Coenen, T B J; Volker, L and Visscher, K (2023) Circular infrastructure in terms of institutional logics. In: Tutesigensi, A and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 39th Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2023, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
The concept of the circular economy (CE) has gained popularity in addressing concerns related to environmental sustainability. However, difficulties arose in scaling up and integrating CE solutions into the infrastructure sector. This paper argues that the institutional logics underlying the current infrastructure sector are incompatible with the logics on which CE is based. To examine this, we conducted a study using literature and empirical evidence from the Dutch infrastructure agency though in-depth interviews. By relating the arguments of interviewees to values, norms, and worldviews, we were able to establish and compare the prevailing logics held by infrastructure professionals with those related to CE. The results reveal a conflict between the dominant market logic in CE development and the prevalent state and project logics that guide infrastructure practices. These findings highlight the importance of strong leadership from public clients to incorporate CE principles into construction processes. By addressing the institutional barriers to CE scaling, this paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on implementing CE in the infrastructure sector and provides valuable insights for policymakers and public clients.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular economy; institutional logics; infrastructure sector; sustainability transition; infrastructure agency |
| Index terms: | scaling, norms, environmental sustainability, public client, infrastructure sector, agency, evidence, construction process, circular economy, institutional logic, interview |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, sociology, building construction, sustainable design, health safety and environment, theoretical framing, organization, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here