Ewaste is a Design Decision

The transition to a circular economy is underway across industries, sectors and communities, however the pace of policy reform, design outcomes and practical action in Australia varies considerably.

A key question is whether the initiatives – existing or proposed – can deliver against the fundamental principles of what constitutes a circular economy, or are they yesterday’s recycling projects rebranded to appear more ‘circular’.

All waste and pollution resulting from the lifecycle of a product is the result of decisions made by producers regarding what materials to use in production, the quantities, and the manner; coupled with supply chain and transportation logistic decisions. While producers aren’t deliberately seeking to create environmental harm, the obvious omission of environmental impacts across the complete product lifecycle in their decision making processes significantly increases the potential for harm. It is at the product design and logistics planning stage that the greatest reductions in waste and pollution can often be found.

Muscled-up resourced recovery programs ignoring activity at the top of the waste hierarchy will be impotent if they do not also address actions taken at the time products are conceived, designed and consumed.

While better product design is cited in circular economy policy-speak, it is treated superficially with the aim of including the ‘right’ language. There is insufficient evidence in Australia and New Zealand, that the required investment, incentives, training, policies and regulations are being used to activate circular design and therefore greater attention to waste avoidance.

It’s an unfortunate oversight and omission that few if any voluntary or co-regulatory stewardship schemes under the federal Recycling and Waste Reduction Act (2020) include adequate targets or reporting requirements to reduce waste and pollution through interventions at the design stage. There are minor exceptions however their overall measurable impact would be questionable.

In many ways design is the key to shaping a sustainable future and eliminating problems from the outset. Creating long-life products and high-utility services that are regenerative, restorative and waste free are a major part of the solution. Designing-out toxic materials and pollution is the positive disruption needed to make a difference. We need solutions that are environmentally positive as opposed to measures that are simply ‘less-bad’.

If design initiatives embody and demonstrate the ability to lock-out waste, toxics and pollution, while maximising the longevity of products, keeping materials in use and regenerating natural systems, then we’re on the right track. Similarly, if government policies and programs can go beyond conventional resource recovery and market development projects with a view to design-oriented investment and incentives, then positive change is likely, albeit with challenges along the way.

The menace of premature obsolescence

Premature obsolescence of manufactured durables, including electrical and electronic products, is an obvious contributor to waste generation and the loss of otherwise reusable components and recyclable materials. Indeed some critics argue that recycling has evolved into a convenient excuse for brands and manufacturers to build-in premature obsolescence and render products disposable well ahead of what most consumers expect, and this especially relates to electronics – the fastest growing waste stream in the world.

Any conceptual illustration of the circular economy places design for product durability, reuse, repair and the sharing economy as essential activities. It underscores the role of design as critical enabler of circular outcomes and alternative business models aimed at new patterns of consumption. It’s not just a simplistic argument about consuming less; it’s about how we act intelligently to decouple resource consumption (and its impacts) from economic growth.

Durability and Repairability Indexes

The French Durability and Repairability Indexes go a long way to improving consumer confidence and awareness of the impact of their purchases, but without regulated standards and the threat of punitive action for non-compliance, manufacturers and brands will not uniformly move to improve these aspects of their products. Some producers will make efforts to manufacture better products, seeking to capitalise on the market for more environmentally sound goods, but others will languish behind, safe in the knowledge less discerning consumers will continue to prioritise purchases on other factors. Such indexes would be significantly beneficial to Australian consumers and the environment just as we have seen with the Energy Star Ratings for appliances and the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme.

However these should also be coupled with monitoring, regular reviews and increased minimum standards to drive innovation towards more durable and repairable products.

For Australia to become a truly circular economy, producers must be required to consider the environmental impact from the whole lifecycle of their products, during the initial design phase of their products.