Background, issues, and main research questions: Circularity (circular economy) is being developed in many countries around the world where it has been set as a development goal (Schröder et al, 2019). However, the progress in implementing circularity varies from country to country. Most of the countries that are leading in circularity are European countries (Construcia, 2020). The Global South is less advanced than the former, but the development of circularity is necessary and urgent for the Global South. For example, in Indonesia, where lagging industrial development and high levels of waste generation are currently causing problems such as industrial depression, environmental pollution and threats to human health, the implementation of circularity can help sustain and promote industrial development and address the problems caused by growing waste (Preston & Lehne, 2017). At the same time, in the face of the current global problem of increasing resource consumption, the implementation of circularity has been identified as an important goal not only for regional development, but also as a common priority for global development (Circular Economy Action Plan, 2020). In this context, this study therefore aims to investigate how to accelerate the implementation of circularity in the Global South and European countries. Specifically, the study decided to conduct a comparative case study between several European countries and Indonesia. Furthermore, innovation related to circularity is included in the theme of this study. The main research questions are therefore how circularity/innovation has been or is being implemented in European countries and Indonesia, what are the distinctive characteristics behind the implementation, and what recommendations can be made for the development of circularity/innovation in Indonesia and European countries.

Methodology: It is a literature-based study. A multidimensional perspective, entailing the levels of the state, civil society and individual enterprises, is the main research approach of this study. Furthermore, the functioning and rules of Systems I and II (Kroesen et al, 2020) provide theoretical and conceptual support for the entire study. Three cases (biogas technology, circularity of plastics, and innovations in the pulp and paper industry) were selected for this study, corresponding to three selected European countries (Finland, Germany, and Sweden) compared to Indonesia. Three main steps were established to conduct this study. Firstly under each case, the selected European countries and Indonesia were subjected to their respective case descriptions and analyses. A comparative analysis and discussion of the selected European countries and Indonesia was then carried out under each case. Finally, corresponding conclusions and recommendations were drawn for the implementation of circularity/innovation in Indonesia and the selected European countries.

Results, conclusions and recommendations: Towards circularity/innovation, a transition is taking place between System I and System II, with both the European countries and Indonesia in this study navigating through it. This study shows that the European countries' distinctive characteristics in terms of circularity/innovation are close to those of System II, independent of those of System I, while a large number of Indonesia's distinctive characteristics in terms of circularity/innovation lack to some extent those of System II, and in addition, some of Indonesia's distinctive characteristics are close to those of System I. The distinctive characteristics of System II are of key importance for the implementation of circularity/innovation, as progress in implementing circularity/innovation is positively correlated with the extent to which countries make the transition to System II.The efficiency and effectiveness of the state, civil society and individual enterprises in implementing circularity/innovation has been positively demonstrated in the European countries studied. There is a beneficial interaction between state policies with a high level of scientific and technological research and civil society and individual enterprises with a high level of initiative and planning, thus facilitating the implementation of circularity/innovation. However, in Indonesia, although the state, civil society and individual enterprises were all involved in the implementation of circularity/innovation, the interaction between them was less efficient and effective than the former, as unclear vision-setting and over-intervention by the government, poor citizen behaviour and a lack of local initiatives and planning may have hindered the interaction between the various levels when it comes to circularity/innovation, as was observed to some extent.The following are three particular examples of conclusions and recommendations. In the European countries studied and in Indonesia, open cooperation and complementary relationships between multiple stakeholders in the product supply chain, as well as the openness of customers to accept circular innovative products, are reflected in a more effective implementation of circularity (1). Based on the experience of the European countries studied, the state leaves the space for initiation and implementation to civil society and individual enterprises, while policy development is strictly focused on R&D, which could serve as a reference for more effective implementation of circularity/innovation in Indonesia (2). Indonesia, which is to a large extent close to System I, is at risk of excessive state intervention and over-dependence of stakeholders on relationships, while for the European countries studied, which are close to System II, there may be a risk of too much corporate individualism and liberal behaviour at the expense of the role of the state. Thus, the role of Systems I and II in the implementation of circularity/innovation is not black and white, but more or less so (3).