Stakeholder Collaboration for Circular Economy Implementation A Qualitative Study in the Swedish Construction Sector Authors: Daniela Antunes and Harpa Aradottir Supervisor: Ethan Gifford Master’s thesis in Innovation and Industrial Management Spring 2025 Graduate School, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Stakeholder Collaboration for Circular Economy Implementation: A Qualitative Study in the Swedish Construction Sector © Daniela Antunes & Harpa Aradottir School of Business, Economics & Law at the University of Gothenburg Vasagatan 1, P.O Box 600, SE 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced without the consent of the authors. Contact: danielarsantunes98@gmail.com and harpa90@gmail.com 2 Abstract The construction industry is a major contributor to global resource consumption and waste generation, making it a critical sector for advancing the circular economy. However, circular implementation remains fragmented due to the complex value chain and weak inter- organizational coordination. This thesis explores how collaboration among key stakeholders - specifically construction companies, material manufacturers, and real estate developers - can accelerate the transition to a CE in the Swedish construction value chain. Drawing on Stakeholder Theory and the Stakeholder Salience Model, the study investigates how stakeholder interactions, influence, and alignment shape circular outcomes. Using a qualitative, abductive research design, the study is based on nine semi-structured interviews with industry professionals involved in CE settings. The findings reveal that successful CE adoption relies on early-stage collaboration, shared goals, and joint responsibility across project phases. Key enablers include digital tools for material tracking and trust-based relationships. and clear procurement criteria. Conversely, major barriers include project fragmentation, misaligned incentives, regulatory uncertainty, and limited reuse infrastructure. The salience model further highlights how stakeholder influence is distributed unevenly, with public developers and policymakers often acting as definitive stakeholders, while internal sustainability teams play critical enabling roles despite limited formal power. The study contributes to both theory and practice by illustrating the importance of structured collaboration in overcoming systemic barriers to circularity. It provides actionable insights for firms and policymakers seeking to embed circularity into the construction sector and underscores the need for ongoing collaboration, a supportive framework, and shared incentives to achieve scalable impact. Keywords: Circular Economy, Stakeholder Collaboration, Construction Sector, Sustainability Transitions, Salience Model 3 Acknowledgements We would like to begin by expressing our sincere gratitude to Per Östling and The ( ) Space for offering valuable insights into relevant literature and for helping us connect with professionals in the field. We are also deeply thankful to the individuals who took time to participate in our interviews, your perspectives were essential to the development of this thesis. We also want to thank our fellow students and the participants in our group sessions for their thoughtful input, encouragement, and support along the way. Your feedback helped shape our thinking and strengthened our work. A heartfelt thank you goes to our families and friends for your unwavering support throughout this journey, even when the topic might not have always made complete sense. Your patience, encouragement, and belief in us have meant more than we can express. We are very grateful to our supervisor, Ethan Gifford, for guiding us through this process with clarity, insightful advice, and constructive feedback. Your input has been invaluable to our learning. And finally, we want to thank each other, for being a true team from start to finish. From the early days of trying to figure out what direction to take, to the final hours of reviewing the same lines until our eyes crossed, this journey would not have been the same without the collaboration, patience, and good energy we shared. Sincerely, Daniela Antunes Harpa Aradottir 4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 - Background and Context .............................................................................................. 7 1.2 - Problem Discussion ..................................................................................................... 8 1.3 - Research Purpose and Research Question ................................................................... 9 1.4 - Delimitations .............................................................................................................. 10 1.5 - Structure of the Thesis ............................................................................................... 10 2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 11 2.1 - Circular Economy: Background and Key Terms ....................................................... 11 2.2. - Stakeholder Theory and Value Creation .................................................................. 13 2.3. - The Stakeholder Salience Model .............................................................................. 15 2.3.1- Stakeholder Attributes ....................................................................................... 15 2.3.2. - Stakeholder Typologies ................................................................................... 16 2.4 -Barriers and Enablers for Stakeholder Collaboration toward Circular Transitions .... 19 2.4.1 Enablers to Stakeholder Collaboration ................................................................ 19 2.4.2 Barriers to Stakeholder Collaboration ................................................................. 21 3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.1- Research Strategy and Design .................................................................................... 23 3.2 - Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 25 3.2.1 - Participant Selection ......................................................................................... 25 3.2.2 - Primary Data: Semi-Structured Interviews ....................................................... 27 3.2.3 - Secondary Data ................................................................................................. 28 3.3 - Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 29 3.4 - Research Quality ....................................................................................................... 30 4. Empirical Results ............................................................................................................... 31 4.1 - Theme 1: Circular Practices and Implementation in Construction Value Chain ....... 31 4.1.1 - Sub-theme 1.1: Definitions and Perspectives ................................................... 31 4.1.2 - Sub-theme 1.2: CE Initiatives ........................................................................... 32 4.2 - Theme 2: Stakeholder collaboration and dynamics ................................................... 35 4.2.1 - Sub-theme 2.1: Stakeholders and their influence ............................................. 35 4.2.2 - Sub-theme 2.2: Collaboration Challenges and Missed Opportunities .............. 37 4.2.3 - Sub-theme 2.3: Strategies to Improve Collaboration ........................................ 39 4.3 -Theme 3: Barriers and Drivers for integration of circular strategies .......................... 42 4.3.1 - Sub-theme 3.1: Barriers to CE Adoption .......................................................... 42 4.3.2 - Sub-theme 3.2: Drivers to CE Adoption ........................................................... 44 5. Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 45 5 5.1 - Stakeholder Roles and Influence: Applying Stakeholder Salience Model ................ 46 5.1.1 - Mapping Stakeholders using the Salience Model ............................................. 46 5.1.1.1 - Material Manufacturers: Definitive ......................................................... 48 5.1.1.2 - Construction Companies: Dominant ........................................................ 49 5.1.1.3 - Private Real Estate Developers: Dominant .............................................. 50 5.1.1.4 - Public Real Estate Developers: Definitive ............................................... 52 5.1.1.5 - Internal Roles: Dependent ........................................................................ 53 5.1.1.6 - Customers/End-users: Discretionary ....................................................... 54 5.1.1.7 - Public Authorities/Policymakers: Definitive ........................................... 55 5.1.1.8 - Other External Actors: Dormant .............................................................. 56 5.1.2 - How Stakeholders can Increase their Salience ................................................ 57 5.2 - Cross-Stakeholder Dynamics and Interaction ............................................................ 58 5.3 - Stakeholder Collaboration: Barriers and Enablers ..................................................... 61 5.3.1 Barriers to Stakeholder Collaboration ................................................................. 61 5.4.2 Enablers for Stakeholder Collaboration .............................................................. 63 6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 67 6.1 - Summary of Findings: Answering Research Question .............................................. 67 6.2 - Implications ................................................................................................................ 69 6.2.1 Practical Implications .......................................................................................... 69 6.2.2 Theoretical Implications ...................................................................................... 70 6.3 - Limitations ................................................................................................................. 71 6.4 - Future Research ......................................................................................................... 72 7. References ........................................................................................................................... 73 8. Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 77 8.1. Appendix A: Interview Questions ............................................................................... 77 8.2 - Appendix B: Coding Structure ................................................................................... 78 List of Figures Figure 1 -Stakeholder Collaboration for Circular Economy Implementation......................... 12 Figure 2 - Abductive research process followed in this study................................................. 24 List of Tables Table 1 - Stakeholder types in the salience stakeholder model................................................ 18 Table 2 - Interviewees Information.......................................................................................... 28 Table 3 - Circular economy initiatives implemented by the interviewed companies.............. 33 Table 4 -Stakeholder salience typology in the Swedish Value Chain...................................... 48 Table 5 - Thematic coding structure........................................................................................ 79 6 1. Introduction 1.1 - Background and Context The construction and material manufacturing industries are some of the biggest consumers of natural resources and contributors to emissions and waste. Today, they mostly follow a linear model, often described as the “take, make, dispose” model (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). This model is not sustainable, especially when global demand for materials is expected to triple by 2050 (Akhimien et al., 2021). The circular economy (CE) offers a solution by keeping materials in use for as long as possible, reducing waste, and designing products for reuse, repair, or recycling (Kirchherr et al., 2017). CE is broadly defined as an economic system that aims to minimize resource input and waste output by designing products for reuse, remanufacturing, and closed-loop recycling (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). However, the shift from a linear to a circular model is complex. Many companies want to shift toward circularity but struggle with financial risks, unclear regulations, and outdated business structures (OECD, 2019). In construction, the difficulties are amplified by the fact that many different stakeholders are involved, each with their own goals, timelines, and responsibilities, and without coordination between them, circular solutions stay small-scale and disconnected from the rest of the value chain (Lüdeke‐Freund et al., 2019). Existing literature provides a strong foundation on the principles of the CE. However, many studies focus on internal company practices or regulatory levers, while collaborative, business- driven approaches across the value chain remain less explored. This study draws on Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984) to examine how different actors interact, prioritize, and influence one another in shaping circular outcomes. This study draws on a stakeholder-centric perspective by focusing on how collaboration between construction firms, material manufacturers, and real estate developers can support the transition to a CE in Sweden. The study is grounded in a qualitative approach that draws directly on the perspectives of industry professionals to better understand how collaboration can enable practical and scalable circular transitions. 7 1.2 - Problem Discussion Although CE has received growing attention as a means to reduce environmental impact and promote sustainable value creation, its adoption in the construction sector remains limited and fragmented. This is particularly concerning given the industry’s significant material footprint and environmental side effects of the industry (Akhimien et al., 2021). Despite growing interest among firms, circular initiatives often remain small-scale or isolated, struggling to scale beyond pilot projects. A key barrier is the fragmented nature of the construction value chain. Stakeholders such as construction companies, material manufacturers, and real estate developers typically operate independently under short-term, project-based contracts (Hart et al., 2019). This fragmentation makes coordinated circular effort difficult. Collaboration is widely recognized as an important enabler to drive CE transitions in the sector, but due to the cluttered nature of the industry, companies struggle to collaborate (Durdyev et al., 2023). Research has acknowledged the importance of stakeholder involvement in sustainability transitions. Freeman’s (1984) foundational work, along with recent contributions by Kujala et al. (2019) and Freudenreich et al. (2020), emphasize that sustainability value is rarely created by one actor alone as it emerges through cooperation and relationship-building across the system. However, there is a lack of empirical results examining the dynamics of business-to- business (B2B) collaboration in enabling circular practices. Most studies focus either on internal innovation or policy interventions, overlooking the day-to-day negotiation, alignment, and influence between firms across the value chain. Together these gaps suggest a need for more grounded, context-specific research into how collaboration across the industry value chain can support the transition toward circular practices. This study responds to that gap by examining how key stakeholders in the Swedish construction industry collaborate around circular initiatives, and how these inter-organizational relationships shape both the progress and challenges of implementing CE practices in real- world settings. 8 1.3 - Research Purpose and Research Question The purpose of this thesis is to explore how collaboration among construction companies, manufacturers, and real estate developers in the Swedish construction value chain can accelerate the transition to a CE. While the potential of CE is widely recognized, its implementation in the construction sector remains slow and uneven. This study investigates how stakeholder interactions can enable or constrain circular transitions in this context. Grounded in Stakeholder Theory and the Stakeholder Salience Model, the study aims to provide an understanding of how the companies interviewed engage with circularity and how their collaborative efforts can shape adoption outcomes. The following research question guides the study: How can collaboration among key stakeholders in the Swedish construction value chain accelerate the transition to a circular economy? To answer this question, the research aims to: - Understand how collaboration between key actors in the construction value chain, including construction companies, building material manufacturers, and real estate developers, influences the adoption of circularity within the industry. - Provide insight on how businesses can structure their collaboration to create long-term value in a CE. By conducting qualitative interviews with industry professionals across the construction value chain, this research aims to provide both theoretical understanding and practical recommendations on how these stakeholders can collaborate more effectively to accelerate the shift to the CE in the construction sector. 9 1.4 - Delimitations This thesis focuses on how collaboration among construction companies, manufacturers, and real estate firms within the construction value chain can accelerate the transition to the CE in Sweden. This study explores the dynamics of inter-organizational collaboration, the challenges involved, and the factors that allow companies to work together more effectively. It adopts a business strategy perspective, emphasizing stakeholder collaboration as a driver of circular transformation. The research is limited to B2B interactions and company-driven initiatives. It does not focus on government policy, regulatory frameworks, or consumers. Similarly, this study excludes purely technical or operational aspects of circularity. Instead, it aims to create practical insights into how collaboration across firms can enable circular transitions at the strategic level. 1.5 - Structure of the Thesis The thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the research topic, providing the contextual background and outlining the problem. It also presents the research questions and an explanation of the purpose of this study. Chapter 2 presents the literature review, which outlines key concepts related to the CE, stakeholder theory and stakeholder collaboration. These concepts form the theoretical foundation that will help answer the research questions and interpret the empirical findings. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology and explains how the data was collected and analyzed. Chapter 4 presents the empirical results based on 9 interviews with industry professionals, focusing on how collaboration is experienced and what challenges and opportunities exist. Chapter 5 discusses the findings in relation to the literature and reflects on what they might mean for companies trying to move toward circularity. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes the thesis. summarizing the main insights, offering practical recommendations for companies, as well as suggestions for future research. 10 2. Literature Review 2.1 - Circular Economy: Background and Key Terms For decades, the global economy has operated predominantly under a linear economic model, often called a “take, make, dispose” model (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). This model is characterized by the extraction of raw materials, the manufacture of goods, and the eventual disposal of products as waste. Such a system has led to unsustainable patterns of resource depletion and environmental degradation. Alarmingly, natural resources are currently being consumed at twice the rate at which they are regenerated, with projections indicating that this rate may triple by 2050 (Akhimien et al., 2021). This puts pressure on industries from regulatory agencies and society to embrace a more sustainable and regenerative system. Therefore, in response to increasing environmental and economic pressures, the CE model emerged as a solution primarily advanced by policymakers and businesses to extend product lifecycles, reduce waste, and create regenerative systems. (Kirchherr et al., 2017). While no universally agreed-upon definition exists, a widely cited one is provided by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015), which describes CE as: “A circular economy is one that is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times,…” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). This definition highlights the fundamental goal of the CE, which is to move away from the traditional linear model and ensure continuous material flow within the economy, thereby reducing waste and ultimately reducing natural resource depletion. Since a perfectly circular system isn’t realistic, the main goal of CE is to maximize the use of materials, ensuring that resources stay in circulation for as long as possible before they reach the end of their life cycle. To achieve this, industries need clear strategies to guide them in making the most out of their materials. One of the most widely used frameworks for this is the R-framework, which helps prioritize different circular strategies based on their potential to preserve material value (Potting et al., 2017). The R-framework outlines ten key strategies to keep materials in use and minimize waste (Potting et al., 2017), see Figure 1. These strategies follow a hierarchy, starting with the most 11 effective approaches, like refusing unnecessary resource use and rethinking product designs, before moving down to less effective solutions, such as recycling and recovery, that has lowest priority because it means that the materials are no longer available to be used again (Potting et al., 2017). Strategies at the top of the hierarchy are preferred, as they prevent waste from being created in the first place and have a greater positive impact on sustainability. Figure 1 - The 10-R Framework for Circular Economy. Source: (Kirchherr et al., 2017) While CE offers a strong systems-level vision and clear strategic tools like the 10-R framework, turning these ideas into practice remains challenging. Despite growing awareness of CE principles, the actual adoption of circular practices stalls due to regulatory uncertainty, resource limitations, or fragmented responsibilities across the value chain (Durdyev et al., 2023). This variation points to an important gap: understanding not just what circular strategies exist, but how actors across industries can collaborate to realize them in practice. High-level strategies such as reuse, design for disassembly, or material banking often require early alignment across multiple stakeholders - including clients, contractors, designers, and suppliers - whose priorities, timelines, and incentives may conflict. As Senaratne et al. (2023) and Moscati et al. (2023) emphasize, these practices cannot be implemented in isolation; their success depends on 12 co-planning, transparent communication, and coordinated execution. In this context, collaboration is not a complementary process but a structural necessity for achieving system- wide CE implementation. To explore this, the next section draws on Stakeholder Theory to examine how value is created among actors and why multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to accelerating circular transitions in complex sectors like construction. 2.2. - Stakeholder Theory and Value Creation The transition toward a CE requires a fundamental shift in how value is created, distributed, and sustained across the value chain. Rather than focusing solely on firm-centric models of value creation aimed at maximizing efficiency and profit, CE emphasizes multi-dimensional value creation by integrating economic, environmental, and social benefits (Freudenreich et al., 2020; Kujala et al., 2019). Realizing this shift requires robust stakeholder collaboration, as CE principles call for long-term partnerships, knowledge exchange, and co-creation strategies that transcend organizational boundaries (Senaratne et al., 2023). This way of thinking fits naturally with stakeholder theory which pushes us to look beyond the boundaries of the firm and recognize the many actors that influence sustainability transitions. Introduced by Freeman (1984). Stakeholder Theory asserts that companies have to consider the interests of every actor who could affect or be affected by their operations. This inclusive perspective recognizes that long-term organizational success depends on developing and preserving relationships with a broad range of stakeholders, shifting away from the shareholder- centric models. Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization's purpose”. Furthermore, as outlined in Philips's (2003) descriptive stakeholder theory, the aim of stakeholder theory is to identify a firm's or organization's stakeholders and evaluate the conditions for engaging with them based on their influence relative to the organization's objectives. This aligns with the need in CE to recognize actors beyond immediate supply chain partners, including regulators, local communities, and environmental advocates. 13 What makes CE particularly complex is that value is no longer created in isolation. Instead, it results from joint efforts: shared data, co-designed solutions, long-term partnerships, and mutual accountability (Kujala et al., 2019). As Freudenreich et al. (2020) put it, CE shifts the question from “How do we create value?” to “With and for whom do we create value?” This change of mindset is especially important in fragmented sectors like construction, where collaboration is often the missing piece in circular efforts (Moscati et al., 2023). While this shift is relevant across industries, it is particularly critical in the construction sector, which is characterized by a fragmented value chain and complex, multi-actor dynamics. This fragmentation arises from the sector’s project-based nature, short-term contractual arrangements, and the involvement of multiple stakeholders with divergent incentives and limited continuity across project phases (Hart et al., 2019). In such contexts, value creation cannot remain confined within firm boundaries. Instead, CE models reframe value as a shared and co-produced outcome, necessitating collaborative structures, trust-based partnerships, and effective information exchange between stakeholders (Moscati et al., 2023). Recent research highlights that successful CE implementation in construction depends not only on stakeholder alignment but also on the development of internal innovation and digitalization capabilities that support collaboration and the co-creation of circular solutions (Durdyev et al., 2023). However, collaboration is often hindered by a lack of knowledge about CE practices, inconsistent data- sharing practices, and a failure to identify shared incentives across the value chain (Durdyev et al., 2023; Moscati et al., 2023). This gap between ambition and implementation makes it critical to understand who the key stakeholders are, and how to work with them effectively. This is where the Stakeholder Salience Model (Mitchell et al., 1997) becomes useful. While Stakeholder Theory gives us the broad landscape, the salience model helps narrow our focus by identifying which stakeholders are most likely to drive (or block) circular change. In construction, this might mean distinguishing between actors who are technically involved and those who are actually shaping outcomes, such as clients setting procurement rules, or municipalities enforcing climate targets. In this thesis, both the Stakeholder Theory and the Stakeholder Salience Model are used to explore how collaboration unfolds in practice, who holds influence, and how different types of engagement can accelerate or delay CE implementation. In doing so, the aim is not just to map 14 the actors, but to understand the conditions that allow collaboration to flourish in a sector where fragmentation is often the norm. 2.3. - The Stakeholder Salience Model In the construction industry, where multiple stakeholders interact across complex value chains, understanding stakeholder salience is critical to advancing CE adoption. While the Stakeholder Theory establishes that firms must consider all parties involved in their operations (Freeman, 1984), not all stakeholders hold equal influence.The Stakeholder Salience Model, developed by Mitchell et al., (1997), provides a structured framework for assessing and prioritizing stakeholders based on their attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency. The degree of salience primarily depends on the number of attributes a stakeholder possesses. It also relates to how much priority managers assign to conflicting stakeholder claims (Aaltonen et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 1997) . In essence, the model helps organizations identify which stakeholders require immediate attention and engagement. 2.3.1- Stakeholder Attributes The three attributes are defined as: - Power: Refers to a stakeholder's capacity to influence decisions, actions, and outcomes within an organization. In this context, one actor can motivate another actor to take actions they would not have taken otherwise (Mitchell et al., 1997). Power can be divided into three different classes: coercive, utilitarian, and normative. Coercive power is the capacity to impose physical resources of forces and threats, while utilitarian power is the control of material or financial resources. Normative power refers to the use of symbolic resources. (Etzioni, 1964). This power is transitory, it can both be acquired and lost over time. - Legitimacy: Describes the general perception that a stakeholder’s actions are appropriate, desirable, or proper within a social context of established norms, values, and legal standards. (Mitchell et al., 1997) 15 - Urgency: Refers to the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate organizational attention, and it is based on two features: time sensitivity and criticality. Time sensitivity is the extent to which delayed actions by management are unacceptable to the stakeholder, and criticality refers to the importance of the claim to the stakeholder. (Aaltonen et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 1997). In essence, urgency can be interpreted as the interest of the stakeholder. 2.3.2. - Stakeholder Typologies Based on these attributes, Mitchell et. Al (1997) developed a framework that categorizes stakeholders based on their one, two, or all of these attributes to identify the potential latent, expectant, and definitive stakeholders, as per Table 1 below. - Latent stakeholders possess only one of the three attributes, resulting in low salience and a reduced likelihood of having a meaningful influence on decision- making processes. Since managers have limited time, energy, and resources to monitor stakeholders’ behaviors and manage relationships, those stakeholders with only one attribute are often overlooked. However, the stakeholders can become more salient if they acquire one or both of the missing attributes. Latent Stakeholders can have different names based on which attribute they possess: o Dormant Stakeholders (Power only): These stakeholders can impose their will on a company but lack a legitimate relationship and do not have an urgent claim. Their potential influence remains dormant until they acquire legitimacy or urgency. o Discretionary Stakeholders (Legitimacy only): They have a legitimate claim but lack both power and a sense of urgency, which limits their influence. Managers may choose to engage with them out of goodwill rather than obligation. Without the attributes of power and urgency, organizations do not feel compelled to interact with them. 16 o Demanding Stakeholders (Urgency only): These stakeholders have urgent claims but lack power and legitimacy. They are considered “noise-makers” and their demands are often seen as annoying rather than pressing. - Expectant Stakeholders possess two out of three attributes, hold moderate importance, and anticipate that their claims will be acknowledged due to the presence of these two attributes. Typically, this type of stakeholder engages actively with the organization. Expectant stakeholders are classified into three different categories based on the attributes they have. o Dominant Stakeholders (Power & Legitimacy): They have significant influence and are considered important due to their formal relationship with the organization. Management tends to prioritize their interests even without urgent claims because they are perceived to be legitimate and able to act. o Dangerous Stakeholders (Power & Urgency): While they lack legitimacy, their combinations of power and urgency can pose serious threats. Their actions can be coercive or harmful if not addressed promptly. o Dependent Stakeholders (Legitimacy & Urgency): These stakeholders have valid claims that require immediate attention but lack the power to enforce change on their own. They often rely on alliances with powerful stakeholders to amplify their concerns. - Definitive Stakeholders have all three attributes present. The stakeholders are of the highest priority and salience. Organizations must address their claims promptly to avoid the consequences of the misperception or inattention of their claims. Any expectant stakeholder can become a definitive stakeholder if they acquire the missing attribute. 17 STAKEHOLDER CLASS TYPOLOGY ATTRIBUTES LATENT Dormant Power Discretionary Legitimacy Demanding Urgency EXPECTANT Dominant Power & Legitimacy Dangerous Power & Urgency Dependent Legitimacy & Urgency DEFINITIVE Definitive Power, Legitimacy, Urgency Table 1 - Stakeholder types in the salience stakeholder model. Adapted by (Kapiriri & Donya Razavi, 2021) This typology is particularly relevant in construction, where stakeholders such as material suppliers, regulators, contractors, and clients may shift in salience depending on project phases or external pressures (Aaltonen et al., 2008). For example, a supplier with unique circular materials may initially be seen as a discretionary stakeholder, but as environmental regulations tighten or material scarcity increases, their urgency and power may elevate their status to definitive. In this study, the Stakeholder Salience Model will be used as an analytical tool to categorize and interpret the positions of stakeholders identified through the interviews. By mapping 18 participants based on their perceived power, legitimacy, and urgency, this framework will help to assess the varying degrees of influence and priority assigned to different actors within the construction value chain. This approach will provide valuable insights into how stakeholder roles evolve in the context of circular economy adoption, highlighting which stakeholders are currently driving the transition, which are supporting, and which may require further engagement or empowerment to strengthen their impact on CE implementation. In doing so, the model supports a more nuanced analysis of stakeholder dynamics, allowing for the identification of leverage areas to accelerate collaboration and systemic change. 2.4 -Barriers and Enablers for Stakeholder Collaboration toward Circular Transitions 2.4.1 Enablers to Stakeholder Collaboration Collaboration between stakeholders is widely recognized as a key factor for accelerating the transition to CE in the construction sector. Implementing circular strategies requires coordinated planning, shared resource flows, and the alignment of goals across firms that traditionally operate independently. While collaboration is often difficult to achieve in practice, a growing body of literature has identified enabling factors that can support more integrated and strategic engagement between stakeholders across the construction value chain (Senaratne et al., 2023). Operational Enablers One of the most frequently cited enablers is the adoption of digital technologies that support transparency and information sharing. Tools such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), material passports, and digital twins enable actors to trace material flows, plan for disassembly, and coordinate reuse and recycling across organizational boundaries (Moscati et al., 2023). These systems not only provide technical visibility but also help stakeholders develop shared understanding around material quality, inventory management, and lifecycle planning (Durdyev et al., 2023; Senaratne et al., 2023). However, the effectiveness of these tools depends on their consistent implementation and the willingness of firms to engage in open data exchange (Karaca et al., 2024). Beyond technology, early-stage integration and project planning have been identified as essential for supporting collaboration. When CE principles are embedded 19 into procurement strategies, architectural design, and stakeholder selection from the beginning of a project, firms are more likely to engage in coordinated circular practices (Hart et al., 2019). Strategic alignment at the project outset ensures that stakeholders can co-create goals and clarify roles, reducing conflicts and inefficiencies later in the process (Senaratne et al., 2023). Moreover, when circular ambitions are included in tenders and public procurement guidelines, they serve as concrete incentives for collaboration and innovation (Karaca et al., 2024). Organizational Enablers Collaboration is also strengthened by clear and supportive institutional frameworks. Regulatory consistency and the development of industry-wide guidelines for reuse, recycling, and reverse logistics give stakeholders the confidence to invest in joint initiatives (Hart et al., 2019). When firms can rely on shared legal definitions and performance standards, they are more likely to enter long-term partnerships and co-develop solutions with reduced legal or operational risk (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). Regulatory clarity is particularly important in circular projects that span multiple actors and lifecycle stages, where uncertainty can otherwise discourage engagement (Senaratne et al., 2023). In addition to formal institutions, trust and relationship- building are foundational to effective collaboration. Research highlights that long-term relationships foster openness, reduce opportunistic behavior, and improve communication between partners (Karaca et al., 2024). Trust-based collaboration allows stakeholders to jointly explore new approaches, such as take-back schemes or modular construction, without fear of disproportionate risk or failure (Senaratne et al., 2023). Repeated collaboration across multiple projects can also build institutional memory and reduce the transaction costs of future coordination (Hart et al., 2019). Finally, organizational capacity and leadership commitment are key enablers. Firms that dedicate resources to sustainability teams, internal training, and CE champions are more likely to develop a culture of innovation and openness to collaboration (Hossain et al., 2020). These internal capacities help organizations not only respond to external CE demands but also proactively initiate partnerships that contribute to long-term value creation. Strong leadership signals a willingness to take risks, experiment with new models, and integrate CE objectives across the firm (Senaratne et al., 2023). Together, these enabling conditions, spanning digital infrastructure, regulatory clarity, early project alignment, and trust-building, form the foundation for collaborative CE transitions in the construction industry. Understanding and reinforcing these enablers is essential for 20 overcoming fragmentation and building cross-stakeholder relationships that support long-term circular transformation (Hart et al., 2019; Senaratne et al., 2023; Moscati et al., 2023). 2.4.2 Barriers to Stakeholder Collaboration While collaboration is widely recognized as a critical enabler of CE implementation in the construction sector, the practical part of cross-stakeholder coordination remains limited (Durdyev et al.,2023). Structural fragmentation, misaligned incentives, information asymmetries, and organizational resistance present significant challenges that stand in the way of successful collaboration. These barriers delay CE implementation and restrict the scaling of initiatives. Structural and Systemic Barriers A fundamental barrier is the fragmented and project-based structure of the construction industry, which leads to limited continuity between stakeholders and discourages long-term collaboration (Senaratne et al., 2023). Construction projects typically involve temporary coalitions of contractors, subcontractors, architects, and suppliers who operate under short-term contracts with narrowly defined scopes (Hossain et al., 2020). This fragmentation impedes the integration of circular planning across the building lifecycle and limits opportunities for reuse, reverse logistics, or shared design strategies (Senaratne et al., 2023). Bringing in additional groups like demolition contractors and reuse intermediaries often lacks clear rules. This makes it harder to coordinate efforts and creates uncertainty (Hart et al., 2019). Information asymmetry and lack of data transparency further restrict collaboration. Although digital technologies like BIM, material passports, and digital twins have the potential to facilitate cross-stakeholder information flows, their adoption remains fragmented and inconsistent across the industry (Moscati et al., 2023). Stakeholders often rely on incompatible systems or withhold information due to concerns about intellectual property or competitive advantage (Karaca et al., 2024). Without shared protocols for data exchange or incentives to disclose material information, stakeholders face difficulty in aligning design choices, coordinating reuse processes, or validating material quality (Moscati et al., 2023; Hossain et al., 2020). Institutional and Organizational Barriers 21 Regulatory complexity also poses a substantial barrier. While CE is increasingly embedded in European and national sustainability agendas, the operationalization of circular principles at the sectoral level remains inconsistent (Hart et al., 2019). Regulations governing waste classification, building codes, or public procurement are often misaligned or lack clarity on material reuse and recycling requirements (Durdyev et al., 2023; Senaratne et al., 2023). This ambiguity fosters risk aversion and hesitancy among firms, particularly when collaborative strategies cross regulatory jurisdictions or rely on novel practices with no legal precedent (Karaca et al., 2024). In addition, financial asymmetries between stakeholders frequently inhibit collaboration. CE initiatives often entail high upfront costs related to design adaptation, material sorting, or the development of reverse logistics systems (Karaca et al., 2024). These costs are not evenly distributed across the value chain and disproportionately affect small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs), which may lack the capacity to engage in co-financed initiatives or endure longer return-on-investment periods (Hossain et al., 2020). When financial risks are not equitably shared or when procurement practices prioritize the lowest-cost bidder, stakeholders are disincentivized from entering partnerships that require shared resource commitments (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). Finally, organizational and cultural resistance to change can undermine collaborative efforts. The construction industry is traditionally oriented toward efficiency, speed, and cost-minimization—values that often conflict with the iterative planning, long-term engagement, and experimentation required by circular strategies (Hart et al., 2019). Even where CE is acknowledged as strategically important, firms may lack internal processes or leadership commitment to pursue collaborative projects that fall outside traditional project delivery models (Senaratne et al., 2023). In such cases, circular initiatives are sidelined or deprioritized, particularly when they are not embedded in formal project mandates or procurement criteria (Karaca et al., 2024). In sum, while the literature consistently frames stakeholder collaboration as central to circular construction, systemic barriers, ranging from project fragmentation and data silos to regulatory and financial misalignment, prevent its widespread realization (Senaratne et al., 2023; Hart et al., 2019; Moscati et al., 2023). Understanding and addressing these barriers is essential for developing governance models, incentive structures, and industry norms that foster effective and durable collaboration across the value chain. 22 3. Methodology 3.1- Research Strategy and Design This study was based on a qualitative, exploratory research design, chosen for its ability to capture the complexity of stakeholder collaboration in the context of CE implementation. Qualitative research was particularly useful when the aim was to explore socially embedded processes that don’t easily fit into numerical data (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Because CE adoption involved more than just technical change, often requiring organizational shifts, new ways of working together, and alignment across stakeholders, this approach allowed for deeper engagement with participants’ experiences and perspectives. The research was exploratory in nature, as it addressed a relatively under-examined topic: the role of stakeholder collaboration in enabling CE transitions in construction. Exploratory research was considered appropriate for this study, as theoretical guidance was limited and the goals was to uncover new insights and relationships (Bell et al., 2019). While previous studies have explored CE practices in construction and stakeholder engagement separately, few have specifically investigated how collaboration between actors across the value chain influences the implementation and scaling of circular practices. To guide the process, an abductive strategy was followed, which allowed moving back and forth between theory and data. Unlike research that starts with a fixed hypothesis or builds an entirely new theory from scratch, abduction provides space for ideas to evolve as patterns emerge in the field (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Conaty, 2021). This back-and-forth dialogue between what was expected to see and what was observed made it possible to refine the analytical lens throughout the process. The study began with the development of an interview guide informed by key theoretical concepts. These initial ideas gave structure to the research, but kept things flexible to allow participants to bring up new or unexpected topics. This openness was important for capturing the full range of experiences, especially given how differently circular practices can be approached in construction. 23 As themes and patterns emerged from the empirical material, a theory-probing phase followed. This involved returning to the literature to assess whether theoretical frameworks adequately explained the observed dynamics. This step allowed for the refinement of key constructs, such as how stakeholder roles shift over time, or how urgency may intensify depending on project phases or regulatory contexts. It also provided an opportunity to integrate salience theory with broader insights from CE scholarship regarding system-level coordination challenges (e.g., Durdyev et al., 2023; Hart et al., 2019). The process was summarized visually in Figure 2 below that shows how the study evolved through continuous iteration between theory, data, coding, and reflection. Figure 2: Abductive research process followed in this study. Adapted from Conaty (2021). 24 3.2 - Data Collection 3.2.1 - Participant Selection Participants were selected using a purposive sampling strategy, which is widely used in qualitative research to identify individuals with specific knowledge relevant to the research objectives (Bell et al., 2019). Given the study’s focus participants were chosen based on their strategic involvement in CE-related roles such as sustainability, innovation, or environmental strategy. To ensure a value chain perspective, the sample targeted three key actor groups: 1. Building material manufacturers, due to their upstream influence on product design, material inputs, and environmental performance. 2. Construction companies, as intermediaries who manage project execution, supply chain coordination, and material flows. 3. Real estate firms, which are responsible for the operation, management, and reuse potential of built assets. These groups were identified based on their strategic importance in the construction ecosystem and their interdependencies in enabling or inhibiting circular transitions. By selecting stakeholders from across the value chain, the study aimed to capture inter-organizational dynamics, power asymmetries, and collaboration patterns relevant to CE adoption. While the construction sector includes many other actors, such as architects, demolition contractors, consultants, and public agencies, this study focused on the three groups most directly responsible for shaping circular practices at a systemic level. Their decisions influence key levers of CE implementation, including material choices, project planning, and long-term building use. Other actors often play important but more specialized or project-specific roles and typically have less influence over value chain-wide strategies. Narrowing the scope in this way allowed the study to explore stakeholder collaboration in depth, without diluting the focus on those most positioned to drive or block circular transitions in practice Purposive sampling aligned well with the study’s abductive and exploratory design, which sought analytical depth rather than statistical generalization (Bell et al., 2019). Participants were 25 selected to capture diverse, informed perspectives on stakeholder dynamics and circular collaboration. To complement this, a snowball sampling strategy was also used to access additional relevant participants, especially given the emerging nature of CE in construction and the limited formal networks in this field (Noy, 2008). Several interviewees were recommended by Per Östling through The ( ) Space, a collaborative platform for sustainability-driven innovation in Sweden, where they are actively involved in connecting academia and industry. The final sample consisted of nine participants, all of whom held strategic or operational responsibilities related to CE within their organizations. This sample size was sufficient to reach informational saturation for thematic analysis, given the focused scope of the research and the expertise of the participants (Bell et al. 2019). Saturation was observed when no new themes or perspectives emerged across the later interviews, indicating that the core patterns in stakeholder collaboration had been adequately captured. A full overview of interviewees and session details is provided in Table 2 below. 26 Interviewee Company Role Mode of Duration Date ID Type Interview Construction March 11th, C-01 Company CEO In person 35 mins 2025 Sustainability Material Manager March 11th, M-02 Manufacturer Sweden Online 30 mins 2025 Real Estate Sustainability March 12th, R-03 Company Specialist Online 30 mins 2025 Material Sustainability March 14th, M-04 Manufacturer Manager Online 30 mins 2025 Construction Sustainability March 17th, C-05 Company Specialist Online 55 mins 2025 Material Sustainability March 18th, M-06 Manufacturer Specialist Online 45 mins 2025 Real Estate Sustainability March 19th, R-07 Company Manager Online 25 mins 2025 April 2nd, Sustainability 2025 Real Estate and Quality R-08 Company Manager Online 30 mins Real Estate Sustainability April 4th, R-09 Company Specialist Online 35 mins 2025 Table 2: Interviewees Information. Developed by the authors 27 3.2.2 - Primary Data: Semi-Structured Interviews To explore stakeholder perspectives on the adoption of CE and the role of collaboration across the construction value chain, the study employed semi-structured interviews as the primary method of data collection. This approach was selected for its ability to combine structure with flexibility, ensuring comparability across interviews while allowing participants to elaborate on the issues most relevant to them (Bell et al. 2019). Given the exploratory nature of the research, semi-structured interviews were particularly appropriate for capturing nuanced views, organizational experiences, and emerging themes that may not have been anticipated in advance. The interview guide was designed around ten core open-ended questions covering key areas such as CE engagement, stakeholder influence, collaborative practices, business model evolution, and perceived barriers to circular integration. Follow-up questions were posed depending on the flow of each conversation, allowing deeper exploration of specific topics raised by participants. While the same guide was used for all interviews, minor adaptations were made based on the participant’s role and company type. The full guide is provided in Appendix A. Each interview began with a short introduction outlining the purpose and scope of the study, clarifying its academic intent, and reassuring participants about confidentiality. Participants were asked for verbal consent to record the conversation, with the explicit clarification that recordings would be used solely for transcription and academic analysis. At the end of each session, participants were invited to share any final reflections or points not covered, and were thanked for their time and contribution. The interviews were conducted between March and April 2025. One interview took place in person, while the remaining sessions were held online using Microsoft Teams. They lasted between 25 and 55 minutes, depending on participant availability and the depth of discussion. An overview of the interviews, including participant roles, company types, and session logistics, is provided in Table 2 (see Section 3.2.1). All interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and preserve the richness of participant responses. Microsoft Teams’ built-in transcription tool was used for interviews conducted on the platform, while the Aiko transcription software was used 28 for those recorded separately on mobile devices. In addition to transcriptions, field notes were taken during and after the interviews to capture contextual details, tone, and early analytical impressions. These notes supported the later phases of analysis by helping to contextualize the coding and interpretation process. 3.2.3 - Secondary Data In addition to primary data collection through interviews, this study made use of secondary data to provide contextual insights and support the analysis of stakeholder perspectives. Secondary sources included publicly available company documents, primarily sustainability reports, which offered a broader understanding of how firms publicly articulate their CE commitments and position themselves within industry-wide sustainability agendas (Bowen, 2009). These documents helped contextualize interviewee responses and revealed how CE was framed at a strategic level. Document selection was conducted systematically by reviewing the official websites of the companies represented in the interview sample. The focus was placed on the most recent sustainability reports to ensure the relevance and timeliness of the information. As these documents are publicly accessible, no permissions were required for their use. In addition to formal documents, the study also drew on industry media, such as a recorded webinar from the Nordic Circular Hotspot, which provided insights into regional CE initiatives, collaborative efforts, and policy developments in the construction sector. Unlike the interview data, the secondary data was not subjected to formal coding. Instead, it was used contextually to support the development of the interview guide, inform the researchers’ understanding of the organizational environment, and enhance the interpretation of empirical findings. By integrating secondary data in this way, the study sought to increase the credibility and depth of its analysis through methodological triangulation (Patton, 2015). 3.3 - Data Analysis The interview data was analyzed using thematic analysis, a widely recognized method for identifying, organizing, and interpreting patterns within qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 29 2006). This approach was chosen for its flexibility and suitability for examining complex topics such as stakeholder collaboration and CE adoption. The analysis followed the structured process proposed by Nowell et al. (2017). It began with the familiarization phase through a close reading of transcripts and a review of audio recordings, which supported the identification of early patterns. Initial coding was then conducted using NVivo software, guided by an inductive approach that emphasized recurring ideas related to collaboration dynamics, barriers to CE, and organizational readiness. Early coding helped maintain analytical focus and manage the volume of qualitative material. Once initial codes were established, they were reviewed and grouped into broader themes through an iterative process informed by the abductive research design. This involved moving between the empirical data and theoretical concepts to ensure that themes remained grounded in participant experiences while also reflecting the stakeholder salience model. Field notes taken during and after interviews were incorporated into the analysis to provide contextual depth and support interpretation. Secondary data such as company sustainability reports was not formally coded but was used to triangulate findings and strengthen contextual understanding. Themes were reviewed and refined for clarity, internal consistency, and relevance to the research objectives. Although the analysis allowed for both convergences and divergences, the results primarily showed alignment across participant perspectives regarding collaboration conditions and barriers to CE adoption. The final coding structure is presented in Appendix B to support transparency. 3.4 - Research Quality To ensure research quality in this qualitative study, the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were applied, as recommended by Bell et al. (2019) and Nowell et al. (2017). These dimensions are well-suited to qualitative research, where traditional notions of validity and reliability require adaptation to capture the complexity of social phenomena. Credibility refers to how accurately the findings represent participants’ views and lived experiences. This was enhanced by recording and transcribing all interviews verbatim, 30 reviewing transcripts alongside audio recordings, and developing themes iteratively based on both empirical material and theoretical concepts. These steps ensured a strong link between the data and the analytical interpretations. Transferability concerns the extent to which findings may apply to other contexts. While generalization is not the goal in qualitative research, detailed descriptions of the sample, interview process, and analysis allow readers to assess the relevance of the results beyond this case. Given the structural similarities across construction sectors in other countries, the findings may be transferable to comparable industry settings. Dependability relates to the consistency and transparency of the research process. This was supported by systematic documentation of data collection and analysis procedures, including the use of NVivo for coding and the application of a structured thematic analysis framework (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Notes taken throughout the research process also helped track analytical decisions and interpretations. Confirmability addresses the extent to which findings are grounded in the data rather than researcher bias. An abductive approach supported this aim by moving between data and theory, while the use of secondary materials such as company reports helped triangulate and validate interview insights. Throughout the process, care was taken to ensure transparency in how conclusions were drawn. Together, these practices contribute to the trustworthiness of the study and support the credibility and relevance of its findings. The next chapter presents the empirical results that emerged from this process. 31 4. Empirical Results 4.1 - Theme 1: Circular Practices and Implementation in Construction Value Chain 4.1.1 - Sub-theme 1.1: Definitions and Perspectives The interviewed companies described different views on what the CE means in a construction setting. Discussions did not produce a simple, unified definition, but several common themes emerged. R-07 described the CE as the effort to extend the life of materials and products for as long as possible: "The circular economy is about keeping materials and products in use for as long as possible." This view focuses on extending the life of materials to reduce the need for new resources. A few other participants mentioned that circularity is closely linked to the use of secondary materials and reducing reliance on virgin resources. M-02 explained: "For us, it's about reducing the use of clinker and increasing the use of secondary materials." This shows how shifting materials plays a key role in reaching circular goals. Design considerations were also highlighted as essential for enabling circularity. M-04 stressed the need to think about how things will end up when they’re done being used right from the design phase "For us, it’s about designing for circularity and considering the end-of-life from the start." This approach connects the design phase directly to reuse and recyclability strategies. Similarly, C-05 summarised circularity as a combination of waste reduction, material reuse, and long-term use: "It's about reducing waste, reusing materials, and making sure that what we build can be used for a long time." This perspective provides an integrated understanding of CE principles, from decisions on material choices to durability of buildings. These different views highlight the different ways the companies interviewed perceived the CE, with a common emphasis on preserving resources and reusing materials, but varying priorities for design, material substitution, and operational procedures. 32 Building on these understandings of the circular economy, the companies have implemented various initiatives to apply these principles in practice. 4.1.2 - Sub-theme 1.2: CE Initiatives The empirical results demonstrate an operational commitment to CE principles by revealing a range of circular efforts already being implemented by companies throughout the construction value chain. These efforts, which are summed up in Table 3, show how organizations are putting CE principles into practice. They primarily concentrate on extending material lifespans, closing resource loops, and designing buildings and components for future adaptability. Initiative Companies Involved Description Material Reuse/ C-01, R-03, C-05, R-07, Reuse of construction materials and Efficiency R-08, R-09 reclaimed materials from renovations or demolitions. Reuse Hubs / Material R-03, R-07, R-08, R-09 Establishing shared or internal spaces Banks for storing and redistributing reclaimed materials Take-back systems M-06 Collecting flooring offcuts and used flooring from customers for recycling into new products. Design for R-03, M-04, C-05 Designing buildings and spaces to be Adaptability flexible and adaptable to future changes Use of Industrial By- M-02, M-04 Integrating by-products from other Products industries (e.g., fly ash) Table 3 - Circular economy initiatives implemented by the interviewed companies. Developed by the authors 33 The emphasis on material efficiency and reuse is one of the most widespread strategies among the companies’ interviewees. To reduce the demand for additional resources, some companies give priority to reusing materials that are already integrated into existing buildings. For instance, R-07 detailed an internal preservation strategy: "We try to focus first on keeping what we already have in the building, like not tearing down walls if we don't have to." In similar terms, R-08 emphasized the need to preserve existing materials for as long as possible in order to prevent the need for new ones: "(...) we try to use the buildings and the material as long as we can. (...) We try to prolong the age of the materials and we try to renovate." By incorporating externally acquired reused material into their construction processes, other businesses expand reuse methods beyond individual projects. C-05 provided an actual example of this strategy: "We use like recycled bricks. We have two projects that are going now at the central station." Some companies prioritize material efficiency programs to cut down on needless waste in addition to reuse strategies. The use of cut-to-order gypsum, as demonstrated by C-01, has resulted in a notable decrease in waste: "For gypsum, we're looking at essentially ordering cut- to-order, to minimize waste on the construction site. (...) We did it a couple of years ago with one supplier in a bunch of schools, preschools in Stockholm. I think the waste percentage went from almost 30% down to like 4 or 5%." To encourage the redistribution of excess materials, several companies have established internal material exchange platforms or reuse hubs, R-03 explained their internal reuse system, which uses a specialized platform to distribute materials within the organization:" It's kind of like a platform where you buy and sell the building materials. (...) The exchange and selling is within our company right now, but there's at least a platform that you can use." To help with internal circulation, employees can use this platform to upload materials that are still usable in other projects, Additionally, external reuse hubs have been created in partnership with other organizations. R-07 provided an example of this collaborative initiative: "In some cities, we work with reuse hubs. Like in Gothenburg, we work with Rebygg. It's a cooperation between different real estate companies and a contractor, where we just give the material we don't need away, and then we buy material from the hub." These hubs serve as storage facilities for excess materials, allowing companies to find recovered supplies for new initiatives. 34 Additionally, according to R-09, Gothenburg has a city-level reuse platform that focuses on office furniture and works with several organizations: "All companies and different parts of the city can leave desks and chairs and bookshelves, and then any other company within the city can pick up their furniture there." The purpose of this platform is to decrease the need for new resources and promote material reuse. Take-back initiatives have been implemented by a manufacturer we spoke with to recover material produced both during installation and at the end of the product’s life cycle. M-06 explained how their company gathers flooring scraps: "When they, for example, install a flooring, there's usually a certain amount of offcuts generated (...) And that's something that we offer to the customer, that we take that back for free and recycle that into new raw materials." The same respondent explained the expansion of this approach to used flooring: "We have expanded our take-back scheme to post-consumer flooring as well, meaning that once a building is demolished, or a floor is removed, we try to take that back to our factories." Efforts to design buildings and components for future adaptability were noted by some companies. C-05 described their methodology as designing buildings that can be disassembled like modular elements: "If we build a building, when we stand here in 50 years, how could you put it down like Lego pieces?" Similarly, M-04 mentioned the use of demountable walls: "We chose walls that you can demount and then put again two or three times." Lastly, a few companies described the use of industrial by-products to reduce the use of raw materials. According to M-02, they use resources like fly ash and slag in the manufacturing of cement: "We use by-products in the cement, fly ash for example, or slag. (...) These are coming from the steel industry or energy production." Using these by-products reduces the demand for virgin inputs replacing the traditional cement component. Similarly, M-04 stated that they are working to reduce the use of conventional materials in their products, stating: "We would like to use as little cement or clinker as possible in the product." These practices enable companies to substitute primary materials with secondary resources from other industries. 35 4.2 - Theme 2: Stakeholder collaboration and dynamics 4.2.1 - Sub-theme 2.1: Stakeholders and their influence The research results revealed that the circular economy implementation in the construction value chain is influenced by a huge variety of stakeholders. Along with internal company actors, these actors include property developers, contractors, public authorities, and policy makers, each playing a distinct role in shaping how and whether CE practices are adopted and operationalized. Within companies, the emergence of sustainability managers and project managers as notable internal actors is realized. Sustainability managers are the ones to succeed in encouraging CE practices within the companies by promoting those. As described by R-03: "I continuously support projects in their effort to achieve those requirements and work with the developers and the contractors and the project teams to make sure that we achieve our environmental and climate goals." The project managers, in contrast, are the ones who have the authority to decide on materials and construction techniques. As stated by R-07: "We have project managers and they are the ones, I would say, that decide in the end what materials we use in the buildings.". This dualism reveals a common tension: sustainability teams promote long-term CE ambitions, whose achievement relies on project managers’ short-term goals, which can favor cost and speed at the expense of the environment. Therefore, internal alignment rather than only individual advocacy is necessary for CE integration. Property developers also occupy an influential position in the value chain, because they frequently have control over project financing and design standards. This critical role in promoting or restricting circular practices, was noted by several interviewees. INT-0T stated: “The property developers, they have the money. They get to decide what gets built.” R-09 shared a similar perspective, pointing out that when their company is in charge of the development, CE is much simpler to implement: “When we develop buildings ourselves, we can integrate reuse much easier because we control the whole process.” This control goes beyond choices made within the company: “"We have our contractors, and they have to choose secondhand building materials first, and then they can choose new materials.", they clarified. In other words, developers have direct control over how circularity is implemented on the ground when they establish clear expectations at the top. 36 Contractors and other external stakeholders are also essential, particularly when it comes to operationalizing CE measures like material sorting and reuse. From a supplier perspective, M- 06 explained: "They are the ones who are generating these offcuts. So they are the ones who are collecting it.". Therefore, contractors involvement is essential to guarantee that usable materials are identified, managed properly, and reintegrated into new projects. Circular practices are also influenced by public entities, especially municipalities, through procurement requirements and policies. R-09 explained: "We have great targets within the city of Gothenburg. And we have to, we are supposed to decrease our climate footprint." Circular initiatives can therefore be enabled by policy frameworks and public procurement practices. However, a few interviewees noted that some existing regulations do not always support circular goals: “"We see today that the legislation is not adapted for reused materials. So it's hard to scale up these kinds of solutions.", R-08 noted out. This suggested that although public actors have a lot of power, the regulatory frameworks limit their ability to promote circularity. Overall, the findings show a complex stakeholder environment, where both internal and external players have a significant impact on how circular economy projects are implemented. The necessity for coordination and alignment to promote circular practices in the construction industry is underscored by the disparities in influence across the different players. 4.2.2 - Sub-theme 2.2: Collaboration Challenges and Missed Opportunities The empirical results show several barriers to collaboration in the construction sector. They include challenges in existing partnerships as well in areas where potential collaboration have not yet been formed. Missed opportunities are areas where collaboration could take place but isn’t happening right now, whereas collaboration challenges are issues that come up during ongoing cooperation. Collaboration challenges Interviewees described communication and timing challenges, particularly around the planning and reuse of materials. M-06 explained: "We are not really contacted early on in the process. We are sort of contacted at the end.". "For instance, if a building is scheduled for demolition 37 and has materials that could be reused, don’t demolish it until there’s another project ready to use those parts. So, the timing between projects is really important.", M-02 added. These insights underscore a recurring barrier: project-based time frames are often misaligned across the actors, which compromises material reuse. Even when reuse is technically feasible, unclear communication about roles and expectations creates a challenge. As M-06 noted: "We also need to inform the demolition company or those that are managing this material that it needs to be handled in a specific way. That’s something that we have found is a bit difficult." This highlights a broader issue also mentioned among participants: there’s a lack of clear and well- communicated protocols among the suppliers and contractors. Another challenge highlighted was to motivate stakeholders to work together. According to M- 06: "Each of the different stakeholders [needs] to find the benefit of working in this collaboration. Like, is there an economic benefit to this or is there a legal benefit to this or maybe just an internal benefit to this?" Without obvious financial, legal, or strategic benefits, stakeholders might prioritize collaboration. Tenant expectations were also emphasized as a challenge. R-07 stated: "We need to collaborate with them early to tell them that we’re going to use a lot of reuse in your tenant adaptation, and it will look nice, but we’ll use it. [...] We have to show them what we’ll do and also tell them that it will look nice and they will be happy." This reflects a communication and expectation management gap. While tenants don’t actively oppose CE practices, they often mistake reuse for worse quality, which makes it difficult for users to accept it. Another concern that was brought up was the contactors’ degree of expertise and experience. R-09 said: “ "If we work with the contractors that are experienced within the sustainability area, it’s much better.". This suggests that skills gaps across contractors can make or break CE efforts. Contractor with low sustainability knowledge may default to conventional practices, delaying or derailing collaborative CE strategies. Lastly, another challenging aspect mentioned by some interviewers was fragmented systems. C-05 said: "Currently, there are too many fragmented systems. Ideally, an authority should manage this, so that when we have reused materials, they are verified and entered into an official database." Without centralized coordination or data infrastructure, CE practices remain 38 difficult to scale-up because fragmentation limits transparency, consistency, and cross-project learning. Missed opportunities Some interviewees describe situations in which collaboration had not yet emerged but would in future facilitate circular practices. Logistics and scaling up were mentioned as areas for improvement. According to R-03: “"Hopefully, the upscaling of the whole process [will make it] more profitable for the stakeholders that actually offer the whole of the logistics around it." Currently, many circular collaborations remain at the pilot stage due to lack of infrastructure and market readiness. Reused material marketplaces were also discussed as a tool underexplored by the contractors. According to R-08: "We have like the CC Build, the marketplace, and there’s a lot of products and we could put on a lot of products on the market, but that’s not where the constructors go to buy or look for products.". This reveals a disconnection between platforms and contractors behaviors. Despite their potential, reuse marketplaces have failed to become embedded in procurement activities, in part due to lack of familiarity, trust, and ease of access. Some interviewees brought up the fact that some materials don’t have established value chains. R-07 said: "There is no established network for it, no official market in a way." Similarly, M- 06 noted: "It’s a big industry that has a big, big value chain and supply chain that needs to be, everyone needs to be on board in order for it to become circular. It can’t just be like one, like the manufacturing companies can’t just drag everyone with them. It has to be like everyone else." These quotes highlight a systemic issue: collaboration fails when material loops are incomplete or when stakeholders act isolated. The participation of material manufacturers in take-back programs was also mentioned. According to R-09, "We need together with like constructors, contractors, find a way for like producers of materials to take back products and remodel, upcycle or like whatever they needed so that we also can buy back product that’s already used, but in the same channels as we’d buy new products." Collaborative CE must extend beyond construction and include upstream actors like producers who can close the loop through take-back programs and remanufacturing. 39 The results outline a variety of collaboration challenges that companies are now facing as well as missed opportunities for future collaboration that might promote circular practices in the construction sector. 4.2.3 - Sub-theme 2.3: Strategies to Improve Collaboration The interviews revealed a variety of strategies currently being considered or adopted by companies to enhance collaboration throughout the construction sector. These strategies are related to improving communication, creating collaborative platforms, and aligning economic incentives. and exchanging knowledge and success stories. Early and continuous communication Several interviewees emphasized how crucial it is to establish and sustain communication early in projects. R-07 stated: "Yeah, I think with tenants, you need to have a really early discussion as early as possible because that will make it easier." The necessity of regular communication with tenants was also emphasized by R-09, which said: "Increase the presence of the topic at the meetings with tenants." The interviewee also highlighted the significance of following up during the project’s execution: "And make sure that they get the right information in starting up the project. And they then also in the middle like check if we are getting the right direction.". In addition to sharing information, M-04 explained that collaboration is a continuous process: "And we are really learning together, and it requires a lot of working together. Not just sharing information, but also like working kind of together.". These quotes highlight that effective communication is not a one-time effort, but a continuous process. The likelihood of success is higher for projects that incorporate CE goals from the beginning and stay aligned throughout execution, especially when this involves co-learning rather than just reporting. Building collaborative platforms and hubs Interviewees also mentioned the role of hubs and platforms in promoting collaboration and information sharing. R-03 suggested creating regionally or publicly supported platforms: "Maybe like create this kind of like, similar platforms that are like commercial ones that are 40 owned by the I don’t know, region or a state that is like more at least at the beginning, maybe it’s not so it’s not so focused on the profit or for the profit from the private companies.". R-07 described internal platforms that facilitate exchanges within the business network: "So, that’s a good way to work with it, I think, to have a storage where you can sell and buy from your colleagues in the business." M-04 mentioned their involvement in a circularity network: "Yeah, we have like this circularity network where we share. It is a bit like, our products are so different." This suggests that collaborative platforms are essential to overcome the fragmentation seen in earlier sub-themes. Lastly, M-06 emphasized the broader potential of creating communication platforms: "And just developing platforms or ways of communicating this, not just from a target point of view, but from a construction industry point of view. (...) Would for sure enhance or speed up the process of actually using these circular solutions." Here, platforms are not only technical tools but also social enablers. Aligning economic incentives and benefits A few interviewees mentioned how financial incentives might foster better teamwork - a dynamic that was also seen in previous sub-themes as a barrier. M-06 observed: "And part of improving this is for each of the different stakeholders to find the benefit of working in this collaboration. Like, is there an economic benefit to this or is there a legal benefit to this or maybe just an internal benefit to this? And today that’s lacking in some parts or in quite a lot of parts." R-03 reflected on the importance of achieving a profitable scale in order to foster a more organic collaboration: "So as soon as they get profitable, as soon as they get enough stakeholders to cooperate with them, and the scale will get up, then it will be much easier, I guess, to get it as a natural process, not just something like flux that soon appears." This points out that incentives must evolve with scale and must be clear and consistent for everyone involved. Sharing knowledge and success stories Another strategy to promote collaboration mentioned by the interviewees was to share best practices and experiences. R-07 described this as a gradual process: "But I think it’s a journey. 41 (...) And I think we’re getting better and better, but some are early adopters and some are more hesitant. (...) So, I think it’s a question about time and telling it again and again and showing good examples." Similarly, R-09 shared their perspectives on learning from others: "Yeah, and they also like, they (sister companies) use secondhand building material and so they are inspiring. For us, we don’t build that many new buildings, but we make renovations." This suggests that witnessing CE in action builds momentum and reduces resistance. Success stories serve as a form of reputational proof, validating CE as not only feasible but desirable. Together, these strategies reflect an emerging toolkit for CE collaboration. In addition to technical competence, they are united by the development of mutual benefit, trust and shared meaning. Although early initiatives often depend on ad hoc efforts, the trend is towards institutionalized collaboration, which includes integrated platforms, structured communication, and clear incentives. These insights lay the groundwork for determining which types of collaborative capacity needs to be expanded and which stakeholders must take ownership in order to mainstream CE in the construction sector. 4.3 -Theme 3: Barriers and Drivers for integration of circular strategies Although the integration of CE principles into construction projects is happening gradually, the process is not going smoothly. The interviews revealed a range of factors that shape CE implementation, both as barriers and as drivers. This theme is organized around two sub- themes: the first looks at the main barriers that prevent circular practices from being used throughout the construction value chain and the second looks at the factors that support and accelerate adoption. 4.3.1 - Sub-theme 3.1: Barriers to CE Adoption Although businesses throughout the construction value chain are increasingly adopting CE principles, numerous ongoing obstacles impede the widespread implementation and growth of circular practices. The research findings indicate that these obstacles are complex and include limitations related to time, finance, operations, regulations, and systemic issues. 42 Time-related challenges were frequently mentioned as a key barrier, particularly regarding project planning and implementation. Many circular solutions require extended timelines for coordination, material recovery, or logistics. R-07 described how time constraints affect material reuse: “The more reuse we want to do, the more time we need to plan and calculate. That costs money.” Similarly, C-01 explained that tight schedules often lead to the exclusion of more sustainable options: “A lot of sustainability solutions aren’t chosen just because it’s tight timewise.” These concerns were reinforced by M-02, who highlighted timing challenges associated with low-carbon materials: “If you use less cement in a product, it takes a longer time for it to become hard. (…) That clashes (…) you don’t have that time when you're building houses.” Even when circular solutions were implemented successfully, the additional time required was noted as a barrier to replication, with R-08 recalling: “It took a lot of time.” These examples reflect a core tension: circularity is a process that takes time but construction projects are often set up to prioritize speed and minimize disruptions. Financial constraints were another recurring theme. Several interviewees noted that circular strategies often involve added costs, whether due to storage, transport, planning, or uncertainty, which can be difficult to justify within conventional project budgets. C-01 remarked: “It’s very hard to implement solutions if there aren’t financial gains in a very low-margin construction. Everything boils down to money.” For R-08, the economic implications were particularly evident in a pilot project: “It was costly, much more costly than any other project. (…) We cannot work like that.” From the supplier perspective, R-09 described the financial limitations of scaling take-back systems: “We have to finance the take-back, transport, and cleaning. And clients don’t always want to pay more for that.” Operational and technical challenges also emerged as significant barriers. Respondents described the complexity of working with secondhand materials, particularly in terms of quality control, logistics, and on-site coordination. As R-03 noted, “Sometimes it’s too complicated to dismantle. It’s easier to just buy new.” The lack of established routines for handling reused components often puts pressure on project teams. M-06 described the expectations of end-users: “Tenants want flooring that looks new but is reused — that’s almost impossible.” C-01 added that such solutions demand unfamiliar workflows: “It requires a different kind of logistics to reuse something. It might need storage, handling, quality checks, and people aren’t used to that.” 43 Barriers related to policy and regulation were also present, particularly where existing legislation was perceived as incompatible with reuse. In some cases, regulatory standards explicitly prohibited the use of reclaimed materials. R-07 commented: “You’re not allowed to take used toilets, for example. Even though they work perfectly.” Other respondents pointed to waste classification laws as restrictive. As M-06 explained, “Waste legislation is usually a bit tougher than the European average.” The lack of policy alignment was also highlighted by M- 02: “We rely on standards and the standards don’t support this. So we can’t actually benefit from the lower CO₂ emissions.” This shows that policy goals and practical regulations are not always in sync, which creates confusion among the stakeholders. Finally, limitations related to scalability and market infrastructure were frequently cited. While many companies had initiated promising reuse initiatives, these efforts were often isolated or dependent on specific local conditions. C-01 reflected: “It works in smaller pilot projects, but to make it part of standard practice, it needs to scale — and that’s the big challenge.” Interviewees also pointed to the lack of accessible, integrated markets for reused materials. M- 04 noted: “There is no official market in a way.” Even when reuse platforms exist, such as CCBuild, their adoption remains limited. As R-09 observed, “We’re doing it in selected projects, but to scale it across all markets is extremely complex.” 4.3.2 - Sub-theme 3.2: Drivers to CE Adoption The empirical findings indicate that despite several challenges, companies across the construction value chain are actively developing strategies and conditions that support the implementation of CE practices. These enablers can be grouped into five main areas: environmental motivation, financial viability, material scarcity, operational innovations, and supportive policy frameworks. Environmental considerations emerged as a strong driver across many interviews. Several participants emphasized that sustainability and climate objectives underpin their efforts to integrate CE into construction activities. For example, C-01 stated: “We do this primarily for the climate. Financial is second.” Similarly, C-05 shared that their corporate vision is rooted in ecological responsibility: “We are located at the core of the circular bioeconomy in a way.” 44 Financial factors were also described as important motivators when cost-saving opportunities align with CE strategies. In some cases, reducing waste and material usage offered tangible economic benefits. C-01 explained: “From a total cost, you can actually make money out of these sorts of solutions.” In other instances, companies noted that reuse enabled them to cut costs by reducing procurement or landfill expenses. For example, R-03 noted that reusing bricks already available on-site contributed to substantial savings. This shows that CE isn’t always more expensive, it depends on how the project is structured and whether circularity is planned from the start. Material scarcity and supply chain disruptions were identified as unintentional but effective enablers of circular practices. Several interviewees noted that difficulties in sourcing new materials pushed them to explore reuse out of necessity and act as a shortcut to innovation. As C-05 recalled: “When we couldn’t get virgin raw materials due to shortages, we were pushed to innovate , and it worked.” R-03 similarly observed: “Problems in our international relations were a blessing for that matter.” Beyond motivations and constraints, several firms have invested in operational solutions that make circular strategies more feasible. These include platforms for internal material exchange, design practices that support flexibility, and supplier partnerships for product take-back. For example, M-06 described their company’s closed-loop system: “We’ve implemented a take- back scheme for installation waste. (…) We’ve expanded this to post-consumer flooring — material collected after use.” R-03 highlighted a digital tool developed internally: “It’s kind of like a platform where you buy and sell the building materials. (…) The exchange and selling is within our company right now.” Finally, policy frameworks were described as important enablers when they aligned with CE goals. Internal sustainability roadmaps and procurement requirements have helped normalize CE practices within companies. C-05 shared: “Our internal KPIs and sustainability roadmap guide all new projects. It’s part of our core business planning now.” External support was also noted. For instance, M-06 explained: “The European Commission is developing regulations that are pushing this forward.” When goals and rules are aligned, they help remove ambiguity. Together, theses themes reveal not only the barriers and drivers of CE implementation but also deeper patterns in stakeholder roles and collaboration dynamics across projects. To better 45 understand the meaning and implications of these findings, the following chapter discusses them in relation to the existing literature 5. Analysis This chapter presents an analysis of the empirical findings in relation to the theoretical framework outlined in the literature review. Drawing on interview data, sector reports, and academic literature, the chapter explores how circular economy principles are being adopted in the Swedish construction and material manufacturing sectors. The analysis is structured around two key dimensions: the roles and influence of stakeholders through the lens of stakeholder theory, and the barriers and enablers to CE adoption identified across the value chain. Together, these sections aim to answer the overarching research question by identifying patterns, tensions, and opportunities that shape the transition toward circularity in this complex industrial ecosystem. 5.1 - Stakeholder Roles and Influence: Applying Stakeholder Salience Model This subchapter shifts the focus from individual action to the influence of different stakeholders in shaping circular transitions. Building on the theoretical foundations outlined in Chapter 2, the analysis applies the Stakeholder Salience Model to assess how power, legitimacy, and urgency are distributed across key actors in the construction value chain. Rather than examining who adopts circular practices, the focus here is on who drives, enables, or constrains them. By mapping both internal and external stakeholders according to their salience attributes, this analysis highlights how these dynamics shape the pace and direction of CE implementation in Sweden’s construction sector. 5.1.1 - Mapping Stakeholders using the Salience Model To understand how different stakeholders shape the adoption of CE practices, this section applies the Stakeholder Salience Model. As defined in Chapter 2 this model assesses stakeholders based on three core attributes: power (their ability to influence decisions), legitimacy (the perceived appropriateness of their role), and urgency (the degree to which their claims require immediate action). 46 Following Mitchell at al. (1997) , a binary approach is used to assess whether each attribute is present or not. This enables a clear mapping of stakeholders into categories such as dominant, dependent, or discretionary. The analysis draws on interviews and sustainability reports to evaluate each group’s perceived and actual influence on CE adoption. Table 4 summarizes the classification of stakeholders based on their salience attributes. Stakeholder Group Power Legitimacy Urgency Salience type (Mitchell et al., 1997) Material Manufacturers (M- Yes Yes Yes Definitive 02, M-04, M-06) Construction Firms (C-01, Yes Yes No Dominant C-05) Private Real-estate Yes Yes No Dominant Developers (R-03, R-07) Public Real- estate Yes Yes Yes Definitive Developers (R-08, R-09) Internal Roles (e.g. No Yes Yes Dependent Sustainability Teams) Customers / End-user No Yes No Discretionary Public Authorities / Yes Yes Yes Definitive Policymakers Other external actors (e.g. Yes No No Dormant 47 subcontractors, logistics) Table 4 - Stakeholder salience typology in the Swedish Value Chain. Developed by the authors Below, each stakeholder is discussed individually to explore how their specific role in the construction value chain aligns with salience theory and what this implies for their influence on CE outcomes. 5.1.1.1 - Material Manufacturers: Definitive Material manufacturers, particularly M-04, M-02 and M-06, are classified as definitive stakeholders. According to Mitchell et al. (1997), definitive stakeholders possess all three salience attributes and therefore necessitate priority in engagement and consideration by strategic processes. Power Two manufactures (M-02 and M-06) demonstrate clear structural and operational power. M-02 explained, in their sustainability report, how their company has integrated recycling companies within its corporate structure to secure access to secondary materials and strengthen collaborations with demolition partners. This reflects a high level of strategic and structural control over circular input streams. M-06 described how they have a post-installation take-back system that enables customers to return material for recycling at no cost. This reflects a proactive role in supporting circular practices beyond production, which demonstrates their influence over how materials are handled and reintegrated after use. These examples illustrate how some manufacturers exercise power by controlling key infrastructure and systems that enable CE practices for downstream actors. Legitimacy Circularity is framed by material manufacturers as a key component of their long-term strategy and environmental responsibility, which reinforces their legitimacy. All three interviewees mentioned their commitment to lowering their environmental impact, advancing material innovation and supporting broader sustainability goals. M-02 in particular emphasized the use of renewable materials and the goals of replacing fossil-based resources as a guiding principle 48 for them. By establishing circularity as a core component of their business model, these manufacturers not only align themselves with policy expectations but also gain legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders, which is essential to build trust and encourage other players in the value chain to follow. Urgency Evidence of urgency was found in explicit reference to regulatory pressure, investor expectations, and internal climate targets. Interviewees described circularity not as an aspirational goal but as a short-term requirement. One participant noted: “We need to start looking into this now…or we won’t have a chance in the future.” (M-06). Others emphasized the importance of preparing for upcoming EU legislation, decarbonization deadlines, and competitive pressures tied to material performance and traceability. This time-sensitivity drives them to prioritize a circular solution over a traditional linear model. 5.1.1.2 - Construction Companies: Dominant Construction companies (C-01 and C-05) are classified as dominant stakeholders, with both power and legitimacy but no obvious sense of urgency. Their position as key operational intermediaries in the construction value chain give them significant influence over circular practices. However, their engagement with CE appears constrained by client demands, regulatory frameworks, and financial considerations, which means that their potential to influence depends on these factors. Power Both actors demonstrate moderate power in implementing circular practices. C-01 shared multiple examples where the company tested scalable solutions, such as pre-cut gypsum to reduce waste and reuse systems for temporary wooden structures. They also described end-to- end control in a reuse pilot projects using hollow-core slabs and steel from demolished buildings: “We control the entire flow essentially from demolition to new construction” Such powers indicate operational power in shaping material flows and demonstrating circular solutions. C-05 further emphasized their strategic and internal influence: “We drive the transition by implementing circular strategies and influencing projects”. Additionally, C-05 established a dedicated reuse hub to store and resell materials, demonstrating structural 49 investment in circular infrastructure. These examples clearly reflect control over implementations, internal decision-making power, and resource allocation to support CE efforts. Legitimacy Both participants show strong legitimacy by aligning with CE principles and sustainability standards. C-05 referred to a clear understanding of circularity, by mentioning design for disassembly, selective demolition, material mapping and supplier collaboration. C-01 and C-05 both emphasized partnerships across the value chain, reinforcing their role as credible and capable actors in CE transitions. By aligning with widely accepted CE principles, these firms enhance their legitimacy within the industry, which in turn encourages others to follow their example. Urgency Despite technical capacity and strategic alignment, urgency was not strongly expressed. C-01 acknowledged: “Our current business model incorporates CE principles at basically zero. You can find some good cases, but overall it’s quite limited.”. They do implement pilot projects and test circular solutions, but these efforts are often incremental rather than immediate. C-05 described stakeholder resistance (e.g. from clients and subcontractors) as a key barrier, which slows down broader implementation. While motivated by long-term goals, both participants characterized CE adoption as contingent, rather than immediate, reflecting the slow pace of change in this sector. 5.1.1.3 - Private Real Estate Developers: Dominant Private real estate developers (R-03 and R-07) are classified as dominant stakeholders. Both participants possess power and legitimacy but the attribute is not strongly present. Their decision-making over project scope, material choices, and procurement models places them in a central position to enable or constrain CE adoption. Power Both developers have significant influence over how circular principles are adopted. R-07 has set clear goals to include reuse in all projects and has built those expectations into procurement 50 processes. As stated in their sustainability documentation: “This goal means that re-use will be part of all projects… the objectives encompass the organizations and also include explicit requirements for suppliers and contractors”. This shows real control over both internal operations and external partners. R-03, while less directive in its approach, shows power through leadership in high-profile projects and internal systems that support circular practices. They’ve taken an active role in piloting a digital platform for material reuse, which is now being used across the company. Even though they didn’t develop the platform, they’re using it to manage internal material, which shows a concrete step towards more circular operations. Legitimacy Both participants show clear alignment with sustainability values, which strengthens their legitimacy. R-03’s real estate strategy incorporates their climate goals, and they work with public and private partners to put those goals into action. R-07 approaches circularity with long- term goals in mind. They have formalized reuse targets, built reuse tracking into internal processes, and invested in staff training and system development. These efforts demonstrate that CE is not just a communication tool but an integral aspect of their operations, positioning them as reliable actors in the transition to a circular economy. Urgency While both developers clearly support CE, it does not seem framed as an urgent business priority. CE is treated as an evolving process that is gradually incorporated into projects. R-07 for instance, outlines reuse targets and supplier requirements, but these are framed as long-term goals. Similarly, R-03 described CE as part of a broader sustainability agenda, yet acknowledged the slow pace of an industry-wide adoption. Overall, CE is viewed as important and evolving, but not yet positioned as something requiring rapid and disruptive action. 5.1.1.4 - Public Real Estate Developers: Definitive While real estate developers are often treated as a single stakeholder group in CE discussions, in this part of the thesis a distinction was created between public and private real estate developers, because clear differences were observed in how these actors engage with CE. Specifically, public developers demonstrated a stronger sense of urgency, closely tied to time- bound municipal targets and public accountability. This urgency attribute, tied with the 51 attributes of power and legitimacy, makes the public real estate developers be classified as definitive stakeholders. Power Although both organizations primarily focus on renovations rather than new constructions, they retain significant control over how CE is implemented. R-09, for example, establishes procurement standards that prioritize second-hand materials and requires contractors to follow specific reuse guidelines. While they don’t fully control the value chain, their public mandate, and ability to shape project requirements give them leverage to push CE practices forward. R- 08 is piloting projects that reuse materials almost entirely, including an apartment renovation with 87% reuse content. They are also considering establishing a specialized reused hub to improve internal material circulation, showing how they can influence material flows within their operations. Legitimacy Both organizations demonstrate strong legitimacy through their alignment with municipal climate targets and public sector mandates. As subsidiaries of Framtidenkoncernen, the Gothenburg’s real estate group, R-08, and R-09 are responsible for contributing to the city’s overall environmental goals. In both cases, their position within a municipally owned framework reinforces their moral and institutional legitimacy for promoting CE practices. Urgency Urgency is clearly present in both companies. Their efforts are shaped by Gothenburg’s climate target, including the goal to reduce carbon impact by 50% by 2025 and 90% by 2030, as shown in their sustainability reports. These deadlines directly impact project planning, procurement strategy, and internal experimentation. While circular solutions are sometimes slower or more costly to implement, both participants emphasized the importance of taking action now to meet environmental goals and build capacity for broader adoption. CE is not seen as optional or aspirational, but as essential and time-sensitive. 52 5.1.1.5 - Internal Roles: Dependent This group includes all internal roles responsible or related to sustainability and CE, like sustainability managers, sustainability teams or specialists. They are often passionate and knowledgeable actors driving internal efforts, but their influence varies depending on organizational structure, leadership support, and alignment with business strategy. As such, they are classified as dependent stakeholders, they possess legitimacy and often express urgency, but lack the formal power to enforce change. However, their role is still vital, and often act as internal change agents. Power Internal roles rarely hold decision-making authority over budget or core business models. Several interviewees emphasized that while they propose initiatives, the final decision lies with top management or procurement owners. For instance, M-02 and M-04 described sustainability teams as consultants or project leads who lack direct power to enforce CE targets. Even where CE strategies exist, operational decisions often remain with other functions (e.g. procurement, project management). This limits structural influence suggesting they lack power, despite being well-informed and committed. Legitimacy Legitimacy is the strongest attribute of this group. Internal specialists are seen as credible experts, often responsible for interpreting legal frameworks, managing certifications, and advising teams on CE practices. Several interviewees emphasized the trust placed in these roles when it comes to environmental compliance and innovation. Their alignment with broader sustainability goals gives them both moral and institutional legitimacy within the organization. Urgency Many internal roles express a strong sense of urgency about CE implementations. This is often driven by climate targets, regulatory changes, and personal commitment. However, interviewees also described a gap between this urgency and how quickly the organization responds. In several cases, frustrations at the slow pace of change despite clear knowledge of what needed to be done were reported by the participants. This demonstrates a misalignment between individual and institutional timelines. 53 5.1.1.6 - Customers/End-users: Discretionary Customers and end users are included as stakeholders since their preferences and decisions - even when passive - can directly affect whether circular solutions are implemented. While they rarely initiate or require CE practices, several interviewees noted how customer resistance to reused material or aesthetic inconsistencies has led to the rejection of the circular option. Based on this, they are classified as discretionary: they possess legitimacy, but currently lack urgency and rarely use their influence to promote CE. While their preferences can block the usage of reused material, an indication of a form of power, this influence is typically passive and inconsistent. Power Customers do not typically advocate for CE, but their preferences can block its implementation. One interviewee described how tenants initially supported reused materials, only to reject them over minor aesthetic concerns. In other cases, tenants even expected reused material to look completely new, which creates a difficult balance for suppliers. However, customers rarely control procurement, which is where the real influence lies, so they lack formal power. Legitimacy End users in the construction value chain possess clear legitimacy as stakeholders in CE implementation. Their direct relationship with buildings, whether through occupancy or ownership, gives them a valid and recognized interest in how materials are sourced, used, and reused. Multiple interviewees acknowledged that customers expect high environmental standards and are increasingly aware of circularity issues. As R-03 noted, “Some of our tenants have internal CE goals set by their mother companies”, reflecting how tenant organizations themselves may enter the value chain with pre-established sustainability mandates. This reinforces their position as legitimate actors with a vested interest in CE outcomes. Urgency There are signs that urgency among customers is starting to grow. As climate targets get closer and environmental awareness spreads, some tenants and clients have begun to show interest in reuse and circular practices, especially during early project conversations. But that interest 54 rarely turns into real pressure or firm decisions. Aesthetic concerns, brand consistency, and perceived risks still tend to outweigh sustainability intentions. So while the mindset may be shifting, the urgency just isn’t strong or visible enough yet to change outcomes in a consistent way. 5.1.1.7 - Public Authorities/Policymakers: Definitive This group includes municipal governments, national regulators, and EU institutions responsible for shaping the regulatory and strategic environment for CE implementation. Based on the stakeholder salience model, this group is classified as definitive stakeholders as they combine the three attributes. Their role is central to enabling systemic changes and directly influencing how circular practices are prioritized across the construction value chain. Power Policymakers hold institutional power, that is both formal and structural. Through regulations and environmental strategies, they can determine whether circular practices remain optional or become normalized. One interviewee (R-07) emphasized: “As soon as municipalities and some regional powers insist on it and maybe steer it in their requirements, then it will become much more natural.” This shows that authorities influence not only what companies can do, but what they come to see as a standard practice. In doing so, policymakers shape the ‘rules of the game’ and guide the strategic behavior of other stakeholders. Legitimacy Public authorities’ legitimacy derives from their democratic mandate and institutional role in addressing long-term environmental challenges. Across the interviewees, participants cited municipal targets and EU directives as foundations for validation of internal sustainability efforts. This legitimacy gives more authority and reinforces cross-sector alignment, allowing for more coherent CE efforts across the value chain. Urgency Urgency is especially visible in municipalities that have set time-bound climate goals. For example, Gothenburg's goal of reducing climate effects by 90% by 2030 introduces a time 55 constraint that speeds decision-making on CE. However, urgency does not exist at all levels of governance. Some interviewees noted that the national process for standardizing and regulating circular materials is still lagging behind, slowing the pace of systemic change. As M-06 noted: “We need faster processes for developing new standards and frameworks to use circular material. That is too slow today.” This highlights an asymmetry in policy urgency, where municipal pressure can be strong, but national-level support remains underdeveloped. 5.1.1.8 - Other External Actors: Dormant Other external actors encompass subcontractors, logistics providers, and related actors mentioned by the interviewees. They hold a meaningful form of operation power, which makes their cooperation essential, but they lack urgency and legitimacy. While they can significantly enable or block CE execution, they do not currently act as change agents or strategic partners. Activating their potential influence will require both clearer incentives and greater integration into circular planning processes. Power External actors exert power not through strategy or policy, but through control over key implementation processes. Their ability - or inability - to manage reused materials, reverse logistics, storage, and quality assurance can determine whether circular practices succeed or fail. As C-01 noted: “It requires a different kind of logistics to reuse something. It might need storage, handling, quality checks, and people aren’t used to that.” Similarly, M-04 highlighted the structural gap: “There is no established value chain for this at the moment. Logistics is always a challenge — getting the material from A to B in usable condition, within the right timeframe.” This reveals how these actors control crucial execution stages that can affect the implementation of CE practices. Legitimacy These actors are not typically viewed as institutional or moral leaders in CE transitions. They are frequently viewed as reluctant to engage, especially when circular practices pose uncertainty or liability. While their work is necessary, interviewees rarely described these actors as aligned with CE values or sustainability goals. Instead, they were often portrayed as hesitant or 56 uncertain - more focused on liability and warranties than on environmental contribution. This suggests they lack the perceived legitimacy to be seen as core enablers of the transition Urgency There is little evidence that external actors operate under a sense of urgency regarding CE. The transition to circular practices is often described as slow due to operational inertia, unfamiliar workflows, or risk aversion. Their pace is typically shaped by project demands, not by internal pressure to adapt or innovate. While this mapping provides a snapshot of how influence is currently distributed across the construction value chain, it also reveals several stakeholders with limited ability to shape CE outcomes despite their relevance. Recognizing that salience can evolve over time, the following section examines how these less influential actors might increase their power, legitimacy, or urgency, and thereby play a more active role in advancing circular transitions. 5.1.2 - How Stakeholders can Increase their Salience According to the stakeholder salience model (Mitchell at al. 1997), a stakeholder’s ability to influence outcomes depends on the presence of power, legitimacy, and urgency. While some actors in this study, such as public authorities and material manufacturers, already possess high salience, others currently play more marginal roles. As Aaltonen et al. (2008) suggested, the stakeholder salience is not static and can evolve over time. Therefore, the empirical findings show several ways the less salient stakeholders can strengthen their influence in CE transitions. ● Sustainability teams could increase their power by gaining formal roles in procurement or being supported by executive leadership. Institutionalizing their roles would elevate them from internal advocates to strategic decision-makers. ● Private developers and construction firms often lack urgency. Their salience could be increased through external pressure, like stronger regulations, client expectations, or market threats, that can reframe CE as a short-term priority. ● Subcontractors and logistic providers hold operational power but lack visibility. They could develop CE- specific skills, like material traceability, or reverse logistics to 57 enhance legitimacy. Other stakeholders could involve them earlier in projects or integrate them into reuse platforms to increase urgency. ● Customers/end-users may gain urgency through better communication, participatory design processes, or increased environmental awareness of material use. In short, salience is not static and can be strengthened through organization support and strategic alignment. Yet, increased salience alone is insufficient without proper interaction. The next section explores how these stakeholders interact in practice, and how these dynamics influence the success or failure of circular collaboration. 5.2 - Cross-Stakeholder Dynamics and Interaction While stakeholder models such as Mitchell et al. (1997) can help identify who has power, legitimacy, or urgency, they do not fully represent how real-world collaboration occurs. In practice, CE progress within the construction sector is determined not just by the attributes of participants, but also by how they collaborate - or fail to cooperate. Drawing on Freeman's (1984) broader stakeholder theory perspective and supported by more recent work, this section examines actor dynamics and how their interactions impact what happens on the ground. Internal Roles: Influence Without Decision-Making One of the clearest tensions within organizations appears between sustainability-focused roles and project decision-makers. Sustainability managers often promote CE and set environmental targets, but they are not always in a position to enforce them. Mitchell et al. (1997) describe such actors as dependent stakeholders - they have the legitimacy and urgency to act, but not the power. In several interviews, participants described how these managers support projects from the sidelines, while project managers or procurement leads ultimately decide which materials and methods are used. As a result, even strong internal CE ambitions can remain under- implemented unless project-level actors are aligned. This kind of internal misalignment is echoed in the findings of Moscati et al. (2023), who describe how fragmented organizational roles and competing priorities often block the systemic change needed for circularity. A similar concern was raised in the Nordic Circular Construction 58 initiative, where it was noted that circular ideas often exist within companies but fail to scale when different internal actors are not working together or lack shared goals. Stakeholder Dependencies Across the Value Chain Beyond internal structures, companies also depend on other actors in the value chain to bring CE ambitions into practice. Developers, for example, were described as having significant influence over project scope, materials, and cost, placing them in the category of dominant stakeholders who hold both power and legitimacy. However, implementation often falls to contractors and suppliers, who were not always included early in the process and may lack familiarity with reuse procedures or circular materials. Although these actors are not highly salient in a formal sense, they play a central role in whether circular practices succeed on the ground. Freeman’s (1984) broader definition of stakeholders, which includes anyone who can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives, helps explain why overlooking these operational actors can derail CE efforts. As highlighted by Kujala et al. (2019) and Freudenreich et al. (2020), sustainability value is rarely created by one actor alone - it emerges through cooperation and relationship-building across the system. Changing Contexts and Shifting Roles Stakeholder influence is also shaped by context. Public real estate developers were often viewed as key actors when they embedded circular targets into procurement requirements. However, several interviewees pointed out that these efforts can be constrained by inconsistent regulations or unclear national standards. R-08, for example, noted that “the legislation is not adapted for reused materials,” which limited their ability to scale circular solutions even when local support was strong. Aaltonen et al. (2008) emphasize that salience is not static but shaped by project phase, institutional setting, and broader governance dynamics. Durdyev et al., (2023) add that a lack of regulatory frameworks or standardized procedures, can stall circular practices regardless of stakeholder motivation. This illustrates that even stakeholders who appear highly influential in one context may struggle to enact change when the system around them is not fully aligned. End-Users and Clients: Indirect but Important 59 Another group whose influence is often underestimated is the end-user. Clients and tenants rarely take part in formal CE decisions, but their preferences, particularly around quality, aesthetics, and brand alignment, often influence whether reused materials are ultimately approved. Mitchell et al. (1997) classify these types of stakeholders as discretionary, as they hold legitimacy but typically lack urgency or power. Nonetheless, the interview data suggests that their preferences carry more weight than their formal roles would suggest. This connects with Senaratne et al. (2023), who argue that stakeholder perceptions and trust are critical to enabling material reuse. If clients are skeptical about reused materials, or see them as inferior, their influence - though indirect -can shape project choices in significant ways. Coordination as a Missing Link A consistent theme across the interviews was the difficulty of aligning stakeholder actions. Many participants mentioned gaps in communication, unclear responsibilities, and delays in engaging key partners. Even when all stakeholders support CE in principle, mismatched timelines or a lack of common routines often made collaboration difficult. Several companies described limited use of reuse platforms, and others noted that technical procedures were missing or fragmented. This reflects Durdyev et al., (2023) and Moscati et al., (2023) argument that circularity requires systemic alignment, not just individual commitment. Interviewees also highlighted that successful CE initiatives - such as reuse hubs or take-back systems -only worked when coordination happened across demolition, design, logistics, and procurement. This insight is mirrored in the Nordic Circular Hotspot, where project success was often linked to strong coordination between all parts of the value chain 5.3 - Stakeholder Collaboration: Barriers and Enablers The empirical data highlights that stakeholder collaboration is a key factor influencing the success or failure of circular initiatives in the construction sector. Participants pointed to both practical and organizational factors that either constrain or enable collaboration across the value chain. While these findings largely align with existing literature, they also reveal distinct collaboration challenges that are often overlooked in more policy- or technology-driven CE 60 studies (Senaratne et al., 2023). The following sections present the main barriers and enablers identified in the empirical material, supported by relevant literature. 5.3.1 Barriers to Stakeholder Collaboration Structural Barriers A recurring theme in the interviews was that the fragmented, project-based nature of the construction sector makes long-term collaboration for CE efforts challenging. Respondents noted that actors are often brought in too late in the process, which limits reuse opportunities and reduces the potential for early coordination. One interviewee described, “We are not really contacted early on in the process. We are sort of contacted at the end” (M-06). Another emphasized the importance of reuse timing: “If a building is scheduled for demolition and has materials that could be reused, don’t demolish it until there’s another project ready to use those parts” (M-02). These examples reflect how limited continuity and timing mismatches between demolition and new construction hinder CE implementation. This fragmentation is also reflected in several recent sustainability reports from major construction and real estate firms operating in the Nordic region. Many of these companies express ambitions to increase the use of reused materials in tenant adaptations and redevelopment projects. However, they also acknowledge that achieving these goals depends on better integration between demolition, inventory, and new-build planning. The reports highlight that reuse is often introduced too late in the process, resulting in missed opportunities and material losses. A recurring theme is the lack of standardized routines for coordinating reuse across different project stages and actors. Even in cases where early collaboration is prioritized in strategy documents, implementation is frequently challenged by fragmented timelines and unclear stakeholder responsibilities. These insights align with structural barriers identified in the literature. Senaratne et al. (2023) point to the sector’s fragmented actor landscape as a key obstacle to systemic collaboration. Hart et al. (2019) emphasize that short-term project cycles and a lack of continuity between stakeholders prevent the institutionalization of circular practices across the value chain. Without project models that enable early and sustained collaboration, circular construction efforts remain ad hoc and difficult to scale. Organisational and Process Barriers Interviewees frequently described the challenge of lacking clearly defined internal roles and responsibilities related to reuse and circular coordination. In some companies, circularity was 61 handled informally or distributed across teams without dedicated leadership. As M-04 shared, “In our division, we do not have a person dedicated solely to circularity. Some other divisions do”. R-03 pointed to decentralised responsibility: “This [reused material goal] was 20% in every project without any specific guidelines right now as to how to calculate it. That’s up to every project”. Without formal accountability structures, decisions regarding reuse are often made inconsistently or too late to be effective. These internal ambiguities are compounded by limited knowledge about reuse practices across teams. “We work within the divisions toward that target,” noted M-04, highlighting that even when goals exist, implementation is uneven and reliant on specific teams or individuals. C-01 added, “You have to shift your mindset a little bit from the sort of normal Ellen MacArthur, butterfly diagram mindset,” indicating that traditional models of CE may not easily translate into practice in the construction sector. These examples illustrate how organisational processes often fall short of enabling durable and system-wide collaboration. These themes are also present in company sustainability reports. Several organisations describe difficulties in embedding CE across departments and mention reliance on individual champions or ad hoc initiatives. Reuse efforts are frequently tied to one division or pilot project, with unclear mechanisms for company-wide learning. Reports also acknowledge a lack of training and formalised support systems, especially for procurement and construction teams unfamiliar with CE evaluation methods. One firm notes that clear guidelines are missing for integrating reused materials into standard project delivery, resulting in inconsistent application of goals across project teams. These barriers reflect what the literature identifies as organisational misalignment. Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) emphasize that fragmented ownership of CE within organizations impedes the ability to scale circular practices, especially when formal structures are absent. Moscati et al. (2023) note that successful circular initiatives require cross-departmental cooperation, not just individual enthusiasm. Senaratne et al. (2023) similarly argue that the lack of internal routines and coordination processes is one of the main reasons collaboration fails to produce scalable results in the construction sector. Economic and Market Barriers Interviewees noted that collaboration often falters due to limited economic incentives and weak demand for reused materials. While stakeholders may support circular goals, collaboration is unlikely unless benefits are clearly defined. As M-06 explained, “Each of the different stakeholders [needs] to find the benefit of working in this collaboration… is there an economic benefit… a legal benefit… or maybe just an internal benefit?”. Without shared value 62 propositions, circular ambitions are often deprioritised during project planning. Client and tenant expectations also emerged as a barrier. Several participants observed that end-users are often sceptical about reused materials, particularly regarding aesthetics and quality. “We need to collaborate with [tenants] early to tell them that we’re going to use a lot of reuse… and it will look nice,” said R-07. Concerns about how reuse will be perceived may deter firms from pursuing it, even when technically feasible. Interviewees also described limited uptake of reuse platforms, noting that although digital marketplaces exist, they are rarely integrated into procurement routines. “There’s a lot of products [on the reuse platform]… but that’s not where the constructors go to buy,” said R-08, pointing to a gap between infrastructure and actual usage. Sustainability reports confirm these challenges. Several companies acknowledge that circular goals are difficult to achieve without stronger market demand, clearer client signals, and internal alignment around the business case for reuse. Pilot initiatives and communication efforts to shift perceptions are underway but remain limited in scale. Literature also highlights that weak market incentives and customer hesitancy can obstruct circular collaboration. Bocken et al. (2016) and Hart et al. (2019) emphasise that unless end-user expectations are managed and aligned with CE value propositions, adoption is likely to stall. Jayakodi et al. (2024) stress that trust, perceived quality, and clear economic rationale are essential for overcoming resistance. 5.4.2 Enablers for Stakeholder Collaboration Communication Enablers Across the interviews, early and ongoing communication emerged as a key enabler for effective stakeholder collaboration. Several participants stressed that engaging tenants and project partners in dialogue from the outset of a project helped align expectations and reduce misunderstandings. “Yeah, I think with tenants, you need to have a really early discussion as early as possible because that will make it easier,” noted R-07. Similarly, R-09 highlighted the importance of maintaining communication throughout implementation: “Make sure that they get the right information in starting up the project… and then also in the middle, check if we are getting the right direction.” M-04 added that collaboration was not simply about updates but mutual engagement: “It requires a lot of working together. Not just sharing information, but also like working kind of together”. These practices are increasingly reflected in sustainability strategies across the sector. Several companies report that early engagement with 63 tenants and partners is essential for building trust around reuse and aligning expectations across the project timeline. Structured communication forums, co-creation workshops, and internal dialogue processes are highlighted as tools to identify shared goals and reduce friction during implementation. While such initiatives are still in development or piloting stages, they indicate a growing recognition of communication as a strategic enabler of circular collaboration. The academic literature supports this view. Senaratne et al. (2023) identify consistent and transparent communication as foundational for trust, shared responsibility, and long-term alignment in circular construction. Moscati et al. (2023) add that communication must go beyond task coordination and enable shared understanding across organisational boundaries. Hart et al. (2019) highlight that open dialogue facilitates the early surfacing of potential conflicts, increasing the likelihood that collaborative reuse solutions will succeed. Together, these studies underline that communication is not merely operational, it is relational and strategic, enabling the complex coordination required for CE initiatives to scale. Coordination Enablers Several interviewees emphasized that digital platforms, internal systems, and standardized reuse procedures play a vital role in facilitating collaboration. R-03 described an in-house reuse system: “It’s kind of like a platform where you buy and sell the building materials (…) the exchange and selling is within our company right now.” Similarly, R-07 noted that internal reuse exchanges are increasingly common: “We have a storage where you can sell and buy from your colleagues in the business.” Others mentioned the use of take-back schemes, material banks, or internal tools to track materials across sites. These systems were often described as informal but evolving, and their existence helped lower the barrier to reuse while enabling cross-project collaboration. This trend is reflected in several sustainability reports, where companies describe the development of reuse databases, digital inventory systems, and take- back partnerships. For example, companies report using internal tools to track leftover materials, facilitate redistribution, and connect design with deconstruction phases. Some also mention investments in platforms that enable collaboration between construction, logistics, and procurement teams to optimize reuse workflows. While the maturity of these systems varies, the reports suggest a shift from one-off efforts to more systematized reuse practices.. The literature reinforces the importance of coordination mechanisms. Moscati et al. (2023) emphasize that digital infrastructures, such as material passports and reuse hubs, can significantly enhance stakeholder coordination across the value chain. Durdyev et al., (2023) 64 and Hart et al. (2019) similarly argue that internal routines and shared data platforms are crucial for operationalizing CE strategies in fragmented sectors. These tools not only enable information flow but also establish the accountability needed for joint planning and implementation. Market and Client Enablers Interviewees frequently pointed to growing demand from tenants, clients, and public actors as an important enabler of collaboration. Sustainability requirements are becoming more common in client briefs, especially among larger tenants with their own environmental goals. As R-03 explained, “Usually the sustainability profile of our company and the specifics for the project itself, it’s one of the requirements that we need to describe before they even consider if they want to go further.” M-02 added, “The market is increasingly asking for materials with lower carbon impact, and we’re trying to meet those expectations,” while C-05 noted increased interest in products with strong sustainability credentials. This trend is supported by company reports, which describe how tenant expectations and procurement requirements are beginning to influence material decisions and collaboration structures. Some companies report including circularity criteria in tenders or responding to public-sector clients that ask for lifecycle-based evaluations. Others highlight closer dialogue with tenants and partners as a result of market shifts, including a gradual move from new builds to renovation as a circular strategy. Academic literature confirms the enabling role of external market forces. Hart et al. (2019) emphasize that public procurement and client expectations can legitimize circular practices and generate the demand needed for reuse models to scale. Senaratne et al. (2023) highlight how external pressures, particularly from large property owners or government stakeholders, can align otherwise fragmented actors toward shared circular goals. In this way, market and client signals serve both as incentives and coordination mechanisms. Organizational Enablers A consistent theme across interviews was the role of internal leadership and strategic alignment in enabling collaboration for CE efforts. While technical tools and external incentives matter, interviewees emphasized that internal organisation—how roles are structured, who drives the process, and whether CE is integrated into company goals—makes a tangible difference. As R- 03 described, “I continuously support projects in their effort to achieve those requirements and work with the developers and the contractors and the project teams to make sure that we achieve our environmental and climate goals.” However, several noted that internal alignment 65 is still emerging. “We don’t have a person dedicated solely to circularity,” said M-04, “some divisions do, others don’t… it depends a lot on individual interest.” This reflects a common pattern: CE initiatives often rely on motivated individuals rather than fully embedded structures. Several companies highlight similar tensions in their sustainability reporting. While climate and circularity targets are increasingly integrated into strategic planning, execution still depends heavily on cross-department coordination. Reports describe how sustainability roles act as internal change agents, but often lack the decision-making power held by project or procurement leads. Others mention efforts to increase CE integration through clearer targets, revised business models, and leadership-driven initiatives, though these are still unevenly implemented across organisations. This internal dynamic is well-documented in the literature. Moscati et al. (2023) and Senaratne et al. (2023) describe how fragmented internal ownership and short-term priorities can undermine collaborative CE ambitions unless circularity is embedded into company-wide strategies. Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) emphasize that internal structures - such as leadership commitment, interdepartmental coordination, and dedicated CE roles - are foundational to long-term transition. When aligned, internal systems become a critical enabler of collaborative success. 6. Conclusion 6.1 - Summary of Findings: Answering Research Question This study set out to answer the research question: “How can collaboration among key stakeholders in the Swedish construction value chain accelerate the transition to a circular economy?” The findings show that stakeholder collaboration is not only beneficial but essential for CE implementation in the construction sector. Because the construction sector is highly fragmented and multi-actor in nature, no single stakeholder can enable circularity alone. Instead, collaboration serves as the mechanism that connects strategic ambition with operational capability across the value chain. Our analysis reveals that collaboration towards CE can be accelerated in two distinct but complementary pathways: one driven by regulatory pressure, and one emerging from voluntary, firm-led initiatives. Scenario 1: Policy-driven change 66 In this scenario, collaboration is initiated and structured by policymakers, who possess all three salience attributes. Through mechanisms like climate targets or procurement rules, these actors can establish clear expectations for CE integration. As these requirements are introduced, they create a cascading sense of urgency across the value chain. Private developers, construction firms, and suppliers respond by aligning their practices to meet the public-sector demands, which often reshapes their internal priorities and procedures. This top-down pressure also elevates the role of previously under-recognized actors. Internal sustainability teams, subcontractors, and logistic providers - who often hold legitimacy and operation knowledge but lack power - gain greater influence when their expertise is required for compliance. In this way, policy not only encourages collaboration but also redistributes power in ways that facilitate CE implementation. Collaboration under this scenario is supported by structured mechanisms like formal procurement criteria, shared platforms for reuse, and clearer role definitions across project phases. These conditions reduce ambiguity, improve coordination, and transform circularity from a voluntary effort into a contractual and operational need. Scenario 2: Firm-driven change In the absence of strong regulatory requirements, a second scenario emerges in which private actors initiate collaboration based on internal sustainability agendas, innovation goals, or anticipated client expectations. These efforts are generally driven by sustainability teams or project champions, who demonstrate high legitimacy and urgency but often lack the formal authority to promote systemic change While firm-drive initiatives can generate valuable learning and build organizational competency, they are often constrained by the limited urgency among dominant stakeholders - like construction companies or private developers - and by the absence of structural incentives. Collaboration in this setting is typically ad hoc, project specific, and driven by individual motivation rather than institutional commitment. Nonetheless, these bottom-up efforts are critical in showing the feasibility, testing circular solutions and shaping internal norms. Over time, they may pave the way for more formalized approaches, especially if they are aligned with evolving market signals or sustainability-driven clients. However, without a border systemic support, firm-driven collaboration is frequently unstable, highlighting the need for strong alignment between internal ambition and external structures. 67 Synthesis: Collaborative conditions for accelerated CE transition Despite their differences, both scenarios reveal that collaboration accelerates CE adoption when certain enabling conditions are present. These include early stakeholder engagement, empowerment of under-recognized actors, structured organization mechanisms, aligned incentives, and institutional support. While policy-driven change ensures consistency and scalability, firm-driven collaboration promotes flexibility and innovation. Effective acceleration of CE transition requires both: regulatory frameworks that raise baseline expectations and organizational capabilities that translate ambitions into action. Finally, collaboration allows stakeholders to overcome technological, operational, and cultural challenges to circular practices. When developed consciously and supported by proper structures, it becomes a tool for redistributing influence, sharing responsibility, and incorporating circularity into the daily operations of the construction value chain. 6.2 - Implications 6.2.1 Practical Implications Industry Stakeholders This study highlights several ways in which actors across the construction value chain can improve collaboration to support CE implementation. A key implication is the importance of engaging stakeholders early in the project lifecycle. Involving demolition contractors, designers, suppliers, and end-users during the planning phase enables better alignment of expectations and helps identify reuse opportunities before critical decisions are made. This supports earlier research showing that early coordination improves circular outcomes and reduces friction later in the process (Senaratne et al., 2023; Hart et al., 2019). Digital tools and internal systems also play a central role in enabling reuse coordination. Platforms for tracking and exchanging materials, such as inventories, take-back schemes, or reuse databases, can enhance transparency and planning across teams. However, their value depends on how well they are embedded into procurement routines and day-to-day workflows. While the literature highlights the potential of such tools (Durdyev et al., 2023), this study shows that success 68 depends on operational integration and behavioral adoption by users. In addition, companies need clearer internal routines and roles to support circular collaboration. When reuse relies on individual initiative, outcomes vary widely. Assigning formal responsibility for identifying reuse opportunities, coordinating with partners, and managing follow-up can improve consistency and reduce uncertainty. This aligns with research emphasizing the role of structure and accountability in enabling CE transitions (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). Strengthening internal competence is also essential. This includes training procurement staff, project managers, and on-site teams in reuse logistics and evaluation, as well as building mechanisms for knowledge-sharing across departments. Developing this capacity reduces reliance on internal champions and enables more resilient collaboration. Finally, firms may benefit from viewing circular collaboration as a long-term investment rather than a short-term cost. While reuse can require more planning or initial effort, it brings benefits such as lower lifecycle costs, improved brand reputation, and alignment with emerging sustainability demands. This reinforces earlier calls for a shift from isolated pilot projects toward scalable, system-level CE strategies (Bocken et al., 2014; Jayakodi et al., 2024). Policymakers and Clients Policymakers and clients play a crucial role in shaping the conditions under which circular collaboration can thrive. This study identifies several ways they can support more effective stakeholder engagement. A key implication is the need for clearer, more consistent regulation. Many organizations face legal uncertainty when working with reused materials, especially around waste classification, product standards, and safety requirements. Policymakers can reduce this hesitation by aligning regulations with CE goals and offering clear guidance on what is permitted. This reinforces findings that regulatory coherence is critical to enabling CE transitions (Durdyev et al., 2023; Hart et al., 2019). Clients also influence collaboration through procurement. Tenders that include circular requirements - such as reused materials, carbon limits, or collaboration models - can promote earlier alignment and shared objectives. This supports earlier research showing that procurement affects not only technical solutions but also the timing and structure of collaboration (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Hart et al., 2019). Beyond contracting, both policymakers and clients can support ecosystem learning by facilitating joint initiatives, reuse platforms, or pilot funding. These efforts are particularly valuable for smaller actors with limited resources. Ultimately, clients and policymakers shape not only what circular 69 practices are adopted, but also how collaboration unfolds by setting expectations, incentives, and structures that make cooperation more viable. 6.2.2 Theoretical Implications The results of this study contribute to the theoretical understanding of stakeholder collaboration CE transitions by emphasizing how collaboration unfolds in a fragmented, project-based industry such as construction. The findings offer a practice-grounded extension of Freeman's Stakeholder Theory, reinforcing that value creation in CE depends on interdependent relationships across organizational boundaries (Freudenreich et al., 2020). The study also engages with the Stakeholder Salience Model (Mitchell et al., 1997), illustrating how power, legitimacy, and urgency influence collaboration. Clients and developers often set priorities through procurement requirements, while suppliers and manufacturers contribute expertise but hold less decision-making power. This suggests that collaboration depends not only on identifying stakeholders but also on establishing structures that balance influence and responsibility. Finally, the study helps address a gap in the literature by providing empirical insight into how collaboration for CE is practiced in real-world settings, moving beyond abstract frameworks or policy perspectives (Senaratne et al., 2023). It highlights that circular solutions rely not only on technology but also on trust, roles, and coordination between actors. 6.3 - Limitations While this study provides valuable insights into stakeholder collaboration for circular economy implementation in the Swedish construction sector, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study focused on a specific subset of stakeholders: construction companies, material manufacturers, and real estate developers. While this allowed for a manageable scope and deep engagement, other relevant actors - such as subcontractors, public authorities, tenants, and civil society organizations - were not included. Their perspectives may have provided a more comprehensive understanding of stakeholder dynamics and collaboration structures. Second, the stakeholder salience attributes were assessed based on participant perceptions. While these insights are valuable, they may reflect subjective interpretations and contextual biases. Future studies could strengthen this analysis by triangulating salience attributes with additional data 70 sources, such as procurement documents, policy frameworks, or organizational charts. Third, the analysis did not systematically distinguish between different project phases. Most interview data reflect general or early-stage experiences, leaving open how stakeholder roles and collaborative patterns might evolve during the design, construction, and post-construction stages. Finally, the application of the stakeholder salience model relied on a binary (yes/no) coding for the three attributes. While this simplified comparisons and supported consistent analysis, it may have overlooked important gradations in stakeholder influence. A more nuanced scale (e.g., low–medium–high) could have captured emerging or partial forms of salience more effectively. 6.4 - Future Research This study offers a foundation for further inquiry into how stakeholder collaboration can support the transition to a CE in the construction sector. Several areas emerge as particularly promising for future research. First, longitudinal studies could provide deeper insights into how stakeholder roles, collaborative dynamics, and circular strategies evolve over time and across different project phases. Tracking developments from early planning through execution and post-construction would help reveal when and how collaboration is most effective, and how stakeholder salience may shift throughout the project lifecycle. Second, there is an opportunity to explore salience transformations in greater detail. While this study applied the stakeholder salience model using a binary framework for analytical clarity, future research could adopt a more graduated approach to capture variations in stakeholder influence. For example, categorizing power, legitimacy, and urgency on a scale (e.g., low, medium, high) would allow for more nuanced assessments of stakeholders in transitional or emerging roles. Finally, further studies could broaden the scope of stakeholders considered. Including groups such as subcontractors, policymakers, tenants, and civil society organizations would offer a more comprehensive view of the ecosystem influencing circular construction. These actors may hold forms of influence or face barriers that are not visible within the current study’s focus on developers, manufacturers, and construction firms. 71 Together, these avenues could contribute to a richer theoretical and practical understanding of how collaboration and stakeholder influence intersect in CE implementation. 7. References Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K., & Tuomas, O. (2008). Stakeholder salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.004 Akhimien, N. G., Latif, E., & Hou, S. S. (2021). Application of circular economy principles in buildings: A systematic review. Journal of Building Engineering, 38, 102041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102041 Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business research methods (Fifth edition). Oxford University Press. Bocken, N. M. P., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & Van Der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Conaty, F. (2021). Abduction as a Methodological Approach to Case Study Research in Management Accounting—An Illustrative Case. Accounting, Finance & Governance Review, 27. https://doi.org/10.52399/001c.22171 72 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fourth edition, international student edition). SAGE. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8 Durdyev, S., Koc, K., Tleuken, A., Budayan, C., Ekmekcioğlu, Ö., & Karaca, F. (2023). Barriers to circular economy implementation in the construction industry: Causal assessment model. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(2), 4045–4081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04061-8 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art(1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768 Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & 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 Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. International Journal of 73 Production Research, 56(1–2), 278–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141 Hart, J., Adams, K., Giesekam, J., Densley Tingley, D., & Pomponi, F. (2019). Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: The case of the built environment. Procedia CIRP, 80, 619–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.015 Hossain, M. U., Ng, S. T., Antwi-Afari, P., & Amor, B. (2020). Circular economy and the construction industry: Existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for sustainable construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 130, 109948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109948 Kapiriri, L., & Donya Razavi, S. (2021). Salient stakeholders: Using the salience stakeholder model to assess stakeholders’ influence in healthcare priority setting. Health Policy OPEN, 2, 100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpopen.2021.100048 Karaca, F., Tleuken, A., Awan, H. H., Askar, R., Çıdık, M. S., Iskakova, A., Turkyilmaz, A., Laudal, T., Durdyev, S., Varol, H. A., Salles, A., Bajāre, D., Tambovceva, T., Zsembinszki, G., Cervantes Puma, G. C., Kapsalyamova, Z., Kripa, D., Azhgaliyeva, D., Nano, X., Cabeza, L. F., & Bragança, L. (2024). Stakeholder perspectives on the costs and benefits of circular construction. Scientific Reports, 14, 30039. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81741 Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 Kujala, J., Lehtimäki, H., & Freeman, R. E. (2019). A Stakeholder Approach to Value Creation and Leadership. 74 Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247 Moscati, A., Johansson, P., Kebede, R., Pula, A., & Törngren, A. (2023). Information Exchange between Construction and Manufacturing Industries to Achieve Circular Economy: A Literature Review and Interviews with Swedish Experts. Buildings, 13(3), 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030633 Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 Noy, C. (2008). Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (Fourth edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics (1st ed). Berrett- Koehler. Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., & Hanemaaijer, A. (2017). Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain. PBL Netherlands Assessment Agency. Senaratne, S., Rodrigo, N., Almeida, L. M. M. C. E., Perera, S., & Jin, X. (2023). Systematic review on stakeholder collaboration for a circular built environment: Current research trends, gaps and future directions. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, 19, 200169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200169 75 8. Appendix 8.1. Appendix A: Interview Questions Interview Questions 1. Can you briefly introduce yourself and your role? 2. What is circularity to you, and how engaged is your company with CE principles? (high, med, or low) 3. Has your organization adopted any CE practices? Can you describe them? 4. What motivated (or discouraged) your company to adopt circular economy initiatives? 5. Who are the most important stakeholders in your circular economy journey? a. Why do you consider them important? (Power, Legitimacy, or Urgency) b. How do these stakeholders affect your company’s CE adoption decisions? 6. In your experience, how could collaboration with key stakeholders be improved to accelerate CE adoption? 7. To what extent does your current business model incorporate circular economy principles? a. If circular: How has your business model evolved to become more circular? Can you provide examples? b. If not circular: What are the main barriers preventing the shift? 8. How do you see the construction industry evolving regarding CE adoption over the next 5–10 years? 9. Do you have any additional thoughts or ideas you would like to share on the subject? 76 8.2 - Appendix B: Coding Structure 1st Order Codes 2nd Order Concepts Themes Material Reuse/Efficiency Reuse Hubs / Material Banks Take-back systems Sub-theme 1.1 - Theme 1: Circular Circular Economy Practices and Design for Initiatives Implementation in Adaptability Construction Value Chain Use of Industrial by- products Definitions and Sub-theme 1.2 - Perspectives Definitions and Perspectives External Stakeholders Internal Stakeholders Sub-theme 2.1- Stakeholders Influence and Impact Stakeholder Dynamic Collaboration Challenges Sub-theme 2.2 - Theme 2: Missed Opportunities Challenges and Stakeholder Missed Opportunities Collaboration and Dynamics Early and continuous Sub-theme 2.3 - communication Strategies to Improve Collaboration Building collaborative platforms and hubs Aligning economic incentives and benefits Sharing knowledge and success stories Construction Time Financial Constrains Sub-theme 3.1: 77 Operational and Barriers to CE Technical Barriers transition Policy and Regulation Gaps Theme 3: Barriers Scalability and Market and Drivers to CE Limitations transition Environmental Motivation Financial Drivers Sub-theme 3.2: Drivers to CE Material Scarcity and transition Supply Chain Disruptions Operational Solutions Supportive Policy Frameworks Table 5 - Thematic Coding Structure. Developed by the authors 78