Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are increasingly aware of the benefits of closing loops and improving resource efficiency, such as saving material costs, creating competitive advantages, and accessing new markets. At the same time, however, various barriers pose challenges to small businesses in their transition to a circular economy, namely a lack of financial resources and lack of technical skills. The aim of this paper is to increase knowledge and understanding about the barriers and enablers experienced by SMEs when implementing circular economy business models. Looking first at the barriers that prevent SMEs from realising the benefits of the circular economy, an investigation is carried out in the form of a literature review and an analysis of a sample of SME case studies that are featured on the GreenEcoNet EU-funded web platform. Several enabling factors that help SMEs adopt circular economy practices are then identified. The paper concludes that although various policy instruments are available to help SMEs incorporate circular economy principles into their business models, several barriers remain. The authors recommend that European and national policies strengthen their focus on greening consumer preferences, market value chains and company cultures, and support the recognition of SMEs' green business models. This can be achieved through the creation of dedicated marketplaces and communities of practice, for example.

No abstract

Cities across the globe recognise their role in climate mitigation and are acting to reduce carbon emissions. Knowing whether cities set ambitious climate and energy targets is critical for determining their contribution towards the global 1.5°C target, partly because it helps to identify areas where further action is necessary. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the mitigation targets of 327 European cities, as declared in their local climate plans. The sample encompasses over 25% of the EU population and includes cities of all sizes across all Member States, plus the UK. The study analyses whether the type of plan, city size, membership of climate networks, and its regional location are associated with different levels of mitigation ambition. Results reveal that 78% of the cities have a GHG emissions reduction target. However, with an average target of 47%, European cities are not on track to reach the Paris Agreement: they need to roughly double their ambitions and efforts. Some cities are ambitious, e.g. 25% of our sample (81) aim to reach carbon neutrality, with the earliest target date being 2020. 90% of these cities are members of the Climate Alliance and 75% of the Covenant of Mayors. City size is the strongest predictor for carbon neutrality, whilst climate network(s) membership, combining adaptation and mitigation into a single strategy, and local motivation also play a role. The methods, data, results and analysis of this study can serve as a reference and baseline for tracking climate mitigation ambitions across European and global cities. Highlights• 78% of cities have a mitigation plan with targets (avg. 47% GHG reduction)• Only 25% of cities strive for carbon neutrality, most by 2050, avg. by 2045 • 90% of cities striving for carbon neutrality are members of a climate network • Ambition is driven by city size, climate networks, M-A combination, local motivation • European cities must double their ambitions to meet the aims set by the Paris Agreement

No abstract

PurposeEvaluation of energy and climate policy interactions is a complex issue, whereas stakeholders' preferences incorporation has not been addressed systematically. The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated weighting methodology that has been developed in order to incorporate weighting preferences into an ex ante evaluation of climate and energy policy interactions.Design/methodology/approachA multi‐criteria analysis (MCA) weighting methodology which combines pair‐wise comparisons and ratio importance weighting methods has been elaborated. It initially introduces the users to the evaluation process through a warming up holistic approach for an initial rank of the criteria and then facilitates them to express their ratio relative importance in pair‐wise comparisons of criteria by providing them an interactive mean with verbal, numerical and visual representation of their preferences. Moreover, it provides a ranking consistency test where users can see the degree of (in)consistency of their preferences.FindingsStakeholders and experts in the energy policy field who tested the methodology stated their approval and satisfaction for the combination of both ranking and pair‐wise comparison techniques, since it allows the gradual approach to the evaluation problem. In addition, main difficulties in MCA weights elicitation processes were overcome.Research limitations/implicationsThe methodology is tested by a small sample of stakeholders, whereas a larger sample, a broader range of stakeholders and applications on different climate policy evaluation cases merit further research.Originality/valueThe novel aspect of the developed methodology consists of the combination of ranking and pair‐wise comparison techniques for the elicitation of stakeholders' preferences.