The societal and governmental push for a sustainable energy transition (Chen et al., 2019), with its possible positive implications for climate change mitigation and its challenge to business-as-usual in different industries, has prompted companies worldwide to reshape their strategies. Corporations are at a crossroads in the contemporary era of rapid environmental transformations and societal demands to shift their energy sources (Bass & Grøgaard, 2021). In recent years, governments and companies have collaborated to develop a renewable hydrogen market, which is presented by policy and industry circles as pivotal for the forthcoming energy transition because of its storage capacity and versatile utilization. In this piece, the EU is presented as a setting stage to map the companies involved in the hydrogen economy, unraveling the EU Commission plans for hydrogen market development, the nuanced hydrogen framing woven by companies, and their strategies for energy transition. The paper will answer the following research question: “How do companies in the hydrogen economy strategically use hydrogen technological frames? This study is an exploratory longitudinal empirical analysis, and we aim to explore how companies strategically communicate their involvement in the hydrogen economy through different hydrogen technological frames. We later discuss how these different strategic framing may represent diverse forms of legitimation of their energy transition strategies. Using publicly available qualitative data from 2020 to May 2024, we will zoom in on companies involved in multiple parts of the supply chain (producers, distributors, and end-users).

The increasing frequency of natural disasters and the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have led to greater business involvement in disaster relief. This large scale qualitative study introduces the MATE model, integrating disaster relief and CSR frameworks to understand business involvement in disaster relief. The model identifies four dimensions: motivation, activities, timing, and employee engagement, categorizing business involvement into three approaches: reactive, relational, and comprehensive.

In the context of increasingly frequent crises disrupting societal functions and local economies, local organizations aim to enhance the resourcefulness of the business community to improve resilience. While extensive research explores how organizations creatively utilize new or unexpected resources during crises, the impact of systemic inequalities on resource access and organizational resilience remains underexplored. These inequalities likely affect existing resilience efforts and require systemic approaches beyond individual organizations. This study examines the impact of such inequalities on resourcefulness in resilience efforts, focusing on a single, in-depth case of a local intermediary organization in the South Pacific. By integrating literature on resilience and resourcefulness from critical geography and management studies, the study highlights systemic efforts that enhance resourcefulness and the systemic inequalities that constrain it. The findings contribute to the literature on organizational resilience and resourcefulness in crises by emphasizing the significant role of systemic inequalities in shaping resilience efforts and the potential for enhancing resilience through localized and systemic initiatives.

Energy poverty still affects more than 37 million people in Europe. One response to this pressing problem has come from socially led energy communities. Energy communities are non-commercial spaces that focus on democratisation and increasing self-generation of energy, prioritising community benefits over profit-making. Despite their potential to enhance energy democracy through alternative economic spaces that promote citizen participation and community approaches to tackling energy poverty, research on energy communities has been dominated by their capacities as renewable energy prosumers. However, less attention has been paid to the social effects of renewable energies and the role of energy communities in addressing energy poverty. To contribute to filling this gap, we examine energy communities as alternative economic spaces from a combination of energy vulnerability and energy capabilities perspectives. Using a case study approach, we focus on two communities in urban and rural Scotland to explore the community processes and interactions involved in tackling energy poverty.

The circular economy (CE) presents a sustainable alternative to the traditional linear economy by reducing resource consumption, waste, emissions, and energy leakage through regenerative systems (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Wuni, 2022).Unlike the linear model, which depletes natural resources and disrupts ecosystems, CE focuses on efficient resource use, extending product lifespans, and reducing waste during production and consumption (Bressanelli et al., 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2018). Key elements of CE include analyzing materials used in manufacturing, addressing product obsolescence, and building infrastructure for reprocessing materials (Fernandes et al., 2020; Guldmann & Huulgaard, 2020; Tahu et al., 2020). CE also offers economic and strategic benefits, such as improved resource utilization and job creation (Kiefer et al., 2019), but adoption faces challenges, including high innovation costs and resistance from traditional economic models (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Korhonen et al., 2018). The construction sector plays a significant role in the shift towards CE due to its massive ecological impact, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emissions (Hina et al., 2022; Wuni, 2022). The sector exemplifies the linear economy but holds potential for CE integration, though it faces obstacles such as resistance to change and low levels of digitization (Munaro & Tavares, 2023; Wuni, 2022). CE adoption is further complicated by conflicting ideological and cultural views on sustainability, resulting in ambiguity (Leitch & Davenport, 2007; Rödl et al., 2022). Ineffective organizational communication about CE exacerbates these issues, leading to disengagement and jeopardizing project success (Giorgi et al., 2022).

This paper explores the critical role of organizational communication in adopting CE principles in the construction sector, arguing that clear and effective communication strategies are essential for overcoming resistance and ensuring successful circular project implementation (Rödl et al., 2022). By addressing this gap in research, the study seeks to understand how communication can advance CE practices within the industry. Specifically, our research question is: How do stakeholders' barriers to adopting circular solutions relate to organizational communication?

Our research makes two significant contributions to the field. While prior studies have extensively documented the identification and existence of technological barriers to adopting circular solutions (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Wuni, 2022) there still needs to be more research on the impact of organizational communication on these barriers. Investigating this dimension is critical, as robust organizational communication is pivotal in fostering the adoption of circular practices (Olawumi et al., 2018) . Additionally, while earlier studies have addressed the identification of multiple barriers, little research has examined the dynamics among stakeholders in relation to these barriers. The interactions among stakeholders are likely to be crucial as they can enhance the understanding and identification of potential solutions through effective organizational communication, thus helping to overcome the barriers to implementing circular solutions. Our study will employ the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) method to analyze this interplay and assess how organizational communication can address and mitigate these barriers.

Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory (2003) has recently been applied to circular economy-oriented business model innovations (BMI) to understand how these models are adopted and spread within industries (Larsen, 2011; Rocca et al., 2023). Circular business models, distinct from traditional and sustainability-oriented models, focus on creating and capturing value through circular principles (Jillbert et al., 2023; Rocca et al., 2023). Rogers' framework (2003) identifies four elements critical for diffusion: innovation, communication channels, time, and the social system. In the circular economy context, innovations often involve cyclic production and waste management processes, necessitating effective communication to facilitate broader adoption.

The theory's innovation-decision process—comprising knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation—provides a structured framework for understanding the adoption of circular solutions. The knowledge phase involves awareness, application, and principles of knowledge, establishing a foundation for understanding circular solutions. The persuasion phase evaluates perceptions and attitudes, influencing willingness to adopt. The decision phase assesses industry readiness, followed by the implementation phase, where practical challenges are encountered. The confirmation phase determines the sustained use or rejection of the innovation based on outcomes (Rogers, 2003).

Adopting circular solutions also depends on their perceived attributes, including relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability(Rogers, 2003).Relative advantage and compatibility are crucial in the construction industry, where traditional values and scepticism towards second-hand materials hinder adoption. The study highlights the importance of understanding how social systems and industry norms influence the adoption and implementation of circular models. Rogers' framework provides critical insights into the barriers and facilitators for innovation diffusion (Larsen, 2011; Peansupap & Walker, 2006).

This study employs focus group discussions (FGD) as a research method to identify and explore the barriers to adopting circular solutions within the construction industry. Existing research on the barriers to adopting circular solutions has predominantly utilized quantitative methods (Kirchherr & van Santen, 2019), primarily to focus on the frequency and spread of these barriers. This qualitative approach aims to provide a deeper understanding of industry-specific challenges and elucidate the interplay between stakeholders at an organizational level. By doing so, the research seeks to uncover nuanced insights from stakeholders directly involved in the sector and identify effective strategies to mitigate the barriers to adopting circular solutions in the construction industry. FGDs are recognized as a valid way to examine the interplay between stakeholders on a specific topic n efficient and effective method for engaging many participants (Tracy, 2013). The data derived from FGDs benefit from a phenomenon known as the "group effect," where participants exhibit reduced inhibition, especially when interacting with peers, enhancing the likelihood of insightful self-disclosure that may not surface during one-on-one interviews (Tracy, 2013)

The focus group consisted of 13 industry and academia participants, all contributing to the Horizon Europe project on circular economy in construction. This diverse yet homogeneous group, engaged in various capacities within the sector, provided valuable perspectives on the barriers and potential strategies for implementing circular solutions. The multidisciplinary nature of the participants ensured a comprehensive exploration of the challenges and opportunities associated with advancing circular economy practices in the construction industry.

A cluster of potential questions has been developed to gain insights into the practical barriers experienced by industry professionals in the adoption of circular solutions. The questions posed to the participants were designed to probe their experiences and perceptions regarding the obstacles to implementing circular economy practices within the construction sector. An example of one such question is as follows- Based on your experience and perceptions, what are the key barriers to circularity in the Architecture, Construction and Engineering sector? Additionally, inquiries were extended to understand variations in these barriers across different sectors and geographic regions. The discussion also explored potential collaborative strategies that could be employed to overcome these challenges and effectively promote circular economy principles across the industry.

The thematic analysis of the 50-minute focus group discussion was conducted following (Braun & Clarke, 2006) methodological framework, involving five rounds of detailed coding to categorize emerging patterns and identify barriers and facilitators to adopting circular economy practices. This analysis focused on the role of organizational communication in the construction industry. Manual coding, cross-verified with AI-generated codes using Atlas. Ti's AI coding feature was preferred for its ability to capture nuanced contextual insights. The identified themes were aligned with theoretical concepts, highlighting how communication influences the adoption of circular solutions and ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and enablers in advancing circular economy practices within the sector.

The analysis identified three critical organizational communication characteristics influencing the adoption of circular economy solutions in the construction sector: Trust, Information, and Accountability.

Trust is shaped by value, information, and accountability. Value is critical in establishing trust, particularly in recycled and refurbished materials' perceived quality and reliability. Participants noted the stigma attached to second-hand items and emphasized the need for guarantees to improve trust. One participant explained, "If tenants receive a company-refurbished radiator instead of a new one, will they view it as inferior quality?" This highlight concerns over societal perceptions and the need for effective communication strategies to enhance trust.

Information emerged as a significant barrier to adopting circular solutions, mainly due to a lack of accessible and detailed data on economic benefits, technical specifications, and replicability. Participants emphasized that well-informed consumers and businesses are more likely to adopt circular practices. One participant noted, "From my discussions with Dutch architects, they are enthusiastic about incorporating sustainability, but their clients do not request it nor provide the necessary budget." This underscores the gap between stakeholder interest and practical implementation, hindered by limited information.

Accountability was closely linked to responsibility and ownership. Participants expressed concerns about unclear accountability for second-hand materials, especially regarding quality assurance. Ownership emerged as a critical aspect, with questions about who should be held accountable for the quality of refurbished materials. A participant highlighted this by stating, "In the case of a new window, the manufacturer typically assumes responsibility, but if it's used, the producer will not accept this burden." This emphasizes the need for clear accountability to build trust in circular solutions.

In summary, enhancing trust through value, improving information accessibility, and clarifying accountability are essential to advancing circular economy practices in the construction industry.

Our findings indicate that while awareness of circular solutions is increasing, communication inefficiencies have resulted in fragmented implementation, suggesting a disconnect between the availability of these solutions and their effective dissemination. Time also plays a significant role, as longer-known solutions achieve good integration. Social structures further complicate adoption, with selective implementation across different industry sectors and social groups, significantly influencing the success rate of circular economy practices in construction.

Using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers, 2003), the study highlights the importance of knowledge in the innovation-decision process, showing that a lack of practical "how-to" knowledge due to inadequate communication channels hinders the practical application of circular solutions. Trust is essential during the persuasion stage, where concerns about the quality and reliability of recycled materials inhibit adoption, particularly in housing projects. Accountability is also critical, as guarantees for recycled products significantly enhance trust and adoption rates.

The relative advantage and compatibility attributes were particularly salient in influencing the adoption of circular solutions. While potential cost savings and environmental benefits are recognized, the social stigma associated with recycled materials, especially in social housing, undermines their perceived value. Compatibility issues arise as circular solutions often clash with traditional values in the construction industry, where new materials symbolize success and permanence.

In conclusion, trust, information, and accountability are vital for advancing circular practices in construction. Effective communication ensures stakeholders receive clear, credible information, which is essential for building trust and bridging the gap between knowledge and adoption. Improving communication strategies will help align circular solutions with industry values, increasing their acceptance and integration.

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2018). Exploring how usage-focused business models enable circular economy through digital technologies. Sustainability, 10(3), 639.

de Jesus, A., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-innovation Road to the Circular Economy. Ecological Economics, 145, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001

Fernandes, S., Pigosso, D., McAloone, T., & Rozenfeld, H. (2020). Towards product-service system oriented to circular economy: A systematic review of value proposition design approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 257, 120507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120507

Giorgi, S., Lavagna, M., Wang, K., Osmani, M., Liu, G., & Campioli, A. (2022). Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in the building sector: Stakeholder interviews and analysis of five European countries policies and practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 336, 130395.

Guldmann, E., & Huulgaard, R. D. (2020). Barriers to circular business model innovation: A multiple-case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118160.

Hina, M., Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Kraus, S., & Dhir, A. (2022). Drivers and barriers of circular economy business models: Where we are now, and where we are heading. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333, 130049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049

Jillbert, J., Baumassepe, A. N., Ghurron, A. F., & Aris, V. (2023). Insight on theoretical and conceptual review on the diffusion of innovative marketing digital transformation systems in circular economy era. Proceedings International Economics and Business Conference, 1(1), 227–233.

Kiefer, C. P., Del Río González, P., & Carrillo‐Hermosilla, J. (2019). Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 155–172.

Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the Circular Economy: Evidence From the European Union (EU). Ecological Economics, 150, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028

Kirchherr, J., & van Santen, R. (2019). Research on the circular economy: A critique of the field. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 151, 104480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104480

Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544–552.

Larsen, G. D. (2011). Understanding the early stages of the innovation diffusion process: Awareness, influence and communication networks. Construction Management and Economics, 29(10), 987–1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.619994

Leitch, S., & Davenport, S. (2007). Strategic ambiguity as a discourse practice: The role of keywords in the discourse on ‘sustainable’biotechnology. Discourse Studies, 9(1), 43–61.

Munaro, M. R., & Tavares, S. F. (2023). A review on barriers, drivers, and stakeholders towards the circular economy: The construction sector perspective. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 8, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100107

Olawumi, T. O., Chan, D. W. M., Wong, J. K. W., & Chan, A. P. C. (2018). Barriers to the integration of BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects: A Delphi survey of international experts. Journal of Building Engineering, 20, 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.06.017

Peansupap, V., & Walker, D. H. T. (2006). Innovation diffusion at the implementation stage of a construction project: A case study of information communication technology. Construction Management and Economics, 24(3), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500435317

Rocca, L., Veneziani, M., & Carini, C. (2023). Mapping the diffusion of circular economy good practices: Success factors and sustainable challenges. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 2035–2048. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3235

Rödl, M. B., Åhlvik, T., Bergeå, H., Hallgren, L., & Böhm, S. (2022). Performing the Circular economy: How an ambiguous discourse is managed and maintained through meetings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 360, 132144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132144

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusions of Innovations 5th ed Free Press. New York.

Tahu, G. P., Yuesti, A., Manek, D., & Verawati, Y. (2020). Implications of circular economy, supply chain management innovation and sustainability on Organisational performance. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 9(2), 759–763.

Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods. Wiley-Blackwell.

Wuni, I. Y. (2022). Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction industry: A systematic review, Pareto analysis, and mitigation strategy map. Building and Environment, 223, 109453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109453