Waste Cannot Be Left to Thrive
(Imagining the Real Circular Economy)
Disclaimer: All views expressed are my own.
Dear reader, at Ape On Earth, I always begin a post by asking, does Climate Change matter to you? If you’re unsure, consider reading Blog Post #1 (5min) to find out about your inclinations before you return. And please know I appreciate it so much if you do, it literally means the world 🙂
Singapore clearly has a waste problem.
And even if we do achieve “Zero Waste” once a new Circular Economy takes hold, the future of recycling will not be without issues, should we acknowledge the existence of an entropy limit of environmental effectiveness during recycling.
But can the world simply ignore, or do completely without the philosophy of “Zero Waste”?
After all, has it not always been an exemplary attitude, and an excellent framework for product design?
Why do we continue to legitimise waste and allow it to thrive, when it ONLY flourishes at our expense?
#SaveSemakau
Singapore’s ONE and ONLY landfill on Semakau Island is estimated to run out of space by 2035.
It’s also noteworthy that Singapore’s “Year Towards Zero Waste” was a year-long campaign launched in 2019 by our then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Masagos Zulkifli, and he called on the nation to,
“relook the way it uses resources if it is to achieve its vision of becoming a zero-waste nation”.
Can we achieve Zero Waste?
First let’s analyse some data.
I will retrace our nation’s waste data, starting from one year prior to the launch of our “Year Towards Zero Waste” campaign.
The focus is on “Total Waste Disposed”, because the key word is “Zero Waste”.
That means ideally, Singapore should be working towards ZERO Total Waste Disposed.
Total Waste Disposed = Total Waste Generated – Total Recycled
Based on the data above, in spite of the launch of the zero waste campaign in 2019, we still observed a 0.5% Y-o-Y increase in Total Waste Disposed, compared to the previous year (2018).
Luckily, in the subsequent year 2020, the trend reversed with some strength, and we achieved a 5% Y-o-Y reduction in Total Waste Disposed. Commendable, but clearly, we have a long way to go if we were to achieve ZERO waste.
Did the reduction trend continue in 2021, one year after the end of the zero waste campaign? Unfortunately, no. And it’s JUST SAD when you consider that 2021 registered a 9.75% Y-o-Y increase in Total Waste Disposed and reached a new high!
Perhaps we ought to take a leaf off a real world example in Kamikatsu, a small town in Japan, whose villagers have been upholding a “Zero Waste” spirit for over 20 years. Through their efforts, the town was able to push domestic recycling rates to 81% in fiscal year 2016, when the national average then was just 20%. Fun fact: Singapore’s domestic recycling rate was just 13% in 2021. Moving forward,
“the future of the zero-waste project would depend on businesses and local governments collaborating to make it easier for households to recycle, but added that individuals still had a duty to reuse and reduce,”
said Akira Sakano, head of Kamikatsu’s nonprofit Zero Waste Academy.
Is our dear friend Sakano on to something?
Hold your thoughts. I will come back to this later I promise.
First, time for a short story.
Short Story: Ms. Change-the-World, Mr. Take-My-Money, and the unassuming waste management officer
Imagine you’re an Entrepreneur, Ms. Change-the-World, with dreams of leaving the world a better place than you found it. Together with your co-founder, you both spent sleepless weeks validating your product’s use case and brainstorming the design of your revolutionary product. Your product will use state-of-the-art technology, and has an intentional (or unintentional) end-of-life baked into it. Your product would not be possible but for all the latest advancements in material science and electronics. While the former has given birth to proprietary advanced materials, the latter forces one to procure a microscope just so one could catch a glimpse of an ever-diminishing nanometre-scale node size. Weeks later, your product reaches launch day and earns an overwhelming response. Sales are off the charts. And sooner than imagined, you’re both back on the drawing blocks and the cycle continues, having been economically validated, but this time with the extra help of a hundred more staff and a higher sales target. Sounds familiar?
Next up let me introduce you to one VIP Customer, Mr. Take-My-Money.
He has been a fan of your startup ever since the early days and has been eagerly tracking progress towards all your product launches. Your 1st Gen product has already served him for a good year, or maybe two. But now it no longer powers up and besides, it’s pretty worn out due to regular use. By then, the next iteration of your product had launched and just like clockwork, he could hardly wait to shove his money to the nearest counter willing to accept it. Your “old” 1st Gen product is thrown away into a big bag of mixed waste, forgotten much faster than one might have imagined. Yet, I’m not so sure I wanna take it up with Mr. Take-My-Money just yet. And how about you? How do you feel so far? Do you mourn the death of your 1st Gen product? Not likely. After all, you made bank. And your VIP customer did all willingly. And let’s not forget that your upsized 2nd Gen team had probably spent the past year or so working hard and devising all manner of ingenious ways to entice and incentivise his type of behaviour. It seems that you and your team EARNED this outcome. No time to cry over what’s past. Time to pop the champagne and celebrate!
Gosh look at the time! Now hurry along with me, I’ve still got to introduce you to one more important person. Pardon me but I think we have to pick up the pace a lil’ or we’ll miss our chance! There he is! It seems we’re lucky today! He’s usually off to his next location by now. “Hi sir! Could you spare us a minute please?” I desperately called out towards the unassuming officer from the waste management sector, in the near distance. He looked towards our direction but did not seem to share our excitement, nor did he show to care much for this rare networking opportunity. Perhaps he has a very tight collection schedule to meet for the day. I promised him it wouldn’t take long. Reluctantly, he obliged. “What?” he said. I wasted no time and proceeded to ask if he was aware of what was in the last bag of mixed waste he was currently holding on to. But even before I could finish asking, he threw it into the back of his truck, just like he did for everything else before that. He looked at me curiously, shook his head, passed a glance at Ms. Change-the-World, then turned back to me and said, “No, I don’t. Can I go now? I’m sorry but I’m behind schedule.” I thanked him for his time and apologised for holding him up. As he revved off loudly in his truck, I realised I didn’t even get the chance to ask his name. It just seemed impractical for the officer to care that buried somewhere in those foul-smelling, myna-attracting bags of mixed waste, was a rather state-of-the-art product co-designed and produced by Ms. Change-the-World only two years ago. Everything gets the treatment of general waste and would be destined for the incineration plant in Singapore, and subsequently landfilled. (#RIPSemakau) 🙁
Let’s rewind a bit. What if this time your VIP customer cared to throw your 1st Gen product into the corresponding recycling bin and the waste was handled by a responsible recycling officer from the waste management sector instead? Sounds promising? Let’s see. Your 2-year old product (but a child!) would make its way to a relevant Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), where only regulated waste will be manually dismantled (if required), segregated, and raw materials recovered. Let’s give the facility the benefit of the doubt that all materials subsequently recovered get fed back as valuable and high quality feedstock into the “Circular Economy”.
But then what about the non-regulated waste? “But I demand equal rights! I don’t want to be incinerated aliveee!” a non-regulated waste might cry out in its last moments. And yet, this all happens in a world that supposedly champions equal rights.
Could we ever achieve Zero Waste like that?
The Linear Economy (Take > Make > Waste)
Dear readers, you all perhaps realise by now that the earlier tale was about what’s better known to us today as the Linear Economy.
Pause for a moment and consider just how ridiculous it is…
Entrepreneurs and corporations are free to design products in the Linear Economy with little to no responsibility over the handling of the end-of-life of their products. Most of us seem directly, or indirectly convinced that a group of unassuming waste management officers is expected to spend days, weeks, months, or even years tinkering and figuring out how to dismantle increasingly complex and state-of-the-art products, and recover all materials in order to miraculously fulfil a nation’s “Circular Economy” ambitions, and whilst doing so, also take care not to operate a loss? Boy! I could hardly catch my breath reading that last one! And does it all sound like an exciting business proposition that would score an investment in Shark Tank to you?
Exactly, Mr. Wonderful. And with that, I’m out too!
Make it easy to recycle right
First, to facilitate further discussion in all later sections of this article, I will group all entrepreneurs, businesses, corporations, and manufacturers, and henceforth collectively refer to them as producers.
Now, time to make good on my promise earlier…
Do you recall I requested you to hold your thoughts right before the start of the short story?
Remember Sakano from Kamikatsu, the Japanese village with a “Zero Waste” spirit?
Do you still recall Sakano calling on businesses (producers) and local governments to collaborate further in order to make it easier for households to recycle?
Sakano could be very well on to something, in that the key lies in making recycling easier. But should we stop at just making it easier for households alone as she suggested? How about making it easier for the entire supply chain? Too ambitious? I hear you. After all, making things easier for everyone is often quite hard to do.
How about we start over by asking a simple question?
Who understands the product best?
Is it the user? (You’re kidding right?)
Whenever users encounter serious issues regarding the product, who do they turn to as their last resort?
And if one producer is so ambitious as to develop and perfect one’s own proprietary products and materials over multiple cycles of R&D, then why would one expect any outsider to have equivalent expertise to effectively recover and/or recycle them?
Besides, is it unreasonable to suggest that only the original producers would ever know their own recovered proprietary materials well enough in order to effectively plan for their use in subsequent production runs?
How about if we used a test of “who knows best” to guide the assignment of stakeholder responsibility, to enable more effective recycling based on the circular economy? (Lawmakers help us out please. Why isn’t this already law? Isn’t this type of contract-less argument similarly established in the law of tort? Surely, it can’t be that we simply ran out of latin words to use right?)
Then is it unreasonable to suggest that only producers can be argued to know their own products best? After all, it takes a great deal of understanding to make a product, and often much more if one ever considers selling their products at scale for profit.
Should the rest of us only be left with the option to trust producers to care about circularity on our behalf? What rights do we have to ensure a sustainable future if there are no means to keep wayward entities in check? Or did our friend Sakano earlier refer to the role of local governments simply for fun?
What if we project into a future scenario where there is practically global depletion of certain finite virgin raw materials, deemed necessary for the continued survival of our future generations? Would that finally make the case for mandatory expert resource recovery and an accelerated end to the Linear Economy?
Now isn’t the Linear Economy a grossly bad design to start with?
Or are we too “advanced” a civilization now to even notice?
Waste – An obsolete urban tradition
Who the (bleep) invented the urban waste tradition?
Eugène Poubelle, yes bro I’m looking at you.
Buste d’Eugène Poubelle, par Denys Puech, exposé aux Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Poubelle#/media/File:Beaux-Arts_de_Carcassonne_-_Buste_d’Eug%C3%A8ne_Poubelle_-_Denys_Puech.jpg) by Didier Descouens, Mar 7, 2022. CC BY-SA 4.0.
Your invention didn’t age well now, did it?
Pause to imagine a world where the thrash can wasn’t invented…
Perhaps we wouldn’t have become so addicted to the notion that it’s ok to waste?
In almost every sense of the word (noun or verb), waste is NOT OK.
Battle for one – Waste or Circular Economy?
According to the first prophecy made by Prof. Trelawney in Harry Potter,
“… and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives…”
Whether one is a fan of Divination class or not at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, one has to admit that Prof. Trelawney is SPOT ON once again. ^^ And perhaps one could do well with a little help from “magic” every once in a while… (just kidding)
But I’m absolutely not kidding when I tell you that we already have a real life Circular Economy example long in operation in Singapore! Since 2003 to be exact! And its operations have touched our lives more intimately than one might imagine…
NEWater and the water loop – A real circular economy example.
Source. NEWater technology by PUB
Do you know that PUB has taken its circular economy design one step further in support of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, by actively replacing carbon-based energy sources with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems deployed on facility rooftops and reservoirs over the years? Floating solar panels even operate 5-15% better than their rooftop cousins, thanks to the add-on natural cooling effects provided by their placement on water surfaces. It expects to abate 60% of total emissions by mid-century and is studying new technologies such as carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) and carbon removal solutions that can be integrated with their water treatment facilities, to remove the remaining 40% of emissions.
Source. 1MWp floating solar testbed on Tengeh Reservoir (Photo credit:SERIS)
Dear readers, real circular economy examples are still rare today and must be celebrated. Off the bat, I can’t even think of another. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of entities who are well on their way, just that a real circular economy is a pretty strict definition.
So yes, I will brag about NEWater ANY and EVERY day! ^^
And so now, supported by lifewater streaming from our own shining beacon of hope, let us attempt to chart a refreshing path away from waste, and closer to a Circular Economy!
Keeping with tradition – Appreciating good progress
First, let’s try to jumpstart our expedition by taking notes from a well established charity organisation, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, whose efforts since its founding in 2009, have been instrumental in the acceleration of the spread of the Circular Economy concept across the Western part of the World. They work with businesses, international institutions, governments, cities, universities, non-governmental organisations, innovators, and many others to build a framework for an economy that is restorative and regenerative in the long-term.
The Foundation defines a Circular Economy as,
Or if you prefer, here’s their amusingly cute, yet remarkably reliable video explainer:
Since February 2019, the Foundation has gone far enough in their campaigning for a Circular Economy, to propose what is known as their Circular Economy butterfly diagram shown below, to describe the continuous flow of materials in their version of the Circular Economy.
Source. Circular Economy butterfly diagram by Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
I will summarise the butterfly diagram in a few key points below:
(I could not find a single good source for a full text explanation on the above butterfly diagram in their website, and had to resort to compiling information from their network maze of webpages, videos, and interviews. The integrity of their explanations have been preserved, word for word, as much as possible. Paraphrasing was only used primarily to facilitate an easier read. If you think there’s a problem with my interpretation, feel free to reach out.)
- The butterfly diagram has two main cycles, the biological cycle (green) on the left, and technical cycle (blue) on the right.
- The biological cycle suggests a circular approach to products consisting of biodegradable materials eg. food, wood, household food waste, and sewage sludge. Products go through the “cascades” phase after their collection to extract more value by cascading them for additional applications in different value streams. Eg. timber > table > particle board > compost. Another processing option for biodegradable products is the extraction of biochemical feedstock. These products, if found to be still organic, non-toxic, and biodegradable at the end-of-life, should ideally be returned to the Earth through processes like composting or anaerobic digestion. This allows the land to restore nutrients into the biosphere while rebuilding natural capital.
- The technical cycle suggests a circular approach to products consisting of non-biodegradable materials eg. metals, polymers and alloys. Products are kept in circulation in the economy for as long as possible through share, maintain/prolong, reuse/redistribute, refurbish/remanufacture, and finally recycle methodologies. These materials should ideally stay out of the Earth, and be continuously circulated back into the economy at their highest value. The current economy generally assigns a higher value to a product/component each time it passes through a stage of manufacturing. The logic follows that a product/component picks up added-value from each stage it is designed to pass through, before reaching its final functional form. Eg. A functional phone would naturally be assigned a higher economic value compared to any one of its functional components eg. its antenna module, which is an output from an earlier stage of manufacturing. Therefore, recycling (as per the Foundation’s definition) is treated as a lever of last resort since raw materials are typically regarded as the lowest in economic value.
- Even though the Foundation recognises the existence of products consisting of both biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials, eg. polycotton fabric (a blend of natural cotton and synthetic polyester), there is no separate cycle in the diagram dedicated for such products. Perhaps one could reasonably assume that the Foundation meant to suggest that one should separate the biodegradable materials from the non-biodegradable ones, and treat each material class in their respective cycles (biological or technical).
Now that I have kept with tradition and helped raise appreciation for the Foundation’s butterfly diagram in good faith, it is only fair I get to battle-test it as well.
A formal challenge of Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Circular Economy model
(This is a peaceful challenge by Ape On Earth. I fully acknowledge the merits of the Foundation’s cumulative works, from which I have benefited immensely during the course of my sustainability journey. If anything, let’s just build something better together 🙂 )
Principle basis for the challenge:
- The diagram leaves everyone to guess when products will reach their end-of-life, if there is even one. Also, every product end-of-life will likely be a highly differentiated one, and likely to be impractical for any industry to accommodate for at scale. Even at best, all material recovery processes will likely remain a highly expensive endeavour under this model, due to the resources required to handle products/components recollected in often unpredictable states. This leaves all upstream stakeholders guessing about the stability of their recycled feedstock quality and supply which can lead to erratic pricing levels down the chain. Ultimately, the USER suffers.
- Advocating support for a USER’s preference for DIY maintenance in the technical cycle can possibly create a new problem should every USER household begin to demand for their own set of maintenance toolkits for every known product. It may encourage unnecessary duplication of ownership of all manner of toolkits which are left idle most of the time. Simply, a waste of finite resources in spite of good intentions.
- The diagram leaves everyone to guess how the COLLECTION phase is managed after USERS are done with the products. Take note that in the technical cycle, almost every blue arrow flowing out from the COLLECTION junction phase, traces back to a previous stakeholder level in the upstream supply chain. For such a critical junction defined in the diagram, perhaps at least an accompanying writeup elaborating on some form of economically feasible blueprint for a COLLECTION hub, is of minimum order.
- The diagram is not sensitive to equity regarding the cycling back of materials into the economy. This is because the COLLECTION phase may have single authority over where and how it chooses to redistribute finite recollected resources. If there was any genuine intention to suggest governance on this, clues should have been clearly presented in the diagram, or at least provided as supporting writeup in the same page the diagram is shown. If one allows for an unregulated redistribution of finite recovered material to any entity other than to the original producers, one would find that the original producers would eventually run out of recycled materials for subsequent circular production runs of the same class of product. This will cripple REAL circular economy producers in favour of traditional producers which continue to unsustainably extract virgin resources and in doing so, will comparably have more stability in control over their feedstock supply and pricing levels, at least until finite virgin resources eventually run dry. This problem is already prevalent even for circular economy examples that the Foundation has endorsed for in their website.
To substantiate my last challenge point, let me offer a real case study. Bottling companies are already facing a problem when linear clothing companies compete with them for recycled PET bottles feedstock in the free market. This forces bottling companies to go back to relying on virgin plastic to make up for any shortfall of material needed for future production runs. That’s not all. The worst thing about using recycled PET bottles as feedstock for clothing is revealed by an article by The Circular Laboratory,
“…PET is bound in these clothes and cannot be recycled (yet), as there is currently no technology scaled up enough to take these fabrics and return them to virgin quality polyester so they can be used again. So, the value of the material is stuck in the clothing. And once it has reached its end-of-life, it will either be down-cycled or ends up in landfill. None of these options is especially good in terms of sustainability.”
The above case study is just one, out of TOO MANY. Can we afford to ignore their cries?
And with that, allow me to humbly introduce Ape On Earth’s version of A Real Circular Economy. A future where no one asks,
“Do you do trade-ins or takebacks?”
The model above attempts to reimagine a model for a Circular Economy. By no means am I naïve to think I have already solved the problem. But perhaps the model might serve well as an alternative trampoline for the development of a more resilient version of the Circular Economy.
Trace the flow path according to the numbered stakeholder levels. This is very much similar to the initial flow path of the Foundation’s butterfly diagram technical cycle. Once the flow reaches the “CONSUMER” level, the model then splits products into two general categories:
- one that has a producer-designed end-of-life
- one that does not
It’s worth noting that the second type of product could practically last forever if responsibly maintained. Once in a while, they come to us in a more familiar form, as priceless heirlooms.
On the extreme left of the flow diagram, one will notice two broad responsibilities, “CONSUMER’S RESPONSIBILITY”, and “PRODUCER’S RESPONSIBILITY”. There is also a suggestion for GOVERNANCE over both responsibilities to preserve all circularity loops and enforce against wayward entities.
You may immediately notice that in stark contrast with the Foundation’s model, there is now much less guess work for when the products will reach their end-of-life, as well as the state of the products at their end-of-life. This is because the product’s end-of-life state is now producer-designed and thus, quite specific. The basis of this idea is that a product at its end-of-life will only be economically valuable to its original producers had it been specifically designed to be fed back as feedstock for subsequent production runs in the first place.
The model chooses NOT to advocate for USER level circulation of products and materials (at their highest value). This even goes against one of the three original working principles of the Foundation’s definition of a Circular Economy. This is because the industry at large will practically struggle to accommodate USER’s runaway creativity in handling products that reach their typical end-of-life, especially if they evolve too far from one producer’s reasonable expectations. The producer-designed end-of-life must be preserved as much as possible by the USER in order to ensure the “highest economic value potential” of recollected products, parts and materials. The consistency in the state of recollected products will enable material recovery to develop into operations of scale that at least rival that of their forward manufacturing processes, and thus, are able to be optimised for lower operating costs.
The model does not need to consider whether the product is made from biodegradable, non-biodegradable, or mixed materials. The model only cares that every product’s end-of-life state is familiar, consistent, and can preserve a high economic value potential of recovered materials as they cycle back into the economy, and/or rebuild natural capital, under a new “PRODUCER’S RESPONSIBILITY” framework. This model also allows one to design for an overall low-carbon, or even net zero manufacturing lifecycle. Decisions on material type will now be based on which will be better suited to achieve an overall low-carbon, or net zero outcome, no longer just whether a material is biodegradable, or not. This helps to calm global confusion over which class of material is better for our environment. Because the answer will almost always be, “It depends.” This article by Columbia Climate School shines some light on what I mean.
The model tries to be more sensitive to equity regarding the cycling back of materials into the economy. In stark contrast with the Foundation’s model, the COLLECTION phase is no longer a single junction, and instead, is an extended process which traces the reverse of the initial forward supply chain. The principle basis for this recollection pathway idea is that, “producers know best”. After all, all manner of proprietary knowledge used in the manufacturing of products can be easily argued to be known best by their creators. All products should ideally be expertly dismantled in a way that materials can be recovered fully at the lowest cost possible, whilst keeping entropy generation low. Respecting the order of the supply chain for every circular economy example, also facilitates a circular economy built upon a high level of trust between stakeholder levels. All related stakeholders will quickly come to terms that they are heavily reliant on each other for business continuation under the circular economy model. Each stakeholder level has to play their equal role, no more, no less, or “circular leakage” issues will begin to surface. Third party regulation and governance should also be set in place to guard against wayward stakeholders and prevent the breaking of circularity loops, which are almost always inherently fragile.
All new entities must be helmed by qualified protectors of the Circular Economy. And all entities must now officially hand over all material recovery knowledge databases before they can be permitted to liquidate.
The CONSUMER is now only expected to preserve one’s used product according to the producer-designed end-of-life, and condition it to a prescribed state that is suitable for recollection at the nearest neighbourhood recollection facility. This is not any different from what good recyclers in Singapore already do today (#RecycleRight), except that perhaps this time they will no longer be let down by a collection system predestined to fail by rampant neglect, contamination and “low economic value potential”. Current domestic recycling in Singapore is more often an act of downcycling, unsuitable for a real Circular Economy.
Some of the biggest transformations will be expected to be seen at the “SERVICE PROVIDER” level under this newly proposed model, a.k.a. the service sector, which manages the front end of our economy and serves as the main interface between businesses and consumers. They will provide the front end consumer experience for end-of-life product recollection. Needless to say, they will have to be conveniently and strategically located.
Singapore already has a successful decentralisation model for its towns and districts. It will only require one further step to adapt product end-of-life recollection facilities into each township. I imagine these recollection facilities to be seamlessly integrated into thriving commercial built environments. The recollection facilities will be nothing close to what one may be initially tempted to imagine. They will hardly be the filthy or smelly corridors that we have grown to associate with the traditional collection of products at their end-of-life. Once integrated, they will look not much different from our bustling malls today, except that the new model will require significant changes made to the affected buildings’ core OSes. These locations should ideally have no troubles luring patronage and are typical champions of “shop, dine, and play”.
How will the SERVICE PROVIDER level fund all additional infrastructure and services required? (Now isn’t that just plain Business 101?)
Perhaps one may refer to Singapore’s SingPost Centre, as a worthy starting point. On the building’s front end, it looks no different from any other mall. But deep in the building’s core, it is home to Singapore’s largest post office, powering the backbone of our nation’s mailing and logistical needs.
A new DECONTAMINATION sector will blossom and will find itself working alongside wherever there are recollection facilities. Its operations will be not much different to how our healthcare industry has handled the 2019 COVID-19 virus pandemic. Only now, their patients are inanimate, and perhaps in that sense, easier to deal with. ^^
A Zero Waste future without #bloobins?
Perhaps when all is said and done, the future may be without need for Singapore’s blue recycling bins (#bloobin).
After all, #bloobin has seemingly lost its cool in its latest public appearance, complaining that it has,
“had enough of the years of misuse and abuse”.
Isn’t it time Singaporeans considered a well-deserved, and dignified retirement for our #bloobins, as they enter into their golden years?
Creativity is only limited by you, my friends 🙂
No doubt at first, many businesses will be in denial.
But business leaders, I implore you to see reason.
The evidence that Dark Times are ahead of us, should we continue in our old habits, is incontrovertible.
“In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity”
– Albert Einstein
Simply, one should no longer be creating products that one (or the Earth) does not want back!
For the producer taking early steps towards circularity change management, you only need to ask yourselves if you recognise the need for change. The first step will no doubt be the hardest. But the rest of “change” follows a well-known pattern and sequence of events.
One must never fail to underestimate how fast the waves of change can erode old cultures. Your business may call it a day but the waves do not. The waves will not respect your age, for their belief is that respect has to be continually earned. Failure to be quick and decisive can see you gone the next day.
Whether a customer will dispose of his product responsibly tomorrow once it reaches its producer-designed end-of-life is beyond your control, nor should it be your primary concern.
Instead, your organisation should work towards ensuring, and maintaining open-door recollection facilities for your products once they reach their end-of-life. An end-of-life state that this time, you designed 🙂 Don’t forget to work on enticing and incentivising ideal recollection consumer behaviour. After all, just like Ms. Change-the-World in our short story, one should be no stranger when it comes to EARNING desired outcomes.
Policymakers must support organisations in their transition. Laws for wayward behaviour must be enacted and enforced. Good examples must be trumpeted and exported.
Organisations must be transparent about their remanufacturing processes and publicise them loudly! Not all will notice, but those that matter will 🙂
Till your organisation can at least do that, no matter how much you claim sustainability in your DNA, you might just be #greenwashing. And if we call you out publicly without seeing reasonable corrective action in time, your organisation may very well be blatantly greenwashing.
Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash
SideQuest: Obtain an intimate understanding of what Greenwashing is. It’s quite a fuzzy topic at the moment and needs immediate support from the legal community for a legalese expansion exercise. Contribute here in the “Call For New Greenwashing Terms”. Cast your vote in a poll for new Greenwashing Terms!
And for all readers who have made it this far…
Thank you. It literally means the world 🙂
Watch this space.
Bonus: Zero Waste and Waste-to-Energy cannot coexist
Respectfully speaking, there needs to be reconsideration for Singapore’s Waste-to-Energy system, which by and large is a Linear Economy process that is incongruent with the longer term Circular Economy ambition, even if one considers the recent addition of NEWSand, meant to breathe new life to our incinerator bottom ash.
Simply, how does one support both Zero Waste and Waste-to-Energy at the same time? And without waste, what NEWSand?