Ken Pucker maes a convincing case that we need to change our perspective on what a sustainable circular economy should look like, one without greenwashing or mere incremental change. His criticism aligns with what my colleagues and I refer to as a “sufficiency-based circular economy,” wherein strategies of reusing, reducing, and rethinking consumption are prioritized over recycling strategies.
In our research, we investigated how companies can pursue more challenging strategies, such as sufficiency or less consumption of products in total. In analyzing 150 companies that promote sustainable consumption in different sectors, we found that only 30 publicly question the need to consume or discourage unnecessary sales. In other words, sufficiency is still a niche practice. While a minority of the sample pursues these more radical strategies, other companies indirectly discourage unnecessary consumption by supporting product lifetime extension—such as by offering extended warrantees and repair services.
Pucker criticizes the circular economy for being a potential “diversion” and “obstacle” to tackling unsustainable consumption. Rather than canning the circular-economy concept altogether, I agree with him that business and policy makers should prioritize sufficiency over recycling.
Pucker contends that fashion companies are not bold enough in their circular efforts. It is true that some of the largest businesses have focused mostly on efficiency and recycling strategies that deliver immediate financial gain. Companies also have not been held sufficiently accountable for their environmental and societal impacts. But there are some notable exceptions, including legislation such as New York’s Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act, which fines companies if they do not keep their emissions within the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal.
Sustainability efforts, however, not only should be driven by policy but should originate from companies, too. In their book, Net Positive, Andrew Winston and Paul Polman advocate for businesses to extend their positive influence beyond their practices. This would include avoiding unnecessary consumption and production. They also assert that extending such influence is an opportunity for businesses to remain competitive in the long run—e.g., by being ahead of legislation and remaining attractive to customers, supply-chain partners, and employees. The example of Paul Polman, who has advocated for an extended positive role of business in society since his time as Unilever’s CEO, should provide inspiration for others.
Pucker criticizes circular business models for failing to achieve scale. Indeed, innovation theory suggests that companies spend most of their time exploiting their business model and optimizing what is known, rather than exploring new opportunities.
We should commend companies that openly challenge their linear business models by testing out new ones. Driven by upcoming European Union legislation, IKEA made spare parts for furniture more readily available and trialed secondhand offerings. H&M has a “take care” initiative to help customers repair their clothes to extend their life. Several corporations—spurred by legislation, customer interest, and organizations—have started to create circular-economy visions that have led them to challenge their linear business models. It is important to note, however, that adopting a circular business model takes time because companies cannot abandon their existing capabilities, assets, practices, and employee base overnight.
The way for companies to understand which business models work in practice is through experimentation and trial. In fairness, these can be expanded much more quickly than many businesses are doing now. But companies’ public pilots should be applauded, as they signal that both the company and we as consumers should start changing our behaviors.
Pucker presents four ways to move forward with circularity through changes to public policy. I will focus on overconsumption because it resides at the core of sustainability issues in many sectors. He mentions the need for tax increases. While these could reduce the total consumption of fashion items, they would unevenly affect poorer customers through price increases.
A more radical measure would be to put quotas on resource use, sales, and consumption. Examples include quotas on annual air travel, car mileage, and a tapered tariff where fuel or electricity would become more expensive with increased usage. These policies could be incrementally adopted by increasing taxes on some of the most unsustainable industries (e.g., aviation, automotive, livestock) while using these taxes to build cleaner alternatives. Finally, planned product obsolescence and marketing that drives unsustainable consumption patterns should be regulated.
To conclude, climate-change solutions should not be left only to policy makers and businesses. We, as global citizens and consumers of products and services, must also play a role. A 2017 study by researchers from Lund University in Sweden highlights the importance of personal choices to help resolve the climate crisis. How we eat and move and what we purchase affect our carbon footprint. By embracing new business models of product reuse, car sharing, and food-waste avoidance, we can become part of the circular economy transition.
Read more stories by Nancy Bocken.