We are coming to the end of this course on the circular economy. But before I leave you, there is one last important point to consider. The circular economy concept should be handled with care.
In reality, there are hundreds of very different approaches and definitions around the world. Some focus more on recycling, while others might focus on the technological aspect. .
. and then the requirements are not the same depending on the approach. The result is that, unfortunately, we sometimes end up greenwashing.
So, how do you avoid that? We’re going to talk with an expert, Valentina Carbone, who is a professor and co-director of the Circular Economy Chair at ESCP Business School. Hello, Valentina!
This may seem a bit direct, but. . .
What’s the problem with the circular economy? The problem with the circular economy is that we are dealing with a multitude of different forms and models. But it’s true that people immediately think of recycling, so let’s try to deal with this first : recycling cannot be applied to all materials, and when it can be applied, recycling is an industrial process that consumes a lot of energy, and there is a loss of material associated with recycling, so no… Recycling is not a solution to the linear economy problem.
What do you think that means? Will coercive measures be required? I like this question because I don’t like to put coercive measures against real-world innovation.
Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a lot of talk. Take the example of coalitions to fight the plastic problem. There are a large number of stakeholders, notably led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which has been advocating drastic reductions in pollution and plastic waste in the environment for decades.
However, today, the results are once again focused on recycling. Little is done upstream to introduce fewer plastic products and therefore to face the problem of plastic to the extent it deserves. What about all the solutions that rely on technological progress and green growth to solve the environmental challenge?
It is clear that technological innovation is flourishing. However, let’s take the example of recycling. We began with mechanical recycling technology.
Afterwards, we went to chemical recycling. Today, we are even pushing enzymatic recycling. So, you can see that technological innovation is here.
However, compared to the 9 billion pieces of plastic waste produced since the 50s and 60s, today we have managed to recycle only 0. 5 billion. There is a problem because these innovations, no matter how brilliant they may be, have trouble developing… There are regulatory, political, technological, operational and market barriers.
And I would also like to mention other perverse effects of technological innovation, such as rebound effects, like focusing on one problem while creating other kinds of problems in parallel, unintentionally. Another factor pushing this techno-optimistic vision is that even supranational organizations, such as the World Bank or the European Commission, are pushing this green growth vision. The word sufficiency, or the idea of slowing down the volume of production and consumption is rarely put forward.
Sufficiency? Is it compatible with progress? Absolutely, sufficiency simply means reframing our economic activities within planetary boundaries.
The planetary boundaries are physical limits. So, we have to stop extractivism’s “produce more, consume more” and push alternative models such as repair, eco-design, lengthening the life of a product earlier in the process, to always create economic value, of course, and have sustainable economic models. Thank you, Valentina, that was really enlightening.
Thank you. Right. So, now, what can we do with this?
What does it mean for a company to think “sufficiency”? To move towards the “circular,” the key question to ask is not so much about recycling or reuse, but rather that of essential needs. That’s what makes it possible to identify superfluous things.
Some start innovating directly from there, like the cosmetics industry, which produces 151 billion single-use containers for shower gels, shampoos, make-up, etc. , every year. The vast majority of these containers are not recycled.
They end up being incinerated, or in landfills, or in nature and the oceans. How do you introduce circularity into this? Increase the amount of recycling?
Yes, absolutely! But that’s not enough. We must also try to reduce packaging.
Do you know about these solid cosmetics? Which don’t need to be packaged? There are deodorants, toothpaste, or this shampoo for example.
For consumers, it’s a change of habit, but it’s starting to take hold. We can also think about refills. .
. More and more brands offer them. The consumer keeps the container and refills it once it’s empty.
In the case of this hair product, for example, the plastic savings are 82% compared to buying new, smaller bottles. Remember this essential principle: the best waste is the waste you don’t produce! In order to respect the planetary boundaries, the consumption of virgin materials must be reduced.
The good news is that following this principle also helps fight climate change. Because all these materials have to be extracted and then processed, and that’s a lot of greenhouse gas emissions: it’s actually half the world’s emissions! In fact, we don’t really have a choice: we have to act on all the aspects.
This is what a CapGemini study showed in 2022: the low-carbon transition MUST involve the circular economy. Why? Because without it, we risk not having enough critical metals to manufacture what will allow us to decarbonize the economy: electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, etc.
The study concludes that the low-carbon transition is only possible on the ONE condition that we act on ALL the stages of the circular economy — and in particular “avoid” and “reduce,” which are the two pillars of sufficiency. What does this mean in concrete terms? Here is a small diagram to help you understand.
We are in a theoretical model where we imagine that 100% of the economy has been circularized. That is to say that 100% of the incoming flows from the extracted materials are reused. If the economy continues to grow, more and more flows will have to be added to the starting point.
. . And therefore more material will have to be extracted.
However, as we have seen together, from the point of view of resources and impacts, this is not SUSTAINABLE. We must therefore move towards an economy that is both circular AND STATIONARY in terms of resources consumed. That is to say, at a constant volume over time.
It is this fundamental but often neglected idea that we wanted to share with you. If you want to fight climate change, then you need to get serious about a circular and sufficient economy. See you soon.
