This article is based on the scholarly paper Regenerative Transformation As Strategic Renewal: Challenging The Growth Paradigm In Contemporary Business

Introduction: The Inherited Logic of Growth

Few assumptions have shaped the architecture of modern business as profoundly as the belief in continuous expansion. Growth has been positioned as both the rationale and the reward, embedded in how companies structure incentives, assess performance, and articulate their ambitions. Over time, it has become so ingrained in managerial logic that its validity is rarely scrutinized, even when its consequences begin to erode the foundations on which it rests.

This framing, while once aligned with the optimism of industrial progress, now finds itself at odds with the constraints of the 21st century. The ecological systems that sustain economic activity have shown clear signs of strain. Material extraction, energy consumption, and waste production have exceeded thresholds that science has long warned about. In this context, the traditional pursuit of growth appears increasingly disconnected from the physical and social conditions it relies upon.

Andrew J. Hoffman’s work highlights the growing urgency of this contradiction. Rather than accepting growth as a given, he encourages a deeper examination of how economic purpose is defined and measured. His analysis opens space to consider whether the prevailing model of success, one built on volume and velocity, can remain viable in a context shaped by environmental fragility and social imbalance (Hoffman, 2025).

For those leading change within organizations, this creates a strategic and philosophical crossroad. It is no longer sufficient to optimize structures or integrate sustainability into existing frameworks. What transformation now demands is a rethinking of what businesses are designed to achieve and how leadership is exercised when the metrics inherited from past decades begin to lose relevance.

The notion that scaling operations necessarily equates to value must be reconsidered. Not because ambition is misplaced, but because the conditions that once supported it have shifted. In the face of irreversible ecological shifts and deepening interdependencies, transformation begins not with the acceleration of growth, but with a clearer understanding of its limits.

Growth as a Strategic Obsession

The elevation of growth as a central organizing principle in business strategy is deeply rooted in the post-war economic consensus. During this period, GDP emerged not only as a practical instrument for measuring national output, but as a proxy for progress itself. Its adoption solidified a model of development centered on industrial expansion, mass consumption, and large-scale production. As Robert Heilbroner notes in his historical account of economic thought, this period fused material abundance with the idea of social advancement, entrenching growth in the political and managerial imagination (Heilbroner, 1999).

Over time, the logic of growth transitioned from public policy to corporate governance. The rise of shareholder primacy in the late 20th century, catalyzed in part by Milton Friedman’s influential assertion that a firm’s sole social responsibility is to increase profits, intensified the pressure on companies to deliver continuous financial expansion (Friedman, 1970). Value creation was increasingly measured through earnings per share, and firms were expected not only to perform but to outperform their past performance indefinitely. Stagnation was interpreted as weakness. Growth became a threshold for legitimacy.

Business education mirrored and reinforced these priorities. In the managerial frameworks laid out by thinkers such as Peter Drucker and Alfred Chandler, effective leadership was tied to scale, structural alignment, and market capture (Chandler, 1962; Drucker, 1954/2006). These models provided conceptual clarity to executives operating in a world of expanding markets and industrial consolidation. But they also cemented growth as the default ambition. Financial modeling, strategic planning, and organizational design were all taught as tools for maximizing output and return, not necessarily for questioning whether expansion was contextually warranted or ecologically viable.

Inside companies, performance systems evolved to support this orientation. Key Performance Indicators, incentive plans, and investor communications were aligned with upward trajectories. Projections typically favored optimism, reinforcing expectations that were often detached from external limits or internal capacity. In this environment, challenging growth targets was seen as a failure of leadership, rather than a recognition of systemic boundaries.

The consequences of this strategic pattern are becoming increasingly visible. Systems built for continuous acceleration struggle under volatility. Lean operations that optimize for efficiency tend to eliminate buffers and slow learning cycles, reducing the organization’s capacity to absorb disruption. Burnout rises when human systems are treated as infinitely scalable. Environmental degradation follows when resource extraction outpaces regeneration. As David Harvey argues in his critique of neoliberalism, the ideology of growth tends to obscure these contradictions, masking structural fragility beneath narratives of innovation and competitiveness (Harvey, 2005).

What begins as a mechanism for wealth creation, then, evolves into a cultural compulsion. The growth imperative, once a rational strategy in a world of underdevelopment and surplus capacity, now operates in tension with ecological realities and social exhaustion. Persisting with this logic is no longer a sign of visionary ambition, but of strategic dissonance.

To move forward, business must recognize that ambition does not require infinite expansion. It requires relevance, coherence, and durability. Reframing growth not as an unexamined objective but as one possible strategic path among many opens space for models that privilege long-term resilience over short-term gain. In a world defined by limits, the capacity to grow wisely begins with the ability to question why we grow at all.

Understanding the Environmental Limits as Strategic Infrastructure

For much of modern economic history, growth has been pursued as if the natural world were an infinite reservoir of inputs and an invisible sink for outputs. Environmental constraints, when considered at all, were treated as external factors, inconvenient but manageable through policy or technology. This conceptual separation between economic systems and ecological systems has informed decades of business planning and public policy (Hoffman, 2025). Yet it is increasingly incompatible with the conditions facing organizations today.

What is now clear across scientific disciplines and international data sets is that the global economy operates within a biosphere with fixed boundaries. Resource extraction, carbon emissions, waste accumulation, and biodiversity loss are not incidental side effects but structural outcomes of a model designed to maximize throughput. The cumulative effect is overshoot, the condition in which ecological demand consistently exceeds what the Earth can regenerate in a given year. According to recent estimates, over 100 billion tons of resources are extracted annually, and global waste streams, including carbon dioxide, continue to rise even amid efficiency gains.

These are not abstract figures. They translate into rising operational risk, policy instability, and long-term disruption to the social and environmental foundations that markets rely on. When agricultural systems degrade due to topsoil loss, or when supply chains falter from water scarcity and climate volatility, the costs of ecological neglect become financially and strategically visible. In this light, environmental thresholds are not constraints on ambition. They are indicators of systemic risk.

Businesses that continue to build strategy around assumptions of limitless input availability or unbounded externalization of cost will increasingly face disruptions that cannot be solved by optimization alone. Regenerative models, circular supply chains, and resource-sensitive product design are not fringe responses; they are emerging as the conditions for continuity in a destabilizing world.

For transformation leaders, this requires a new kind of intelligence that views environmental systems not as passive backdrops to growth, but as active determinants of what is possible, desirable, and durable. The role of strategy is not simply to accelerate output, but to configure activity within thresholds that preserve the capacity for future value. When growth is aligned with biophysical realities, ambition does not shrink. It evolves.

Four Models of Post-Imperative Growth

When the traditional assumption of perpetual growth begins to erode under environmental, social, and economic pressure, alternative visions for progress begin to emerge. These frameworks do not reject development or value creation. Instead, they reinterpret how progress is defined, how it is measured, and what outcomes it should ultimately serve. Each model offers a distinct approach to aligning economic activity with long-term ecological balance and social well-being.

The first, slow growth, challenges the notion that stagnating GDP signals failure. Drawing from the work of economist Dietrich Vollrath (2020), this model suggests that lower growth rates in advanced economies are not symptoms of dysfunction, but signs of maturation. As populations become more affluent, consumption shifts from goods to services, and labor participation evolves with changing demographic and cultural patterns. In this context, the economy expands in quality rather than quantity. For business leaders, this implies a shift in focus from scale to depth, where value is derived from customization, experience, and care-based sectors rather than pure output.

Green growth, by contrast, maintains the pursuit of expansion while aiming to decouple it from environmental harm. This model rests on the premise that economic development and environmental sustainability can advance together, provided that technological innovation, regulatory alignment, and infrastructure investment evolve in tandem. The Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices outlines how coordinated fiscal measures, such as carbon pricing, can incentivize low-carbon growth while maintaining macroeconomic stability (Stiglitz et al., 2019). Likewise, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate presents a compelling case for climate action as a driver of inclusive and sustained economic transformation, particularly when it is supported by investments in clean infrastructure and policy reform that rewards efficiency and innovation (Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, 2023). This is echoed in development-focused analyses that position infrastructure not only as a technical asset but as a strategic enabler of sustainable development, capable of shaping long-term economic and social outcomes (Bhattacharya, Oppenheim, & Stern, 2015). On a more localized level, city-scale transitions such as those documented in Brighton and Hove demonstrate how circular economy principles can be integrated into urban governance, aligning material flows with environmental limits through systemic planning and stakeholder coordination (Yalçın & Foxon, 2021). These perspectives reinforce the idea that green growth is not a passive consequence of market forces but a deliberate outcome of structural realignment and strategic intent.

The post-growth perspective advances the conversation by proposing a foundational shift in how prosperity is understood. Instead of treating material accumulation as the principal marker of success, it places greater emphasis on meaning, participation, and the quality of social relationships. Economic systems, from this view, are not evaluated by the volume of transactions or the pace of expansion, but by their capacity to enhance well-being, strengthen communities, and safeguard ecological integrity. Tim Jackson argues that genuine prosperity involves investing in the foundations of human and planetary health, including care work, education, ecosystem restoration, and the cultivation of shared purpose, rather than in the endless pursuit of consumption (Jackson, 2016). For organizations, this approach creates an opportunity to rethink design principles and strategic priorities, centering long-term contribution, employee dignity, and community resilience over extractive or short-cycle financial returns.

At the outer edge of the post-growth spectrum lies the degrowth model, which advocates for a deliberate reduction in economic throughput in order to remain within ecological limits. While often perceived as politically contentious or operationally challenging, the model is gaining renewed attention as planetary boundaries become more visible and the effects of climate destabilization intensify. Central to this approach are the principles of sufficiency, equitable redistribution, and ecological restoration, which together reframe prosperity in non-material terms. Indicators such as life satisfaction, public health, and ecosystem vitality replace GDP as markers of progress. The concept of sufficiency, in particular, has been explored as a counterpoint to efficiency, suggesting that scaling down energy and material use may offer more lasting benefits than attempts to optimize consumption alone (Almeida, 2025). This is supported by research on behavioral change, which notes that while rebound effects may occur, the broader cultural shift toward sufficiency holds potential for long-term systemic benefits (Sorrell, Gatersleben, & Druckman, 2020). For businesses, degrowth presents a strategic prompt to reconsider how value can be created through reduced material intensity, and how contraction, when purposeful and intelligent, may enhance resilience rather than diminish competitiveness.

Model	Core Premise	Key Characteristics	Strategic Implications for Business
Slow Growth	Economic deceleration is a natural outcome of affluence and demographic change.	Shift from goods to services; declining labor input; focus on quality over volume.	Emphasizes depth over scale; encourages investment in experience, customization, and care sectors.
Green Growth	Growth can continue if decoupled from environmental harm.	Technological innovation, resource efficiency, renewable energy, and behavior change.	Demands investment in clean technologies and sustainability-driven innovation.
Post-Growth	Prosperity should be measured through well-being and social purpose.	Focus on equity, care, shared meaning, and ecological resilience over material accumulation.	Encourages redesign of KPIs, prioritization of long-term social and environmental outcomes.
Degrowth	The economy must contract to remain within planetary boundaries.	Reduced production and consumption; sufficiency and redistribution; ecological restoration as a central goal.	Invites radical reassessment of value creation, operational scale, and stakeholder engagement.

These frameworks are not abstract theories. Each corresponds to observable trends, policy debates, and emerging shifts in consumer expectations. For transformation leaders, they offer a broader strategic vocabulary. They also present a crucial choice. Persisting with outdated models that assume infinite expansion may place organizations at odds with the trajectory of the world they depend on. Engaging with these alternatives provides not only a pathway to relevance, but a foundation for resilience in a future that will demand greater alignment between ambition and ecological intelligence.

The Transformation Lens: From Disruption to Regeneration

Much of what is labeled as transformation in business continues to focus on operational agility, digital integration, and organizational restructuring. These are frequently presented as forward-looking responses to change, yet they often operate within the same strategic logic that created the instability they seek to address. True transformation, as Peter Senge (1990/2006) emphasizes in his work on learning organizations, requires more than structural shifts. It demands a change in the underlying mental models that shape how organizations define success, act on their environment, and measure value.

The concept of Regenerative Transformation departs from the paradigm of control and extraction. It does not aim to optimize what is unsustainable but instead seeks to reimagine the relationship between enterprise, society, and the living systems that surround them. In this view, regeneration is not a decorative extension of sustainability efforts. It is a systemic redesign that restores equilibrium, builds resilience, and enhances the capacity of both ecological and human systems to thrive over time.

The shift begins by acknowledging that linear, throughput-driven business models are incompatible with planetary boundaries. Regenerative strategies favor circularity, repair, reuse, and reciprocity. Materials are cycled through production systems in ways that mimic ecological loops. Supply chains are treated as interdependent ecosystems rather than pipelines of resource extraction. This echoes the systems-based leadership approach of Margaret Wheatley (1992/2006), who contends that organizations, like living systems, must be adaptive, interconnected, and capable of renewal in order to remain viable.

Efficiency, a long-celebrated indicator of excellence in management theory, is recast as only one variable in a more complex equation. Sufficiency becomes equally relevant. Designing for sufficiency means asking whether what is being produced, consumed, or scaled is proportionate to actual human and ecological needs. It encourages restraint, prioritization, and clarity of purpose, all of which are essential in a volatile and resource-constrained environment.

As metrics evolve, so too must the lens through which organizations interpret performance. Regenerative enterprises begin to integrate qualitative indicators such as trust within stakeholder networks, local ecosystem integrity, and workforce cohesion. These indicators reflect capacities that cannot be captured in quarterly reporting cycles but are nonetheless essential to long-term viability. Resilience, in this context, is not a fallback plan but a strategic asset, a sign of health, not hesitation.

Such transformation is not technical alone. It is also cultural. William Bridges (2017) differentiates between change, which is external and structural, and transition, which is psychological and emotional. Regenerative transformation requires both. Leaders must not only set new directions but also guide their organizations through the internal work of “unlearning” long-held assumptions, particularly the belief that growth is the ultimate proxy for success. Otto Scharmer (2009) refers to this as “presencing”, and defines it as the capacity to let go of outdated patterns in order to lead from emerging possibilities rather than inherited constraints.

Dimension	Description	Theoretical Insight
Strategic Depth	Moves beyond restructuring and digitization to question foundational assumptions about value, purpose, and success.	Senge (1990/2006): Mental models shape long-term organizational behavior.
Ecological Integration	Reimagines business as part of living systems, emphasizing reciprocity, circularity, and interdependence.	Wheatley (1992/2006): Organizations must mimic the adaptability of natural systems.
From Efficiency to Sufficiency	Adds sufficiency as a design principle, shifting focus from doing more with less to doing enough with intention.	Aligns with post-growth and ecological economics perspectives.
Expanded Metrics	Incorporates qualitative indicators such as trust, cohesion, and ecosystem health alongside traditional performance data.	Reflects systems-based evaluation and long-term value preservation.
Cultural Transition	Emphasizes the inner work of leadership: unlearning outdated assumptions, shifting identity, and guiding cultural renewal.	Bridges (2017): Differentiates structural change from psychological transition.
Presencing as Leadership	Encourages leaders to act from emerging futures, not inherited patterns, cultivating awareness and generative action.	Scharmer (2009): Presencing as a practice of sensing and actualizing future potential.
Strategic Repositioning	Frames regeneration not as a sustainability gesture but as a new strategic horizon aligned with resilience and contextual intelligence.	Positions transformation as evolutionary, not reactive.

Regenerative transformation is not a peripheral initiative. It reflects a deeper evolution in how leadership is understood and exercised. The challenge is not how quickly an organization can pivot in response to change, but how clearly it can perceive the systems it depends on, how wisely it can design for resilience, and how consciously it can evolve. The transition from disruption to regeneration is not a market trend. It is a strategic horizon.

Redefining Metrics: Beyond GDP and Traditional KPIs

For all the discussions about transformation, strategy, and innovation, measurement often remains anchored in a logic that privileges scale over significance. GDP at the national level, and revenue growth or productivity ratios at the organizational level, continue to dominate as symbols of progress. These metrics reward activity, volume, and throughput, while offering little insight into the quality, sustainability, or distribution of outcomes.

This misalignment becomes especially visible when organizations pursue post-growth or regenerative strategies using tools designed for extractive models. A company may shift toward circular production or community-focused investment, yet still be evaluated by quarterly benchmarks that ignore those shifts. As long as performance is assessed through indicators that prioritize expansion, the incentive structure will reinforce decisions that contradict the stated purpose of transformation.

The alternative is not to abandon measurement, but to evolve it. Metrics must reflect what matters within the new narrative of value creation. For organizations responding to ecological and social constraints, this means tracking the health of systems, the resilience of relationships, and the long-term consequences of strategic choices.

Carbon equity per unit of value, for example, offers a more precise lens on environmental performance than aggregate emissions data. It asks not only how much carbon is emitted, but how efficiently an organization creates value within ecological boundaries. Social investment ratios reflect the share of resources allocated to education, well-being, equity, and community development. These dimensions are frequently overlooked in traditional budgeting frameworks. Regenerative impact indexes allow organizations to monitor efforts that contribute to ecosystem restoration or reinforce local economies, making visible a range of outcomes typically excluded from standard financial reporting. At the same time, employee flourishing can be evaluated through retention, engagement, and health indicators. This shifts attention to internal sustainability as a foundation for long-term strategic advantage.

These indicators are not merely supplementary. They become central when transformation is understood as structural and strategic, rather than cosmetic. They create space for new conversations at the leadership level, where trade-offs between speed and depth, or output and resilience, can be made visible and deliberate.

Aligning measurement systems with the broader intent of regeneration does not dilute accountability. It redefines it. When organizations measure what they genuinely seek to achieve, such as well-being, balance, or contribution, they create the conditions for change that endures. Without this recalibration, even the most ambitious strategies risk turning into narratives that remain disconnected from the mechanisms that influence behavior. In the context of transformation, metrics are never neutral. They determine direction.

Case Reflections and Strategic Signals

In moments of strategic inflection, signals often appear first in scattered experiments, emerging not as dominant trends but as indications that the dominant logic is being reconsidered. Across industries and sectors, one begins to observe theoretical scenarios that mark the edges of a post-growth transition, even if not yet consolidated into mainstream business models.

Imagine a company that decides not to expand into new markets despite pressure from investors. Its leadership instead redirects capital toward strengthening local supply chains, investing in ecosystem restoration near its operational hubs, and recalibrating its success metrics around community impact and workforce well-being. Growth, in this case, is not abandoned, but reinterpreted through a relational and regenerative lens.

Elsewhere, an organization revisits its product design strategy. Rather than increasing production volume or accelerating consumption cycles, it opts to reduce its product portfolio, simplify components, and prioritize modularity and repair. The goal is not to capture additional market share, but to extend product lifespan and reduce material dependency. Shareholders initially question the move. Over time, however, the firm develops a new kind of customer loyalty grounded in transparency and shared responsibility.

In another scenario, leadership at a mid-sized service firm begins to track internal cohesion and cultural resilience as primary performance indicators. Employee retention, trust-building practices, and time allocated to learning and reflection are incorporated into quarterly reviews. Rather than being treated as soft or secondary, these indicators are positioned as essential to long-term adaptability. Promotions and incentives reflect this logic, shaping a culture where value is measured in alignment with the organization’s capacity to regenerate itself from within.

At the policy level, consider a jurisdiction where procurement rules begin to favor organizations that demonstrate circular economy principles. Suddenly, eligibility for major contracts depends not only on price and scale, but on regenerative practices and supply transparency. In this environment, organizations that have already begun to shift their operational logic are better positioned to respond. Those still optimized for extractive efficiency find themselves constrained by outdated assumptions.

Consumers and employees also begin to act as informal regulators. In various imagined contexts, new talent increasingly evaluates employers by their ecological footprint and social ethos. Purchasing decisions are informed not only by cost or quality, but by perceived integrity. Organizations that fail to engage with these changing expectations risk reputational drift, even as their financials remain technically sound in the short term.

These scenarios are not yet dominant realities, but they reflect a pattern of reframing. Each one suggests that transformation, when it responds only to immediate pressures or regulatory mandates, remains reactive and constrained. Waiting for cultural permission or policy enforcement often results in strategic delay. Organizations that anticipate the post-growth context and begin aligning their structures and values accordingly stand to gain not just resilience, but relevance. The strategic signals are present. The question is whether leadership is prepared to read them for what they are: invitations to evolve.

Conclusion: Shifting the Story

The prevailing narrative that equates success with continuous economic growth has shaped business education, corporate governance, and strategic planning for generations. Yet this story, once aligned with industrial optimism and material expansion, no longer reflects the constraints or the complexity of the 21st century. Environmental boundaries, social instability, and systemic fragility reveal the limits of a model that remains fixated on volume rather than value, scale rather than sufficiency.

Throughout this exploration, it becomes clear that business transformation today cannot be reduced to questions of process or efficiency. It is not a technical adjustment nor a matter of digital upgrade. It is, fundamentally, a reorientation of purpose. Strategy must now engage with the deeper assumptions that have gone unchallenged for decades. Growth, in this context, is no longer a neutral objective. It is a choice that must be assessed within ecological, social, and ethical dimensions.

To lead under these conditions requires a different kind of clarity. Transformation guided by regenerative principles does not pursue growth for its own sake, nor does it avoid ambition. It simply redirects that ambition toward endurance, coherence, and contribution. This shift involves designing systems that protect what is essential, cultivating organizations that know how to replenish the foundations they rely on, and creating value that does not come at the expense of future stability.

The next era of business will not be defined by who grows the fastest, but by who adapts with the greatest intelligence and care. Regenerative transformation does not call for louder declarations or more aggressive targets. It requires a wiser sense of purpose, one that recognizes balance as a form of strength and meaning as the most enduring form of return.

References

Almeida, L. D. (2025). Energy: From efficiency to sufficiency. CIB Conferences, 1, Article 31. https://doi.org/10.7771/3067-4883.2105

Bhattacharya, A., Oppenheim, J., & Stern, N. (2015). Driving sustainable development through better infrastructure: Key elements of a transformation program. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/driving-sustainable-development-through-better-infrastructure-key-elements-of-a-transformation-program/

Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. (2017). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Carreño, A. M. (2025). Rethinking business transformation metrics: How to measure continuous change effectively. https://adolfocarreno.com/2025/02/04/rethinking-business-transformation-metrics-how-to-measure-continuous-change-effectively/

Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Beard Books.

Drucker, P. F. (2006). The practice of management. Harper Business. (Original work published 1954)

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman doctrine – The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html

Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. (2023). Unlocking the inclusive growth story of the 21st century: Accelerating climate action in urgent times. https://newclimateeconomy.net/sites/default/files/2023-11/NCE_2018_FULL-REPORT_2.pdf

Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Heilbroner, R. L. (1999). The worldly philosophers: The lives, times and ideas of the great economic thinkers (7th ed.). Touchstone.

Hoffman, A. J. (2025). Rethink the growth imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2025. Excerpted from Business School and the Noble Purpose of the Market: Correcting the Systemic Failures of Shareholder Capitalism. Stanford Business Books.

Jackson, T. (2016). Prosperity without growth: Foundations for the economy of tomorrow (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). Doubleday. (Original work published 1990)

Sorrell, S., Gatersleben, B., & Druckman, A. (2020). The limits of energy sufficiency: A review of the evidence for rebound effects and negative spillovers from behavioural change. Energy Research & Social Science, 64, 101439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101439

Stiglitz, J. E., Stern, N., Duan, M., Edenhofer, O., Giraud, G., Heal, G. M., … Winkler, H. (2019). Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-w2nc-4103

Vollrath, D. (2020). Fully grown: Why a stagnant economy is a sign of success. University of Chicago Press.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. (Original work published 1992)

Yalçın, N. G., & Foxon, T. J. (2021). A systemic approach to transitions towards circular economy: The case of Brighton and Hove. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 3, 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100038