Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable Circular

Economy 1st Edition by Johanna Kujala, Anna

Heikkinen, Annika Blomberg ISBN 3031319397
9783031319396 download
https://ebookball.com/product/stakeholder-engagement-in-a-
sustainable-circular-economy-1st-edition-by-johanna-kujala-anna-
heikkinen-annika-blomberg-isbn-3031319397-9783031319396-24242/

Download more ebook instantly today - Get yours now at ebookball.com

 Get Your Digital Files Instantly: PDF, ePub, MOBI and More
Quick Digital Downloads: PDF, ePub, MOBI and Other Formats

Sustainable Business Change Project Management Toward Circular Economy

1st edition by Vladimir Obradović ISBN 3031235452 978-3031235450

https://ebookball.com/product/sustainable-business-change-
project-management-toward-circular-economy-1st-edition-by-
vladimir-obradovia-isbn-3031235452-978-3031235450-24614/

(EBOOK PDF) Sustainable Business Change Project Management Toward

Circular Economy 1st Edition by Vladimir Obradović E 3031235428‎
978-3031235429 full chapters

https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-sustainable-business-
change-project-management-toward-circular-economy-1st-edition-by-
vladimir-obradovia-e-3031235428aeurz-978-3031235429-full-
chapters-21668/

Stakeholder Engagement The Game Changer for Program Management 1st

edition by Amy Baugh 9781040053799 1040053793

https://ebookball.com/product/stakeholder-engagement-the-game-
changer-for-program-management-1st-edition-by-amy-
baugh-9781040053799-1040053793-18550/

The Dynamism of Stakeholder Engagement A Case Study of the Aviation

Industry 1st edition by Robbert Kivits,Sukanlaya Sawang 3030704270
9783030704278

https://ebookball.com/product/the-dynamism-of-stakeholder-
engagement-a-case-study-of-the-aviation-industry-1st-edition-by-
robbert-kivits-sukanlaya-sawang-3030704270-9783030704278-25768/
Strategic Management and the Circular Economy 1st edition by Marcello
Tonelli, Nicolò Cristoni 1351592696 9781351592697

https://ebookball.com/product/strategic-management-and-the-
circular-economy-1st-edition-by-marcello-tonelli-
nicola2-cristoni-1351592696-9781351592697-20868/

Manufacturing Driving Circular Economy 1st edition by Holger Kohl,

Gïnther Seliger, Franz Dietrich ISBN 3031288386 9783031288388

https://ebookball.com/product/manufacturing-driving-circular-
economy-1st-edition-by-holger-kohl-ga-nther-seliger-franz-
dietrich-isbn-3031288386-9783031288388-24246/

Sustainable Enterprise Value Creation Implementing Stakeholder

Capitalism through Full ESG Integration 1st edition by Richard
Samans, Jane Nelson 3030935590 978-3030935597

https://ebookball.com/product/sustainable-enterprise-value-
creation-implementing-stakeholder-capitalism-through-full-esg-
integration-1st-edition-by-richard-samans-jane-
nelson-3030935590-978-3030935597-24300/

Customer Engagement in Theory and Practice A Marketing Management

Perspective 1st edition by Katarzyna Żyminkowska ISBN ‎303011676X
978-3030116767

https://ebookball.com/product/customer-engagement-in-theory-and-
practice-a-marketing-management-perspective-1st-edition-by-
katarzyna-a-yminkowska-isbn-aeurz303011676x-978-3030116767-24078/

Anatomy for Dental Medicine in Your Pocket 1st Edition by Eric Baker,
Johanna Warshaw ISBN 1638534616 9781638534617

https://ebookball.com/product/anatomy-for-dental-medicine-in-
your-pocket-1st-edition-by-eric-baker-johanna-warshaw-
isbn-1638534616-9781638534617-3192/
Edited by
Johanna Kujala · Anna Heikkinen ·
Annika Blomberg

Stakeholder
Engagement in a
Sustainable Circular
Economy
Theoretical and
Practical Perspectives
Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable
Circular Economy
 Johanna Kujala · Anna Heikkinen ·
Annika Blomberg
Editors

Stakeholder
Engagement
in a Sustainable
Circular Economy
Theoretical and Practical Perspectives
Editors
Johanna Kujala Anna Heikkinen
Tampere University Tampere University
Tampere, Finland Tampere, Finland

Annika Blomberg
Tampere University
Tampere, Finland

ISBN 978-3-031-31936-5 ISBN 978-3-031-31937-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31937-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2023. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate
if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in
this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher
nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains
neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland
AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Foreword

The editors of this fine volume of essays rightfully suggest that the very
idea of “circular economy” assumes a robust view of stakeholder engage-
ment. Without cooperative agreements among stakeholders, how else
could such “a more environmentally friendly and socially inclusive soci-
ety” come about. If products and business models are to be “redesigned to
minimize waste and increase the reuse of materials, the transition toward
a sustainable circular economy requires collaboration and co-operation of
various stakeholders at different fields of the society.” The editors make
the case that this is not a mere casual and voluntary connection but a
deeper logical one.
If we are headed toward a transition to a more circular economy, the
onus will be on companies to adjust and transform their business models
so that they are aimed squarely at creating value for customers, suppliers,
employees, communities, and financiers. However, such a robust view
of stakeholder engagement is probably not enough. Executives have to
figure out how stakeholders are interdependent so that more win-win-
win strategies can be implemented that simultaneously create greener
value for multiple groups. Understanding the intersection of stakeholder

v
vi Foreword

relationships is not well understood in the literature, and this volume

takes us a step forward as the editors have a clear “relationship view” of
stakeholder theory. They suggest that we have to overcome the tendency
to look transaction by transaction and instead adopt a view that stake-
holders and companies are enmeshed in complex relationships. It is the
very complexity of these relationships that makes green value creation
possible.
The authors of the essays also rise to the occasion. From the careful
untangling of the complexity of stakeholder relationships to the multiple
case studies in several papers, the essays make a noted contribu-
tion to understanding how the circular economy can actually work.
Papers on stakeholder engagement and multi-stakeholder partnerships
all contribute to the growing literature on stakeholder theory. And, there
is much more work to be done, both academic and practical work.
Readers will be repaid many times over to tackle the difficult issues in the
essays in this volume. We can only push humanity forward via inventing
new vocabularies that let us live differently. This book is a substantial
contribution to understanding both stakeholder theory and the circular
economy.

R. Edward Freeman
University Professor
The Darden School
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA, USA
 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the chapter contributors. Without your

efforts, this book would not have been possible. We express our grat-
itude to the peer reviewers who dedicated their time and expertise
to reviewing the chapters. We are grateful to the publisher and the
reviewers of the initial proposal for supporting this endeavor. Lastly, we
are grateful for the financial support provided by the Strategic Research
Council, Academy of Finland for the Circular Economy Catalysts: From
Innovation to Business Ecosystems (CICAT2025) research consortium
(Decision numbers 320194 and 320206).

vii
 Contents

1 Outlining Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable

Circular Economy 1
Anna Heikkinen, Johanna Kujala, and Annika Blomberg

Part I Theoretical and Conceptual Starting Points

2 How Did It Come to Be? Circular Economy
as Collective Stakeholder Action 19
Laura Albareda and Jaan-Pauli Kimpimäki
3 Engaging Stakeholders in the Circular Economy:
A Systematic Literature Review 57
Silvan Oberholzer and Sybille Sachs
4 Developing Sustainable Partnerships for Circular
Economies: A Literature Review 99
Philippe Eiselein, Wim Keygnaert, and Karen Brabant

ix
x Contents

Part II Multi-Stakeholder Participation and

Collaboration
5 Multi-Stakeholder Networks in a Circular Economy
Transition: A Typology of Stakeholder Relationships 133
Annika Blomberg, Johanna Kujala, and Anna Heikkinen
6 Developing a Participatory Approach to Support
Decision-Making in Waste Management 165
Lauri Kujanpää and Hanna Pihkola
7 How to Engage Stakeholders in Circular Economy
Ecosystems: The Process 193
Jenni Kaipainen, Jarmo Uusikartano,
Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, Linnea Harala,
Johanna Alakerttula, and Eeva-Leena Pohls

Part III Value Creation Opportunities

8 Stakeholder Engagement Mechanisms and Value
Creation in Circular Entrepreneurship 235
Beatrice Re and Giovanna Magnani
9 Alignment Through Value Consolidation
Mechanisms—Focusing on Multi-Stakeholder
Collaboration for Circular Economy 273
Elina Vikstedt and Tomi Rajala
10 Coopetition for a Circular Economy: Horizontal
Initiatives in Resolving Collective Environmental
Challenges 311
Linnea Harala, Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, and Paavo Ritala

Part IV Novel Approaches to Stakeholder Engagement

11 Enablers of a Circular Economy: A Strength-Based
Stakeholder Engagement Approach 365
Hanna Lehtimäki, Johanna Kujala, and Tojo Thatchenkery
 Contents xi

12 In the Margins of Stakeholder Engagement: Fringe

Stakeholders’ Inclusion in Sustainability Transition
Initiatives 393
Mariana Galvão Lyra and Hanna Lehtimäki
13 Connecting the Circular Economy and Sustainability:
Finnish Stakeholder Perceptions 427
Hanna Salminen, Anna Heikkinen, and Johanna Kujala

Index 459
 Notes on Contributors

Leena Aarikka-Stenroos is Professor of Industrial Management at the

Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Finland. Her
expertise is in innovation and technology business, particularly in the
Circular Economy; B2B Marketing; collaboration for innovation; and
ecosystem approach. Her cross-disciplinary work is at the intersection of
engineering, business, and innovation. She leads CICAT2025 Consor-
tium (2019–2023, Strategic Research Council) and collaborates actively
with stakeholders (companies, ministries) for the CE transition. Her
research articles on technology-based business and value creation are
published, for example, in Industrial Marketing Management, Journal for
Cleaner Production, Business Strategy and Environment, and Journal of
Business Research.
Johanna Alakerttula is Doctoral Researcher in Industrial Engineering
and Management at the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere
University, Finland. Her research interests comprise stakeholder engage-
ment, ecosystem dynamics, circular economy, and sustainability. She
has double Master’s degree from the University of Jyväskylä in Envi-
ronmental Sciences and Business and Economics. She is working on

xiii
xiv Notes on Contributors

the CICAT2025 project at the Center for Innovation and Technology

Research (CITER) and as the CEO in a waste management company.
Laura Albareda is Professor of Sustainable Business and Entrepreneur-
ship at LUT University School of Business and Management. Her
research focuses on corporate sustainability, circular economy, business
models, and value creation. She is PI of the project “Action4Commons”
working on collective stakeholder action. Albareda is board member of
SCI-MAT “Sustainable Circularity of Inorganic Materials” LUT multi-
disciplinary research platform where she leads the sustainable and circular
business model team. She received the Dexter Award Best International
Paper (2018) and Best Business Ethics Paper (2019) at AOM. She is co-
editor of the book: Innovation for Sustainability: Business Transformation
Towards a Better World (2019).
Annika Blomberg, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Fellow at the Faculty
of Management and Business, Tampere University, Finland. She does
research on stakeholder engagement and multi-stakeholder collaboration
in the circular economy in the CICAT2025 Circular Economy Cata-
lysts: From Innovation to Business Ecosystems consortium, funded by
the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland. She received
her Ph.D. in Management and Organization in 2016 from Turku School
of Economics, University of Turku, Pori Unit. She has published in
several international journals, such as Scandinavian Journal of Manage-
ment, International Journal of Management Reviews and Management
Learning.
Karen Brabant is a Lecturer and Senior Researcher at Odisee University
of Applied Sciences, Department of Business Administration. She holds
a Master’s degree in Labour & Organizational Psychology, a Master’s
degree in Management, and a teacher’s degree in Psychology. In her
research, Karen focuses on the topic of “circular economy” and the real-
ization of multi-actor partnerships and sustainable networks therein.
As such, she builds on previous experience regarding the development
and implementation of local learning networks on the topic of sustain-
able entrepreneurship. Over the years Karen has gained experience in
 Notes on Contributors xv

executing local, national, and European projects related to sustain-

ability competences and entrepreneurship, with a focus on the interplay
between the educational system and business.
Philippe Eiselein, Ph.D., is a Senior Researcher at Odisee University
of Applied Sciences. He is part of the Research Center for Sustainable
Entrepreneurship, where he is currently focusing on various Circular
Economy research topics. He also obtained his Ph.D. in Business
Economics on “managing social enterprises,” and is Visiting Professor
at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His ongoing sustainability research
has been presented at a dozen of international conferences around the
world over the last few years. His teaching activities cover the areas of
(Social) Entrepreneurship, Research Methods, and Project Management.
Furthermore, he is the coordinator of Belgium Impact, the national
network platform for Belgian social entrepreneurs since 2019.
Mariana Galvão Lyra holds a Ph.D. degree in environmental policy
from University of Eastern Finland. Currently, she is a Postdoctoral
Researcher at the School of Business and Management at Lappeenranta-
Lahti University of Technology (LUT). She is also a project manager for
the Greenrenew platform, a multidisciplinary research platform at LUT
focused on hydrogen and CO2 solutions for energy transitions.
Linnea Harala is a Doctoral Researcher in Industrial Engineering and
Management at the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere
University, Finland. Her research focuses on how companies organize
for circular economy business in ecosystems, particularly zooming into
coopetition, ecosystem orchestration, and alignment in circular economy
ecosystems. She has graduated with distinction as a Master of Science in
Technology in Industrial Engineering and Management from Tampere
University in early 2021. She works on the CICAT2025 research project
at the Center for Innovation and Technology Research (CITER).
Anna Heikkinen, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer of management and orga-
nizations and academic director of Responsible Business Master’s degree
program at Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University,
Finland. She is an Adjunct Professor of Business Ethics and Sustainability
at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research focuses on stakeholder
xvi Notes on Contributors

theory, environmental issues, and corporate sustainability, examining the

relationships between business organizations and society. Her work has
been published in international journals and edited volumes, such as
Business & Society, Business Strategy and the Environment, and Journal of
Business Ethics.
Jenni Kaipainen is a Doctoral Researcher in Industrial Engineering
and Management at the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere
University, Finland. Her research focuses on companies’ strategic devel-
opment processes to circular economy and sustainability, through
the management of, e.g., business and business models, innovations,
supply chains, and the encompassing ecosystem. Her research work
has been awarded internationally, and published for example in Indus-
trial Marketing Management, Business Strategy and the Environment, and
International Journal of Innovation Management. Meanwhile conducting
research in national CICAT2025 research project at the Center for Inno-
vation and Technology Research (CITER), Jenni engages actively in
various teaching and business development activities.
Wim Keygnaert is business developer of sustainability and entrepreneur-
ship at the Center for Sustainable Entrepreneurship (CenSE) at Odisee
University of Applied Sciences. To put sustainable entrepreneurship
into practice, he conducts applied research and establishes partnerships
between research, education, and companies. He also regularly conducts
workshops on how companies and universities of applied sciences can
put sustainability into practice, keeping a close eye on contributing to
the sustainability goals within the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations.
Due to his expertise within the Voka Chamber of Commerce East-
Flanders, he also provides support in the valorization of applied research
in companies through project partnerships and learning networks.
Jaan-Pauli Kimpimäki is a Junior Researcher and Ph.D. candidate at
the LUT University School of Business and Management. His research
interests include the interface of strategy and sustainability, circular
economy and sustainable business at large, natural language processing,
and networks of all shapes and sizes.
 Notes on Contributors xvii

Johanna Kujala is Professor of Management and Organizations and

Vice Dean for Research at Tampere University, Faculty of Management
and Business. She is the director of the RESPMAN Research Group
that conducts research on the relationships between business, society, and
nature. She is the PI of Academy of Finland funded Action4Commons
research project integrating business-stakeholder value creation with
polycentric governance, and the WP leader in a Strategic Research
Council funded CICAT2025 research consortium examining circular
economy catalysts. She has published over 100 peer-reviewed scien-
tific articles. Her current research focuses on stakeholder theory and
engagement, sustainable value creation and circular economy, as well as
corporate responsibility cases and managers’ moral decision-making.
Lauri Kujanpää, (M.Sc. Tech.), is an energy concepts Researcher inter-
ested in sustainable decision-making and policies. He has worked at
the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland since 2008, specializing
in novel energy and circular economy concepts, with carbon capture,
utilization, and storage as one of the main focus areas. Combining
economic, social, and environmental aspects of technologies, Lauri
Kujanpää has experience in the application of multi-criteria decision-
making, especially in the field of circular economy. He is currently
leading a research team on future energy and process concepts, with a
focus on novel technologies for industrial decarbonisation.
Hanna Lehtimäki, Ph.D., Title of Docent, is a Professor of Innovation
Management in Business School at the University of Eastern Finland
(https://uefconnect.uef.fi/en/person/hanna.lehtimaki/). Her research
articles have appeared in academic journals internationally and she has
authored books on strategic management and leadership. She holds
leader positions in research consortiums examining circular economy
in Finland (https://cicat2025.turkuamk.fi/en/) and India in connection
to microplastics, battery metals, and electric mobility. In her capacity
as a Vice Director of UEF strategic research community Sustainable
Resource Society: Circular Economy, Energy and Raw Materials, (www.
uef.fi/en/rc-resource), she advances multidisciplinary social sciences
research agenda for sustainability transition in business and society.
xviii Notes on Contributors

Giovanna Magnani is Associate Professor of International Business

and Management at the Department of Economics and Management
of the University of Pavia where she is vice director of the Ph.D.
in Applied Economics and Management. Giovanna is co-chair of the
annual ENTERYNG Workshop (ENTreprenEurship Research workshop
for YouNG scholars) in collaboration with EIASM and ECSB. Her
interests focus on international entrepreneurship, global value chains,
and sustainable entrepreneurship. Her studies have appeared in several
refereed national and international journals.
Silvan Oberholzer, M.A. is an external Ph.D. candidate in general
management at the Institute for Economy and the Environment, Univer-
sity of St.Gallen, and a research associate at the Institute for Strategic
Management: Stakeholder View (ISM), HWZ.
Hanna Pihkola (D.Sc. Econ. & Business Adm.) works as a Senior Scien-
tist at the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. Her research
interests include sustainability assessment and management, the circular
economy, and lifecycle thinking. She commonly works in product
and technology development projects, combining information produced
using different research methods and representing different aspects of
sustainability. She is especially interested in how sustainability informa-
tion can be used to support decision-making and how stakeholders can
be involved in the assessment process.
Eeva-Leena Pohls is a Project Researcher at the Center for Innovation
and Technology Research (CITER) in the Faculty of Management and
Business, Tampere University, Finland. She graduated as a Master of
Science in Materials Science and Engineering in 2020 with multidis-
ciplinary studies in textile technology, environmental engineering, and
sustainable development. Her interests include environmental sustain-
ability and transitions toward circularity in the lifecycles of materials and
resources. She currently works in CICAT2025 and ReCreate research
projects, exploring themes such as circular value chains, circular economy
experiences, and national circulation of textiles and nutrients.
 Notes on Contributors xix

Tomi Rajala is an Assistant Professor in Norwegian School of Economics

and University Teacher in Tampere University. He is a Doctor of Admin-
istrative Sciences. Tomi’s research interests include management and
accounting in hybrid organizations and public sector. Currently he is
involved in a project investigating sustainability reporting in universities.
Beatrice Re is a Post-Doc Researcher at the University of Trieste. She
holds a Ph.D. in Applied Economics and Management at the University
of Bergamo joint with the University of Pavia. From November 2020
until April 2021, she has been a visiting Ph.D. fellow at Turku School of
Economics (Finland), where she joined the CICAT2025 research team.
She has published for the Journal of Business Research, Italian Journal of
Marketing, Micro & Macro Marketing, and Palgrave Macmillan. Beat-
rice’s main research interests are sustainable marketing and circular
entrepreneurship.
Paavo Ritala is a Professor of Strategy and Innovation in the School
of Business and Management at LUT University, Finland. His main
research themes include collaborative innovation, coopetition, digital
strategy, platforms and ecosystems, as well as sustainable value creation.
His research has been published in journals such as Journal of Manage-
ment, Research Policy, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Long Range Planning, Industrial and Corporate Change, and California
Management Review. He is closely involved with business practice
through company-funded research projects, executive and professional
education programs, and in speaker and advisory roles. Prof. Ritala is
the Co-Editor-in-Chief of R&D Management.
Sybille Sachs, Prof. Dr., is founder and head of ISM, HWZ; Adjunct
Professor at the Department of Business Administration, Strategic
Management and Business Policy, University of Zurich; and a renowned
scholar of stakeholder theory and strategic management.
Hanna Salminen, D.Sc. (Econ.), works as a Research Specialist at
Tampere University, Faculty of Management and Business. She is also
a part-time University Teacher at the University of Vaasa, Kokkola
University Consortium. She holds the Title of Docent (Organizational
Behavior) at Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics. Her
xx Notes on Contributors

research interests include human resource management, organizational

behavior, aging workforce, and sustainability. She has published articles
in journals such as International Studies of Management & Organization,
Baltic Journal of Management, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal , and
Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship.
Tojo Thatchenkery, Ph.D., is Professor and Director of the M.S. in
Organization Development & Knowledge Management program at
George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia, USA. He is featured
as one of the leading change thinkers in the Palgrave Handbook of
Organizational Change Thinkers. Thatchenkery is the author of over
a dozen books and one hundred articles. One of them, Appreciative
Intelligence: Seeing the Mighty Oak in the Acorn was a Harvard Busi-
ness Review recommended book. In another book, Making the Invisible
Visible Thatchenkery introduced the concept of quiet leadership as a key
driver for innovation in organizations. He has published extensively on
sustainability issues including the widely used reference source; Positive
Design and Appreciative Construction: From Sustainable Development
to Sustainable Value (with Cooperrider & Avital).
Jarmo Uusikartano is a Doctoral Researcher in Industrial Engineering
and Management. He works at the Center for Innovation and Tech-
nology Research (CITER) in the Faculty of Management and Busi-
ness, Tampere University, Finland. His research focus is on inter-
organizational collaboration for circular economy, including especially
industrial symbioses, organization perspectives, eco-industrial parks, and
public–private collaboration. He has recently worked in several circular
economy projects related, e.g., to the utilization of high-volume masses
in cities, climate positive business parks, and future circular economy
hubs.
Elina Vikstedt is a Doctoral Researcher at the Faculty of Manage-
ment and Business in Tampere University, Finland. She holds a Master’s
Degree in Leadership for Change and is specialized in Sustainable Busi-
ness Management. Her research interests are focused on hybrid forms of
governance and organizing for green and sustainable economy.
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Identified actor links in the collective stakeholder

action process 40
Fig. 3.1 Article selection procedure 64
Fig. 3.2 Data analysis procedure 66
Fig. 4.1 Steps in the article selection process 106
Fig. 4.2 Three building blocks and their underlying
mechanisms with the black area referring to obstacles
of sustainability partnerships for circular economies 109
Fig. 5.1 Stakeholder relationships and their roles in accelerating
the circular economy 155
Fig. 6.1 An illustration of a decision problem in the form
of a decision tree 169
Fig. 7.1 A priori framework: Stakeholder engagement process
for a CE system-level goal in ecosystem settings 200
Fig. 7.2 A framework for mapping CE ecosystems with differing
stakeholder engagement processes based on their
ecosystem structure and stakeholders’ alignment
with the CE system-level goal 217
Fig. 7.3 Model of the archetypes of the stakeholder engagement
processes in different CE ecosystems 218

xxi
xxii List of Figures

Fig. 8.1 Stakeholder engagement mechanisms and value

creation in circular entrepreneurship 261
Fig. 9.1 Value consolidation mechanisms and (mis)alignment 281
Fig. 9.2 CLIC Stakeholder Map 304
Fig. 9.3 ECO3 Stakeholder Map 305
Fig. 10.1 Coopetition for a CE: main categories and contributions 349
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Data structure 29

Table 3.1 Descriptive sample analysis 67
Table 3.2 Stakeholder engagement contents and components
associated with CE 69
Table 5.1 Types of relationships among circular economy
stakeholders 142
Table 6.1 Positioning a participatory MCDM process
in line with the main phases of an issue-based
multi-stakeholder network by Roloff (2008) 172
Table 6.2 Organised expert workshops, applied methods
and collected data 175
Table 7.1 Overview of cases and data sources 203
Table 7.2 Stepwise analysis of the stakeholder engagement
processes in the examined cases 211
Table 8.1 Key facts and figures of the case studies 245
Table 8.2 Key engagement mechanisms and stemming value
creation 256
Table 9.1 Data collected for the study 286
Table 9.2 Institutional logics in the circular economy field 289
Table 9.3 Synthesis of the results 291

xxiii
xxiv List of Tables

Table 10.1 Synthesis of previous research on coopetition

in the environmental sustainability or CE context 319
Table 10.2 Overview of the cases and data sources across industries 328
Table 10.3 Collaborating stakeholders, stakeholder engagement
for coopetition and contribution to a CE of the cases 333
Table 11.1 The interview data 377
Table 11.2 Moments of appreciation in stakeholder engagement
in a circular economy 378
Table 12.1 Definition of fringe stakeholders and a review
of similar concepts 400
Table 12.2 Proxies for studying fringe stakeholders and illustrative
cases on strategies for fringe stakeholder inclusion 407
Table 12.3 Features of methodology to enhance giving voice
to fringe stakeholders 412
Table 13.1 The interview data 435
Table 13.2 Categories of a sustainable circular economy 437
 1
Outlining Stakeholder Engagement
in a Sustainable Circular Economy
Anna Heikkinen , Johanna Kujala ,
and Annika Blomberg

Purpose of this Volume

A circular economy is considered one of the most pertinent solutions
to major contemporary socioeconomic and environmental sustainability
challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss and resource deple-
tion (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017;
Lieder & Rashid, 2016). The central objective of the circular economy is
to conserve natural resources and use materials efficiently and sustainably,
while achieving balance and harmony between the economy, the envi-
ronment and society (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Korhonen et al., 2018a).
Indeed, it has attracted increasing interest among scholars across disci-
plines as well as business practitioners, policymakers and other societal
actors.

A. Heikkinen (B) · J. Kujala · A. Blomberg

Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
e-mail: Anna.L.Heikkinen@tuni.fi

© The Author(s) 2023 1

J. Kujala et al. (eds.), Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable Circular Economy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31937-2_1
2 A. Heikkinen et al.

It has become commonplace in both academia and practice to high-

light the importance of stakeholders and stakeholder engagement in
enabling a society-wide transition to a circular economy (e.g., Bocken
et al., 2018; Buch et al., 2018; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013;
Mishra et al., 2019). The stakeholder engagement construct draws
research attention to how and why organisations engage with various
stakeholders and what kinds of outcomes this provides to the partici-
pants in these processes (Freeman et al., 2017; Kujala et al., 2022). While
research has offered many promising starting points for understanding
the role of stakeholders in the circular economy transition, we know less
about what stakeholder engagement entails in a circular economy.
The purpose of this edited volume is to discuss the role and impor-
tance of stakeholder engagement in a sustainable circular economy from
multiple theoretical and practical perspectives. We understand a sustain-
able circular economy to be a pathway to a more environmentally
friendly and socially inclusive society. In turn, stakeholder engagement
is an important tool to catalyse this journey. In our call for contributions
for this volume, we invited scholars to submit chapters providing novel
theoretical, methodological and practical insights into the intersection of
stakeholder engagement and a sustainable circular economy. The chap-
ters presented in this volume exceed our expectations in many ways. The
contributions theorise on the connections between stakeholder engage-
ment and a sustainable circular economy, offer novel concepts to broaden
the discussion and raise critical questions that urgently necessitate more
research and changes in current business and societal practices.
In this introductory chapter, we next describe our conceptual under-
pinnings. Then, we discuss five central ideas of the construct of stake-
holder engagement in a sustainable circular economy, based on the
chapters in this volume. After that, we present the structure of this
volume and the individual chapters, concluding with suggestions for
future research.
 1 Outlining Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable … 3

Conceptual Underpinnings
A Sustainable Circular Economy

A circular economy can be described as an economic “industrial system

that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design” (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013, p. 8). Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) expanded
this definition, describing the model as a “regenerative system in which
resource input and waste, emission and energy leakage are minimized by
slowing, closing and narrowing material and energy loops. This can be
achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, reman-
ufacturing, refurbishing and recycling” (p. 766). Achieving a circular
economy requires systemic, society-wide action from the micro to the
macro levels. The required action encompasses transforming business
models, ecosystems, industrial networks and policies as well as societal
norms, beliefs and values (Chizaryfard et al., 2021; Lüdeke-Freund et al.,
2019; Velenturf & Purnell, 2021).
While a circular economy is discussed as a promise for achieving a
more sustainable society, the connection between sustainability and a
circular economy remains vague both in research and practice (Geiss-
doerfer et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018b; Reike et al., 2018). In this
volume, our starting point is that a sustainable circular economy should
be the goal of all circular economy action and research. If a circular
economy does not align with sustainable development, it will not achieve
its purpose (Marjamaa & Mäkelä, 2022; Velenturf & Purnell, 2021). In
this volume, we build on the idea that in a sustainable circular economy,
economic, social and ecological consequences for different stakeholders
should be evaluated and considered contemporaneously and across
generations while staying within global environmental limits in the long
term. A sustainable circular economy is implemented through the actions
of national and city governance, companies and other organisations and
citizens; its promotion thus requires comprehensive collaboration across
different societal levels (CICAT2025, n.d.).
4 A. Heikkinen et al.

Engaging Stakeholders in a Circular Economy

We build on stakeholder theory, where a stakeholder is defined as any

group or individual that can affect or be affected by the objectives of
an organisation (Freeman, 1984) or a focal issue (Roloff, 2008), such as
transition to a circular economy. The focus of this volume is on stake-
holder engagement (Greenwood, 2007; Kujala & Sachs, 2019), which
refers to the aims, activities and impacts of stakeholder relations in a
moral, strategic and/or pragmatic manner (Kujala et al., 2022).
Previous research has presented various findings on stakeholder roles
and interests in a circular economy. For example, Marjamaa et al. (2021)
examined stakeholders’ joint sustainability interests; Geissdoerfer et al.
(2017) stated that in a circular economy, governments, firms and NGOs
play key roles as agents driving systemic change; and, more specifically,
Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) highlighted that, when establishing
circularity in supply chains, governments play an important part by
promoting circularity through laws and policies sympathetic to the goal.
However, to implement a circular economy on a large scale and initiate
systemic change, the support of all stakeholders is vital (Lieder & Rashid,
2016).
Another pertinent perspective has focused on stakeholder collab-
oration and engagement in a circular economy. For instance, Buch
et al. (2018) determined that stakeholder engagement is the key to a
transition towards a circular economy, and Geissdoerfer et al. (2017)
perceived collaboration between stakeholders as imperative to achieving
circularity. Bocken et al. (2018) stated that in a circular economy, “stake-
holders collaborate to maximize the value of products and materials, and
contribute to minimizing the depletion of natural resources and create
positive societal and environmental impact” (ibid., p. 81), while Mishra
et al. (2019) revealed that the involvement of multiple stakeholders leads
to a stronger circularity in supply chains in the context of developing
countries. Gupta et al. (2019) concluded that managing stakeholder
relationships is a critical success factor for circular economy implemen-
tation. Moreover, in addition to individual stakeholders acting as change
agents, the processes connected with stakeholder engagement can also
provide change agency and act as catalysts in sustainability transitions
(Gonzalez-Porras et al., 2021).
 1 Outlining Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable … 5

The Construct of Stakeholder Engagement

While the chapters in this volume offer a wide variety of conceptualisa-
tions and approaches to the construct of stakeholder engagement, they
also have many ideas in common. Based on the chapters, we can outline
five central ideas of stakeholder engagement in a sustainable circular
economy, as follows.
First, the idea of stakeholder engagement as a relational construct
is shared by many chapters. For example, in Chapter 2, Albareda and
Kimpimäki outline stakeholder engagement as a relational construct
that allows businesses together with their stakeholders to build a shared
understanding of a focal issue. Furthermore, they enlarge the relation-
ship view from a dyadic to a collective, coalition-building approach to
advance theorising on collective stakeholder action that enables the trans-
formation from a linear to a circular economy. Along the same lines,
in Chapter 5, Blomberg et al. examine relationships among key stake-
holders seeking to promote circular economy transition and highlight
stakeholders’ various roles in the multi-stakeholder networks aiming for
circular economy transition.
Second, stakeholder engagement is a process, not a one-time
endeavour. The process approach to stakeholder engagement is high-
lighted in Chapter 7 by Kaipainen et al., who focus on understanding
how engagement practices related to achieving circular economy goals
in ecosystems unfold throughout the stakeholder engagement processes.
Similarly, in Chapter 8, Re and Magnani focus on stakeholder engage-
ment mechanisms, that is, the means and ways through which firms
engage their stakeholders in the context of circular entrepreneurship.
Stakeholder engagement mechanisms include, for example, the devel-
opment of experimental circular projects by sharing knowledge and
expertise and education about circular practices.
Third, the idea that stakeholder engagement is important for joint
value creation, that is, creating value with and for stakeholders (Freeman
et al., 2010), is prominent in many chapters. For example, in Chapter 3,
Oberholzer and Sachs focus on circular stakeholder networks consisting
of multiple relationships of interdependent actors aimed at stake-
holder value creation. Moreover, in Chapter 9, Vikstedt and Rajala
6 A. Heikkinen et al.

examine value-creating relationships between stakeholders implementing

a circular economy in institutionally hybrid settings.
Fourth, in the circular economy context, stakeholder engagement
is closely related to sustainability, and the construct is seen as a tool
to advance systemic sustainability transformation. For example, in
Chapter 4, Eiselein et al. approach stakeholder engagement with the
concept of sustainable partnerships, referring to the societal, temporal
and inclusive aspects of sustainability change. Likewise, in Chapter 13,
Salminen et al. examine circular economy stakeholders’ perceptions of
the connection between the circular economy and sustainability and use
stakeholder engagement as one of the dimensions connecting circularity
and sustainability.
Finally, we acknowledge that the multidimensional nature of stake-
holder engagement needs attention. Stakeholder relationships need to be
examined keeping in mind both the focal firm- and stakeholder-focused
approaches as well as the positive and more contradictory aspects of
stakeholder engagement. Traditionally, stakeholder engagement has been
defined from the focal firm-focused viewpoint (Freeman, 1984). In this
line of research, in Chapter 10, Harala et al. focus on coopetition and
the special characteristics of competitors as stakeholders with the aim of
analysing stakeholder engagement activities that are especially relevant in
engaging competitors in circular economy collaboration. Recently, stake-
holders’ points of view have been increasingly highlighted in stakeholder
engagement research, especially when the issues at hand are complex
and demand high involvement from different parties. For example, in
Chapter 6, Kujanpää and Pihkola examine the European waste manage-
ment value chain with a group-based multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) tool, which is an analytical and structured method that can be
used to solve complex decision problems and facilitate the deliberation
essential for issue-based stakeholder network building.
On the positive side of stakeholder engagement, in Chapter 11,
Lehtimäki et al. argue that, although stakeholder engagement is often
understood as a positive interaction, a deeper understanding of what
creates the positive in stakeholder relationships is required. They build
on a strength-based approach to examine what constitutes positive
 1 Outlining Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable … 7

and constructive stakeholder relationships at the individual, organisa-

tional and societal levels of stakeholder engagement. While stakeholder
engagement is often seen as positive, recently increasing interest has
been placed on the possible contradictions in stakeholder engagement.
In Chapter 12, Galvão Lyra and Lehtimäki argue that stakeholders
may have complex and contradictory interests. They direct attention
to fringe stakeholders, that is, those with less power, voice and legiti-
macy than salient stakeholders or who question the pre-existing system
and power structures and find disruptive and alternative ways to exert
their influence. While this approach is not negative as such, it high-
lights the importance of a deeper understanding of marginalised and
non-collaborative stakeholders and thereby the multidimensional nature
of stakeholder engagement, especially in the context of sustainability.

Structure of this Volume

After this introductory section, Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustain-
able Circular Economy consists of four parts: Part I: Theoretical and
Conceptual Starting Points; Part II: Multi-Stakeholder Participation and
Collaboration; Part III: Value Creation Opportunities; and Part IV:
Novel Approaches to Stakeholder Engagement.

Part I: Theoretical and Conceptual Starting Points

This part of the volume seeks to further the theoretical and concep-
tual understanding of stakeholder engagement in a sustainable circular
economy. To begin, Albareda and Kimpimäki build on the literature on
stakeholder engagement and the theory of collective action and discuss
the idea of collective stakeholder action (CSA) in Chapter 2. In partic-
ular, they describe the evolution of the circular economy concept as a
result of a process of collective stakeholder action. They see stakeholder
engagement as a performative process that contributes to the contem-
porary, practice-oriented framing of the circular economy concept and
8 A. Heikkinen et al.

highlight the role of connecting and influencing stakeholders in the

process.
In Chapter 3, Oberholzer and Sachs conduct a systematic litera-
ture review, integrating qualitative content analysis to untangle the
complexity of stakeholder interactions in a circular economy. Based on
their categorisation of the contents of stakeholder engagement, they
conclude that pragmatic stakeholder engagement dominates the discus-
sion, while attention should also be paid to moral and strategic stake-
holder engagement to leverage the benefits. They call for stakeholder
theory that encompasses planetary boundaries and see understanding
stakeholder engagement in a circular economy as a necessary step.
In Chapter 4, Eiselein, Keygnaert and Brabant present the results of a
literature review that includes a constant comparison analysis and iden-
tify three building blocks (vision, stakeholders and processes) and nine
underlying mechanisms that are essential for developing sustainable part-
nerships for circular economies, as well as nine clusters of obstacles that
can influence their development. They adopt a multi-actor, multi-level
perspective and provide advice on how to develop long-term partner-
ships among stakeholders representing different sectors. Together, the
chapters in Part I shed light on the complexity of stakeholder engage-
ment in a circular economy and highlight its theoretical and conceptual
underpinnings.

Part II: Multi-Stakeholder Participation

and Collaboration

Part II contains empirical studies of how stakeholders representing

different sectors collaborate or can be included in the development of
the circular economy. It starts with an empirical examination of what
kind of relationships exist among circular economy stakeholders and how
the transition to a circular economy is accelerated through these rela-
tionships, authored by Blomberg, Kujala and Heikkinen in Chapter 5.
Focusing on a multi-stakeholder network, they highlight the diversity of
stakeholder relationships and argue for their importance in advancing
the circular economy.
 1 Outlining Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable … 9

In Chapter 6, Kujanpää and Pihkola develop a participatory approach

to support the management of interactive decision-making processes in
waste management value chains. They acknowledge the complexity of
decision-making in multi-stakeholder settings due to stakeholders’ inter-
dependencies and conflicting interests and suggest a decision-making
procedure to facilitate assessment of the situations.
In Chapter 7, Kaipainen, Uusikartano, Aarikka-Stenroos, Harala,
Alakerttula and Pohls focus on circular economy ecosystems and
conceptualise four stakeholder engagement process archetypes to achieve
circular economy goals based on an analysis of six ecosystem cases
in Finland. The archetypes illustrate how stakeholders are engaged in
different circular economy ecosystems, depending on the ecosystem
structure and the alignment of stakeholder interests with the circular
economy goal. They take a processual approach to stakeholder engage-
ment and identify central stakeholder engagement practices that take
place in the various phases of the process and highlight the dynamic and
processual nature of stakeholder engagement.

Part III: Value Creation Opportunities

Part III considers stakeholder value creation in a circular economy. It

shows how varied stakeholders are connected to each other, how these
connections enable value creation and advance the circular economy as
well as how multiple stakeholders’ participation can be enhanced in the
complex network of circular economy stakeholders.
In Chapter 8, Re and Magnani examine the underlying key stake-
holder engagement mechanisms leading to value creation in the context
of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). They emphasise that
finding the right stakeholders and gaining their commitment to a new,
relatively unknown firm is not easy and takes time, but, at best, results
in multidimensional value creation and long-lasting relationships that
benefit the whole society.
In Chapter 9, Vikstedt and Rajala conduct a multiple case study
to explore alignment and misalignment through value consolidation in
multi-stakeholder collaborations. They find that several consolidation
10 A. Heikkinen et al.

mechanisms can be applied side by side and dynamically to align stake-

holders’ cognition, goals and practices. They conclude that it is not
always necessary to aim for full alignment, but that partial alignment
and even misalignment in stakeholder relationships can be used to enable
value creation in multi-stakeholder collaborations.
In Chapter 10, Harala, Aarikka-Stenroos and Ritala examine the
phenomenon of coopetition for a circular economy through an exten-
sive multiple case study from various industries in Finland. They discuss
how coopetition, defined as a simultaneously competitive and collabora-
tive relationship between two or several horizontal actors, can contribute
to a circular economy, concluding that these contributions require suffi-
cient stakeholder engagement, including bringing different stakeholders
together, connecting stakeholders and coordinating the collaboration. All
three chapters address a particular question related to value creation in a
circular economy and together enhance our understanding of how value
is created in stakeholder relationships in a circular economy.

Part IV: Novel Approaches to Stakeholder

Engagement

Part IV brings to the discussion novel approaches to studying stakeholder

engagement in a circular economy. To start, in Chapter 11, Lehtimäki,
Kujala and Thatchenkery bring forth the strength-based approach and
examine how identifying and growing strengths and leveraging appre-
ciative intelligence in stakeholder engagement bring to the surface
opportunities that exist for sustainability transition and support effective
implementation of change. They suggest that adopting a strength-based
approach could open new opportunities for sustainability transition.
In Chapter 12, Galvão Lyra and Lehtimäki examine fringe stake-
holders in the context of sustainability transitions and ask the important
question of how to engage stakeholders who are not involved in creating
a sustainable future or who even resist it. After reviewing the litera-
ture on sustainability transitions regarding how fringe stakeholders are
accounted for, they present insights related to the theoretical framing,
 1 Outlining Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable … 11

research design and methodology in relation to marginalised and non-

collaborative stakeholders whose voices are not easy to account for.
Finally, in Chapter 13, Salminen, Heikkinen and Kujala study
how a circular economy and its linkage to sustainability are under-
stood among key stakeholder groups promoting a circular economy in
Finland and present a categorisation of a sustainable circular economy
with three approaches: a business-centric circular economy, a systemic
circular economy and a regenerative circular economy. They found that
the business-centric circular economy and systemic circular economy
dominate the discussion, while the regenerative circular economy is
scarcely addressed. For the circular economy to become regenerative and
realise its potential, they call for enhanced dialogue among stakeholders
concerning the connection between the circular economy and sustain-
ability. However, they conclude that “much needs to be done if we wish
to achieve a regenerative circular economy”. Together, these three chap-
ters provide novel insights into how a sustainable circular future can be
created by building on and capitalising on the strengths of all circular
economy stakeholders.

Future Research Avenues

This volume presents 13 chapters with unique theoretical and practical
contributions. We see this as just a beginning for research at the inter-
section of stakeholder engagement and the idea of a sustainable circular
economy—albeit a necessary and insightful beginning. Much remains to
be researched and transformed into practice, as we outline next.
The chapters in this volume offer multiple conceptual advances
in understanding stakeholder engagement in sustainable circular
economies. We call for more empirical research advancing the different
theoretical and conceptual starting points to test and further develop
these ideas. It is also important to broaden the perspective beyond a
geographical and cultural Western focus by conducting theoretical and
empirical research with non-Western approaches and empirical settings.
Considering marginalised and non-human stakeholders is another
timely topic that requires attention, as discussed by Galvão Lyra and
12 A. Heikkinen et al.

Lehtimäki in this volume. For this purpose, new theoretical and method-
ological insights are needed, since current stakeholder engagement theo-
rising is largely anthropocentric (Kujala et al., 2022). Novel insights
can help theory to move towards knowing, learning and being with
marginalised and non-human stakeholders (Kortetmäki et al., 2022). We
can clearly see that the idea of a sustainable circular economy calls for
novel ways of knowing and being. Biodiversity is an important topic
that requires immediate attention. Future research should examine the
connections between biodiversity and the circular economy.
Transition to a sustainable circular economy will require radical
changes across society. It will create and intensify paradoxes and tensions
in society. Stakeholder engagement research can consider how stake-
holder participation both enables and hinders the required transition and
what kinds of paradoxes emerge in the process.
Finally, we call for more research discussing new and even startling
methodologies to study stakeholder engagement in sustainable circular
economies. Such methods can include, for example, arts-based and
creative methods, critical management studies-inspired methods, such as
feminist, post-colonial or other postmodernist studies, futures research
methods, methods sensitive to aesthetic, bodily and/or kinaesthetic ways
of knowing and various kinds of interdisciplinary approaches.

References
Bocken, N. M., Schuit, C. S., & Kraaijenhagen, C. (2018). Experimenting
with a circular business model: Lessons from eight cases. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 28, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eist.2018.02.001
Buch, R., O’Neill, D., Lubenow, C., DeFilippis, M., & Dalrymple, M. (2018).
Collaboration for regional sustainable circular economy innovation. In S.
Dhiman & J. Marquez (Eds.), Handbook of engaged sustainability (pp. 703–
728). Springer.
Chizaryfard, A., Trucco, P., & Nuur, C. (2021). The transformation to a
circular economy: Framing an evolutionary view. Journal of Evolutionary
Economics, 31(2), 475–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00709-0
 1 Outlining Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable … 13

CICAT2025. (n.d.). What is CICAT2025? https://cicat2025.turkuamk.fi/en/

what-is-cicat2025/
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy, economic
and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Founda-
tion.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S.
(2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R. E., Kujala, J., & Sachs, S. (Eds.). (2017). Stakeholder engagement:
Clinical research cases. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62785-4
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017).
The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner
Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy:
The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and
economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
Gonzalez-Porras, L., Heikkinen, A., Kujala, J., & Tapaninaho, R. (2021).
Stakeholder engagement in sustainability transitions. In S. Teerikangas, T.
Onkila, K. Koistinen, & M. Mäkelä (Eds.), Research handbook of sustain-
ability agency (pp. 214–229). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/978
1789906035.00021
Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers,
barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspec-
tive. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (1–2), 278–311. https:/
/doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corpo-
rate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74 (4), 315–327. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y
Gupta, S., Chen, H., Hazen, B. T., Kaur, S., & Santibañez Gonzalez, E. D. R.
(2019). Circular economy and big data analytics: A stakeholder perspective.
Technological Forecasting & Societal Change, 144, 466–474. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.030
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018a). Circular economy: The
concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018b). Circular
economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production,
175, 544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111
14 A. Heikkinen et al.

Kortetmäki, T., Heikkinen, A., & Jokinen, A. (2022). Particularizing

nonhuman nature in stakeholder theory: The recognition approach. Journal
of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05174-2
Kujala, J., & Sachs, S. (2019). The practice of stakeholder engagement. In J.
Harrison, J. Barney, & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
stakeholder theory (pp. 121–140). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/9781108123495.014
Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stake-
holder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5),
1136–1196. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211066595
Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementa-
tion: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 115, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.
12.042
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., & Bocken, N. M. (2019). A review and typology
of circular economy business model patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
23(1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763
Marjamaa, M., & Mäkelä, M. (2022). Images of the future for a circular
economy: The case of Finland. Futures, 141, 102985. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.futures.2022.102985
Marjamaa, M., Salminen, H., Kujala, J., Tapaninaho, R., & Heikkinen, A.
(2021). A sustainable circular economy: Exploring stakeholder interests in
Finland. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 10 (1), 50–
62. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277977921991914
Mishra, J. L., Chiwenga, K. D., & Ali, K. (2019). Collaboration as an enabler
for circular economy: A case study of a developing country. Management
Decision, 59 (8), 1784–1800. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2018-1111
Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J., & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New
or refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization
of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value reten-
tion options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 246–264. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027
Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused
stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250. https:/
/doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9573-3
Velenturf, A. P., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular
economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27 , 1437–1457. https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.018
 1 Outlining Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable … 15

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and
reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Part I
Theoretical and Conceptual Starting
Points
 2
How Did It Come to Be? Circular Economy
as Collective Stakeholder Action
Laura Albareda and Jaan-Pauli Kimpimäki

Introduction
In recent years, scholars have increasingly studied the circular economy
(CE) as a practice-based strategic phenomenon, examining how busi-
nesses and stakeholders participate in the transformation of the economic
system towards a regenerative and restorative model aiming to both
minimise waste and find more efficient ways to use materials and
natural resources (Bocken & Ritala, 2022). CE seeks to transform the
linear production, distribution, use and disposal processes that minimise
energy, material inputs, waste and emissions by closing material and
energy loops towards a zero-waste economy (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020).
Although the development of CE as a concept has involved a variety of
scientific and conceptual approaches over the last 40 years, ranging from
studies on ecological economics to industrial ecology, the widespread
adoption of CE began in 2010 with the introduction of a practice-based

L. Albareda (B) · J.-P. Kimpimäki

LUT Business School, LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland
e-mail: laura.albareda@lut.fi

© The Author(s) 2023 19

J. Kujala et al. (eds.), Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable Circular Economy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31937-2_2
20 L. Albareda and J.-P. Kimpimäki

approach primarily driven by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF).

The founding of the EMF initiated a central process of stakeholder
engagement, encouraging networks of businesses to experiment with
CE and translating it into a more pragmatic business-driven language
(Blomsma & Brennan, 2017; EMF, 2013a, 2013b). This process of
engagement later attracted other influential stakeholders that facilitated
further diffusion, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), through
which the EMF extended and legitimated its narratives regarding CE
to mobilise large-scale systemic solutions across the private and public
sectors (EMF, 2013a, 2013b; EMF & WEF, 2014).
In this chapter, our objective is to explain how the CE concept has
been performatively developed, diffused and accelerated its adoption
since 2010. To do so, we adopt the theoretical lens of stakeholder engage-
ment (Greenwood, 2007; Kujala et al., 2022). Stakeholder engagement
refers to the quality of the relationships that businesses have with stake-
holders, allowing them to build a common understanding of a focal
issue, such as joint value creation, or to promote joint interest and
collaboration (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016; Bundy et al., 2018; Kujala
et al., 2016). This relational approach mainly focuses on the dyadic
relationship between the focal firm and its stakeholders (Bosse et al.,
2009; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016) through which businesses drive and
control stakeholder relationships (Harrison et al., 2010). Organisations
exist within a complex network of intertwining stakeholder relation-
ships (Rowley, 1997), resulting in stakeholder multiplicity (Neville &
Menguc, 2006) or multi-stakeholder networks (Roloff, 2008). Although
these views serve to explain how focal firms manage their stakeholder
networks, they fall short of explaining how focal stakeholders proactively
engage with companies to develop, diffuse and accelerate the adoption of
issues, practices and processes central to them. In particular, CE develop-
ment has been driven by focal stakeholders who were neither reformative
nor radical activists (Den Hond & De Bakker, 2007) but instead opted
for coalition building. Important questions to explain these develop-
ments remain unanswered, such as: How do focal stakeholders collectively
engage and develop coalitions of business actors to advance the development
of CE? And: How have such engagement processes driven the development
 2 How Did It Come to Be? Circular Economy … 21

of institutional infrastructure, enabling the transformation from a linear

economic system towards circularity?
We answer these questions with a process model, arguing that the
development of CE has involved a distinct type of collective action
based on relational engagement between focal stakeholder organisations
building coalitions of collective business–stakeholder action. Collective
action refers to how groups of individuals and organisations overcome
self-interest by working together to build institutions and governance
norms (Ostrom, 1990, 2014). Recently, Patala et al. (2022) showed that
CE implementation requires businesses and stakeholders to cooperate
and adjust mutual roles, build new protocols for sharing resources and
foster collective agency. Research on collective action institutions over
the past 30 years has shown how communities of users have ensured
the sustainable use of common-pool resources by establishing complex
design principles that govern these resources (Albareda & Sison, 2020;
Stern, 2011).
In our analysis, we focus on the organisational narratives surrounding
the concept of CE employed by two focal stakeholder organisations—the
EMF and the WEF—and one public actor—the European Commis-
sion (EC). We regard stakeholder engagement as a performative process
through which these focal stakeholders coalesced with businesses around
a central issue (Roloff, 2008) and framed practice-oriented concep-
tions of CE, leveraging its further development (Marti & Gond, 2018).
Performativity refers to an understanding of how theories and concepts
describe a phenomenon and produce social reality (Callon, 1998;
Ferraro et al., 2005). In other words, theoretical concepts are continu-
ously modelled through relational business and stakeholder engagement
through practical and distributed experimentation (Ferraro et al., 2015).
This chapter makes three primary contributions to the extant liter-
ature. First, we introduce and initiate the development of the concept
of collective stakeholder action (CSA), defined as a process in which focal
stakeholders engage with businesses and policymakers, developing coalitions
of collective action to legitimise shared issues and the construction of insti-
tutional infrastructure. Second, we conceptually advance a stakeholder
engagement-driven approach to building broader business–stakeholder
coalitions for collective action (Ostrom, 1990; Stern, 2011) as a form of
22 L. Albareda and J.-P. Kimpimäki

CSA, contributing to the literature on stakeholder engagement (Freeman

et al., 2017; Kujala et al., 2022). Third, we provide empirical evidence on
the types of performative devices, effects and behaviours relating to the
development of CE from an early science-based understanding towards
a more widely diffused practical and business-driven phenomenon,
contributing to the literature on the effective boundaries of performative
theories (Ferraro et al., 2005; Marti & Gond, 2018).

Conceptual Background
Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement has become a core topic in research on stake-

holder theory (Greenwood, 2007). Kujala et al. (2022, p. 5) defined
stakeholder engagement as a set of “processes and strategies that firms
and other organisations implement in their stakeholder relations”. Stake-
holder engagement allows organisations to improve their positive moral
impact on society and the economy, driving organisational legitimacy,
responsible leadership and deliberative democracy; strategic and instru-
mental engagement based on the participation of stakeholders in business
value creation, reciprocal economic advantage, resource contribution and
firm economic and financial performance; and the pragmatic effect of
problem solving (Kujala et al., 2022). Kujala et al. (2022) explored
iterative and nonlinear activities and found a variety of one-way and
two-way activities between an organisation and its stakeholders. These
include dialogue, communication, negotiation, consultation, collabo-
ration and joint decision-making (Greenwood, 2007; O’Riordan &
Fairbrass, 2014). Stakeholder engagement is a core mechanism that busi-
nesses have adopted to explore novel concepts and practices in reciprocal
business and stakeholder relationships (Freeman et al., 2017).
Most of these studies have examined how companies initiate engage-
ment. In practice, we see that societal stakeholders often drive communi-
cation, dialogue and collaboration with networks of businesses. Studying
how stakeholders relate to the firm, Roloff (2008) proposed a life cycle
model of multi-stakeholder networks consisting of three stages: initiation
 2 How Did It Come to Be? Circular Economy … 23

(deliberation and agreement), action (implementation and consolida-

tion) and institutionalisation. Where Roloff (2008) mainly focused
on organisational welfare and the issues of discussion in stakeholder
networks, we focus on focal stakeholders engaging with businesses and
policymakers towards building coalitions of collective action.
Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2022) noted that when businesses and stake-
holders engage in joint value creation, focal firms might adopt one of
two models of collective action governance. For instance, focal firms
could take on a lead governance role, allowing stakeholders to make
governance-related decisions. They could also take on a shared gover-
nance model in which they share power and decision-making relatively
equally with stakeholders. These collective action models are largely
reliant on a dyadic understanding between the business and the stake-
holders, which explains joint value creation within the dyad. However,
in doing so, they miss the crucial aspect of multiple firms engaging in
networks of stakeholders (Patala et al., 2022).
Extending the research on stakeholder engagement and multiplicity,
Freeman et al. (2017, pp. 4–9) proposed a framework for stakeholder
engagement that included three primary dimensions: (i) analysing how
firms and stakeholders create joint value and cope with complex chal-
lenges, including the establishment of common objectives as well as how
interaction and cooperation are used to support collective learning, infor-
mation sharing and trust building (Kujala et al., 2017); (ii) creating
communication mechanisms and building stakeholder dialogue to facil-
itate the sharing of information and goals and (iii) learning about
complex issues with stakeholders, using open-ended approaches to
enhance collective goals and establishing mechanisms to help explore
scientific knowledge (Heikkinen, 2017).
Stakeholder engagement enables managers to address challenges
related to multiple meanings and interpretations of concepts. Managers
also promote dialogue and discussion with stakeholders while empha-
sising commonalities and agreements on how to work towards shared
goals (Mitchell et al., 2022). In this context, stakeholder engagement is
a key process enabling businesses–stakeholder collective action, which we
discuss next.
24 L. Albareda and J.-P. Kimpimäki

Institutions for Collective Action and Resource

Governance

One of the primary approaches in collective action problem theory is to

study how sets of individuals can achieve the governance of common-
pool resources (Ostrom, 1990). We build on Ostrom’s (1990, 2014)
approach to institutions for collective action. Ostrom (1990) explained
how individuals (common users and owners in local communities)
organise rules for designing and building shared rules (collective action
principles) to govern common-pool resources cooperatively. Ostrom
(1990) studied settings in which local institutions emerged in different
regions based on collective communication, negotiation, cooperation,
conflict resolution and decision-making. She found that the emergence
of these institutions was supported by local entrepreneurs bridging
groups towards collective action (Ostrom, 1990). Her research revealed
shared patterns of interactions between local groups of individuals
who defined the following principles of collective action governance
(Ostrom, 1990): they (i) negotiate concrete goals and define bound-
aries; (ii) define collective agreements through deliberation; (iii) drive
deliberative and participatory decision-making processes; (iv) set up
monitoring mechanisms; (v) establish sanctions for rule-breakers and
(vi) create conflict resolution mechanisms. Local groups also (vii) require
that public authorities recognise their proposals and (viii) move from
local to nested solutions.
Subsequently, Dietz et al. (2003) and Stern (2011) broadened the
framework of collective action in complex settings with common
resources, including principles that enable multiple organisations to cope
with the challenges associated with the governance of a planetary set of
resources to engage in complex collective action. These principles include
(i) investing in science and integrating scientific analysis in delibera-
tions about collective solutions; (ii) promoting adaptation, learning and
change; (iii) providing physical, technological and institutional infras-
tructures; (iv) providing necessary information and dealing with conflict
and (v) inducing compliance with economic and financial incentives.
An illustrative example of a complex institution for collective action is
 2 How Did It Come to Be? Circular Economy … 25

the Global Partnership on Climate, Fisheries and Aquaculture, which

governs climate action and marine biodiversity (Galaz et al., 2012).
In line with previous studies on the role of stakeholder legitimacy
and influence in the development of public policymaking processes
(Doh & Guay, 2006), the principles listed above illustrate how collective
action can be achieved in complex settings (Albareda & Sison, 2020),
such as collective action towards CE transformation. Importantly, it
requires multiple organisations to work cooperatively and engage with
stakeholder groups to influence policymakers and businesses and trans-
form broader production and consumption systems (Patala et al., 2022).
Such transformation requires collective action and the governance of
shared resources (Patala et al., 2022) and the catalytic amplification of
legitimacy and influence (Ansari et al., 2013).

Performativity and the Effects of Stakeholder

Engagement on Collective Action

The final element of this conceptual background connects stakeholder

engagement to collective action through the concept of performativity.
Performativity is rooted in Austin’s (1962) book How to Do Things with
Words, which introduced the concept of “performative utterance”, a state-
ment with the power to assert its own implication. In organisation and
management theory, this idea has been extended through several foun-
dational tangents, inspiring a “performativity turn” in theory (Gond
et al., 2016). Building on Austin’s (1962) ideas of performative utterances
and the previous work of Latour (1987), Callon (1998) introduced the
“market thesis”—that is, the idea that the economy is partly a product
of the study of economics rather than a passive form of studying it as
an independent abstract idea of economics. The implication of Callon’s
(1998) thesis is that “economics performs the economy, creating the
phenomena it describes” (p. 30).
Theories and concepts with such tendencies (i.e. constituting their
own social realities) are typically considered to exhibit a form of “Bar-
nesian” performativity (Mackenzie, 2006). In the economics context,
Other documents randomly have
different content
the Land League in the very crisis of its existence will call for
examination. It will suffice to say here that it was this intrigue which
procured a cardinal's hat for Archbishop McCabe and induced his
Holiness Pope Leo to address to the Irish bishops a letter in January,
1882, in which the league and its policy were censured, and the
people admonished "not to cast aside the obedience due to their
lawful rulers," Mr. Forster being one of these. The 343
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.22%
accurate

THE FALL OF FEUDALISM IN IRELAND Irish people were

also told by the Pope, "We have confidence in the justice of the men
who are placed at the head of the state, and who certainly, for the
most part, have great practical experience combined with prudence
in civil affairs." The Irish hierarchy were thus induced to issue a
corresponding manifesto, and to this extent to do Mr. Gladstone's
work under cover of pastoral admonitions to their flocks not to
refuse to pay "just debts," not to injure a neighbor's (i.e., a
grabber's) property, "not to resist the law" — Mr. Forster's law — or
otherwise to molest the agents or auxiliaries of a coercion
government. Neither from Rome nor from the bishops as a body did
a word of condemnation come against the despotic laws which had
filled the jails of Ireland with men "reasonably suspected" only of
having been active members of a great agrarian and political
organization. This intervention on the part of Rome failed in its
purpose. The Irish people stood by the league, and it was reserved
for other agencies of a more direct kind to negotiate with the leader
of the league in Kilmainham how Mr. Forster and his policy were to
be disposed of — or rescued, rather — from the conquering tactics
of the Ladies' Land League. Mr. Forster had imprisoned a total of
eight hundred and seventy-two leaguers as "suspects," while two
hundred and eleven persons were jailed on the charge or suspicion
of having been engaged in "nocturnal attacks" — in all, one
thousand and eighty-three of the most representative and active
members or supporters of the movement were put in prison without
trial. Among these Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, Sexton, and James O'
Kelly were the only members of Parliament. Messrs. Brennan, A. J.
Kettle, William O'Brien, Matt Harris, J. P. Quinn, and Dr. Joseph
Kenny were prominent lay leaders. Two or three priests represented
the clergy, while the ladies' league contributed about a dozen
members to the roll of league martyrs. These suspects were
distributed in the prisons of Kilmainham, Nass, Galway, Kilkenny,
Limerick, Clonmel, Dundalk, Armagh, and Monaghan, with a few in
Grangegorman (Dublin), Cork, and Enniskillen jails. The treatment of
the "suspects" was in no sense vindictive, being that of untried
prisoners, while the Ladies' Land League provided each prisoner with
good food from outside and with books to read. Each prisoner's
family received a weekly grant of £i, in addition to the keep of the
"suspect," the total sum expended in this manner, and in
contemporary grants to evicted tenants, cost of erecting Land -
League huts for 344
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.45%
accurate

THE NO-RENT MANIFESTO evicted families, and in other

miscellaneous ways being about £70,000 from October, 1881, to the
end of May, 1882. This was what it cost the movement to beat Mr.
Forster and all the forces of England's coercion law and order in the
eight months' contest between them and the Ladies' Land League.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 29.02%
accurate

CHAPTER XXVIII THE KILMAINHAM TREATY MR. FORSTER

was not beaten without a struggle on his part which displayed the
Englishman's best fighting qualities. Instead of avoiding risk he
appeared to challenge it when, against all warnings, he journeyed in
March, 1882, down to Clare, thence to Limerick, on to the most
disturbed district in Galway, and back to Dublin by way of Tullamore,
in King's County, where he actually addressed a meeting in the
public street, almost within hearing of his imprisoned "suspects " in
the prison of the town. No attempt of any kind was made to hurt or
even to insult him during the whole journey. He obtained a
respectful hearing even from his impromptu audience in Tullamore.
His pluck as thus exhibited, rather than the armed escort of Clifford
Lloyd's soldiers and police, was deservedly his best shield against
attack. His ministerial fearlessness was on the same level of
individual courage. He appointed a body of six special magistrates,
or commissioners, on his own authority, put them in charge of the
most disturbed districts, and armed them with delegated power that
was most arbitrary. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the most notorious of
these deputy despots, and he has given the public an account of his
experiences in his official autobiography.1 But the stars in their
courses were in league with Miss Parnell against the chief secretary
and his policy. Opinion in England was turning against him, partly
through the ungrateful attacks made upon him by the miserable
Irish landlords whom he had preserved from destruction. These
men, who were incapable of doing anything good for any cause, did
not help him in any sense in his most difficult days, and finally
turned against him, as they always did against all their allies,
because he did not go to an extreme in his fight against his and
their foes which would meet with their savage approval. Other and
more reputable opponents arose among even his own party and 1
Ireland Under the Land League. Blackwood & Sons, London. 346
The text on this page is estimated to be only 29.06%
accurate

THE KILMAINHAM TREATY in the Liberal press at the

spectacle of prisons crammed with untried political adversaries, and
of the arrest and jailing of girls and women for their active sympathy
with their imprisoned brothers, friends, and Ireland's leaders. This
was not only a scandal to England's name and Parliament, it was
worse. It was a failure, and, what was more, it threatened the very
existence of a ministerial majority in the House of Commons.
Parliament had met on February 7, 1882. The Irish party was under
the leadership of Mr. Sexton, who had been released from
Kilmainham owing to ill health after a few weeks' imprisonment. The
government soon found itself in the dangerous position of being
involved in the passage of new closure rules, with the prospect of a
coalition between the Tories, hungering for office, and the Irishmen,
thirsting for revenge, which might bring about a defeat or a greatly
reduced majority of the ministerialists. There was also the necessity
for renewing the coercion act which had been passed in 1881 as a
sessional emergency measure, and this could not be done without a
prolonged and damaging debate, in which every act of Mr. Forster's
would be reviewed and assailed. The Radical section of the
government supporters disliked being dubbed "coercionists," and
saw no gain to cause or party in standing by a chief secretary who
had not succeeded, even with almost unlimited powers, in calming
Ireland or in obtaining fair play for the new land act from a people
exasperated by the wholesale imprisonment of their leaders. When,
therefore, on March 28th, an ex-Tory minister, Sir John Hay, gave
notice of a motion against the renewal of the coercion act, Mr.
Sexton saw his chance, and brought forward a demand for the
release of the three members of that House, Messrs. Parnell, Dillon,
and O' Kelly, who were prevented, without trial, from attending their
parliamentary duties. The motion was resisted by Mr. Forster, but in
language which created an unfavorable impression all round, and
confirmed the growing belief in the parliamentary mind that he had
failed in Ireland and that his methods were hopelessly at fault. At
this time, too, the United States government, at the instigation of
the American Land League, made a diplomatic request for the
release or trial of those "suspects" who were American citizens, and
this transatlantic reminder of the power of the league abroad as well
as at home was not calculated to help Mr. Forster's cause. Early in
April, following a strong attack upon him in the Pall Mall Gazette by
Mr. John Morley, its then editor, in which the chief secretary was 347
The text on this page is estimated to be only 29.32%
accurate

THE FALL OF FEUDALISM IN IRELAND called upon to

resign, he wrote to Mr. Gladstone and asked to be released from the
duties of his post. This step, however, the prime-minister was not
then prepared to advise. The alternative to resignation was
suggested by Mr. Forster as more coercion. Trial by jury in serious
crimes was to be superseded by trial before two special magistrates,
while, following the usual practice of English rulers in Ireland, the
proposed blow at the liberties of the people through the jury system
was to be accompanied by a concession. Provincial councils were to
be offered to Ireland, endowed with powers of local self-government
analogous to those subsequently given to county councils, and this
dual policy of kicks and halfpence was expected to retrieve the
situation. These were the plans which were under the prime-
minister's consideration when a totally unexpected piece of political
good-fortune came to his assistance in a proposal for terms from Mr.
Parnell. The league leader had been in prison just six months at this
time. He was virtually under no prison rules except a bar against his
walking out of Kilmainham. No indignity beyond detention was
offered to him, and he wanted for no luxury which funds or friends
could supply. He had also the association of intimates and
colleagues, and could not, in addition, deny himself the keen
satisfaction derived from seeing the complete failure of his jailers to
rule the country and subdue the people after locking him up. But
nature and temperament did not intend Mr. Parnell ever to be a
prisoner. Restraint to him was a torture and an insult. His disposition
rebelled against it, and his inordinate pride caused him to feel keenly
the outrage he was subjected to by a man whom he considered both
an unscrupulous assailant and a social inferior. But it is now manifest
that there were two other influences of even a more stimulating
character at work to induce him to seek a release from prison. One
of these influences can be inferred from the discovery made in Paris
in February, 1881, by his colleagues on opening his letters. The
other was probably the determining factor in causing him to open up
negotiations with Mr. Gladstone for a treaty or understanding. It was
this: Extreme men, not necessarily belonging to the Fenian body,
had become, in a sense, masters of the situation outside by the
imprisonment of all moralforce local leaders. They struck at the law
which had a doubly obnoxious character to them, in being alien and
coercive, while the state of things that prevailed encouraged them to
plot and plan measures which Mr. Parnell, as a nonrevolutionist, had
probably never contemplated, even as 348
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.60%
accurate

THE KILMAINHAM TREATY justifiable in a strike against

rent. The general state of the country under these circumstances
seems to have greatly alarmed him, as leading to the likelihood of
precipitating a condition of general anarchy in which the league
movement would be used, not for the purposes he approved of, but
for a real revolutionary end and aim. It was precisely at this time,
too, that the chief secretary had to confess to Mr. Gladstone1 the
urgent need for greater coercive powers. "My six special
magistrates," he wrote, "all bring me very bad reports. These are
confirmed by constabulary reports. The impunity from punishment is
spreading like a plague. I fear it will be impossible to prevent very
strong and immediate legislation." It was a dramatic coincidence
that both the prisoner and his jailer were alike alarmed at a state of
things which ought to have appealed to Parnell to concern himself
only with scientific studies in the tranquil repose of Kilmainham, and
to allow Ireland's enemies to reap the full reward of the brutal
coercive and eviction policy they had so long pursued.2 It was the
vital turning-point in Mr. Parnell's career, and he unfortunately turned
in the wrong direction. He had hitherto been in everything but name
a revolutionary reformer, and had won many triumphs at the head of
the most powerful organization any Irish leader had at his back for a
century. He now resolved to surrender the Land League, and to
enter the new stage of his political fortunes as an opportunist
statesman. He applied for a parole to attend the funeral of a nephew
who had died in Paris. This was granted at once by Mr. Forster. In
passing through London Mr. Parnell met Mr. Justin McCarthy, and
spent an evening at his house. He explained some of the plans he
had formed in prison. These embraced a parliamentary demand for a
bill to cancel arrears of rent in a certain class of holdings on
payment of a sum to the landlord out of the Irish Church surplus
fund. Other amendments of the act of 1881 were to be pressed for,
and as (in his opinion) the no-rent policy had failed, the agitation
could be "slowed down," the suspects released, and the Land
League be thrown overboard. He also saw Captain O'Shea, M.P., who
was a member of his 1 Life of W. E. Forster, p. 553. 2 "With a
political revolution we have ample strength to cope. There is no
reason why our cheeks should grow pale or why our hearts should
sink at the idea of grappling with a political revolution. . . . But a
social revolution is a very different matter. . . . The seat and source
of the movement was not to be found during the time the
government was in power. It is to be looked for in the foundation of
the Land League." — Gladstone, House of Commons, April 4, 1882.
349
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.40%
accurate

THE FALL OF FEUDALISM IN IRELAND party and a personal

friend, and he repeated to him what he had communicated to Mr.
McCarthy. Mr. Parnell knew, of course, that O'Shea was, in reality,
more of an emissary of the government than a Home- Rule member,
and the suggested policy of compromise, in being imparted to him,
amounted to an indirect proposal to Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Parnell left
London for Paris, and O'Shea communicated at once both to the
prime-minister and to Mr. Chamberlain all that had transpired. Mr.
Gladstone responded immediately in a letter to O'Shea, in which he
said, "Whether there be any agreement as to the means, the end in
view is of vast amount, and assuredly no resentment, personal
prejudice, or false shame, or other impediment extraneous to the
matter itself, will prevent the government from treading in that path
which may most safely lead to the pacification of Ireland." This letter
was dated April i5th. Mr. Chamberlain wrote on the i yth more fully,
but equally anxious to close with an offer that would, among other
things, probably dispose of Mr. Forster as chief secretary, to whose
policy in Ireland the member for Birmingham was as much opposed
as a colleague in the same cabinet could possibly be. Mr. Gladstone
made Mr. Forster acquainted with the O'Shea communications, and
these, with the knowledge and assent of Mr. Parnell, who had
returned to London in the mean time, were submitted to the cabinet
at a meeting on the 22d, at which the chief secretary was present.
Mr. Parnell returned to Kilmainham, and on the 2$th wrote a
memorandum embodying his previous proposals, which he desired
Mr. Justin McCarthy "to take the earliest opportunity of showing to
Mr. Chamberlain." This document gave much satisfaction to that
member of the government, who wrote, in acknowledging it: "I will
endeavor to make good use of it. I only wish it could be published,
for the knowledge that the question still under discussion will be
treated in this conciliatory spirit would have a great effect on public
opinion." 1 So far had Mr. Parnell 's views been modified by the
influences alluded to that he wrote to O'Shea on April 28th,
indicating a settlement of the arrears question (as already outlined),
an admission of leaseholders to the provisions of the land act, and
the amendment of the purchase clauses of the same act, as the
three measures for which the following price was to be given: "The
accomplishment of the programme I have sketched would, in my
judgment, be regarded by the country as a 1 Barry O'Brien, Life of
Parnell, vol. i., p. 342. 350
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.44%
accurate

THE KILMAINHAM TREATY practical settlement of the land

question, and would, I feel sure, enable us to co-operate cordially
for the future with the Liberal party in forwarding Liberal principles ;
so that the government, at the end of the session, would, from the
state of the country, feel themselves thoroughly justified in
dispensing with further coercive measures." * O'Shea waited upon
Mr. Forster and laid tfrese proposals before him. The chief secretary
has given his version of this interview, and posterity, Irish as well as
English, will be more inclined to believe Mr. Forster's word than that
of the other witness to what transpired. He declared, subsequently,
in the House of Commons that O'Shea had represented Parnell as
promising "that the conspiracy which has been used to set up
boycotting and outrages will now be used to put them down, and
that there will be union with the Liberal party." Mr. Parnell, however,
denied this alleged promise of his when he was cross-examined in
The Times Commission upon the terms and conditions of the
Kilmainham treaty. Mr. Forster promptly conveyed to Mr. Gladstone a
copy of Parnell's letter and an account of O 'Shea's conversation,
which the chief secretary had dictated to his wife immediately after
the interview. The prime-minister's satisfaction was expressed in
these words in his reply: 2 "On the whole, Parnell's letter is, I think,
the most extraordinary I have ever read. I cannot help feeling
indebted to O'Shea." This letter sealed and sanctioned the
Kilmainham treaty, and as Mr. Forster refused to be a party to the
compact his resignation was only a question of convenience. O'Shea
visited Parnell in prison and returned again to London. The release
of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O 'Kelly was determined upon, Mr.
Chamberlain being insistent upon their liberation. He had worked for
the treaty within the cabinet from the first mooting of Mr. Parnell's
terms, knowing that the acceptance of these by the government
would involve Mr. Forster's resignation. He frankly explained his
position and policy to a number of the Irish members at an informal
meeting in the House of Commons, and intimated to them a
readiness, or rather a wish, to be the successor of Mr. Forster in the
chief-secretaryship, the better to carry out the new policy for
Ireland. Earl Cowper tendered his resignation as Lord Lieutenant
rather than agree to the release of Mr. Parnell and his colleagues,
and Mr. Forster followed suit, for similar and other reasons, two days
after. On May 2d the prime-minister rose 1 Barry O'Brien, Life of
Parnell, vol. i., p. 342. 2 Life of Forster, p. 563. 351
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.32%
accurate

THE FALL OF FEUDALISM IN IRELAND in his place in the

House of Commons and announced the startling change of policy
which the treaty, then unknown to the public, had induced the
cabinet to adopt. Mr. Forster and his coercion were thrown over, Mr.
Parnell was set at liberty, and the political fortunes of the ill-omened
treaty were soon to be at the mercy of the registered decree of an
inscrutable destiny. On the very eve of Parnell's proposals to Mr.
Gladstone, through O'Shea, the future Home Rule prime-minister
wrote as follows to Mr. Forster, in reply to the demand for further
coercive legislation: "About local government in Ireland, the ideas
which more and more establish themselves in my mind are such as
these: "i. Until we have seriously responsible bodies to deal with us
in Ireland every plan we frame comes to Irishmen, say what we
may, as an English plan. As such it is probably condemned. At best it
is a one-sided bargain, which binds us, not them. "2. If your
excellent plans for obtaining local aid towards the execution of the
law break down, it will be on account of this miserable and almost
total want of the sense of responsibility for the public good and
public peace in Ireland, and this responsibility we cannot create
except through local self-government . "3. If we say we must
postpone the question till the state of the country is more fit for it, I
should answer that the least danger is in going forward at once. It is
liberty alone which fits men for liberty. This proposition, like every
other in politics, has its bounds; but it is far safer than the counter
doctrine — wait till they are fit. "4. In truth, I should say (differing
perhaps from many) that for the Ireland of to-day the first question
is the rectification of the relations between landlord and tenant,
whicn happily is going on ; the next is to relieve Great Britain from
the enormous weight of the government of Ireland unaided by the
people, and from the hopeless contradiction in which we stand while
we give a parliamentary representation, hardly effective for anything
but mischief without the local institutions of self-government which it
presupposes, and on which alone it can have a sound and healthy
basis." l This letter was written on April 12, 1882. It was on the very
next day, the i3th, that Mr. Gladstone received from Captain O'Shea
Parnell's Kilmainham proposals. There was 1 Morley's Life of
Gladstone, vol. iii., p. 58. 352
The text on this page is estimated to be only 29.04%
accurate

TH£ KlLMAINHAM TREATY no suggestion of self-

government contained in these proposals. It was, therefore, a treaty
about arrears of rent and the release of suspects that carried with it
the fall of Forster, and, as sequence, the Phoenix Park tragedy which
presented itself to the prime-minister who wrote the above
memorandum to his coercionist chief secretary. At this time Mr.
Gladstone was at the head of the strongest Liberal government in
the history of England, and the man who had forced the House of
Lords to accept the land bill of the year before was abundantly
strong enough to compel them to pass a Home- Rule measure on
the lines of the letter to Mr. Forster. During these negotiations Mr.
Parnell had not imparted a word to his colleagues in Kilmainham
about what was proceeding. Rumor had circulated statements while
he was out on parole about some impending arrangements, and
suspicion was busy in weaving conjectures which might explain the
release of the three members. Mr. Parnell was careful, too, in the
choice of his intermediaries with the government. They were men
who were in no sense extreme, O'Shea being, in fact, a hanger-on of
the Liberal ministry. On the afternoon of May 4th, in a House
crowded in every part and charged with the excitement peculiar in
that chamber to a ministerial crisis, Mr. Forster rose from a private
member's seat to explain to the Commons and the country trie
cause of his resignation and the reasons for his dissent from the
policy which had occasioned it. He received a warm and marked
ovation. He was in appearance and type a representative of the
sturdy middle-class Englishman, big in head and body, and
pugnacious in look and manner. He had had two years' of a fierce
struggle against the Irish. Popular sympathy was, therefore, largely
with him outside. It had been rumored that he was thrown over by
his colleagues, who preferred to sacrifice him than to give him the
extra powers he had asked for as necessary to assert the dominance
of England's authority over a people against whom a latent antipathy
always did and always will prevail in the AngloSaxon mind, and he
faced the Irish benches a beaten but a defiant foe, who felt that he
could have crushed them had ministerial expediency not refused him
the necessary weapons for the task. He spoke well, and had
proceeded half-way through his speech when cheers, fierce,
passionate, and triumphant, rang through the chamber from the
Irish members as, with measured step and haughty mien and a face
set in expression of proud triumph Mr. Parnell, who had entered the
House after release from Kilmainham, made his way to his seat, and,
folding his arms, looked across the floor at the *3 353
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.88%
accurate

THE FALL OF FEUDALISM IN IRELAND man, now in

ministerial disgrace, who had kept him under lock and key for the
previous six months. It was one of the most intensely dramatic
episodes of the great Irish struggle, which will some day inspire a
painter's brush with the subject and ambition of a great historical
picture. Mr. Forster's speech was to English minds a fair-enough
vindication of his official life in Ireland, and he made no disclosures
which could convey to the House or the public the real reason of Mr.
Parn ell's apparent victory. A tragedy of unexampled import and
calamity was required to bring all the facts to light, and the fates
were busy in preparing the occasion and the need for explanation.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 27.91%
accurate

CHAPTER XXIX THE PHCENIX PARK MURDERS THE

morning of May 6, 1882, was bright and lovely, even inside prison
walls, and the writer, who had just completed fifteen months of a
sojourn in the huge convict depot at Portland, was enjoying the
sunshine in the infirmary garden, when the governor was seen
approaching, wearing a smile and carrying a letter. With an
extensive experience of no fewer than twelve prison governors, Mr.
George Clifton was the only one I remembered who had made
smiling any part of our relations. Prison is not a place for smiling,
anyhow, and unfortunate governors have few incentives to the
wearing of cheerful looks in the daily performance of cheerless
duties. It was a hopeful sign on this occasion, and told in advance
the news of a coming release. "This is a letter from Mr. Parnell, M.P.,"
said the governor, "who is coming down to see you to-day. You will
be released this afternoon." The letter read as follows: " HOUSE OF
COMMONS LIBRARY, "LONDON, May 5, 1882. "MY DEAR SIR, —
Dillon and I propose going down to meet you at Portland prison to-
morrow on your liberation and to accompany you to London. "We
were ourselves released from Kilmainham only on Tuesday last, Mr.
Forster having resigned, and further legislation on the land question
promised. We shall arrive at Portland about two o'clock. "Yours very
truly, "CHAS. S. PARNELL."1 What was the explanation of the
promised visit and of the cold and formal "My dear Sir"? Changes
significant enough were announced in this brief message, but were
there others behind the lines that would tell a fuller story of some 1
Report Special Commission, vol. vii., p. 48. 355
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.54%
accurate

THE FALL OF FEUDALISM IN IRELAND compromise to

which I was expected to be a party? This thought marred some of
the pleasure inseparable from a third release from prison, but no
inkling of the full truth could be got from any further reading of the
strange epistle or from the altogether unnecessary and un-Parnell-
like visit to an "At Home" at Portland prison. Messrs. Parnell, Dillon,
and O' Kelly arrived in a few hours, and after a brief inspection of
the huge convict establishment we were soon en route for London.
"What does it all mean?" was a natural question to put by one who
had been deprived of all means of knowing what had transpired in
the world of politics since February 4, 1881. Mr. Parnell did most of
the talking on the railway journey. His reply was, in substance, this:
"We are on the eve of something like Home Rule. Mr. Gladstone has
thrown over coercion and Mr. Forster, and the government will
legislate further on the land question. The Tory party are going to
advocate land purchase, almost on the lines of the Land- League
programme, and I see no reason why we should not soon obtain all
we are looking for in the league movement. The no-rent manifesto
had failed, and was withdrawn. A frightful condition of things
prevailed in Ireland during the last six months, culminating in several
brutal murders, moonlighting outrages, and alarming violence
generally." Such, in brief, was the explanation of the sudden
anticlimax to coercion in the political situation ; but a reply to the
question, "What has become of the Ladies' Land League?" let the cat
out of the bag somewhat. "Oh, they have expended an enormous
amount of money. They told me in Dublin, after my release, that I
ought to have remained in Kilmainham. I fear they have done much
harm along with some good." "The 'harm' is evident in the fall of
Forster and in the dropping of coercion and in our release," was the
obvious retort. " It appears to me that they have given good value
for the money which was contributed to give the landlords and the
Castle all possible trouble." "Yes, but you don't know all. To-morrow
I will go into the whole matter with you, and explain more fully than
is desirable now what has really led the government to the change
of policy which is to result in the immediate release of all the
suspects and in the measures I have referred to." There was some
amusing conversation on the way to London about a future "Home-
Rule cabinet" in Dublin. Mr. Parnell was in a most optimistic mood,
and joked about 0' Kelly being a future head of a national
constabulary force, 356
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.78%
accurate

THE PHCENIX PARK MURDERS with Sexton as chancellor of

the exchequer, Dillon home secretary, and myself as a director of
Irish prisons. Lord Frederick Cavendish, the new chief secretary, was
spoken of as "one of the most modest and best men in the House,
and a thorough supporter of the new policy." And in this temper of
hopeful expectancy and of jubilant triumph the time sped by and the
train reached London. We were welcomed by hosts of friends, the
first to greet us being Mr. A. M. Sullivan, with many of the leading
leaguers of London along with him. We drove to the Westminster
Palace Hotel accompanied by a score of the more intimate friends
among the members of the throng, where a couple of hours were
spent in general talk; "the Home-Rule Parliament of the immediate
future" being toasted and drank to in the true spirit of Celtic
buoyancy. Then the friends departed and the clouds came. Scarcely
had Mr. Dillon and the writer sat down alone than Mr. Bennet
Burleigh, the since famous war correspondent, rushed into the room
and spread before me without a word a telegram which read as
follows: "THE DEPOT, PHOENIX PARK, DUBLIN, 8 P.M. " Lord
Frederick Cavendish and Under-Secret ary Burke were assassinated
with knives by a band of men about halfpast six this evening
opposite the Viceregal Lodge." " Oh, come, Burleigh, this is a patent
bogus outrage for tomorrow's Sunday papers. Surely you are not
going to lend yourself to a monstrous scare of this kind?" "I hope to
God you are right, but see where the message comes from? It is
from the constabulary headquarters to the Central News." "Just
where a thundering sensation can be so well manufactured," was
the reply; but Burleigh shook his head and departed, leaving us
disturbed in mind but absolutely incredulous that so dire a calamity
had occurred or could thus cruelly dash the morning's cup of bright
hope and promise to the ground. At five o'clock the following
morning Henry George entered my bedroom with an open telegram
in his hand and a scared look in his kindly, big, blue eyes. "Get up,
old man," were his words. "One of the worst things that has ever
happened for Ireland has occurred." And a message handed to me
from a friend in Dublin only too literally confirmed the discredited
tidings of the night before. A short time afterwards Mr. Parnell
entered the room. 357
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookball.com