One example is that if someone like a recycler aims to assess the reuse potential of a product or component – but can’t do this right now since they don’t have product and usage data, even with access granted – they could save a labor intensive process step if data is shared in a trusted and standardized manner so it makes circular business models and operations more attractive. Another example is, that it will reduce consumers’ bad repair experiences by avoiding situations where a technician does a diagnosis without looking at an appliance, says it’s not worth it but provides a discount for a new one or similar – in some cases you’ll already find documentaries about “How not to get screwed over” which are damaging the repair market. A final example is, that this way it becomes clear which brands are following repair and circularity regulation so malpractices can be identified and legal actions enforced.
While there might be some prejudices when it comes to such a standard, we believe that repair and circularity are inevitable, the better business model and in all our interest. Done correctly, the Circularity Check will create a foundation for more sustainable business practices.
In the best case scenario, it will work like a product scan that recommends the most circular action given a product’s lifecycle and the local context in less than a minute.
This standard should consider expertise and viewpoints from: repairers who will perform the check, manufacturers that need to provide product data, retailers and insurances that need help in assessing the next best circular option, cities that aim to reduce waste, regulators who need to measure effectiveness of policies and support programs, and ultimately researchers who aim to understand the dynamics and can bring in the consumer perspective.