3rd PLATE Conference
September 18 – 20, 2019
Berlin, Germany
Nils F. Nissen
Melanie Jaeger-Erben (eds.)
Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin
Whalen, Katherine; Milios, Leonidas: Circular economy policy at a
crossroads: encouraging durable products or enabling faster recycling
of short-lived products? In: Nissen, Nils F.; Jaeger-Erben, Melanie (Eds.):
PLATE – Product Lifetimes And The Environment : Proceedings, 3rd PLATE
CONFERENCE, BERLIN, GERMANY, 18 – 20 September 2019. Berlin: Uni-
versitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2021. pp. 843 – 848. ISBN 978-3-7983-3125-9
(online). https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-9253.
This article – except for quotes, fi gures and where otherwise noted – is
licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0).
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
843
3rd PLATE 2019 Conference
Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Circular Economy Policy at a Crossroads: Encouraging Durable
Products or Enabling Faster Cycling of Short-lived Products?
Whalen, Katherine A.; Milios, Leonidas
International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Keywords: Circular Economy; Policy; Product-Service System; Non-Ownership; Business Model.
Abstract: Non-ownership models, where firms rather than consumers remain product owners, are
advocated as a way for firms to prolong product lifetimes and contribute to a more Circular Economy.
However, it has been suggested that such models could actually encourage ‘faster cycling’, meaning
earlier product replacement and shorter product lifetimes. Within recent policy discussions, product
durability to prolong product lifetimes has become a key focal point. This paper focuses on how policy
can encourage product durability and prolonged life for products distributed through non-ownership
models. The paper explores the relationship between policy related to product lifetimes and non-
ownership models through a review of existing and proposed policy for two product categories: mobile
phones and office furniture. The results suggest there is a gap in policy regarding non-ownership
models. While existing policies may address some concerns of faster cycling, additional policy
propositions from the European Commission should be considered. In particular, while relevant policies
related to either studied product group are identified, the policies with most potential come from outside
the existing legislative framework on eco-design and resource efficiency measures. Thus, the findings
are not only useful for academics and policymakers in the field of Circular Economy and circular
business models, but also to practitioners working in firms where these policy frameworks are relevant.
Introduction
Concerns about the environmental impacts of
resource production and consumption have
sparked a variety of new policy discussions and
legislative proposals within the European Union
(Milios, 2018). With the goal of contributing to a
more Circular Economy, one focus has been on
extending the value of products and resources
(European Environment Agency [EEA], 2017).
Particular emphasis has been placed on the
‘inner loops’ of the Circular Economy concept,
or how to extend product lifetimes, as keeping
existing products in use for longer periods of
time can theoretically slow consumption and
displace new production (International
Resource Panel, 2018).
Within the political discussion, one aspect of
achieving extended product lifetimes has
focused on designing more durable products.
New EU regulations have begun to address
durability by providing minimum lifetimes for
vacuum cleaners, domestic washing machines,
and lighting products (Bundgaard, Mosgaard, &
Remmen, 2017). By creating products that are
more durable or easily repairable, consumers
may be encouraged to use products longer or
even buy second-hand instead of new (Bakker,
Hollander, Hinte, & Zijlstra, 2014).
At the same time, the idea of Circular Economy
has sparked a resurgence of interest in
product-service systems (PSS), specifically
PSS non-ownership models that provide
‘access over ownership’ (Bocken, Pauw,
Bakker, & Grinte, 2016; Lacy, Keeble, &
McNamara, 2014). In fact, moving towards a
‘lease society’ has been mentioned within the
political debate (Merkies, 2012). In non-
ownership models, firms, instead of customers,
remain product owners over the product’s use.
Non-ownership models could help make the
business case for firms to undertake product
redesign, create more durable products, and
contribute to extending product lifetimes
(Tukker, 2004). The argumentation is that these
models incentivize firms to create more durable
products in order to decrease service costs
over product lifetimes and reduce the need for
new manufacturing (Stahel, 2001). However,
these models could also encourage earlier
product replacement and shorter product
lifetimes by making it easier for customers to
844
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Whalen K.A., Milios L.
Circular economy policy at a crossroads
switch to the newest and latest product models
(Wieser, 2016).
This paper will explore existing and proposed
EU policy instruments to better understand how
they address product durability and longer
lifetimes in the context of non-ownership
models. We present a review of EU policies
related to two different products as a starting
point for our investigation. Policymakers,
business developers, and academics may use
the findings to help facilitate discussions around
non-ownership models and product lifetimes.
Non-ownership models
What happens over a product’s lifetime during a
non-ownership model is not always transparent
or clear. Evidence is scarce that firms design
such models with a systems approach in mind
(Mont, 2002) and product redesign is not
always undertaken (Whalen, 2017). There are
also no guarantees that the product is actually
redistributed again or used for the entirety of its
potential product life, as highlighted by recent
media and documentaries (Korus, 2019;
Huang, 2018).
Although products within the EU that are not
used for the entirety of their possible lifetimes
may be directed to other uses and purposes
(such as exported to other countries for reuse),
the exact fate of these products and their final
use or disposal is unknown (EEA, 2012; 2014).
Moreover, even if such products were collected
for recycling, the system would most likely
experience significant efficiency loss due to
inefficient recycling technology and limited
recovery of materials (Andre, Ljunggren
Söderman, & Nordelöf, 2019).
A possible lack of accountability can be
discerned in such non-ownership model
practices, and it is unclear if existing and
proposed policies aimed at encouraging
product lifetime extension address these
concerns. Although numerous policy
instruments are being discussed related to
extending product lifetimes (Maitre-Ekern &
Dalhammar, 2016) and macro-level policy is
seen as a way to encourage circular business
practices (Whalen & Whalen, in press), it has
yet to be seen how existing and proposed
policies encourage product lifetime extension in
non-ownership models. In this paper, we aim to
develop a better understanding of this by
answering the following question: How do
existing and proposed EU policy instruments
address durability and longer lifetimes in the
context of non-ownership models?
Cases Studies: Mobile Phones &
Office Furniture
As policy measures are often product-focused,
we investigate this question by conducting a
case study of two specific product categories
that have received recent interest from
policymakers: mobile phones and office
furniture. We first review existing and proposed
legislation related to each product category and
then reflect on how each would address
product life extension (product life extension) in
non-ownership models.
Results
Existing regulatory frameworks targeted at
product life extension for mobile phones and
office furniture are focused on ownership
models (see ‘Existing policy measures’ in
Tables 1 and 2). In fact, a variety of frameworks
already exist that encourage product life
extension on the consumer-side such as
minimum guarantees of two years (Svensson et
al., 2018) or mandatory availability of supply
parts in some countries (EEA, 2016). However,
these rules vary from country to country and,
even then consumers are often unaware of
such measures (European Commission, 2015).
Thus, many proposed policy measures aim to
increase awareness of consumer rights, such
as by labeling (Gåvertsson, Milios, &
Dalhammar, 2018).
Other identified proposed policy measures can
be found under ‘General policy
recommendations for product life extension’ in
Tables 1 and 2. These include additional
consumer-oriented approaches to protect
consumers and encourage product life
extension such as guaranteed access to spare
parts (Whalen, Milios, & Nussholz et al., 2018;
Watson et al., 2017; Sanfelix Forner, Mathieux,
& Fulvio, 2014). Green Public Procurement
(GPP) is also part of the policy discussion
(Öhgren, Milios, Dalhammar & Lindahl, 2019;
Forrest, Hilton, Ballinger & Whittaker, 2017).
Green Public Procurement (GPP) can be a
powerful policy approach as it creates demand
for environmentally advantageous options in
public purchases, thus creating a pull effect in
the market by scaling-up relevant business
operations (Renda et al., 2012). The findings
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
845
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Whalen K.A., Milios L.
Circular economy policy at a crossroads
Core aim Existing policy
measures
General policy
recommendations for product
life extension
Recommendations to address
product life extension in non-
ownership models
Enable
customers to
extend product
lifetimes by
creating
awareness of
product lifetimes
& designing
longer lasting
phones
• Minimum legal
guarantee: EU
Consumer Sales
Directive: 2 years;
Sweden: 3 years;
Norway: 5 years;
Finland: expected
lifetime
• France: The Act (Law
no. 2014-344)
addresses durability
and lifespan of
consumer goods,
including the
introduction of extended
product guarantees
from 6 months to 2
years
• Enforce sellers to inform
customers of their rights,
labeling of warranty rights,
and declaring expected
lifespans
• Create specific eco-design
criteria for mobile phones
• Ensure software support
through minimum guarantee
period
• GPP criteria requiring longer use of
products for extended number of
years (by product category, e.g.
minimum 3 years for mobile phones)
• Mandatory priority of software
upgrade over hardware upgrade
Enable
widespread
reuse & increase
consumer
confidence in
second-hand
products
• Adopt refurbishment
certification standards
• Quality labeling for re-used
ICT equipment and re-sale
opportunities
• Non-destructive
disassemblability of key
components
• Adjust WEEE schemes and
lower VAT or tax breaks for
repair/refurbished electronics
• National re-use targets, to enable a
stable market for good quality
second-hand products and increase
sourcing from ‘non-ownership’ models
• Re-use/recycling certificates –
auditing, to ensure responsible
treatment and re-use opportunities for
EOL products
• Data erasure protocols and commonly
accepted methodology for protecting
the privacy and confidentiality of
customer data and enabling re-use of
ICT equipment
• EPR rules to recognize the need for
retrieving functional spare parts from
EOL products and redirecting them to
repair services and second-hand
markets
Increase
availability of
spare parts
• France: The Act (Law
no. 2014-344) -
obligation of retailers to
inform customers about
the time horizon that
spare parts will remain
available for a product
• Provide access to spare parts
for expected lifetime
• EPR rules to recognize the need for
retrieving functional spare parts from
EOL products and redirecting them to
repair services and second-hand
markets
Address the
variable quality
and supply of
phones coming
back
• Information campaigns on the
value of used electronics
• Encourage leasing models
(starting with public sector)
• Re-use/recycling certificates –
auditing. Within this policy approach,
there is a possibility for auditing each
EOL batch and depending on age and
quality it could be either redirected to
re-use or recycling
• Strategic use of GPP tenders to
include more PSS requirements and
provisions for extended use-phase of
products purchased (with associated
repair services)
Table 1. Existing and proposed policy measures related to product lifetimes of mobile phones.
Discussion & Recommendations
In terms of how existing and proposed policy
measures address product life extension in the
context of non-ownership models, it appears
there are limited polices that target life
extension when the shift of ownership changes
from customer to company. In fact, non-
ownership models could perhaps even provide
a means for companies to protect themselves
from proposed policies. For example, a product
producer required to provide guarantees for five
years could instead provide the product via a
846
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Whalen K.A., Milios L.
Circular economy policy at a crossroads
non-ownership model that upgrades the
customer to a new product every two years,
thus avoiding the minimum legal guarantees.
This gap in policy could be addressed by taking
a lifecycle perspective for non-ownership
models. The authors propose some measures
in the final columns of Tables 1 and 2, and
conclude this paper by expanding on three
proposed recommendations:
Service-Oriented GPP
Currently, GPP criteria mainly focus on the use
phase of the product throughout its life within
the public organization; elements of resource
efficiency in production and disposal after use
are not entirely considered (Wasserbaur &
Milios, 2019). Additionally, public sector
requirements can also be in direct contradiction
with product life extension as is now the
situation for ICT equipment (e.g. laptops and
mobile phones) upgrades in Sweden where
replacement happens in regular intervals,
irrespective if the product is fully functional or
damaged (Crafoord, Dalhammar, & Milios,
2018).
Furthering developing GPP criteria that take the
product’s entire lifecycle into account could help
ensure a selection of non-ownership offerings
that contribute to product life extension. New
methodologies could be developed to calculate
impacts in GPP, by using a mixed method of
LCA and LCC and rating systems of IO-MFA
(especially on critical raw materials and
hazardous substances). Admittedly, this is an
enormous task for public authorities to perform
individually, so it is essential that a central
authority with a strong mandate both from
government and industry can liaise with
scientific partners to develop such a
methodology.
Mandatory national re-use target
Currently, legislation provides only national
targets for ‘preparation for re-use and/or
recycling’ without making a distinction between
the two operations. In fact, it is most common
practice in EU Member States to calculate the
target by measuring the amount of waste
collected for recycling (not the actual amount
being recycled) and excluding any operations
related to re-use as these are particularly hard
to measure (EEA, 2013).
Core aim Existing policy measures General policy recommendations
for product life extension
Recommendations to address
product life extension in non-
ownership models
Enable
customers to
extend product
lifetimes by
creating
awareness of
product lifetimes
& designing
longer lasting
furniture
• Minimum legal guarantee: 2
years for manufacturer or
retailer warranty is implied
under EU consumer law
• Sweden: Eco-labels (i.e.
Nordic Swan and
Möbelfakta)
• Sweden: National
guidelines on GPP for
furniture, developed by
National Agency for Public
Procurement
(Upphandlingsmyndigheten)
• Longer mandatory warranty (i.e. 5
years) to encourage more
durable furniture
• EU wide Green Furniture Mark
(GFM) and labeling of products
based on eco-design
requirements, GPP or EU
Ecolabel
• Reduce or substitute certain
chemical additives (mainly
flame retardants). This can
extend furniture lifetimes by
enabling multiple uses and
enhancing indoor
environment quality
• Re-use/recycling certificates –
auditing
• National re-use targets
Encourage
longer product
lifetimes by
incentivizing
repair and reuse
• Sweden: Tax breaks for
repairing household
appliances at home,
including furniture (the so-
called ‘rut-avdrag’)
• Incentivize product return (i.e.
vouchers by firms (e.g. IKEA)
encourage customers to return
furniture after use)
• Utilize modular design principles
to enable better repair and
component replacement
• Mandatory partnership of
OEMs with re-use sector
Table 2. Existing and proposed policy measures related to product lifetimes of office furniture.
Loading more pages...