In the 1960s, influential thinkers defined design as a rational problem-solving approach to deal with the challenges of sustainable human development. In 2009, a design consultant and a business academic selected some of these ideas and successfully branded them with the term “design thinking.” As a result, design thinking has developed into a stream of innovation management research discussing how to innovate faster and better in competitive markets. This article aims to foster a reconsideration of the purposes of design thinking moving forward, in view of the sustainable development challenges intertwined with accelerating innovation in a perpetual economic growth paradigm. To this end, we use a problematization method to challenge innovation management research on design thinking. As part of this method, we first systematically collect and critically analyze the articles in this research stream. We uncover a prominent focus on economic impact, while social and environmental impacts remain largely neglected. To overcome this critical limitation, we integrate design thinking with responsible innovation theorizing. We develop a framework for responsible design thinking, explaining how to apply this approach beyond a private interest and competitive advantage logic, to address sustainable development challenges, such as climate change, resource depletion, poverty, and injustice. The framework contributes to strengthening the practical relevance of design thinking and its theoretical foundations. To catalyze this effort, we propose an agenda for future research.

Design thinking is an innovation approach for organisations aiming to solve complex and open-ended problems, including those arising in the transition from a linear to a circular economic system. Although the importance has been recognised in business and academia, to date, insight is lacking on how design thinking can be applied within circular innovation specifically. We investigate the following research question: How can design thinking tools catalyse sustainable circular innovation? Based on the literature, we first create a framework that characterises design thinking principles, criteria and phases that could support circular innovation. The design thinking phases are ideate and design, implement and test, and evaluate and improve. The criteria include desirability, feasibility, viability and sustainability, and circularity. Finally, we identify the following principles that make design thinking suitable to tackle complex circular innovation challenges: human-centred, future-oriented, holistic, co-creative, and experimental. Consequently, against this framework, we map 11 tools that are suitable to catalyse circular innovation theory into practice through design thinking. Finally, we reflect on the future of research and practice around this subject.

To achieve a transformation toward the circular economy, organizations need to take an ecosystem perspective and consider multiple complementary actors that are needed to deliver circularity as a collective outcome. However, practitioners and scholars lack an understanding of the initial phases of ecosystem creation, in terms of how to get started, and what to consider. We therefore investigate how organizations can initiate an ecosystem for a circular economy. The method consists of a concise review of the ecosystem literature and three instrumental cases, to identify important activities that are needed when initiating an ecosystem for circularity. The cases include: (1) an alliance for circular safety footwear, (2) a startup that turns old coffee ground and orange peel waste from another company into new products, and (3) a multi-stakeholder project aimed at recovering resources from wastewater. We propose a framework for a Minimum Viable Ecosystem for Circularity (MVEC) that includes a set of key activities to perform when building ecosystems for a circular economy. These activities provide a useful roadmap for scholars and practitioners for establishing and assessing ecosystems for circularity. We call for further research and practical applications to test and demonstrate the utility of this framework in different contexts.

The application of the circular economy (CE) in the building industry is critical for achieving the carbon reduction goals defined in the Paris Agreement and is increasingly promoted through European policies. In recent years, CE strategies have been applied and tested in numerous building projects in practice. However, insights into their application and decarbonisation potential are limited. This study analysed and visualised 65 novel real-world cases of new build, renovation, and demolition projects in Europe compiled from academic and grey literature. Cases were analysed regarding the circular solution applied, level of application in buildings, and decarbonisation potential reported, making this study one of the first comprehensive studies on the application and decarbonisation potential of circular strategies in the building industry in practice. The identified challenges of using LCA for CE assessment in buildings are discussed and methodological approaches for future research are suggested.

Business model innovation is increasingly seen as a key competitive factor in B2B settings. In this context, prototyping, experimentation, and piloting have gained prominence as agile and resourceful methods that can be employed in business model innovation pursuits. Yet, despite increasing interest in this area, and the growing number of large B2B companies who also started deploying these methods, there is a lack of clarity on the conceptual boundaries between the three concepts. This may impede the advancement of business model innovation research and practices based on the three concepts. We address this gap by conducting a structured literature review, using cross-reference searches and a key informant interview study of 43 executives in 13 B2B organisations. We offer three contributions: (1) definitions for each of these three concepts, (2) seven dominant similarities and (3) five key differences across them. Our research shows that the concepts serve distinct purposes at different stages of the business model innovation process, and we discuss these findings and their broader implications for the literature on business model innovation and for innovation management practices in B2B companies.