Circular economy – recycling alone won’t solve the environmental crisis!

According to Gérald Martines (1), “by actively promoting the circularization of the economy (sorting waste, recycling, recharging…), and encouraging ‘small actions’ (putting a lid on the pot, turning off the light when leaving the room…) , we instill in the minds of citizens (a term deliberately chosen here rather than ‘consumers’) the idea that these ‘small actions’ could save us, that a few minor adjustments on the margins would be enough to allow us to continue consuming excessively with a pseudo-clear conscience. However, in his view, we won’t get off so easily without a more fundamental reevaluation of the model of overconsumption in which we are comfortably entrenched. Sooner or later we’re going to have to talk about moderation… Because by communicating so heavily about recyclability, aren’t we—consciously or not—giving consumers a bone to chew on, diverting their attention from other more effective actions like reduction or reuse, which are more virtuous but more complex to implement?”
And he emphasized, “We’ve only covered 10% of the ground on the path to a circular economy, and that was the easiest 10%. There remains a huge challenge to improve on that score.”

The so-called “linear” economy was the model that had become largely dominant since the mid-20thth century, a model defined by “extract, produce, consume, discard.” ” Since then, we have been trying to transition to the “circular economy,” which, according to ADEME, “aims to optimize resource use and reduce waste by promoting practices such as reuse, repair, and recycling. ” Is that really enough?

Gérald Martines: Fortunately, over the past few decades we have become acutely aware of the harmful environmental consequences of the linear model. The consumption of resources (oil, metals, water, soil…) and energy is increasing exponentially, and with it, as a corollary, waste production. And we know that continuous growth in a finite world is not sustainable in the long term: sooner or later, we will reach resource depletion.
This fact has been well documented since the Meadows Report, commissioned by the Club of Rome at MIT and published in 1972. In the 1970s, amid the enthusiasm of the “glorious 30s,” the threat might still have seemed vague, or even a wild fantasy of grumpy environmentalists, and the deadline distant. Unfortunately, the conclusions of this report, which proved prophetic, have only been confirmed since then with increasing clarity. Today, the deadline has drawn dangerously close, and some of our essential resources are now being overexploited, are in short supply, or have even already been depleted.

Any reasonable person generally understands quite well that infinite growth is not possible in a finite world!

Gérald Martines: That’s true, but our intuition—shaped primarily by small-scale, slow-changing phenomena that we’ve mostly encountered in our experience—is of little help when it comes to truly grasping how the exponential growth we’re discussing here works. We can illustrate this with the parable of the water lily…
“Once upon a time, a resident of Lake Geneva visited Monet’s garden in Giverny at the end of the 20th century. Charmed by the water lily pond, he decided to plant a water lily on his own shore. The plant found itself quite at home there; the climate was ideal, food was abundant, and there was no shortage of space—one couldn’t even see the other end of the lake, hidden by the curvature of the Earth beyond the horizon—a paradise for the water lily. And it began to grow, doubling its number of leaves every day. Today, a quarter of a century later, it has thrived and covers roughly the area of two football fields, or 0.002% (2/100,000th) of Lake Geneva’s surface area. »
Riddle: how long will it take to cover the entire lake? Decades, years? A long time, in any case, right? Not at all! It takes 16 days (2). This is the hallmark of exponential growth: it starts slowly, accelerates gradually, then faster and faster, and becomes a veritable explosion.
This is an academic example, of course; the center of the lake is too deep for the water lily to take root, and there wouldn’t be enough food, but it illustrates precisely that only external constraints can slow exponential growth.

In this context, it therefore seems urgent to change our model!

Gérald Martines: Absolutely! And it is clear that the circular economy presents itself as an alternative by aiming to preserve the use value of produced objects as much as possible, by “circularizing” the economy, by closing the loop, by shifting from the “Cradle-to-Grave” model to the “Cradle-to-Cradle” model.
In concrete terms, it implements a “suite” of complementary strategies: extending the lifespan of objects through design that prioritizes durability; using as much post-consumer recycled material as possible; reuse, as opposed to single-use or disposable items; and repair, which implies that the object was initially designed for that purpose. Ultimately, when the object is truly worn out after many years of loyal service, it has earned the right to an honorable retirement through recycling; we recover its constituent materials—rather than throwing all that value into a landfill and starting from scratch for a new extraction cycle.

This is indeed the classic way in which circular best practices are generally presented.

Gérald Martines: We can also add two additional points at the top of this list:
– Limit the materials and energy used to the absolute minimum because, in a time of scarcity, it is everyone’s responsibility to use as few resources as possible to perform a given function.
– An implicit prerequisite for the step above: make only what is necessary; do not give in to the temptation of gadgets or the “always more” mentality.
In this regard, we can cite an extreme example of “consumer excess”; One where a beer brand (which will recognize itself) created a robotic cooler that follows its owner like a shadow on a golf course and ensures he always has a nice cold can on hand—“a smart move, we must agree, at a time when global warming is making the heat on the courses even more intense.” One wonders how Homo sapiens managed to live for 300,000 years without this essential item! All of this comes with an onboard computer, sensors, motors, a refrigeration system, batteries, Wi-Fi… a model of simplicity!
Well, OK, it’s such an extreme example that it’s almost laughable, but we all know we could easily find countless others, almost as ridiculous… Do we really need a mini-fridge in the bathroom for cosmetics, a micro-washing machine for makeup sponges, a connected printer for nail art… ? More generally, let’s ask ourselves honestly whether everything around us is truly necessary; we’ll realize that the line is blurry, to say the least… If only we lived in a world without hunger, without poverty, without precariousness, and endowed with ‘infinite’ resources, we might be a bit more lenient toward this kind of practice…

Getting back to best circular practices, it’s important to understand the hierarchy of the different stages!

Gérald Martines: Absolutely, and each stage is more resource-efficient than the next. Furthermore, these stages complement each other and are not mutually exclusive; we shouldn’t have to choose—we must implement the entire sequence, meaning we should start by developing only necessary items, using the minimum of resources to do so—prioritizing post-consumer recycled materials—and designing them carefully so they are durable, reusable, repairable, and, ultimately, recyclable within existing streams.

Of course, this is a general framework, and the best solution is determined on a case-by-case basis based on a life cycle assessment (LCA). In the field of packaging, for example, it is not necessary for a pump to be repairable—that would be unrealistic—it simply needs to be robust enough to function properly over a “reasonable” sequence of bottle reuse through successive refills.

And what about luxury in all of this?

Gérald Martines: This approach does not exclude “luxury,” which is perfectly consistent with durable and reusable objects—even heirloom-quality ones—provided we avoid ostentatious excess. There are even opportunities to (reasonably) enhance packaging, to elevate it to a higher tier, following a “less but better” philosophy. We’ve recently seen experiments aimed at restoring, through reuse, a sense of prestige to categories traditionally lacking in emotional appeal, such as deodorant or cleaning products. Designing a product intended for multiple reuses allows for greater investment than in a single-use disposable package, and thus offers a more rewarding user experience.

Brands and packaging suppliers have embraced these approaches and implemented them to varying degrees.

Gérald Martines: Historically, the first initiatives focused on the recyclability of packaging, which, let’s not forget, is the lowest level in the hierarchy, and specifically in “simple” categories (bottles, jars, compacts…), likely because it is the measure that least disrupts business models and value chains (for these “simple” categories, it requires only minor adjustments to packaging design and materials used). It is also an action that is easy for users to understand, and one that marketers have seized upon to tout brands’ “commitment to sustainability.” This strategy has paid off, to the point that recyclability is often the first—or even the only—criterion consumers spontaneously cite when discussing their expectations for “sustainable” products. However, ensuring that “ALL” packaging is recyclable is far from trivial for the most technically complex categories, such as lipstick tubes, mascara, and dispensing systems… Note that this step is becoming mandatory anyway under the European PPWR regulation, but it is not sufficient on its own. As essential as it may be, we will not solve the environmental crisis simply through recycling.

But by heavily promoting recyclability, haven’t brands—consciously or not—given consumers something to chew on, diverting their attention from other more effective actions like reduction or reuse, which are more virtuous but more complex to implement?

Gérald Martines: That’s true! There’s a perverse effect in all this that we don’t talk about much: by actively promoting the circular economy (sorting waste, recycling, refilling…), by pushing for “small actions” (putting a lid on the pot, turning off the light when leaving the room…), , we instill in the minds of citizens (a term deliberately chosen here rather than “consumers”) the idea that these “small actions” could save us, that a few minor adjustments on the margins would suffice, and that we could continue to consume excessively with a pseudo-clear conscience. But we won’t get off so easily without a more fundamental reevaluation of the model of overconsumption in which we are comfortably entrenched. Sooner or later we’ll have to talk about frugality… before it’s forced upon us whether we like it or not, but that’s a dirty word.
We have only covered 10% of the ground on the path to a circular economy, and that was the easiest 10%. A huge challenge remains to improve this score. We should view this as a tremendous “design challenge”: reimagining a more frugal world where everything is circular by design. Isn’t that a stimulating and ambitious goal that we should all enthusiastically commit to?

Nevertheless, we are indeed currently seeing reduction initiatives (weight reduction, simplification of designs and finishes, elimination of non-essential elements…), as well as the active rollout of refill, reuse, and deposit-return solutions…

Gérald Martines: Certainly, since the concept of luxury is subjective and cultural, it evolves with the times, and we see high-end brands adopting lighter bottles, for example. Regarding reuse, refilling, and deposit systems, unfortunately, they are struggling to gain widespread adoption among consumers; there are at least four main obstacles to the widespread adoption of these practices.

From the consumers’ perspective:
• Convenience, which, along with price, is the number one criterion in consumers’ priorities: it’s hard to get more practical than single-use disposables, which have become the norm. Just as our grandparents lived without question in a frugal model where deposits and reuse were a given, so too does giving up the acquired comfort of disposables today require an effort that not all consumers are ready to make. We can, however, optimistically assume that this is temporary; unlike the decades of refinement of the disposable model, reuse, in its modern form, is a new practice that hasn’t yet had time to become ingrained in everyday habits and be optimized.
• There is certainly still work to be done on the consumer experience to make the practice simple, seamless, and rewarding, but there is undeniably a dimension of raising consumer awareness and fostering responsibility that requires significant to invest. ‘Consumers’ must remember that they are also—and above all—‘global citizens,’ and that the world’s current state of degradation is merely the result of the sum of our individual, even selfish, behaviors.
• The incentive to switch brands: perhaps more fundamentally, the beauty industry displays an ambiguous attitude toward reuse and refills. One of the key drivers of marketing is renewal, based on the appeal of novelty, often grandly labeled “innovation.” And in a market that is already saturated and populated by countless micro-niches, it is striking to note that many product launches still claim to address a previously unmet need, a ‘blank space’; founders of young brands declare: “I didn’t find this type of product on the market, so I had to invent it! ” Really? Yet it is fundamentally contradictory to overwhelm the consumer with a constant tsunami of new products and incentives to try new experiences, and AT THE SAME TIME, to hope that they will adopt refills, which by definition imply loyalty to a given product , over at least a few purchase cycles (and it takes about five repurchases for a refill system to be more environmentally efficient than a series of single-use products).

From the brands’ perspective:
• Decreased value: for a brand, selling a refill rather than a full-size product represents a loss of revenue, especially since experience shows that the incentive threshold for getting a consumer to switch to refills is a savings of about 30% compared to the full-size product. In a time of economic uncertainty, this is a significant sacrifice for a brand. As long as the market share of refills represents only a few small percentage points, the risk is limited, but if, as is desirable from a CSR perspective, this share becomes significant, the loss of revenue will be more painful, and it is not certain that brands will sincerely push in this direction.
• The threshold effect: to be economically viable, reuse must move beyond the niche and scale up. Collecting, cleaning, and reintroducing a skincare bottle or jar into the supply chain, for example, requires “dense” logistics and short supply chains. A small brand (and even a larger one) will struggle to justify the costs involved in collecting a few tens of thousands of units—even on a national scale—to transport them to a proprietary repackaging center. No one can do this alone; we need to devise shared systems that provide a fine-meshed network across the country. Such an approach requires collaboration between brands, in an industry where competition typically dominates. Early initiatives in this area are welcome; let’s hope they thrive and multiply.

This short list is obviously not exhaustive, but it shows that what is clearly desirable in terms of protecting our “life-supporting system” comes up against deeply ingrained practices and conflicting interests—undoubtedly the most powerful obstacle.

1) Gérald Martines founded IN•SIGNES to provide companies in the beauty and luxury sectors with extensive experience in innovation, sustainable development, and business development, drawing on 30 years of experience in marketing, design, R&D, sales, and general management roles across several international groups that are leaders in the beauty and design industries.
With a master’s degree in physics, a degree in mechanical engineering, a DEA in materials science, an MBA, and a master’s degree in foresight, Gérald Martines possesses a 360° view of the various disciplines, expertise, and functions that must contribute to strategic thinking on innovation and sustainability.

2) d1 0.004%; d2 0.008%; d3 0.016%; d4 0.032%; d5 0.064%; d6 0.128%; d7 0.256%; d8 0.512%; j9 1%; j10 2%; j11 4%; j12 8%; j13 16%; j14 32%; j15 64%; j16 > 100%