Linear “take, make, dispose” industrial processes and the lifestyles that feed on them deplete finite reserves to create products that end up in landfills or in incinerators. This realization triggered the thought process of a few scientists and thinkers, including Walter Stahel, an architect, economist, and a founding father of industrial sustainability. Credited with having coined the expression “cradle to cradle” (in contrast with “cradle to grave,” illustrating our “resource to waste” way of functioning), in the late 1970s, Stahel worked on developing a “closed‐loop” approach to production processes, co‐founding the Product‐Life Institute in Geneva more than 25 years ago. In the United Kingdom, Steve D. Parker researched waste as a resource in the UK agricultural sector in 1982, developing novel closed‐loop production systems mimicking, and integrated with, the symbiotic biological ecosystems they exploited.
Emergence of the Idea
In their 1976 Hannah Reekman research report to the European Commission, “The Potential for Substituting Manpower for Energy,” Walter Stahel and Genevieve Reday sketched the vision of an economy in loops (or CE) and its impact on job creation, economic competitiveness, resource savings, and waste prevention. The report was published in 1982 as the book Jobs for Tomorrow: The Potential for Substituting Manpower for Energy.
Considered as one of the first pragmatic and credible sustainability think tanks, the main goals of Stahel’s institute are product‐life extension, long‐life goods, reconditioning activities, and waste prevention. It also insists on the importance of selling services rather than products, an idea referred to as the “functional service economy” and sometimes put under the wider notion of “performance economy,” which also advocates “more localization of economic activity” (Clift and Allwood 2011).
In broader terms, the circular approach is a framework that takes insights from living systems. It considers that our systems should work like organisms, processing nutrients that can be fed back into the cycle – whether biological or technical – hence the “closed loop” or “regenerative” terms usually associated with it. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, an independent charity established in 2010, has more recently outlined the economic opportunity of a CE. As part of its educational mission, the Foundation has worked to bring together complementary schools of thought and create a coherent framework, thus giving the concept a wide exposure and appeal (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012).
Most frequently described as a framework for thinking, its supporters claim it is a coherent model that has value as part of a response to the end of the era of cheap oil and materials and can contribute to the transition to a low‐carbon economy. In line with this, a CE can contribute to meet the COP 21 Paris Agreement. The emissions reduction commitments made by 195 countries at the COP 21 Paris Agreement are not sufficient to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To reach the 1.5 °C ambition, it is estimated that additional emissions reductions of 15 billion T CO2/year need to be achieved by 2030. Circle Economy and Ecofys estimated that CE strategies may deliver emissions reductions that could basically bridge the gap by half (Blok et al. 2018). However, we have to keep in mind that economic and business goals and environmental goals are two distinct goal sets (see Appendix I).
Sustainability
The CE seems intuitively to be more sustainable than the current linear economic system. The reduction of resource inputs into and waste and emission leakage out of the system reduces resource depletion and environmental pollution. However, these simple assumptions are not sufficient to deal with the involved systemic complexity and disregards potential trade‐offs. For example, the social dimension of sustainability seems to be only marginally addressed in many publications on the CE, and there are cases that require different or additional strategies, like purchasing new, more energy efficient equipment. By reviewing the literature, a team of researchers from Cambridge and TU Delft could show that there are at least eight different relationship types between sustainability and the CE (Geissdoerfer et al. 2017)
- Conditional relation
- Strong conditional relation
- Necessary but not sufficient conditional relation
- Beneficial relationship
- Subset relation (structured and unstructured)
- Degree relation
- Cost‐benefit/trade‐off relation
- Selective relation
Use Waste as a Resource
The second element aims to utilize waste streams as a source of secondary resources and recover waste for reuse and recycling and is grounded on the idea that waste does not exist. It is necessary here to design out waste, meaning that both the biological and technical components (nutrients) of a product are designed intentionally in such a way that waste streams are minimalized. Closed recycling loops are key here, one for manufacture (production‐waste recycling) and two for disposal of the product (product and material recycling) (Lienig and Bruemmer 2017). This follows a cradle‐to‐cradle design rather than a cradle‐to‐grave process.
Design for the Future
Account for the systems perspective during the design process, to use the right materials, to design for appropriate lifetime, and to design for extended future use. Meaning that a product is designed to fit within a materials cycle, can easily be dissembled, and can easily be used with a different purpose. In addition to strategies like emotionally durable design, it involves anticipating product recycling (the reuse and further use of the product), and material recycling (the reuse and further use of its constituent materials) during the design process (Lienig and Bruemmer 2017). It should be stressed that there is not something like one ideal blueprint for future design. Modularity, versatility, and adaptiveness are to be prioritized in an uncertain and fast‐evolving world, meaning that diverse products, materials, and systems, with many connections and scales, are more resilient in the face of external shocks, than monotone systems built simply for efficiency.
Preserve and Extend What’s Already Made
While resources are in use, maintain, repair, and upgrade them to maximize their lifetime and give them a second life through take back strategies when applicable. This could mean that a product is accompanied with a pre‐thought maintenance program to maximize its lifetime, including a buyback program and supporting logistics system. Leasing programs (“purchase the usage” instead of “purchase the product”), secondhand sales, or product recycling also falls within this element (Lienig and Bruemmer 2017).
Collaborate to Create Joint Value
Within a CE, one should work together throughout the supply chain, internally within organizations and with the public sector to increase transparency and create joint value. For the business sector this calls for collaboration within the supply chain and cross‐sectoral, recognizing the interdependence between the different market players. Governments can support this by creating the right incentives, for example via common standards within a regulatory framework and provide business support.
Incorporate Digital Technology
Track and optimize resource use and strengthen connections between supply chain actors through digital, online platforms, and technologies that provide insights. It also encompasses virtualized value creation and delivering, for example via 3D printers, and communicating with customers virtually.
Leave a Reply