The circular economy (CE) concept is informing the governance of resource use and waste management on a global scale, leading to widespread policy instrument innovation. However, the recent appearance of CE ‘policy portfolios’ raises questions about whether such policies are genuinely path-breaking or are merely adjustments to existing arrangements. Tracing the emergence of the European Union’s Circular Economy Package shows that, while some measures are genuinely novel, many others are ‘patched’ onto pre-existing instruments and that the overall portfolio exhibits a high degree of institutional ‘layering’. Given the evidence of relative ineffectiveness of past incremental environmental interventions, there is a mismatch between such approaches and the scale, pace, and scope of transformation implied by contemporary articulations of the circular economy concept. Creating the policy conditions for sustainable production and consumption may require more radical policy formulations than CE proponents acknowledge.

Collective political action among divergent interest groups is not always easy. It requires coordination, compromise and, often, the persuasive action of a policy entrepreneur. Coalition strategies are often shaped by participants’ skill in mobilising ideas. Business-environmental coalitions – often considered ‘strange bedfellows’ – have proved to be important in emissions trading policy-making. In 2013, chronically low emissions prices meant that the EU’s climate policy flagship, the EU-ETS, was holed beneath the waterline. But, within two years and against the odds, ambitious reforms were agreed to steady the ship. Crucial to the rescue were the actions of a pro-ETS business lobby, orchestrated by environmentalists. We draw on thirty-two in-depth interviews to construct a discursive institutionalist account of collective interest representation in relation to the reforms. We highlight the ability of policy entrepreneurs to fashion a ‘change-but-no-change’ pro-reform narrative attractive to businesses, despite the fact that such discursive strategies risked marginalising alternative and more disruptive ideas.

Offshore wind megaprojects in European waters have significant carbon abatement potential and increasing their number is a policy goal for several European maritime nations. But experience has shown that governance of large-scale, commercial offshore wind development is not straightforward. It is found that in five EU member states, policy innovation intended to enable investment in offshore wind projects is leading to a convergence upon a distinctive European model of offshore wind governance. The European Union appears to play numerous roles in this process and further research into how offshore wind policy innovation propagates in the EU is warranted. Policy relevance The governance of offshore wind megaproject development places specific demands on several areas of policy. This article firstly provides an account of recent developments in how offshore wind governance functions in some of the most important offshore wind-using nations. Secondly, the discussion of the EU's role in shaping offshore wind governance will inform future debates about the proper role of the EU in enabling investment in these megaprojects. Thirdly, the fact that policy appears to be converging raises questions about how policy is transmitted between EU member states, the answers to which could be valuable to policy makers looking at other areas of energy governance. Finally, the observed trend of increasing centralization of decision-making should be of interest to policy makers mindful of the role of scale and decentralization in debates about energy governance.