulations are key to
developing CE-related eco-innovations
Literature • Literature reviews on Despeisse et al. (2017); De Jesus and Ecological Economics/Business • Key topics interrelated with innovation
reviews CE-related digitaliza­ Mendonça (2018); Geissdoerfer et al. Strategy and the Environment/Journal and the CE are identified (strategic
tion technologies (2018); Cecere and Martinelli (2017); of Cleaner Production/Research alliances for CE innovation, innovations
• Literature reviews on Suchek et al. (2021); De Jesus et al. Policy/Sustainability in CE business models, eco-innovation
business model (2019, 2021); Chauhan et al., 2022 and CE implementation, technology and
innovation for the CE waste management)
• Literature reviews on • AI technologies and digital innovation are
the systemic integration critical to achieve a CE and a notably
of CE-related eco- complex system approach (e.g., product-
innovation service systems)
• CE-related digitalization technologies are
critical for CE efficiency
• Drivers of knowledge accumulation in CE-
related innovation
Quantitative • Digitalization and Horbach et al. (2012); Costantini et al. Ecological Economics/Technological • Benefits of CE-related technology as en­
studies industry 4.0 (2015, 2017)a; Demirel and Danisman Forecasting and Social Change/ ablers (3D technology, artificial intelli­
technologies (2019); Metzger et al. (2023)a; Cainelli Research Policy/Business Strategy and gence, blockchain) of circular loops
• Role of stakeholders in et al. (2020); Durán-Romero et al. the Environment/Sustainability/ • Uses the quintuple helix model (QHM) to
the innovation (2020); Bag et al. (2021); Cui et al. Technology Analysis & Strategic analyze how CE eco-innovations benefit
ecosystem (2022); Nunez-Jimenez et al. (2022); Management/International Journal of the achievement of climate change miti­
• Regulations as enablers Ilić et al. (2022); Ren and Albrecht Productivity and Performance gation goals through the exchange be­
of/barriers to CE- (2023); Behl et al. (2023); Juchneski Management/Journal of Enterprise tween multiple stakeholders in the
related technology and Antunes (2022)a; Portillo- Information Management innovation ecosystem
• Patenting activities Tarragona et al. (2022)a; Marín- • Impact of mix policies on CE-related
Vinuesa et al. (2021)a innovations
• Role of technological path dependence on
the link between policies and CE-related
innovations
• Innovation in product lifecycle
management is the priority to achieve
sustainable operations
• “Circular patents” can facilitate the
transition toward a CE
• Innovation capabilities related to
patenting (e.g., collaborative innovation,
persistence in patenting) are key drivers
of waste management patents to improve
business economic performance
a
Papers using patent data.

complex components (D’Adamo et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2017), has
developed process innovations such as semiautomated or automated
methods using robotics, artificial intelligence or blockchain to optimize
the sorting process of electronic waste (Chauhan et al., 2022; Kamble
et al., 2021; Modgil et al., 2021). In addition, technologies involving
image processing, such as 3D laser scanners or metal sensors, are also
used to facilitate the identification of various types of waste and reusable
parts and result in an efficient recycling process (Ghosh et al., 2015;
Wilts et al., 2021).
Another example concerns the plastic industry. Many countries have
established regulations to reduce plastic waste. For example, in 2002,
Bangladesh became the first country to set up a law to ban plastic bags.
Since then, other countries and regions have followed suit, with the EU
creating the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy in
2015 and India setting up the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling)
Rules in 2011, which phase out the manufacture and use of nonrecy­
clable multilayered plastic. More recently, the Indian government
decided to pass a ban on single-use plastic products. In response, tech­
nologies have also been developed to solve technical problems, such as
waste contamination by toxic elements, additives, or inks (Gong et al.,
2020), in this industry. For example, innovative methods have been
created to remove ink from the surface of printed plastic film and solve
contamination problems. These methods involve using a closed-loop
mechanical process with five steps (i.e., grinding, de-inking, washing,
drying, and pelletizing), resulting in clean recycled plastic (Horodytska
et al., 2018).

4
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

2.2.2. Push/pull regulation for CE-related innovation in terms of eco-design
and extension of the product lifecycle
Eco-design, which considers environmental impacts when designing
products, is becoming a key pillar of the CE transition for policymakers
(Ghisetti and Montresor, 2019). For example, in 2008,1 European
Parliament established the Waste Framework Directive (transformed, in
March 2022, into the “Eco-design for Sustainable Products directive”) to
set eco-design requirements for specific product groups to increase their
circularity significantly (Bakker et al., 2014; Go et al., 2015). This eco-
design should ease the extension of the lifecycle. This circular strategy
concerns remanufacturing (i.e., restoration of used products to their
original functionality), reuse (i.e., reusing a product for the same pur­
pose), and repair processes (i.e., restoration or replacement of products
to extend their lifetime) (Rodríguez-Espíndola et al., 2022; Paterson
et al., 2016; Kamble et al., 2021).
Notably, the EPR regulation (Li et al., 2021), which holds companies
responsible for the end of life of their products (Rahmani et al., 2021), is
one important and old regulation through which to promote eco-design.
Accordingly, companies are developing innovative eco-designed prod­
ucts to increase their lifespan (Li et al., 2021; Sumrin et al., 2021). For
example, the eco-design of televisions or computers includes the
replacement of a CRT with a liquid crystal display (LCD) and the shift
from fluorescent lamps to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). This shift re­
duces energy consumption and extends the lifespan of these products (Li
et al., 2015). The emergence and evolution of 3D printers have also
contributed significantly to the technological trajectory of this strategy
of product lifespan extension (Despeisse et al., 2017; Garmulewicz et al.,
2018). Companies are using 3D printing technology to develop additive
components to facilitate the reuse of products and, as such, to increase
their lifespan (Sauerwein et al., 2019). In this case, 3D printing tech­
nology enables design flexibility, waste reduction, the production of
complex structures, and mass customization (Dahmani et al., 2021).
Moreover, these regulations have led companies to use innovative ro­
botics technology to improve the accuracy and reliability of cold spray
processes, a high-kinetic-energy coating process used to repair surfaces
on worn components in industries such as aerospace (Wu et al., 2021).
These applications enable the repair of complex features, such as cas­
t‑iron cylinder heads (Yeo et al., 2017).
Therefore, these prior studies have advanced our understanding of
how regulations impact CE-related eco-innovation. Nevertheless, while
previous studies have focused on specific technologies or contexts, we
have limited knowledge of how the technological knowledge trajectory
of CE-related eco-innovation evolves over time following a wide set of
public regulations. Furthermore, assessing how such eco-innovations
cover the richness of the different CE cycles and loops, particularly for
the technical cycle, and have differentiated value for the CE is relevant.
The methodology developed below is intended to help fill these gaps.
electrical and electronic equipment, emphasized the need for CE-related
innovations in production processes. Meanwhile, Ilić et al. (2022)
expanded the scope to a cross-country scale, correlating innovation in­
dicators with the number of recycling and secondary raw material-
related patents in the EU. Their work revealed not only how in­
vestments influence the proliferation of patents but also how these
factors participate in societal transformation.
Although these studies highlighted the relevance of using patent
data, they mainly focused on either a specific industrial sector or tech­
nology. However, we know very little about the landscape of the
numerous CE-related technologies and its connection with regulations
established by policymakers. Hence, following these studies, we rely on
patent data, with particular attention to broadening our study to the
spectrum of available CE-related technologies, to analyze their trajec­
tories in relation to the evolution of regulations over time.
For this purpose, we first retrieve CE-related inventions,. As we want
to explore how technological knowledge trajectories vary across
different CE cycles (i.e., biological/technical) and loops, we develop a
new classification approach using a qualitative approach. Then, we use
network analysis to apply our coding only to the most relevant patents.
Finally, we use recently developed standard methods to review tech­
nological knowledge dynamics (Fontana et al., 2009; Huenteler et al.,
2016; Malhotra et al., 2021). The methodological process is described in
Fig. 1 below.
3.1. Detection of inventions and technical knowledge related to the CE
The use of patent data in the context of eco-innovation is a traditional
approach, with accessible data and the possibility of exploring techno­
logical knowledge trajectories and innovation directions (e.g., Barbieri
et al., 2020). Therefore, no previously validated external query to collect
such CE-related patents was available.
To collect the relevant patents, we used the technical classes from the
Cooperative Patent Classifications (CPC) in Step 1. The CPC is preferred
to other classifications, as it was the first to develop a dedicated classi­
fication related to climate-change-related patents (Veefkind et al.,
2012), i.e., Y02. The technological class Y02 comprises different sub­
classes, such as Adaptation to Climate Change Technologies (Y02A),

3. Materials and method

We aim to investigate CE-related innovation’s technological knowl­

edge trajectories following the regulatory push/pull policies to sustain
the CE. To do so, we focus on one aspect of eco-innovation—inventions
that can be proxied by patents.2 Several studies are increasingly using
patent data to analyze CE-related innovation. For example, both Por­
tillo-Tarragona et al. (2022) and Marín-Vinuesa et al. (2021) used patent
data to investigate the role of “circular patents” in shaping a firm’s
innovation capabilities and managing waste-related patents, respec­
tively. Additionally, Metzger et al. (2023), who surveyed the landscape
of secondary battery innovations, discovered trends that support a CE,
while Juchneski and Antunes (2022), who delved into the realm of

1
Directive 2008/98/EC.
2
The limitations to relying on inventions, proxied by patent data, are
detailed in the limitations section of the paper. Fig. 1. Methodological stages.

5
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec
Table 2
Details of the subclass Climate Change Mitigation Technologies Related to Wastewater Treatment or Waste Management (Y02W).
Y02W Details
subclasses
10/00 Technologies for wastewater treatment
30/00 Technologies for solid waste management
90/00 Enabling technologies or technologies with a potential or indirect
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions mitigation
Capture and Storage of Greenhouse Gasses (Y02C), and Transportation
(Y02T). This approach, based on the exploitation of a specific CPC to
retrieve relevant environmental innovation in patent data, has been
successfully used in previous studies (e.g., Block et al., 2021). Research
has previously focused on analyzing the Y02 class per se (Barbieri et al.,
2020; Su and Moaniba, 2017) or on other specific subclasses or combi­
nations of subclasses to study a particular technology, such as phos­
phorous recovery or renewable energy technology (Block et al., 2021;
Persoon et al., 2020).
To focus solely on CE-related technologies, we rely on the subclass
Climate Change Mitigation Technologies Related to Wastewater Treatment or
Waste Management (Y02W). Indeed, in our case, multiple technologies
contribute to inventions that sustain the CE; therefore, we believe that
these different technologies will be integrated in this Y02W class.
Indeed, according to the definition of CE provided in the literature
section, we acknowledge that these technologies require two charac­
teristics: they need to (1) be related to climate change and environ­
mentally friendly technology and (2) focus on all forms of waste
treatment to reintegrate them into the economy in efficient forms. Based
on the definition of the CE model put forth by Turecki (2016) and used
by Durán-Romero et al. (2020), we believe that capitalizing on
Y02Wallows us to cover waste management and secondary raw mate­
rials, as well as processes to manage more eco-design products (e.g.,
biopackaging). We also indicate that we retrieve only those inventions
that are directly applied to the CE paradigm, excluding, for example, the
case of key enabling technologies that could have a subsequent impact
on the CE.3 Moreover, we highlight those inventions related to waste
prevention or collaborative economy that cannot be retrieved through
this approach. However, we note that all sectorial areas of innovation
mentioned in Turecki (2016) and Durán-Romero et al. (2020) are
retrieved in our analysis (plastics, food waste, critical raw material,
biomass and biobased products, and construction and demolition).
We present in Table 2 the main subclasses of CPC Y02W as well as
examples. More details are provided in Appendix A. We note that such
subclasses encompass the different fields expected when focusing on CE-
related technologies, such as the recycling of fuel cells or batteries, and
methane emission-related techniques. Additionally, we note that this
strategy is similar to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)-environment-related technologies (ENV-Tech)
strategy to retrieve Climate Change Mitigation Technologies Related to
Wastewater Treatment or Waste Management patents, in which no sup­
plementary CPC classes outside of Y02W are integrated.4 We discuss the
limitations of this approach in the dedicated section at the end of this
paper.
We compiled patent data from the privately owned DERWENT
database, which covers most of the worldwide patent data. We extracted
250,167 INPADOC patent families between 1955 and 2020,5 classified
3
For example, an invention dedicated solely to 3D printing is not be
considered, while an invention dedicated to the reuse of concrete waste through
ink for 3D printing is considered in our dataset.
4
See OECD (2015).
5
We rely on patent families because they describe the innovative dynamics
more accurately than do the patents themselves (OECD, 2013)
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767
Examples
Biological treatment of water, sludge processing, and wastewater or sewage treatment systems
using renewable energies (e.g., wind and solar)
Waste collection, waste processing, production of fertilizers from the organic fraction of waste,
and reuse, recycling or recovery technologies (e.g., glass, plastics, and paper)
Biopackaging and packaging made of bioplastics
as CPC Y02W.
3.2. CE cycle and loop allocation to inventions and technological
knowledge trajectory analyses
One key element of our approach is to allocate to the different in­
ventions their CE cycles and loops (Sehnem et al., 2022) and to calculate
technological knowledge trajectory dynamics. As our approach is
exploratory, we propose relying on a qualitative coding of the patent
abstract and title to allocate them to the appropriate cycles and loops.
Although other approaches have been envisioned (e.g., text mining
approach or natural language processing), they usually require quali­
tative testing first. One difficulty with qualitative coding is that it is a
fine-grained operation that can be difficult to manage in the case of a
very large dataset. Hence, we drew on the work of Malhotra et al., 2021,
who developed a technique to qualitatively code only the most relevant
patents. First, by relying on the patent citation network, we identify the
main components (Section 3.2.1). Second, based on connectivity algo­
rithms, key patents are identified (Section 3.2.2). Third, a qualitive
coding scheme is applied to the identified patents (Section 3.2.3).6
We note that the use of connectivity algorithms of patent citation
networks to detect the most relevant patents is established in the liter­
ature. Indeed, connectivity algorithms help reduce the complexity of
large patent datasets and focus only on those that are representative of
the innovative activities and technological knowledge trajectories of a
dedicated technology (Fontana et al., 2009; Martinelli, 2012; Verspa­
gen, 2007). This complexity-reduction process allows researchers to
enrich the patent information with qualitative data by manually coding
a limited but representative share of the dataset. Furthermore, this
process has been successfully used with regard to innovation architec­
tures (product/process innovations) and the targeted industries for a
dedicated technology (Huenteler et al., 2016; Malhotra et al., 2021).
3.2.1. Main CE-related technology detection and technological knowledge
network
Following Malhotra et al.’s (2021) approach to key patent detection,
we consider the patent citation network, which is constituted by a graph
formed by patents (vertices) and patent citations (arcs) from citing to
cited patents (Bekkers and Martinelli, 2012; Choi and Park, 2009; Epi­
coco et al., 2014; Fontana et al., 2009; Ho et al., 2014; Huenteler et al.,
2016; Malhotra et al., 2021; Verspagen, 2007).
In recent years, many studies have capitalized on network theory to
explore the characteristics of patent networks. For example, researchers
have examined patent networks based on technological classes (Plantec
et al., 2021; Yayavaram and Chen, 2015), inventors (Chung et al., 2021;
Mitsuhashi and Nakamura, 2021), or citations (Alstott et al., 2017;
Fontana et al., 2020; Malhotra et al., 2021). Examiners or inventors
make patent citations to delineate the claims made by other inventors
(OECD, 2013). The cited patents contain previous knowledge intended
6
We highlight that while we capitalize on network analysis, our goal is not to
perform SNA (e.g., centrality and community detection) but rather to focus on
the most relevant patent for qualitative coding and to calculate technological
stability indicators.
6
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

Table 3
Description of the top 14 components.
Component ID Name of component CE loop category No. patent families First patent application Source Middle Sink

1 Lithium battery Technical 1846 2001 36 % 40 % 24 %

2 Production of fertilizer from organic products Biological 1770 1996 31 % 38 % 32 %
3 Ecological restoration/maintenance of natural water Biological 531 2003 39 % 33 % 28 %
4 Pavement waste Technical 185 2003 28 % 37 % 35 %
5 Biological treatment of water Biological 168 2008 45 % 28 % 27 %
6 Garbage bin classification process Technical 165 2007 49 % 27 % 24 %
7 Plastic waste (without plastic water bottles) Technical 145 2007 46 % 30 % 24 %
8 Plastic water bottle waste Technical 135 2008 47 % 30 % 24 %
9 Metals or minerals for cement or mortar production Technical 133 2008 26 % 34 % 40 %
10 Tire and rubber waste Technical 129 2005 29 % 43 % 29 %
11 Intelligent garbage bin method for eco-friendly energy Technical 120 2007 54 % 24 % 22 %
12 Slag waste for construction materials Technical 116 2004 31 % 41 % 28 %
13 Concrete waste Technical 107 2003 29 % 39 % 32 %
14 Granulating system Technical 105 2006 36 % 30 % 33 %

to demonstrate the novelty of the invention, its lack of obviousness, and
its usability to grant a legal title (Jaffe and De Rassenfosse, 2010).
Therefore, patent citations can be used to identify technological linkages
based on the knowledge flows they represent, as confirmed by qualita­
tive studies (Malhotra et al., 2019; Martinelli, 2012). Therefore, in Stage
2, we compute the knowledge network. We restrict our analysis to
patents that are either citing or cited, with a citation lag of a maximum
of 5 years to avoid creating a bias toward older patents (Malhotra et al.,
2021; Nemet and Johnson, 2012), between 1990 and 2020. In addition,
we clean circular references and duplicates, which results in 59,970
patent families.
One specificity of our dataset is that because different technologies
contribute to the inventions that sustain the CE and the emergence of
such technologies is recent (Block et al., 2021), the studied technological
space is highly fragmented. Among the 59,970 remaining patent fam­
ilies, in 2020, there were 17,792 different components (i.e., a subnet­
work disconnected from the rest of the network). The number of patent
components is also highly skewed.7 Because we intend to study the core
technologies that contribute to the CE, in Stage 3, we focus only on the
14 components that comprise more than 100 patent families. However,
we note that this approach contrasts with those taken in previous studies
that compared a maximum of two different technologies (Huenteler
et al., 2016) or focused only on the principal component (Fontana et al.,
2009). Hence, the final dataset comprises 5655 patent families repre­
senting the 14 core technologies that contribute to the CE (including
5883 citations). We retrieve detailed information on those patents,
including applicants’ countries (see the details in Appendix B).
3.2.2. Detection of key patents through connectivity algorithms and
dynamics of technological knowledge trajectories
Patent citation networks can be used to identify the core patents in
the technological knowledge trajectories of a given technology and the
dynamics of this trajectory (Fontana et al., 2020; Verspagen, 2007).
In Stage 4, to identify the core patents among the 14 specified com­
ponents, we measure the importance of a given patent in the overall
network (i.e., connectivity). To do so, we use the search path link count
(SPLC) algorithm (Fontana et al., 2009; Verspagen, 2007), which con­
sists of assigning a weight to both patents (i.e., nodes) and patent cita­
tions (i.e., arcs). First, we differentiate the patent families between
source (i.e., patents that are only cited patents), sink (i.e., patents that are
only citing patents), and middle (i.e., patents that are both cited and
citing patents). An example of component N◦ 14 is provided in Appendix
C. The algorithm is based on an acyclic network and gives weight to each
patent citation (i.e., arcs) based on the number of times it is traversed
when going from every source to every sink. The weight assigned to each
7
Note that 63.3 % of the components have only 2 patent families and that
18.4 % of the components have only 3 patent families.
patent is then computed based on the number of times the technological
knowledge flows traverse it. The algorithm is repeatedly executed for
each component and each year based on the earliest application date of
the patent family. This algorithm helps identify the main flows of
knowledge and knowledge components for a given technology (Huen­
teler et al., 2016; Malhotra et al., 2021).
Based on these metrics, we extract a set of patents that represent the
most significant patent families according to the SPLC algorithm to
proceed to manual coding. This selection of patents is used to derive an
overall description of the technology represented by each component.
More precisely, according to the SPLC algorithm, the most significant
patent families extracted are those ranked with the highest weight.8 As
patent citation metrics are very skewed (Hung and Wang, 2010), we
select that 10 % of patents with the most important SPLC scores for each
component regarding total SPLC weight.9 This procedure leads us to
identify 559 patent families filed between 2000 and 2020. For this
subset of patents, we collect their English abstracts. The SPLC computed
each year is used to identify each component’s main paths in each
period. We follow the procedure described in Fontana et al. (2009) to
calculate the main path and define the network constructed by moving
from each source to each sink by choosing to follow the path with the
highest SPLC value at each node10 (see the example in Appendix D).
We also estimate the degree of uncertainty and technological vari­
ations, i.e., technological stability, following previous studies (Huen­
teler et al., 2016; Malhotra et al., 2021). To do so, we compare the
patents in the main path between two periods. Due to the specificity of
our dataset, we use a backward perspective (i.e., the percentage of
patents in the main path that were previously in the main path) instead
8
In this paper, we rely on the SPLC scores following the procedure described
in (Fontana et al., 2009). Indeed, Hummon and Dereian (1989) suggested that it
is possible to also include every path from every middle node to every sink. As
shown in (Fontana et al., 2009), there is no major difference in the identifica­
tion of the most relevant knowledge component between both methods, and in
general, they provide similar identifications of the main paths. We note that as
Huenteler et al. (2016) and Malhotra et al. (2021) used Pajek, the second
method is used, an as we use R, we do not include the paths from every middle
node to every sink.
9
In a previous work (Huenteler et al., 2016), a different analysis was per­
formed by selecting a greater share of patents relative to the total weight ac­
cording to SPLC analysis. This method is not applicable here, as we focus on
emerging technologies (Block et al., 2021), and the algorithm score per patent
is less skewed. Therefore, performing a similar analysis would not be possible,
as the number of patents to be coded manually would be too high (e.g., 3689
patents to be coded using a similar approach to that in Malhotra et al. (2021)
over the 14 components, while they manually coded 491 patent families).
10
Previous work (e.g., Huenteler et al., 2016) also used the critical path
method, which is based on choosing only the path with the highest global score
following main path analysis. As we rely on emerging technologies (Block et al.,
2021), we use main path analysis for a higher number of patents.

7
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

of a forward perspective. In addition, we use a temporal window of three Table 4

years following Malhotra et al. (2021). The three-year hazard rate is Overview of the main regulatory push/pull policy efforts.
high when the technological knowledge trajectory is stable and low Date Main regulations Type
when it is not (i.e., when many new patents were not in the main paths
2002 China considered the CE a strategy to reach sustainable Pull/
three years ago). This approach helps identify dead ends in the tech­ development by reducing, reusing, and recycling resources ( push
nological knowledge trajectory (Fontana et al., 2009). Mcdowall et al., 2017; Yuan, Bi, and Moriguichi, 2006)
2005 - Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Push
3.2.3. Patent content analysis and CE framework operationalization regulation in the EU for electronic waste Push
- The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) to facilitate Pull
In the final stage of our analysis, Stage 5, we use the 559 core patent recycling in the EU
families identified following the computation of the SPLC algorithm to - End-of-life vehicle recycling directive in the EU
enrich the data. First, we describe the different components to better 2007 REACH regulation on chemical treatments to notably favor eco- Push
understand the main technologies that contribute to the CE through an design
2008 - Circular Economy Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of Push/
inductive qualitive approach. Second, based on the CE framework, we
China Pull
manually assign each patent family to one or multiple loops. - UNEP’s Green Economy Initiative to support investment in Push/
Because we adopt an explorative perspective to identify the main green technology (Allen and Clouth, 2012) Pull
technologies that contribute to the CE, we describe the technology - EU directive on waste to implement the CE paradigm (Smol, Push
represented by each of the 14 retrieved components. Based on a careful Kulczycka, and Avdiushchenko, 2017)
2009 UK low-carbon transition plan Push/
review of the core patents of each component, we can provide details on Pull
the technology covered by such components. Our analysis is presented 2014 Toward a Circular Economy: a Zero Waste Programme for Push/
in Table 3, with specificities of each component regarding the number of Europe by the EU Pull
patent families included, the earliest filed patent families retrieved, and 2015 - Closing the Loop - EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy Push/
(Merli et al., 2018) Pull
repartition among the source, sink and middle patents. Examples of
- Paris Agreement on Climate Change Push/
patent descriptions (title and abstracts) for some components are pro­ Pull
vided in Appendix E. The two top components that contain the highest 2018 China revised plan for CE promotion Push/
number of patent families are lithium battery recycling (1846 patent Pull
families) and the production of fertilizer from organic products (1770 2020 New CE Action Plan (CEAP) in the EU Push/
Pull
patent families). We note that interestingly, some technologies that
could appear to be integrated with each other, such as the recycling of
plastic bottles (ID 8) and the recycling of plastic in general (ID 7), are 14 top components of the 528 patent families with their CE loop cate­
disconnected in the network, meaning that inventors who focus on gory (i.e., biological/technical loops categories), we observe no overlap.
solving the effects of plastic bottle pollution do not draw on other ad­ In other words, there is no patent from a given component that is clas­
vances in the recycling of plastic in general. sified into items from the biological and technical loops categories. As a
We classify each of the 559 core patent families according to the CE result, 3 components are classified as contributing to the biological loops
framework. The CE framework includes two cycles: the biological cycle, category and 11 to the technical loops category.
which deals with natural elements (e.g., food and wood-based products)
that are, by nature, renewable, and the technical cycle, which deals with 4. Results
manufactured goods and products (Sehnem et al., 2022). The CE
framework describes different loops, i.e., different possible cycles This section presents our analysis of the technological knowledge
encompassing ways to eliminate pollution and waste, circulate products dynamics of CE-related inventions.11 We intend to explore how the
and materials, or regenerate nature. technological knowledge trajectories of various CE-related technologies
In the biological cycle, we can differentiate among three loops. The evolve over time in the context of regulatory push/pull policies. We note
first loop includes the extraction of biochemical feedstock and its usage. that we are unable to differentiate specifically between the effect of push
The second loop includes the extraction of biochemical feedstock to and pull regulations, mainly because many regulatory packages consist
favor anaerobic digestion to produce biogas. The third loop departs from of a mix of both types of policies (e.g., “Closing the Loop – EU Action
the second, but instead of producing biogas, it favors farming or Plan for the CE”, see Merli et al., 2018). Previous research has also
collection. According to the CE framework, those three loops appear to shown that mixing push and pull regulations leads to greater effects on
be equally valuable. We call items the different activities performed technological trajectories (e.g., Ren and Albrecht, 2023). In Table 4, we
across each loop. In the technical cycle, four loops can be differentiated. provide an overview of the main regulatory push/pull policy efforts:
The first loop focuses on maintaining and prolonging the life of products, To answer our research question, first, based on our classification per
the second focuses on reusing or redistributing products, the third cycle and loop, we analyze the biological and technical cycles separately
concerns refurbishing and remanufacturing, and the fourth focuses on (Sections 4.1 and 4.2). Then, we compare the dynamics of these two
recycling. Contrary to the biological cycle, there is only one item per main cycles of the CE (Section 4.3).
loop, and they are not equally valuable (Sehnem et al., 2022). For
example, solutions developed to favor maintaining and prolonging a 4.1. Technological knowledge dynamics of inventions directed toward the
product’s life are more valuable than recycling because there is no loss biological CE cycle in the context of regulatory push/pull
in the intrinsic value of the product. We then rank the value of each loop
from 1 (least valuable) to 4 (most valuable). First, following the strong regulatory push/pull policies for the CE
By capitalizing on the CE framework, we assign to each of the 559 that mainly started in the mid-2000s, we observe that significant efforts
core patents one or multiple items according to the biological and have been made to develop inventions targeting the biological CE cycle
technical cycles based on the manual reading of their abstract and title (Fig. 2). However, inventions’ efforts directed toward this cycle have
and their alignment with Sehnem et al.’s (2022) definitions. Thirty-one been unequally split along the different loops (Table 5). Indeed, a large
patents remain unclassified due to unavailable or unclear abstracts;
therefore, 528 patents in total are classified. Some patent families are
classified into more than one category (40.5 % of the classified patents). 11
As mentioned in the method section, while we have discussed the literature
Examples of abstracts for each category of biological and technical cy­ on eco-innovation, we now focus on patenting data and solely on inventions (i.
cles are provided in Appendix F. When analyzing the repartition of the e., not innovations per se).

8
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec
share of inventions target biochemical feedstock (41 % of the inventions
in the category), while other inventions are roughly equally shared be­
tween anaerobic digestion and farming/collection items. A very low
share of patents focuses on extracting biochemical feedstock or pro­
ducing biogas, limiting the global CE effort for biological materials.
These differences are linked to the relative contribution of each of
the three groups of inventions (i.e., components) to different biological
loops (Fig. 3). For example, we observe that the biological treatment of
water and the ecological restoration of natural water inventions
contribute almost entirely to the farming/collection item. However, as
they represent a relatively low number of inventions compared to that
represented by fertilizer production from organic products, this contri­
bution remains limited when reviewing the overall CE cycle. Therefore,
despite the strong regulatory push/pull policies for the CE, there is a lack
of a coherent technological group of inventions that address the issues of
biogas production per se.
We can also note that the relative share of the three main technol­
ogies remains relatively stable throughout the observation period
(Fig. 4), despite various large CE programs being launched during this
period. The only exceptions concern the increase in inventions dedicated
to the biological treatment of water in 2015.
Finally, we conclude that CE regulatory push/pull policies are
associated with unequal invention efforts across the different loops of
the biological cycle and that dynamically, it does not appear to have
created major changes between the different purposes of CE-related
inventions. We note that more details regarding patent evolution and
technological stability are available in Appendix G.
We now explore the effects of regulatory push/pull policies on in­
ventions contributing to the technical CE cycle.
4.2. Technological knowledge dynamics for inventions directed toward
the technical CE cycle
Following the regulatory push/pull policies favoring the CE, we
observe a large increase in invention efforts, mainly those related to
recycling (Fig. 5). As presented in Table 6, for the biological cycle,
despite overall regulatory push/pull policy efforts for the CE, inventions
contributing to the technical CE cycle contribute mainly to the recycling
of technological components only (82 %). This category is also that with
the highest share of inventions across the CE framework. Nevertheless,
contrary to the case of the biological cycle, the loops of the technical
cycles can be rated in terms of their value for the CE. Here, the recycling
category also appears as one of the least efficient loops when compared
to reuse, for example. Indeed, the recycling process implies the trans­
formation of materials into new products requiring energy consumption.
In addition, there is an inability to recycle 100 % of the original product
components in the recycling process. We note that very few inventions
cover other loops in this category, except the refurbish and remanu­
facture loop. Indeed, inventions that target techniques for keeping
products in circulation longer or favoring long-term maintenance are
marginal in the top 14 leading groups of inventions that contribute to
the CE. We observe that the regulatory push/pull leads to the increasing
dynamics of CE-related inventions in the technical cycle. However, these
dynamics are concentrated on recycling loops that can be considered
less efficient than other loops in this cycle, although probably the easiest
type of loop to implement.
We further explore the contribution of the different groups of in­
ventions to the different technical cycles12 (Fig. 6). Except for the
recycling of lithium battery inventions, the other groups of inventions
focus on only one or two technical CE loops, namely, remanufacturing/
refurbishing and recycling loops. On the one hand, the groups of in­
ventions relative to materials from the building and construction
12
The details regarding patenting evolution and technological stability for
each component are available in Appendix L.
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767
industry (e.g., concrete, pavement, mortar, and slag) cover, at least
equally, both loops. On the other hand, for inventions aimed at recycling
lithium batteries, which concentrate most of the inventions in the CE
technical loops, 79 % are primarily related to the recycling loop, while
the other loops remain marginal. Moreover, other inventions, such as
plastic/rubber treatment or garbage bin systems, also focus on the
abovementioned loops. Taken together, these results suggest a need for
policymakers to set up a regulatory push/pull promoting more efficient
loops (e.g., reuse) beyond recycling.
We also explore the temporal dynamics of each invention group’s
relative share in the CE technical cycle, the results of which are depicted
in Fig. 7. One key observation is that inventions related to recycling
lithium batteries represent the most significant share of all CE-related
inventions in the technical cycle, ranging from 35 % in 2006 to 70 %
in 2019. Focusing on these inventions, we observe a significant evolu­
tion of its technological dynamics after 2008, corresponding to the
beginning of a strong regulatory push/pull for the CE paradigm. This
finding is consistent with prior research demonstrating a positive effect
of regulations on eco-innovation. Conversely, despite having received
the same strong regulatory push/pull, the other CE-related inventions of
the technical cycle have followed an inverse evolution over time, lead­
ing them to become relatively marginal in the share of all CE-related
inventions in the technical cycle from 2008 to 2019. We suspect that
such inverse technological evolution over time relates to lithium battery
inventions reaching a certain technological and industrial standard that
benefits the inventions associated with recycling. As such, our results
suggest that the level of reaction to environmental regulations might
depend on the stage of technological maturity of products. Hence, our
results align with those of recent studies (Costantini et al., 2017).
Overall, in the case of the CE technical cycle, companies and in­
ventors seem to respond to regulations by significantly investing in
recycling inventions, even though more efficient loops could be envi­
sioned (i.e., reuse/remanufacturing).
We now compare the technical and biological CE loops and explore
potential differences in their technological knowledge trajectories in the
context of overall regulatory push/pull policy efforts for the CE.
4.3. Comparison of the technological knowledge dynamics of inventions
contributing to either the biological or technical CE loop
Based on the manual coding of the 528 patents representing the most
significant knowledge for the main groups of inventions contributing to
the CE, we compare the dynamics of the inventions dedicated to either
the biological or technical CE loops.
First, we analyze the share of inventions in the biological and tech­
nical cycles of CE over the whole period of analysis (see Table 7). We
observe that inventions from the subset are approximately equally split
between both cycles (54 % vs. 46 %).
Second, we also analyze the technological knowledge dynamics over
time, which are depicted in Fig. 8. There are three distinct periods (i.e.,
before 2008, 2008–2017 and after 2017).
In the first period, we observe a slight increase in the number of CE-
related inventions that are balanced between both the biological and
technical cycles. In the second period, there is a significant increase in
patenting activities dedicated to CE in both cycles, particularly
following a strong regulatory push policy effort. For example, China is
among the first countries to implement a law—“Circular Economy
Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China”—specifically dedi­
cated to the whole paradigm of the CE in 200813 (e.g., Su et al., 2013;
Zhou et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2014). Finally, in the third period, the
growth of inventions in the biological cycle starts to decrease (i.e.,
2016–2019), while that related to CE technical cycles continues to grow.
13
The increase stems mainly from the level of CE-related patents filed by
Chinese applicants (93 % of patents).
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

Fig. 2. Cumulative evolution of inventions in the CE biological loop.

Table 5
Descriptive statistics subselection of patent families’ classification according to the CE framework.
Type of CE Item in the loop Definition Level of No. of patent Share of Share of coverage
loop efficiency families covering coverage per type of loop
the item (total)

Biological Biochemical Biotic nutrients used as nontoxic fertilizers and other N/A 100 19 % 41 %
materials feedstock agricultural amendment
loop Extraction of High-quality raw materials extraction from biomass in N/A 13 2% 5%
biochemical order to yield often small volumes of materials, power,
feedstock fuel, and high-quality chemicals
Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion of organic material by N/A 57 11 % 23 %
microorganisms
Biogas Usage of anaerobic digestion of organic material and N/A 4 1% 2%
absence of oxygen creates biogases (e.g., methane)
Farming/collection Hunting and fishing N/A 68 13 % 28 %
Total biological materials N/A 242 46 % 100 %

Fig. 3. Contributions of the components to the biological CE cycle.

10
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

Fig. 4. Temporal dynamics of the relative share of each invention group in the biological domain (3-year moving average).

Fig. 5. Cumulative evolution of inventions in the CE biological loop.

The discrepancy between a slow growth of inventions in the biological
cycle and continuing growth in the technical cycles may be explained by
the shift in the regulatory push toward the reduction in materials
extraction and production. In fact, following the Paris Agreement on
climate change (in 2015), several countries have set up a constraining
zero-emission carbon target that results in a focus on materials. For
example, the EU commission has established a regulation on eco-design
to support this focus. In the same vein, China revised its plan for CE
promotion in 2018 to achieve more ambitious goals for the transition
toward a greener economy.
Third, we compare the technological knowledge stability of
inventions related to the biological and technical cycles based on the
review of patent families that are still in the main path throughout a
three-year timeframe, similar to Malhotra et al. (2021). Fig. 9 depicts the
findings. We observe that technological knowledge stability is higher for
inventions related to the CE technical cycle than for those related to the
biological cycle in the period 2013–2020 (32 % stability on average),
despite a similar regulatory push/pull. This finding might be explained
by the fact that regulations may lead to a certain standardization of
technologies in the CE technical cycle that enables the large-scale pro­
cessing of the high quantity of waste materials. Conversely, we suspect
that the inventions related to the CE biological cycle face technological

11
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

Table 6
Descriptive statistics subselection of patent families’ classification according to the CE framework.
Type of CE Item in the loop Definition Level of No. of patent Share of Share of
loop efficiency families covering coverage coverage per
the item (total) type of loop

Technical Maintain/prolong Keep products in circulation as long as possible without 4 2 1% 1%

materials generating waste
loop Reuse Process of reusing a product for the same purpose without 3 2 1% 1%
conducting any significant repair to the product (Paterson et al.,
2016)
Remanufacture/ Remanufacturing is an industrial process where used products 2 47 9% 16 %
repair are often restored to their original functionality (Gehin et al.,
2008). Repairing involves the restoration of a product or the
replacement of some of its components to extend its lifetime (
Jabbour et al., 2022; Kamble et al., 2021)
Recycle Recover elements that can serve as input for production 1 235 45 % 82 %
processes. It results in the loss of the original product’s added
value
Total technical materials N/A 286 54 % 100 %

Fig. 6. Contribution of the components to technical CE loops.

dead ends and are subjected to a renewal of the most significant tech­
nological knowledge upon which inventors draw.
This subsection explores the discrepancies between both CE loop
categories. We identify significant differences in how technological
knowledge trajectories evolve through both cycles, despite an over­
reaching similar invention effort associated with a regulatory push/pull
policy effort for the CE paradigm. This finding has strong implications
for academic research, policymakers, and practitioners, which we
discuss in the next section.
5. Discussion and conclusions
In the face of a critical climate change challenge and resource scar­
city issues, economies need to shift from a linear economy toward a
more CE (Soni et al., 2023; Murray et al., 2017). The literature has
notably shown that technological innovation is one of the primary levers
accompanying this critical paradigm shift (e.g., Cainelli et al., 2020; De
Jesus et al., 2019, 2021). To better understand how to face such a grand
challenge, some studies have explored the technological knowledge

12
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

Fig. 7. Temporal dynamics of invention groups’ relative share in the CE technical cycle (3-year moving average).

related inventions and reviewed their technological knowledge trajec­

Table 7
tories and how they contribute to the biological and technical cycles,
Descriptive statistics subselection of patent families’ classification according to
which are considered the two key dimensions of the CE framework. This
the CE framework.
approach allowed us to assess the global eco-innovation effort for the
Type of Item in No. of patent Share of Share of coverage CE, identify the loops and themes that were covered and those that were
CE loop the loop families covering coverage per type of loop
the item (total)
not, and analyze their temporal dynamics in the context of regulatory
push/pull policy efforts.
Total biological 242 46 % 100 %
To conduct this analysis, we drew on the methodology developed by
materials
Total technical 286 54 % 100 % Malhotra et al. (2021) and Huenteler et al. (2016). First, we used
materials network analysis techniques to select the core patents in the techno­
Total 528 100 % N/A logical knowledge trajectories of inventions related to the CE. The
method was adapted to the specificities of a highly fragmented tech­
nological landscape, and we analyzed the 14 most significant groups of
dynamics of eco-innovation. Moreover, other studies have specifically
eco-inventions contributing to the CE. Second, the textual content of 528
focused on CE-related innovations. Therefore, in this study, we aim to
patents representing the core technological knowledge trajectories was
explore in more depth the technological knowledge dynamics of in­
qualitatively analyzed to better understand what fields were covered
ventions that contribute specifically to the CE in the context of a strong
and their link with CE cycles and loops.
regulatory push for this paradigm.
We observed several results. First, regarding the CE technical cycle,
In this section, we summarize our research results (Section 5.1) and
we observed that inventions cover various materials (concrete, plastic,
detail their implications for theory (Section 5.2) and practice (Section
and lithium batteries) and technologies (bin classification and intelli­
5.3). Finally, we conclude by discussing limitations and room for further
gent garbage). However, most inventions in this cycle (~ 80 %) are
research (Section 5.4).
concentrated on the recycling loop. This loop is the least efficient due to
the associated energy consumption and challenges of the process (i.e.,
5.1. Summary of the results accurate collection, sorting, and treatment of materials). Indeed, only
approximately 20 % of inventions contribute to the other loops of the CE
To explore the technological knowledge dynamics of inventions that technical cycle: maintaining, prolonging, reusing, or redistributing
contribute to the CE, we have analyzed the different groups of CE- materials. This result may be related to the fact that regulations on CE

13
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767

Fig. 8. Contribution of the subset of manually coded patent families to the two CE cycles.

Fig. 9. Technological stability (3-year hazard rate).

have focused on recycling in the beginning, before transitioning
increasingly toward other CE loops.
Second, when focusing on the biological loop, we retrieved a less
diverse group of inventions with an overrepresentation of inventions
contributing to fertilizer production from organic products, covering
almost all the different loops of this cycle. While the loops focusing on
biochemical feedstock (including extraction) are dominant, fewer in­
ventions focus on farming/collection and biogas. Again, we observed the
discrepancies in the technological knowledge trajectories among
different loops, despite an overreaching regulation push/pull for the CE
paradigm.
Third, our findings show that while the technological innovation
efforts between the technical and biological loops appear relatively
similar, their technological knowledge dynamics and stability following
the same regulatory push/pull differ. We observe that the inventions in
the CE technical cycle evolve on a reasonably stable technological
knowledge trajectory, contrary to inventions in the CE biological cycle
that follow a bumpier trajectory. Adopting Dosi’s (1982) vocabulary, it
would mean that while the CE-related inventions in the technical cycle
seem to enter an era of incremental change, allowing for a switch toward
product or process innovation and reinforcement of a common knowl­
edge base, inventions related to the biological cycle still appear in their
infancy, i.e., in an era of fermentation.

14
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec
5.2. Theoretical implications
Our study contributes to the CE literature, focusing on the impact of
regulatory push/pull on eco-innovation and the literature on techno­
logical knowledge trajectories.
First, we contribute to the literature on the CE by assessing how
technological innovation contributes to the different loops and cycles.
Although emerging studies intend to bridge eco-innovation and CE,
prior research has acknowledged the need to develop further and com­
plement this literature (De Jesus et al., 2019, 2021). We contribute to
this literature by investigating the technological knowledge dynamics of
eco-innovations within CE strategies, for which studies are lacking. For
example, we know that there are innovations in CE loops, such as
recycling or remanufacturing. Nevertheless, we know less about how
these innovations evolve over time and how they affect the overall
transition to more circularity in the economy.
Second, we contribute to the literature on the impact of regulatory
push/pull on eco-innovations by enriching the technological knowledge
trajectory studies of specific cases, such as solar panels and clean energy
(Malhotra et al., 2019), with the study of CE-related inventions. We
show that very diverse groups of inventions contribute to the CE para­
digm. More importantly, we observe a strong discrepancy in techno­
logical knowledge stability over time of inventions in the CE technical
cycle compared to in the biological cycle. The inventions in the first
cycle evolve in a certain stability contrary to the latter.
The reasons for such a difference may be linked to two phenomena.
First, policymakers have increasingly been facing a massive waste of
materials (e.g., electronics) unable to directly enter the environment
(contrary to biological products), leading to significant carbon emission
levels (IPCC, 2018; UNEP, 2019). As such, policymakers have consis­
tently reinforced actors’ constraints on the lifecycle of their materials (e.
g., reinforcement of the EPR or eco-design laws) and have dedicated
significant public R&D funding to support their policy shifts (Garrido-
Prada et al., 2021). Actors may have perceived this regulatory consis­
tency as a strong signal leading them to invest more in eco-innovative
technologies. Second, the stable technological knowledge trajectory of
inventions in the CE technical cycle may be due to their connection with
a stable corpus of prior knowledge necessary for their progress and
performance (e.g., Dosi, 1982). For example, since the first invention of
automotive or solar panel batteries, the corpus of technological knowl­
edge has stabilized over time, which has enabled the reduction in their
price (Malhotra et al., 2021; Henderson and Clark, 1990) but, more
importantly, the development of innovative recycling processes to
manage their end of life.
Hence, we contribute to prior research suggesting that the regulatory
push/pull policy impact varies depending on environmental issues
(Frondel et al., 2007; Krammer, 2009). Indeed, our results show that this
effect over time will depend on the standardization of connected tech­
nologies, as we have explained earlier in the example of lithium-ion
battery recycling.
Finally, we complement the methodological approach of the review
of technological knowledge trajectory studies (e.g., Fontana et al.,
2009). Indeed, while our methodology is based on patent citation
network analysis, we extend the methods used in Huenteler et al. (2016)
and Malhotra et al. (2019) to review a more fragmented technological
landscape. In parallel, we analyze more than 14 groups of inventions
with very different sizes and technological stability.
These contributions leave room for further research, as detailed in
Section 5.4.
5.3. Implications for practice and policymakers
Policymakers have vigorously promoted the CE and the development
of eco-innovation (e.g., Cui et al., 2022), and transition scenarios have
been made available in various industries (Guzzo et al., 2021). Never­
theless, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have analyzed in depth
15
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767
how technological knowledge inventions contribute to the CE (De Jesus
et al., 2021). Such an assessment can facilitate policymakers’ decision
making.
First, regarding the CE technical cycle, our study reveals that
extensive efforts have been made on the recycling loop. Knowing that
this loop is less efficient than the other loops, we suggest that policy­
makers put more effort into settling regulations to push organizations
toward innovation in projects that target more efficient loops, such as
reusing or maintaining products. The recent laws that push for more eco-
design strategies to reinforce organizations’ circular strategies and favor
the extension of products’ lifespan seem to go in that direction.
Second, regarding the biological cycle, the technological trajectory
appears less stable. Therefore, policymakers may encourage actors more
strongly by reallocating public R&D funding and settling regulations
pushing for promising technologies, such as waste methanization.
Our results also have implications for the different actors of the CE,
beyond only policymakers, such as companies, public research organi­
zations or citizens (see, notably, the quadruple helix approach of the CE
in Durán-Romero et al., 2020). First, beyond potential future policies
and regulations, our study suggests that companies and universities
might push their R&D efforts toward favoring a more stable techno­
logical knowledge trajectory for the CE biological cycle. In other words,
there are opportunities for filing patents that would be at the center of
the technological knowledge base for the CE biological cycle, with the
potential for licensing revenues, for example. Second, universities and
companies might also direct their R&D efforts toward supporting in­
ventions sustaining more efficient CE technical cycle loops. Third, citi­
zens might also be willing to contribute more to the biological cycle and
more efficient technical cycle loops through actions to influence poli­
cymakers’ regulations or to foster social innovations and the nongov­
ernmental organizations (NGOs) targeting those areas.
5.4. Limitations and further research
Our study is also subject to limitations and leaves room for further
research. First, our original dataset was based on the classification made
available by the European Patent Office (EPO) for inventions that
contribute to addressing climate change mitigation. While we carefully
selected the CPC class Y02W for our investigation and provided a
rationale for this choice, some inventions that could have been consid­
ered relevant for the CE may have been ignored. Indeed, we focus mainly
on inventions dealing with various types of waste from a biological and
technical cycle perspective. However, other potential inventions that
could be used to reduce the amount of material used in the production
process (instead of dealing with or managing associated waste) could
have been excluded. We also note that the CPC classification may be
subject to bias (e.g., examinator classification issues). Therefore, we
recommend that a more fine-grained analysis using, for example,
advanced text mining techniques to retrieve a larger dataset of CE-
related inventions be developed.
Conversely, using patent data poses a series of limitations. For
example, while the literature mentions that business model eco-
innovation is also relevant to the CE (e.g., Lüdeke-Freund et al.,
2018), patent data cannot be used to analyze such advances. Companies
might also be unwilling to patent relevant inventions for secrecy rea­
sons. Therefore, future studies could enrich our understanding of inno­
vation dynamics in this field by identifying how other forms of
innovation could contribute to different loops of the CE framework.
Second, we used a qualitative approach based on the operationalization
of the CE framework to analyze the patents that represent the core
technological knowledge from our network analysis. A more fine-
grained analysis of those patents could be envisioned, either by using
techniques to extend the qualitative coding scheme to the whole dataset
or by conducting case studies on specific groups of inventions to un­
derstand the technological dynamics and roles of different parties.
Third, as we followed the methodology proposed by Malhotra et al.
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec
(2021) and Huenteler et al. (2016), the inventions that were not cited by
other inventions that contributed to the CE framework were excluded
from the main dataset to focus on the most relevant technological
knowledge in the field. While we observed a more significant number of
such specific inventions, further research could also try to analyze these
specificities in more depth to understand this situation. The literature on
general-purpose technology might be helpful to better understand how
such technologies could contribute to CE-related inventions. Such
studies could enrich the traditional model of sink/source/middle patents
by discussing “enabler” patents. Fourth, further studies could advance
our understanding of the actors (e.g., companies, universities, and citi­
zens) who contribute to CE interventions, notably by using social
network analysis (SNA), as well as their spatial distribution. In this line
of research, future works could also explore the consequences that the
vast majority of most relevant patents have been located in only one
country and how it affects innovation, R&D and competition for the
companies contributing to the CE.
We expect this study to shed more light on how eco-innovations can
contribute to the CE and to encourage others to explore such phenomena
in more depth.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122767.
References
Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., Hemous, D., 2012. The environment and directed
technical change. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 131–166.
Allen, C., Clouth, S., 2012. A guidebook to the Green Economy. UNDESA, New York.
Alstott, J., Triulzi, G., Yan, B., Luo, J., 2017. Mapping technology space by normalizing
patent networks. Scientometrics 110 (1), 443–479.
Anderson, P., Tushman, M.L., 1991. Managing through cycles of technological change.
Res. Technol. Manag. 34, 26–31.
Anderson, P., Tushman, M.L., 2018. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs:
a cyclical model of technological change. Organ. Innov. 373–402.
Arthur, W.B., 2007. The structure of invention. Res. Policy 36, 274–287.
Bag, S., Pretorius, J.H.C., Gupta, S., Dwivedi, Y.K., 2021. Role of institutional pressures
and resources in the adoption of big data analytics powered artificial intelligence,
sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy capabilities. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 163, 120420.
Bakker, C., Wang, F., Huisman, J., Den Hollander, M., 2014. Products that go round:
exploring product life extension through design. J. Clean. Prod. 69, 10–16.
Barbieri, N., Marzucchi, A., Rizzo, U., 2020. Knowledge sources and impacts on
subsequent inventions: do green technologies differ from non-green ones? Res.
Policy 49 (2), 103901.
Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., Kirchherr, J., 2020. Circular futures: what will they look like?
Ecol. Econ. 175, 106703.
Behl, A., Singh, R., Pereira, V., Laker, B., 2023. Analysis of industry 4.0 and circular
economy enablers: a step towards resilient sustainable operations management.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 189, 122363.
Bekkers, R., Martinelli, A., 2012. Knowledge positions in high-tech markets: trajectories,
standards, strategies and true innovators. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 79 (7),
1192–1216.
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., Gomez-Mejia, L.R., 2013. Necessity as the mother of
‘green’inventions: institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strateg.
Manag. J. 34, 891–909.
16
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767
Block, C., Wustmans, M., Laibach, N., Bröring, S., 2021. Semantic bridging of patents and
scientific publications – the case of an emerging sustainability-oriented technology.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 167, 120689.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42–56.
Böhmecke-Schwafert, M., Wehinger, M., Teigland, R., 2022. Blockchain for the circular
economy: theorizing blockchain’s role in the transition to a circular economy
through an empirical investigation. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 31, 3786–3801.
Cainelli, G., D’Amato, A., Mazzanti, M., 2020. Resource efficient eco-innovations for a
circular economy: evidence from EU firms. Res. Policy 49 (1), 103827.
Cantner, U., Graf, H., Herrmann, J., Kalthaus, M., 2016. Inventor networks in renewable
energies: the influence of the policy mix in Germany. Res. Policy 45, 1165–1184.
Cecere, G., Martinelli, A., 2017. Drivers of knowledge accumulation in electronic waste
management: an analysis of publication data. Res. Policy 46, 925–938.
Chauhan, C., Parida, V., Dhir, A., 2022. Linking circular economy and digitalisation
technologies: a systematic literature review of past achievements and future
promises. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 177, 121508.
Choi, C., Park, Y., 2009. Monitoring the organic structure of technology based on the
patent development paths. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (6), 754–768.
Chung, J., Ko, N., Yoon, J., 2021. Inventor group identification approach for selecting
university-industry collaboration partners. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 171,
120988.
Clark, K.B., 1985. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in
technological evolution. Res. Policy 14, 235–251.
Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Martini, C., Pennacchio, L., 2015. Demand-pull and technology-
push public support for eco-innovation: the case of the biofuels sector. Res. Policy
44, 577–595.
Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Marin, G., Paglialunga, E., 2017. Eco-innovation, sustainable
supply chains and environmental performance in European. J. Clean. Prod. 155,
141–154.
Cui, J., Dai, J., Wang, Z., Zhao, X., 2022. Does environmental regulation induce green
innovation? Evidence from Chinese listed firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 176
(C), 121492.
D’Adamo, I., Ferella, F., Gastaldi, M., Maggiore, F., Rosa, P., Terzi, S., 2019. Towards
sustainable recycling processes: wasted printed circuit boards as a source of
economic opportunities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 455–467.
Dahmani, N., Benhida, K., Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Elfezazi, S., Jauhar, S.K., 2021. Smart
circular product design strategies towards eco-effective production systems: a lean
eco-design industry 4.0 framework. J. Clean. Prod. 320, 128847.
De Jesus, A., Mendonça, S., 2018. Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco-
innovation road to the circular economy. Ecol. Econ. 145, 75–89.
De Jesus, A., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Mendonça, S., 2019. Eco-innovation pathways to a
circular economy: envisioning priorities through a Delphi approach. J. Clean. Prod.
228, 1494–1513.
De Jesus, A., Lammi, M., Domenech, T., Vanhuyse, F., Mendonça, S., 2021. Eco-
innovation diversity in a circular economy: towards circular innovation studies.
Sustainability 13 (19), 10974.
Demirel, P., Danisman, G.O., 2019. Eco-innovation and firm growth in the circular
economy: evidence from European small- and medium-sized enterprises. Bus.
Strateg. Environ. 28, 1608–1618.
Deng, S., Zhou, X., Huang, A., Yih, Y., Sutherland, J.W., 2021. Evaluating economic
opportunities for product recycling via the Sherwood principle and machine
learning. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 167, 105232.
Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley, F., Ford, S.J., Garmulewicz, A.,
Knowles, S., Minshall, T.H.W., Mortara, L., Reed-Tsochas, F.P., Rowley, J., 2017.
Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: a research agenda.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 115, 75–84.
Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 11,
147–162.
Dosi, G., Nelson, R., 2009. Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary
processes. In: Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 1, pp. 51–127.
Durán-Romero, G., Urraca-Ruiz, A.A., 2015. Climate change and eco-innovation. A
patent data assessment of environmentally sound technologies. Innovation 17,
115–138.
Durán-Romero, G., López, A.M., Beliaeva, T., Ferasso, M., Garonne, C., Jones, P., 2020.
Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies
through eco-innovations and quintuple Helix model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
160, 120246.
Epicoco, M., Oltra, V., Saint Jean, M., 2014. Knowledge dynamics and sources of eco-
innovation: mapping the green chemistry community. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 81, 388–402.
Fagerberg, J., 2018. Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: a comment on
transformative innovation policy. Res. Policy 47, 1568–1576.
Fontana, R., Nuvolari, A., Verspagen, B., 2009. Mapping technological trajectories as
patent citation networks. An application to data communication standards. Econ.
Innov. New Technol. 18 (4), 311–336.
Fontana, M., Iori, M., Montobbio, F., Sinatra, R., 2020. New and atypical combinations:
an assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity. Res. Policy 49 (7), 104063.
Frondel, M., Horbach, J., Rennings, K., 2007. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An
empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries.
Bus. Strateg. Environ. 16, 571–584.
Frondel, M., Ritter, N., Schmidt, C.M., Vance, C., 2010. Economic impacts from the
promotion of renewable energy technologies: the German experience. Energy Policy
38, 4048–4056.
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec
Garmulewicz, A., Holweg, M., Veldhuis, H., Yang, A., 2018. Disruptive technology as an
enabler of the circular economy: what potential does 3D printing hold? Calif. Manag.
Rev. 60 (3), 112–132.
Garrido-Prada, P., Lenihan, H., Doran, J., Rammer, C., Perez-Alaniz, M., 2021. Driving
the circular economy through public environmental and energy R&D: evidence from
SMEs in the European Union. Ecol. Econ. 182, 106884.
Gehin, A., Zwolinski, P., Brissaud, D., 2008. A tool to implement sustainable end-of-life
strategies in the product development phase. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (5), 566–576.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular economy
– a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768.
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., Evans, S., 2018. Sustainable business model
innovation: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 401–416.
Ghisetti, C., Montresor, S., 2019. Design and eco-innovation: micro-evidence from the
Eurobarometer survey. Ind. Innov. 26 (10), 1208–1241.
Ghissellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean.
Prod. 114, 11–32.
Ghosh, B., Ghosh, M.K., Parhi, P., Mukherjee, P.S., Mishra, B.K., 2015. Waste printed
circuit boards recycling: an extensive assessment of current status. J. Clean. Prod. 94,
5–19.
Go, T.F., Wahab, D.A., Hishamuddin, H., 2015. Multiple generation life-cycles for
product sustainability: the way forward. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 16–29.
Gong, Y., Putnam, E., You, W., Zhao, C., 2020. Investigation into circular economy of
plastics: the case of the UK fast moving consumer goods industry. J. Clean. Prod.
244, 118941.
Griliches, Z., 1957. Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological
change. Econometrica 501–522.
Guzzo, D., Rodrigues, V.P., Mascarenhas, J., 2021. A systems representation of the
circular economy: transition scenarios in the electrical and electronic equipment
(EEE) industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 163, 120414.
Hall, J., Kerr, R., 2003. Innovation dynamics and environmental technologies: the
emergence of fuel cell technology. J. Clean. Prod. 11, 459–471.
Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B., 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of
existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm. Sci. Q. 9–30.
Ho, J.C., Saw, E.C., Lu, L.Y.Y., Liu, J.S., 2014. Technological barriers and research trends
in fuel cell technologies: a citation network analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
82, 66–79.
Horbach, J., 2008. Determinants of environmental innovation—new evidence from
German panel data sources. Res. Policy 37, 163–173.
Horbach, J., Rammer, C., Rennings, K., 2012. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of
environmental impact — the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and
market pull. Ecol. Econ. 78, 112–122.
Horodytska, O., Valdés, F.J., Fullana, A., 2018. Plastic flexible films waste management –
a state of art review. Waste Manag. 77, 413–425.
Huenteler, J., Schmidt, T.S., Ossenbrink, J., Hoffmann, V.H., 2016. Technology life-
cycles in the energy sector — technological characteristics and the role of
deployment for innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 104, 102–121.
Hummon, N.P., Dereian, P., 1989. Connectivity in a citation network: the development of
DNA theory. Soc. Networks 11 (1), 39–63.
Hung, S.W., Wang, A.P., 2010. Examining the small world phenomenon in the patent
citation network: a case study of the radio frequency identification (RFID) network.
Scientometrics 82 (1), 121–134.
Ilić, M.P., Ranković, M., Dobrilović, M., Bucea-Manea-Țoniş, R., Mihoreanu, L., Gheța, M.
I., Simion, V.E., 2022. Challenging novelties within the circular economy concept
under the digital transformation of society. Sustainability 14, 702.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2018. Global Warming of 1.5◦ C: An
IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5◦ C Above Pre-
industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the
Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change,
Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Sarkis, J., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Renwick, D.W.S., Singh, S.K.,
Grebinevych, O., Godinho Filho, M., 2022. Who is in charge? A review and a
research agenda on the ‘human side’of the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 222,
793–801.
Jaffe, A.B., De Rassenfosse, G., 2010. Patent citation data in social science research:
overview and best practices. In: Depoorter, B., Menell, P., Schwartz, D. (Eds.),
Chapter 2 in Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law,
pp. 20–46.
Jaffe, A.B., Newell, R.G., Stavins, R.N., 2002. Environmental policy and technological
change. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22, 41–70.
Jaffe, A.B., Newell, R.G., Stavins, R.N., 2005. A tale of two market failures: technology
and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 54, 164–174.
Juchneski, N.C. de F., Antunes, A.M. de S., 2022. Do the Main developers of electrical
and electronic equipment comply with the precepts of the circular economy
concepts? A patent-based approach. Sustainability 14, 8467.
Kamble, S.S., Belhadi, A., Gunasekaran, A., Ganapathy, L., Verma, S., 2021. A large
multi-group decision-making technique for prioritizing the big data-driven circular
economy practices in the automobile component manufacturing industry. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 165, 120567.
Katz-Gerro, T., López Sintas, J., 2019. Mapping circular economy activities in the
European Union: patterns of implementation and their correlates in small and
medium-sized enterprises. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 28, 485–496.
Kemp, R., 1997. Environmental Policy and Technical Change. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kemp, R., Oltra, V., 2011. Research insights and challenges on eco-innovation dynamics.
Ind. Innov. 18, 249–253.
17
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767
Krammer, M.S., 2009. Drivers of national innovation in transition: evidence from a panel
of Eastern European countries. Res. Policy 38, 845–860.
Kumar, A., Holuszko, M., Espinosa, D.C.R., 2017. E-waste: an overview on generation,
collection, legislation and recycling practices. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122, 32–42.
Lee, J., Berente, N., 2013. The era of incremental change in the technology innovation
life cycle: an analysis of the automotive emission control industry. Res. Policy 42,
1469–1481.
Li, J., Zeng, X., Stevels, A., 2015. Ecodesign in consumer electronics: past, present, and
future. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (8), 840–860.
Li, B., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., 2021. Managing a closed-loop supply chain with take-back
legislation and consumer preference for green design. J. Clean. Prod. 282, 124481.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., Breuer, H., 2018. The sustainable
business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented
business model innovation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 15, 145–162.
Malerba, F., 2007. Innovation and the dynamics and evolution of industries: progress and
challenges. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 25, 675–699.
Malhotra, A., Schmidt, T.S., Huenteler, J., 2019. The role of inter-sectoral learning in
knowledge development and diffusion: case studies on three clean energy
technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 146, 464–487.
Malhotra, A., Zhang, H., Beuse, M., Schmidt, T., 2021. How do new use environments
influence a technology’s knowledge trajectory? A patent citation network analysis of
lithium-ion battery technology. Res. Policy 50 (9), 104318.
Marín-Vinuesa, L.M., Portillo-Tarragona, P., Scarpellini, S.S., 2021. Firms’ capabilities
management for waste patents in a circular economy. Int. J. Product. Perform.
Manag. 72, 1368–1391.
Martinelli, A., 2012. An emerging paradigm or just another trajectory? Understanding
the nature of technological changes using engineering heuristics in the
telecommunications switching industry. Res. Policy 41 (2), 414–429.
McDowall, W., Geng, Y., Huang, B., Barteková, E., Bleischwitz, R., Türkeli, S.,
Doménech, T., 2017. Circular economy policies in China and Europe. J. Ind. Ecol. 21
(3), 651–661.
Merli, R., Preziosi, M., Acampora, A., 2018. How do scholars approach the circular
economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 703–722.
Metzger, P., Mendonça, S., Silva, J.A., Damásio, B., 2023. Battery innovation and the
circular economy: what are patents revealing? Renew. Energy 209, 516–532.
Mina, A., Ramlogan, R., Tampubolon, G., Metcalfe, J.S., 2007. Mapping evolutionary
trajectories: applications to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge.
Res. Policy 36, 789–806.
Mitsuhashi, H., Nakamura, A., 2021. Pay and networks in organizations: incentive
redesign as a driver of network change. Strateg. Manag. J. 43 (2), 295–322.
Modgil, S., Gupta, S., Sivarajah, U., Bhushan, B., 2021. Big data-enabled large-scale
group decision making for circular economy: an emerging market context. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 166, 120607.
Mokyr, J., 2002. Innovation in an historical perspective: tales of technology and
evolution. Technol. Innov. Econ. Perform. 23–36.
Murmann, J.P., Frenken, K., 2006. Toward a systematic framework for research on
dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Res. Policy 35,
925–952.
Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2017. The circular economy: an interdisciplinary
exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 140 (3),
369–380.
Nelson, R., Winter, S.G., 1982. The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. Am. Econ. Rev. 72,
114–132.
Nemet, G.F., 2009. Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for
non-incremental technical change. Res. Policy 38, 700–709.
Nemet, G.F., Johnson, E., 2012. Do important inventions benefit from knowledge
originating in other technological domains? Res. Policy 41 (1), 190–200.
Nill, J., Kemp, R., 2009. Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies:
from niche to paradigm? Res. Policy 38, 668–680.
Nunez-Jimenez, A., Knoeri, C., Hoppmann, J., Hoffmann, V.H., 2022. Beyond innovation
and deployment: modeling the impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies
in Germany’s solar policy mix. Res. Policy 51, 104585.
OECD, 2013. In: Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., Criscuolo, C. (Eds.), Measuring Patent
Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value. OECD, Paris, France by.
OECD, 2015. In: Hascic, I., Migotto, M. (Eds.), Environment Working Papers – Measuring
Environmental Innovation Using Patent Data. OECD, Paris, France by.
Paterson, D.A.P., Ijomah, W., Windmill, J.F.C., 2016. An analysis of end-of-life
terminology in the carbon fiber reinforced plastic industry. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 9 (2),
130–140.
Pearson, P.J., Foxon, T.J., 2012. A low carbon industrial revolution? Insights and
challenges from past technological and economic transformations. Energy Policy 50,
117–127.
Persoon, P.G.J., Bekkers, R.N.A., Alkemade, F., 2020. The science base of renewables.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 158, 120121.
Peters, M., Schneider, M., Griesshaber, T., Hoffmann, V.H., 2012. The impact of
technology-push and demand-pull policies on technical change–does the locus of
policies matter? Res. Policy 41, 1296–1308.
Plantec, Q., Le Masson, P., Weil, B., 2021. Impact of knowledge search practices on the
originality of inventions: a study in the oil & gas industry through dynamic patent
analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 168, 120782.
Portillo-Tarragona, P., Scarpellini, S., Marín-Vinuesa, L.M., 2022. ‘Circular patents’ and
dynamic capabilities: new insights for patenting in a circular economy. Tech. Anal.
Strat. Manag. 0, 1–16.
Rahmani, M., Gui, L., Atasu, A., 2021. The implications of recycling technology choice on
extended producer responsibility. Prod. Oper. Manag. 30, 522–542.
C. Gnekpe and Q. Plantec
Ren, Q., Albrecht, J., 2023. Toward circular economy: the impact of policy instruments
on circular economy innovation for European small medium enterprises. Ecol. Econ.
207, 107761.
Rennings, K., 2000. Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the
contribution from ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 32, 319–332.
Rennings, K., Rammer, C., 2011. The impact of regulation-driven environmental
innovation on innovation success and firm performance. Ind. Innov. 18, 255–283.
Rodríguez-Espíndola, O., Cuevas-Romo, A., Chowdhury, S., Díaz-Acevedo, N.,
Albores, P., Despoudi, S., Malesios, C., Dey, P., 2022. The role of circular economy
principles and sustainable-oriented innovation to enhance social, economic and
environmental performance: evidence from Mexican SMEs. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 248,
108495.
Rogge, K.S., Schleich, J., 2018. Do policy mix characteristics matter for low-carbon
innovation? A survey-based exploration of renewable power generation technologies
in Germany. Res. Policy 47, 1639–1654.
Sauerwein, M., Doubrovski, E., Balkenende, R., Bakker, C., 2019. Exploring the potential
of additive manufacturing for product design in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.
226, 1138–1149.
Scarpellini, S., Valero-Gil, J., Moneva, J.M., Andreaus, M., 2020. Environmental
management capabilities for a “circular eco-innovation”. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29
(5), 1850–1864.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits,
Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle.
Sehnem, S., De Queiroz, A.A.F.S.L., Pereira, S.C.F., Dos Santos Correia, G., Kuzma, E.,
2022. Circular economy and innovation: a look from the perspective of
organizational capabilities. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 31 (1), 236–250.
Smol, M., Kulczycka, J., Avdiushchenko, A., 2017. Circular economy indicators in
relation to ecoinnovation in European regions. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 19,
669–678.
Soni, V., Gnekpe, C., Roux, M., Anand, R., Vann Yaroson, E., Kumar Banwet, D., 2023.
Adaptive distributed leadership and circular economy adoption by emerging SMEs.
J. Bus. Res. 156.
Su, H.N., Moaniba, I.M., 2017. Does innovation respond to climate change? Empirical
evidence from patents and greenhouse gas emissions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
122, 49–62.
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., Yu, X., 2013. A review of the circular economy in China:
moving from rhetoric to implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 42, 215–227.
Suchek, N., Fernandes, C.I., Kraus, S., Filser, M., Sjögrén, H., 2021. Innovation and the
circular economy: a systematic literature review. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 30,
3686–3702.
Sumrin, S., Gupta, S., Asaad, Y., Wang, Y., Bhattacharya, S., Foroudi, P., 2021. Eco-
innovation for environment and waste prevention. J. Bus. Res. 122, 627–639.
Teece, D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration,
collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15, 285–305.
Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., 1997. University versus corporate patents: a
window on the basicness of invention. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 5, 19–50.
18
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 196 (2023) 122767
Turecki, T., 2016. Innovation for the Circular Economy (Brussels).
United Nations Environment Programme, 2019. Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural
Resources for the Future we Want (Nairobi).
Utterback, J.M., Abernathy, W.J., 1975. A dynamic model of process and product
innovation. Omega 3, 639–656.
Veefkind, V., Hurtado-Albir, J., Angelucci, S., Karachalios, K., Thumm, N., 2012. A new
EPO classification scheme for climate change mitigation technologies. World Patent
Inf. 34 (2), 106–111.
Verspagen, B., 2007. Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks: a
study on the history of fuel cell research. Adv. Complex Syst. 10 (1), 93–115.
Wilts, H., Garcia, B.R., Garlito, R.G., Gómez, L.S., Prieto, E.G., 2021. Artificial
intelligence in the sorting of municipal waste as an enabler of the circular economy.
Resources 10 (4), 28.
Wu, H., Shi, Y., Xia, Q., Zhu, W.D., 2014. Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy
in China: a DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th five-year-plan. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 83, 163–175.
Wu, H., Liu, S., Xie, X., Zhang, Y., Liao, H., Deng, S., 2021. A framework for a knowledge
based cold spray repairing system. J. Intell. Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10845-021-01770-7.
Yayavaram, S., Chen, W.R., 2015. Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm
innovation performance: the moderating role of technological complexity. Strateg.
Manag. J. 36 (3), 377–396.
Yeo, N.C.Y., Pepin, H., Yang, S.S., 2017. Revolutionizing technology adoption for the
remanufacturing industry. Procedia CIRP 61, 17–21.
Yuan, Z., Bi, J., Moriguichi, Y., 2006. The circular economy: A new development strategy
in China. J. Ind. Ecol. 10 (1-2), 4–8.
Zhou, K., Bonet Fernandez, D., Wan, C., Denis, A., Juillard, G.M., 2014. A study on
circular economy implementation in China. In: Working Paper IPAG Business School,
312, p. 3.
Christian Gnekpe is an Assistant professor of Strategy at TBS Education in France. He
earned a PhD in Technology Management (UCLouvain, Belgium). His research focuses the
link between internal technology development and external technology sourcing, the
technology development for Circular economy and companies’ decision making in the
management of carbon emission. His research has been published in journals such as In­
ternational Journal of Technology Management.
Quentin Plantec is Assistant Professor at TBS Education in France. He holds a Ph.D. from
the Center for Management Science (CGS) at MINES ParisTech – PSL University, Chair of
Design Theory and Methods for Innovation, as well as an MS from Ecole Polytechnique and
from Ecole Normale Superieure in Economics & Business (Paris-Saclay). His research fo­
cuses on innovation, science–industry links and patent analytics. He has been published in
Research Policy, Technovation, Technological Forecasting & Social Change and La Revue
Française de Gestion, as well as in conference proceedings of Academy of Management
(AoM), R&D Management, European Academy of Management (EURAM).