When a building becomes vacant, real estate developers, investors, and owners are faced with competing demands. The need for quick financial returns might conflict with the investment required to preserve historical values, a challenge that is exacerbated when energy efficiency measures need to be integrated. With the urgency to accelerate the energy transition of existing buildings, these demands increase in magnitude and complexity, and prioritising one demand over another can have long-term negative consequences for the Dutch real estate market.

This chapter introduces a paradox perspective on the challenges and conflicting interests hindering the energy transition. A paradox approach acknowledges that these tensions are interconnected and persistent. Compromising can be counterproductive, as ignoring conflicting demands can lead to negative unintended consequences.

The chapter begins by providing an overview of some of the main challenges relevant to achieving energy efficiency in the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. It then introduces the basis of paradox theory and its related approaches. A paradox perspective is relevant for researchers and managers dealing with competing demands, as well as for designers who can leverage paradoxes to identify creative solutions.

This report is a visionary compass for achieving the ambitious goal of Sustainable Plus Energy Neighbourhoods (SPENs). The document lays out a multi-actor framework from cutting-edge technological solutions to policy frameworks and financing strategies and provides strategic directions and best practices to scale up sustainable urban solutions. [...]

Circularity in adaptive reuse helps tackle material shortages, environmental damage, and ageing properties, while enhancing asset value. However, bridging the gap between visionary reuse scenarios of existing real estate and design strategies remains challenging. Integrating scenario tools with adaptive reuse frameworks can address this issue. This paper presents an approach to systematically define promising circular real estate scenarios and translate them into actionable strategies.

Paradox scholarship has equipped us with a rich vocabulary to understand organizational life’s persistent, contradictory, and interdependent tensions.With strong theoretical foundations, there is no shortage of frameworks explainingwhy these tensionsmatter. But what if you already understand the theory and still do not knowhowto work with paradox in practice, in the classroom, during a tense team discussion, or in the midst of a critical decision where trade-offs cannot wait?What if you are eager to teach, lead, and research by harnessing the power of contradictions, yet the concepts remain elusive—insightful in theory but challenging to translate into action? […]

As calls for research with practical impact intensify, Action Research (AR) promises to combine scholarly inquiry and organizational change. Yet it faces two key criticisms: limited theoretical generalizability and overly optimistic assumptions about its effects. Drawing on a multi-year AR project, we argue that AR’s deep engagement with organizational life surfaces paradoxes—persistent, interrelated tensions central to organizing. These paradoxes offer a double-edged potential: they can yield rich, theory-extending insights or, if mismanaged, produce harmful consequences. We propose a paradox-aware approach to AR, positioning paradox management as a critical methodological practice for generating responsible impact and advancing theoretically meaningful contributions.

Background and aim. Temporary use of vacant spaces—the short-term activation of properties awaiting transformation—has gained recognition for its potential to foster urban revitalization. While such uses provide a platform for experimentation, accessibility, and social inclusion through participatory and cultural activities, they often remain precarious and underutilized as strategic tools for circular economy. This study aims to explore how specific hybrid approaches to temporary real estate management can transform temporary use into a social circular economy strategy, balancing social values with market logics.

Methods and Data. This research employs a qualitative analysis, first defining a framework from literature and then analysing specific temporary use projects through a retrospective case analysis of three cases by Plateau Urbain (France), communa (Belgium), and Stad in de Maak (Netherlands). Data collection included interviews, project documentation, and field observations, allowing an in-depth exploration of the enabling conditions for successful hybrid approaches in creating social value.

Findings. This study makes three key contributions. First, it conceptualizes collaborative temporary use as a social circular strategy, clearly defining the evolution of the concept and its potential in temporary real estate adaptive reuse. Second, by drawing on the literature on organizational hybridity and case study analysis, it identifies key enabling conditions, such as tweaking the balance between social value and market logic over time to recalibrate impact—that underpin temporary use projects as social circular economy strategies. Third, it offers a framework to determine whether a temporary real estate reuse initiative can function as a social circular economy strategy.

Theoretical / Practical / Societal implications. This study offers theoretical insights into hybrid organizing for urban development and practical recommendations for integrating temporary reuse of real estate into social circular economy frameworks. Societally, it underscores the potential for collaborative temporary use to foster circular urban transformation by balancing economic goals with community-driven social value creation.

Circular and adaptable strategies in building reuse are key to achieving a resource-efficient and future-proof built environment. Despite significant advances in circular building research, this field is affected by a significant theory–practice gap. To bridge this gap, we applied an action design research methodology, implementing a circular building design framework over a five-month period in the context of a Dutch monumental office building reuse. The objective of these interventions was to observe practitioners engaging with the framework and identify the barriers they encountered when considering and applying circular building strategies. We observed that the framework primarily functioned as a descriptive tool. Enhancing its usability and effectiveness required several refinements, including simplifying its self-description, clarifying its strategies through practical solutions and connections to related models, providing robust assessment tools, and improving its accessibility. Through iterative action research conducted during the observation and intervention period, we addressed these issues and advanced the framework. Our design-oriented approach led to the development of key design artifacts: a prescriptive guiding, assessment, and reporting tool; a stepwise approach to streamline application; and a hands-on worksheet for practitioners. These artifacts were integrated into a user-friendly platform, transforming the framework into a practical tool for real-world implementation. For theory, this study incorporates a circular perspective into a usable framework and demonstrates how an action design research approach can co-develop and improve frameworks and their usability and relevance. For practice, the produced artifacts represent boundary objects tailored to practitioners’ needs; thereby paving the way for future circular adaptive reuse. Clinical trial number: not applicable.

As polarization—the division of opposites into extremes—increasingly disrupts business and society, organizational scholars seek approaches to bridge the divides it engenders. Paradox theory, with its tradition of integrating competing perspectives, offers promising pathways for navigating polarization. However, its underpinning raises critical questions: Can paradox theory address the deep interactional, positional, and affective roots of polarization, or does it risk reducing the complex interplay of rationality, emotion, and action to overly simplistic—or even naïve— frameworks? Amid rising conflict and polarization, paradox theory’s call to embrace opposing viewpoints warrants re-evaluation. By bridging insights from conflict management and paradox scholarship, this PDW aims to examine avenues to manage polarization within organizations. Targeted at OMT, CM, MOC and related divisions, this PDW fosters productive discussions on paradox and polarization. Part 1 of the session will feature expert panelists in paradox and conflict management who will share theoretical and practical insights and explore key questions, such as: What are the implications of paradox research for addressing societal polarization? What are its limitation in balancing rationality and empathy, and how do these limitations affect individuals and society in polarizing contexts? How are current efforts to address polarization creating more divides than bridges? In Part 2, participants will engage in interactive workshops in round tables, applying their own research, brainstorming solutions and future research directions while fostering safe, empathy-driven dialogue. The interdisciplinarity of this PDW appeals to a broader audience interested in tensions, contradictions, and polarization in organizational settings.

Adaptive reuse of buildings offers a sustainable strategy for reducing global CO2 emissions by repurposing existing structures, conserving resources, reducing the need to extract new materials, and minimizing waste. However, the decision-making process in adaptive reuse projects is often complex, involving conflicting criteria and diverse stakeholders. Current approaches tend to polarize alternatives, focusing either on broad functional use or specific design options, which can limit decision effectiveness and quality. This study addresses these challenges by developing a participatory mixed-methods approach that integrates Cross-Impact Balance (CIB) analysis with creative scenario-building techniques, including generative AI and participatory workshops. This approach balances the extremes of current decision-making processes, offering a more comprehensive overview of desirable futures for decision-makers. The methodology was applied to create 15 “big picture” circular adaptive reuse scenarios, each incorporating circular building adaptability (CBA) strategies, and enriched with AI generated narratives and visualizations. These scenarios provide stakeholders with a nuanced understanding of potential future pathways, enhancing decision-making processes. This mixed-method approach demonstrates the potential of participatory CIB scenario development in advancing circularity, offering a valuable tool for navigating the complexities of adaptive reuse decision-making.

Background and aim. Adaptive reuse enhances circularity by repurposing buildings, reducing carbon emissions, and preserving heritage. However, decision-making is complex due to stakeholder conflicts, regulations, and uncertainties. This study introduces an integrated framework combining Cross-Impact Balance (CIB) analysis, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Fuzzy-TOPSIS to support structured, participatory decision-making.

Methods and Data. A mixed-method approach integrates CIB for scenario development, AHP for stakeholder-driven prioritization, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS for ranking reuse scenarios. A hypothetical case study demonstrates the framework’s applicability.

Findings. The integration of CIB, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS provides a structured decision-making approach that enhances scenario coherence, aligns decisions with stakeholder priorities, and improves scenario ranking robustness. The framework enables systematic exploration of adaptive reuse scenarios, ensuring alignment with stakeholder objectives.

Theoretical / Practical / Societal implications. Theoretically, this study advances scenario-based decision-making by integrating scenario development and decision-making approaches, addressing gaps in adaptive reuse decision frameworks. Practically, it provides policymakers, urban planners, and developers with a structured tool to navigate complex decision-making in adaptive reuse projects. Societally, it supports sustainable and inclusive urban development by fostering consistent, long-term strategies that balance environmental, economic, and social considerations.

Angela Greco, assistant professor of innovation management at TU Delft, and Andrea Kerstens, a TNO scientist and PhD candidate in innovation management at TU Delft, draw on their experience with Syn.ikia, an EU-funded Innovation Living Lab for positive-energy building districts that leverage energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. Digital innovations like digital twins have been essential to unlocking positive-energy districts. For instance, digital twins that combine physical models of buildings and AI models of user behavior allow building districts to predict and optimize usage of excess solar energy. Their article presents three lessons learned from the project.

The transition to zero emission and energy positive buildings, neighbourhoods and communities is key to unlocking the EU's climate and energy ambitions by transforming both new and existing buildings into drivers of decarbonisation. This ambition is also reflected in the recent recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EBPD1), which will be transposed to national legislation by the Member States by the end of May 2026.

Despite increasing maturity of the currently known enabling technologies, significant financial barriers hinder realising this potential at the necessary speed and scale. To address these challenges, several innovative demonstration projects have been developed across Europe as part of the EU’s research and innovation funding programmes.

To that ambition, this paper puts forward 10 key policy recommendations for national and regional policy makers for overcoming financial barriers for building renovation and transforming existing buildings into zero emission or positive energy neighbourhoods by 2050. The recommendations are based on experiences and learnings from 8 research and innovations projects in Europe, including 33 demonstration sites around Europe. While the EPBD covers both new buildings and building renovation, these projects and following recommendations made, largely focus on building renovation and transforming existing buildings into zero-emission or positive energy neighbourhoods.

The paper also presents a stakeholder matrix of key built environment actors in building renovation towards zero emission or positive energy buildings and neighbourhoods by 2050. The matrix presents the drivers, barriers and needs of each group to broaden the understanding of what needs to be regulated and who needs to be incentivised.

Despite the significant growth of the literature on adaptive reuse, little is known about the specific criteria unfolding throughout the different phases of the adaptive reuse decision-making process. To address this gap this paper aims to provide a comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of the decision criteria for adaptive reuse throughout the adaptive reuse process. Through an integrative literature review with a systematic search strategy, three phases are substantiated: pre-project phase, preparation phase, and post-completion phase. This paper finds that despite the similarities between the different phases, with a predominant repetition of economic and architectural categories, more specific environmental decision criteria are still overlooked. The findings underscore the necessity for additional research on circularity within the adaptive reuse process, emphasizing the significance of the often overlooked implementation phase, crucial for practices like disassembly. By offering a novel process perspective on AR decision-making, this study contributes to the growing discourse on adaptive reuse and provides a basis for further enhancement of AR decision-making frameworks.

The built environment plays a crucial role in the ongoing challenge of climate change, primarily through resource consumption, energy use, and contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As urbanization accelerates, the environmental footprint of construction and building operations has grown significantly. Currently, buildings account for 40% of the world’s waste, 40% of material resource use, and 33% of human-induced emissions.

The literature on business model innovation for sustainability is contradictory about the mechanisms unfolding in the context of organizational hybridity. Existing hybrid organizations are put under pressure to transform their business model to meet new social and environmental goals while ensuring financial sustainability. However, organizations with a strong social mission might be reluctant to change, having structured their business model to meet a particular social goal. Through an ethnographic study at a Dutch social housing association introducing an energy-neutral house as a new product, we investigate the key stages and enabling mechanisms for a sustainable business model change in which the social and environmental logics are conflicting. We analyze the underlying causal mechanisms in the process of business model innovation for sustainability. We show that the mechanisms responsible for organizational inertia in its conventional (negative) connotation, may in fact enable the intended positive and enduring social and environmental goals over time.

Barbie is a polarizing cultural icon. Over the last 60 years, the doll represented feminism’s greatest advances and worst challenges. Fans lauded Barbie for inspiring creativity and opportunity among generations of young girls, while foes criticized her unattainable, sexualized body, dependency on male attention, and excessive consumerist inspiration. Greta Gerwig inherited this ongoing controversy when agreeing to write and direct the Barbie movie. Would Gerwig animate admirers or succumb to foes? [...]

Over the past two decades, research promoting a sustainable built environment has pioneered new horizons to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. Yet, these efforts are suffering from a significant theory-practice divide. This article offers three interconnected research themes to bridge this gap: 1. Distinguishing circularity practices across spatial and time scales; 2. Redesigning the value of design and its process; and 3. Learning from sister transitions for acceleration.

Wanneer een gebouw leeg komt te staan, worden vastgoedontwikkelaars, investeerders en eigenaren geconfronteerd met uiteenlopende eisen: in sommige gevallen is er grote behoefte aan snel financieel rendement, in andere gevallen vormt het behoud van historische waarden een uitdaging die maatregelen op het gebied van energie-efficiëntie bemoeilijkt. Dit heeft op de lange termijn negatieve gevolgen voor de Nederlandse vastgoedmarkt: het tempo van de energierenovatie ligt te laag en moet dringend worden verhoogd. Dit hoofdstuk introduceert een paradoxaal perspectief op de uitdagingen en tegengestelde belangen die de energietransitie blijven belemmeren. Een paradoxale benadering erkent dat deze spanningen onderling samenhangen en aanhoudend zijn. Een compromis is niet wenselijk, omdat het negeren van tegengestelde belangen tot negatieve onbedoelde gevolgen leidt. Dit hoofdstuk geeft ten eerste een overzicht van enkele van de belangrijkste uitdagingen die relevant zijn voor het bereiken van energie-efficiëntie bij de transformatie van bestaande gebouwen. Vervolgens wordt de paradoxtheorie belicht en de daaruit voorkomende benaderingen. Een paradoxperspectief is relevant voor zowel onderzoekers en managers die moeten omgaan met concurrerende eisen, als voor ontwerpers die paradoxen kunnen gebruiken als drijvende kracht om creatieve oplossingen te vinden.

The fields of sustainability and entrepreneurship share their dynamic processes, their high degree of uncertainty and complexity, and their endeavor on systemic impact. These inherent characteristics call researchers to engage in action research. Action research equips researchers with unique tools to navigate the volatility and complexity of sustainable entrepreneurship while simultaneously fostering its purpose and uncovering new theoretical insights. Yet, action research efforts fostering sustainable entrepreneurship are still emergent, and the mutual affinity between sustainable entrepreneurship and action research is still seldom addressed in the literature and often confused with other forms of collaborative knowledge production and problem-solving such as co-creation and consulting. In this chapter, we discuss the central principles of this form of academic knowledge production, their practices, and implications for sustainable entrepreneurship. We begin by defining action research and its unique methodological features. We then highlight research practices to address two fundamental but overlooked aspects of action research: value reciprocity and impact temporality. We illustrate these aspects by providing two cases of action research in a sustainable entrepreneurship context. This chapter offers directions for the researcher embarking into action research journeys aimed at fostering sustainable entrepreneurship.

Acknowledging the fundamental role of financing opportunities, this report (D.6.5) has multiple goals. First, D6.5 is aimed at providing an overview of the financial mechanisms, schemes, and resources that could play a role in accelerating the implementation of sustainable plus energy neighbourhoods (SPENs) across the four different countries in which the demo sites are situated. Second, it strives to propose a strategy to attract investors to realize the innovation(s) needed in a SPEN. And third, it consists of policy recommendations regarding the barriers and opportunities of the available financial schemes. These elements are particularly important for the realization of SPENs, since it is widely acknowledged that many investors, both public and private, are looking for new green and sustainable investment opportunities but these are often challenging to pursue due to the stakeholder diversity and complexity of innovations involved in the realization of a SPEN.