272
All these options have been debated by policy makers, but tend to end up in the
‘too diffi cult’ box. Plastic carrier bag charges are as far as any of the UK nations
have got so far.
– Mandating certain aspects of product design, so that all products are designed for
longevity and recovery from the outset. This should change the economics of
remanufactured versus new goods, by lowering the costs of remanufacturing.
This should also create a new generation of consumer products and, with it, it
might be hoped, a change in consumer preferences away from pursuit of newness, towards embracing the durable, the ‘pre-loved’ and the reclaimed. It would
create both supply push and demand pull for reused products and recycled materials. Here, the national plans for Scotland and England signal a cognisance of
this possibility in relation to the EU’s Ecodesign Directive but in fairly tentative
language.
Another complexity for policy makers is that the circular economy debate
includes recognition that products and materials have impacts at their point of
sourcing, which may create risks for companies and which should be taken into
account in their supply chain policies. This is challenging but feasible for companies. For a national government, however, this wider dimension is much harder to
handle, as policy instruments that reach beyond national boundaries need careful
justifi cation, particularly if they seek to go beyond the internal trading arrangements
of the EU. Even EU supranational law making is increasingly under pressure to
justify itself to UK, and particularly English, political discourse.
6 Conclusion
We have seen that the idea of the circular economy has developed slowly over a
period of at least three decades. It builds on the concepts of waste prevention and
resource effi ciency by showing where the greatest benefi ts are to be realised, and by
emphasising the need to consider the sustainability of the sources of raw materials,
as well as their fate. It adds to the development of EU waste and resources policy
over the same period by emphasising the economic as well as environmental benefi ts of durability and recyclability, the need to more fi rmly link different actors in the
economy to achieve comprehensive recovery, and the need to condition product
design as the underpinning of the whole system. Progressive businesses are ahead
of government in their use of the term, and they have tools available to drive it
through their supply chains, but most smaller businesses have yet to fully understand the implications. Leading businesses also draw attention to the framework
conditions they need from governments, which include help with collaborative
approaches and better data, but also economic intervention in the form of more
strategic direction to provide investment certainties, with industries (UK Govt 2013 )
being the obvious vehicle for this.
J. Hill
All these options have been debated by policy makers, but tend to end up in the
‘too diffi cult’ box. Plastic carrier bag charges are as far as any of the UK nations
have got so far.
– Mandating certain aspects of product design, so that all products are designed for
longevity and recovery from the outset. This should change the economics of
remanufactured versus new goods, by lowering the costs of remanufacturing.
This should also create a new generation of consumer products and, with it, it
might be hoped, a change in consumer preferences away from pursuit of newness, towards embracing the durable, the ‘pre-loved’ and the reclaimed. It would
create both supply push and demand pull for reused products and recycled materials. Here, the national plans for Scotland and England signal a cognisance of
this possibility in relation to the EU’s Ecodesign Directive but in fairly tentative
language.
Another complexity for policy makers is that the circular economy debate
includes recognition that products and materials have impacts at their point of
sourcing, which may create risks for companies and which should be taken into
account in their supply chain policies. This is challenging but feasible for companies. For a national government, however, this wider dimension is much harder to
handle, as policy instruments that reach beyond national boundaries need careful
justifi cation, particularly if they seek to go beyond the internal trading arrangements
of the EU. Even EU supranational law making is increasingly under pressure to
justify itself to UK, and particularly English, political discourse.
6 Conclusion
We have seen that the idea of the circular economy has developed slowly over a
period of at least three decades. It builds on the concepts of waste prevention and
resource effi ciency by showing where the greatest benefi ts are to be realised, and by
emphasising the need to consider the sustainability of the sources of raw materials,
as well as their fate. It adds to the development of EU waste and resources policy
over the same period by emphasising the economic as well as environmental benefi ts of durability and recyclability, the need to more fi rmly link different actors in the
economy to achieve comprehensive recovery, and the need to condition product
design as the underpinning of the whole system. Progressive businesses are ahead
of government in their use of the term, and they have tools available to drive it
through their supply chains, but most smaller businesses have yet to fully understand the implications. Leading businesses also draw attention to the framework
conditions they need from governments, which include help with collaborative
approaches and better data, but also economic intervention in the form of more
strategic direction to provide investment certainties, with industries (UK Govt 2013 )
being the obvious vehicle for this.
J. Hill