Recent studies suggest an ecosystem view is most appropriate for understanding the impact of institutional voids on entrepreneurial activities. Expanding the focus to the entrepreneurial ecosystem is crucial for tackling complex low‐ and middle‐income countries' (LMICs) environmental challenges, as the transition to circular e‐waste management, which are heavily impacted by the institutional environment. Moreover, most entrepreneurs in LMICs engage in circular practices out of economic necessity, rather than environmental reasons. However, scholars have overlooked the effects of institutional voids on entrepreneurial ecosystems' potential to grow and realize environmental benefits. This study investigates how formal institutional voids impact the evolution of circular ecosystems in necessity‐driven contexts in LMICs. We study the evolution of a circular e‐waste ecosystem in Kenya and uncover two key phases: emergence and growth. We show that formal institutional voids' impact differs across phases; regulatory and contract enforcement voids create opportunities for informal and private actors to establish e‐waste collection, repair, remanufacture, and recycle businesses, thereby facilitating the emergence of the circular ecosystem. However, labor market, capital market, product market, regulatory, and contract enforcement voids hamper its growth. Specifically, the lack of skills, equipment, guidelines, and financial incentives hinders advanced repairs and remanufactures and limits recycling opportunities, while the lack of formal e‐waste infrastructure increases illegal dumping and negatively impacts human health and the environment. We develop propositions and a phase model to explain the impact of formal institutional voids on the evolution of circular e‐waste ecosystems and the realization of environmental benefits in necessity‐driven contexts.

Sustainability transitions are purposeful and require deliberate collective action from multiple organizations, leading to the necessity to adopt new business models and redesign value networks. In both business model and sustainability transition research, the explicit activities needed to re-shape value creation and capture systems of organizations are largely unaddressed. We aim to fill this gap by proposing collaborative sustainable business modeling (CSBMing) as a participative multi-actor approach aimed at value network innovation to accelerate sustainability transitions. To do this, we first conceptualize a sustainability transition as a business ecosystem change. We then introduce the value network as the interceding level connecting the individual business to the wider ecosystem, which upon scaling, can change the ecosystem, leading to transition. CSBMing aims to redesign value networks and may thus be used as an actionable approach to accelerate transitions. Second, through the multi-level perspective, we explain how CSBMing can scale, influence other value networks, and change the ecosystem. Third, we recognize that scaling value networks might need more than just implementation of a CSBM and show how elements of CSBMing can complement executing transition management activities. We illustrate the potential role of CSBMing in accelerating transitions through two examples from the Dutch energy transition. In all, we show that CSBMing can be a fruitful approach to innovate and scale value networks, create collective action needed for sustainability transitions, and contribute to transition management activities.

Stimulating plastic waste valorisation is suggested as an important way to address the growing waste problem in low‐income countries. However, policy interventions have not led to substantial waste valorisation, and the reasons for this have not been thoroughly analysed. We address this through a qualitative study of plastic waste in urban Zambia, which is representative of the policy and practice challenges in African plastic waste management. Using extensive data gathered through interviews, site visits and stakeholder meetings, we first conduct a business ecosystem analysis which provides a holistic view on value creation, capture, and destruction processes across all actors involved in the plastics lifecycle. Next, we map the barriers to value creation and capture by the system's main actors. Aggregation of these barriers reveals a low‐value trap, in which individual actors are disincentivized to increase waste valorisation activities. Finally, we analyse the reasons why policies aimed at waste valorisation have failed to break through this status quo. We find that policies have insufficiently addressed the barriers that keep the low‐value trap in place. Hence, they have not acted effectively on the root causes of systemic stagnation. By combining a business ecosystems analysis with an identification of barriers facing the individual actors in that ecosystem, our study is able to show why substantial plastic waste valorisation has not emerged despite policy incentives. Our analysis points toward concrete policy actions aimed at value redistribution and value increase, as key leverage points in the system to increase valorisation.