Rethinking informal circularity through metanarratives: Tensions, insights and directions for management research
综合102篇跨学科文献，识别出非正规循环的四种元叙事，揭示其在可持续性、贫困治理、行动者能动性及与正规系统关系中的张力，为管理研究提供新方向。
Abstract This study explores the intersection of the informal and circular economies and its implications for business, management and organization (BMO) scholarship and practice. Informal circularity, practices of collecting, reusing, repairing, recycling and repurposing materials outside formal economic, legal and regulatory arrangements, constitutes a critical yet underexplored dimension of sustainability transitions. We reviewed 102 studies across BMO, urban studies, geography, sociology, economics, sustainability science and others to synthesise fragmented insights into storylines (metanarratives) of informal circularity. Our analysis identifies four interrelated metanarratives: (1) the ambivalence of informal circularity in terms of its sustainability implications, (2) its entanglement with reproduction of urban poverty and governance, (3) the agency of informal actors through entrepreneurship and advocacy amid marginalisation, and (4) the interdependent yet contradictory relationship between informal and formal systems. These metanarratives surface intersecting tensions that both enable and constrain sustainability outcomes and invite deeper inquiry into how circularity is organised beyond formal structures and economies. We offer three contributions. First, we synthesise inter‐ and transdisciplinary perspectives on informal circularity, identifying metanarratives that capture its tensions and invite BMO research through our future directions. Second, we advance research on tensions in organising for circularity by showing how informal circularity challenges assumptions about organising, strategy and operations. Third, we respond to calls for boundary‐crossing sustainability research by integrating intra‐, inter‐ and transdisciplinary perspectives. Finally, we problematise the dominant policy and corporate circularity narratives that exclude informality from the circular transitions and advocate a more inclusive, context‐sensitive understanding of informal practices that maintain circularity.