The architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry has a reputation for low resource efficiency worldwide. Policymakers are exploring various avenues to address the issue, with one option being a shift toward a circular economy (CE). However, first one must identify how the relevant stakeholders perceive the concept. Hence, this study aimed to elicit stakeholders’ perceptions about CE and identify the main barriers and enablers affecting its adoption in the Australian context. A total of 132 respondents representing various stakeholder groups were surveyed. The findings revealed that only participants’ awareness of CE has a meaningful link with adoption; and this has a statistically significant association with major CE adoption indicators (i.e. adoption, willingness to apply, level of agreement on considering CE as business ethics and that CE is beneficial). The top three barriers were a: ‘lack of incentives’; ‘lack of specific regulations’; and a ‘lack of knowledge’. The three top enablers were reported to be ‘R&D of enabling technologies’, ‘educate project stakeholders’ and ‘provide evidence for the CE added value’. This paper could inform policy development activities in the Australian context and provides the foundation for a roadmap to a CE within the national AEC industry.

Government actors, public agencies, industry and academics have struggled to change the rules of the existing business ecosystem to support the networked practices that were envisioned back in the 1980s with the introduction of building information modelling (BIM). Despite the industry’s far-reaching technological capabilities, BIM has primarily assumed productivity improvement by individual firms, which has not lead to a systemic change in the Finnish architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) business ecosystem. A field study of the Finnish AEC industry has resulted in a critical understanding of why successful and intensive R&D at a national level and wide adoption of BIM technology in Finland has not led to the expected systemic evolution of its AEC business ecosystem. Additionally, a methodology based on inductive grounded theory and historical analysis has been used to capture and identify the evolving and dynamic relationships between various events and actors between 1965 and 2015, which, in turn, has aided in the identification and characterisation of the knowledge and innovation ecosystems. The research findings provide insights for BIM researchers and governments in terms of establishing new policies that will better align BIM adoption with the systemic evolution of business practices in the AEC business ecosystem.

The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry has struggled in its efforts to transition to a circular economy (CE) due to lock‐ins, where the industry remains entrenched in practices that resist this much‐needed transition. The solutions implemented so far have been unsuccessful. This failure can largely be attributed to the prevailing paradigm, which assumes that by sequentially removing barriers transition will naturally follow. However, this assessment overlooks the “lock‐in” effect of practices within the industry's linear model. A comprehensive, holistic “whole of industry” approach is essential to uncover these lock‐ins. In this context, O'Brien's “three transformational spheres framework” is introduced to examine how Australia's AEC sector is deterred from transitioning to a CE by three groups of lock‐ins, and provide viable recommendation to tackle them. Fifteen industry experts were interviewed, covering the three dimensions of the framework. The findings specify three levels of intervention that must be addressed in the industry and recommend an order for tackling them: first, political systems and structures; second, practical behavioral and technical responses; and finally, personal beliefs and values. This article contributes significantly to the field by outlining a comprehensive array of strategies for industry transition. Implementing these strategies in the discussed order has the potential to catalyze the long‐awaited transformation of the industry. This advances the theoretical framework concerning the adoption of a CE within the AEC sector and provides a reliable reference for policymakers, practitioners, and advocates who are orchestrating this transformative journey based on circular principles.