Looking for signs
Where do we look to see if we're moving in the right direction from linear to circular? A few thoughts.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat; And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.”
(Brutus speaking in Julius Caesar, Act IV.ii, 269-276)
Future generations of humans, or indeed a future species from this or another world, may yet look back on this pre-sustainable period of the Earth’s history, with its whole range of possible outcomes along the spectrum from harmonious success to cataclysmic failure, and conclude that its inhabitants did indeed live in interesting times1.
Whatever, to many people these interesting (perhaps) times are characterised by a series of wicked problems. The methodologies for tackling such problems are well documented – acknowledge the complexity, go deep in the systems thinking, engage stakeholders and get them to work together, blah blah blah. But, let’s just take a step back from that for a minute – actually for the duration of this post – and think a little about some of the fundamentals that underpin what many think of as one of the most wicked problems of our time: how to make the shift from a linear to a circular economy.
We’ve often said here on The Green Edge that we feel like we’re turning over stones in the river, looking for clues, stories and signs that we are indeed, as a society, moving in the right direction towards a sustainable world. But which particular streams and eddies might we go poking into to find signs that all those vested interests and ingrained behaviours are changing? Some may be local and proximal, others diffuse and remote. All are significant.
The stuff we all use
Looking for mindset shifts in using natural resources is the most obvious one, of course. Shifting from a linear to a circular economy for natural resources requires mindsets to change from viewing resources as disposable commodities to valuing them as finite assets that must be conserved, reused, and recycled to minimise waste and preserve ecosystems for future generations. This is true for all types of resources – animal, vegetable and mineral – but where do we see the mindshifts happening?
Well, pretty much all over, on paper at least. There are the obvious things like increasing levels of recycling, with most local authorities now collecting up to 16 different types of everyday items. But, as we’ve written several times in past posts, in the more virtuous circular economy circles like repair, repurpose and redistribution, the steps are still of the baby variety.
Perhaps the most significant realisation among the masses that the pit isn’t bottomless – literally in some cases – is in the minerals kingdom. Oil, gas, water, we have to be careful with all those, don’t we. But the ‘EV minerals’ – lithium, manganese, cobalt, nickel? We don’t seem to be thinking too much about those yet.
World lithium demand, in 1,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent. Source: Statista
So, there’s a way to go, even for the black sticky stuff. For instance, until energy companies’ executive salaries remain tied to production rather than sustainability-related targets, then this problem is going to remain very wicked indeed. Still, it’s nice to see that many of the EV manufacturers have got nice little apps that coach their drivers in doing so more efficiently – BMW drivers please note.
The way it all works
Transitioning to a circular economy in business operating models involves integrating sustainability as a core principle, where companies prioritise the reduction of resource consumption, waste generation, and environmental impact throughout their entire value chain. So, what do we see here? Well, it’s a tricky one, especially in business cultures drive by the mantra of growth. We need to find ways to build in a more cultural cognizance of risk to planet, business outcomes and their impact.
One encouraging trend we seem to be seeing more of is an increased consideration of the whole life of products we use every day, from packaging to clothing to hair dryers. A lot of good work being done here in the design and engineering communities: good folks like the Design Council and the Engineering Society are seeking to shift mindsets, making sustainability central to emerging competences across a range of professions.
Taking links out of the chain
Shortened supply chains have become the buzz, particularly in our post-pandemic world. Different sectors like fashion and retail are looking at it in their own ways, but food seems to be the biggie and even has its own acronym: SFSC (Shortened Food Supply Chain).
This has all got to be a good thing, right? Well, yes, but as we may find elsewhere, short stubby versions of a longer template are not without their challenges.
Expanding public procurement of sustainable and regional food will lead to greater opportunities for the development of local infrastructure, though there is a further challenge to develop appropriate processing infrastructure and sector capacity.
Source: Soil Association, 2020.
Still, the signs are good, and we see some good work going on, like some who have had a go at putting together frameworks for assessing where and how much can be taken out of your common-or-garden global supply chain. After all, we can’t grow rice in Wolverhampton, can we.
Image: TGE from Hoang.
Who owns what
Transitioning from a linear to a circular economy in asset ownership necessitates a shift from the mindset of owning products outright towards embracing models of shared ownership, leasing, and access-based consumption, promoting resource efficiency and reducing overall consumption levels.
When we turn over stones in this particular pool, it seems to us that this is all about schemes, many with apps attached. There are tons of them in transport alone: vehicle-sharing, micro-mobility, ride-hailing, peer-to-peer car rental, and so on. Away from transport we have co-working spaces like Second Home, tool libraries like the Library of Things, and even shared cooking spaces like Karma Kitchen. The list goes on and we also see this in partnerships and networks being put together by local authorities. Long may they continue.
What’s it all worth?
How do we tie this all together? Perhaps we might look for links between the uptake of shared asset ownership and an increased focus on longevity and repairability of those assets, whatever those assets might be. In turn, we might look for signs that a return to a ‘we-do-make-‘em-like-they-used-to’ design culture is starting to have a slowdown effect on using the world’s resources, with short supply chains looking after the more virtuous circular economy circles of repair, reuse, repurpose and the like.
The bottom line, of course, is how we measure economic value. Moving towards a circular economy requires a shift from prioritising short-term profits to valuing long-term sustainability, where the economic value of products and services is measured not only by financial gain but also by their environmental and social impacts throughout their lifecycle.
We can watch for signs to indicate the extent to which a fixation on economic growth is having its impact on the environment, and how much the happy dependence (in some quarters at least) on technology will or will not save the day. But our point is this: gaining wider recognition of the fundamentals that underpin how our economy works is a first step in developing an understanding of the benefits of the shift. It also starts to show some of the competences and behaviours that we all need to have for a return to a sustainable world. Hopefully, we will never hear the planet repeat those famous words:
“Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got in in for me!”
(Kenneth Williams speaking in Carry on Cleo, 1964)
Whether another species would have an equivalent to the Chinese Curse is, of course, another matter. We guess in some parallel universe it must be so.