The effort to minimize food waste along its value chain has become more important than ever in light of rising inflation. As the prices sore sky-high, it is important to make use of every bit and bite. Disruptions in the food supply chains and volatility of the global economy has resulted in the rapid rise of global food prices. The Agricultural Commodity Price Index rose by approximately 30% reporting the highest ever increase within a year since Jan 2020 (World Food Programme, 2021).  

And yet, 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted each year amounting to roughly US$ 680 billion in industrialized countries and US$ 310 billion in developing countries. (Worldwide Food Waste, n.d.). Let’s take a closer look.  

How much is wasted and where? 

What is alarming to know is that, despite the issues around the unfulfilled demand, food supply generates a significant amount of waste prior to and at consumption. Roughly one third of the food produced for human consumption goes as waste along the supply chain (Food Loss and Food Waste, n.d.).  the studies say, where, 

• Nearly 14% of total global food production is lost from production up to (and not including) the retail level.   (Global Food Losses, 2016) 

• While, 17% of total global food production ends up as waste from households, food services and retail. (Tom Quested et al., 2021). 

Food production as well as waste treatment costs to the environment 

Food waste does not just lead to more hunger, it costs to the environment.  

There is already a significant environmental footprint associated with food when it reaches the point of consumption, as nutrients and energy has already been consumed to grow, harvest, refine and process them. Reducing food waste therefore contributes to reduce these impacts. 

On the other hand, the way that the Australian bin system operates now, organic food waste and other mixed waste are collected together. This leads to food waste getting entombed in an anerobic landfill or when it degrades,  it produces a worse environmental impact than most of the inert material, due to the rapid release of methane (Levis & Barlaz, 2011). 

Role of commercial food preparers 

The contribution to total food waste by the hospitality sector globally is nearly 12% (Dhir et al., 2020). In the US alone 93% of the food waste generated (18.3 million tons) comes from restaurants and similar food services, where more than half (52%) of this waste ends up in landfills (Wasted Food Report, 2018). 

Looking at how to address avoiding and reducing food waste in preparation in the hospitality sector, is critical, as the food wasted has travelled so far  by then and is ready for consumption. 

Sustainable food preparation goes hand in hand with sustainable food choices and these two together change the way food is demanded, prepared and consumed along the value chain associated with it. 

What can food preparers do? 

As in most great cuisines, a few little changes to the recipe and ingredients will add a whole new flavour to the meal.  Here are a few changes we can make to make our food preparation and consumption more sustainable.  

1. Know your requirement – and manage the demand

Demand monitoring and tracking and using it forecasting patterns and trends will enable planning out purchases accordingly. Forecasts based on historic sales data and future considerations such as major events and festivals will not only improve utilization but will definitely save costs. 

2. Know the food’s footprint – and make correct choices 

The inconvenient but the ultimate truth about the environmental footprint of food products come from life cycle assessments (LCA). LCA studies show the difference in food products as well as the impact on where it can be sourced from. Addressing the dilemma whether locally sourced food make a difference at all, the facts say that the impact due to selecting food that have a higher footprint is much greater than shifting to local sourcing.   

As an example, red meats like beef produce 60kg of GHG equivalent (GHG-e) per 1 kg of product, whereas for poultry meat it is 6 kg GHG-e and for fruits/vegetables it is <1 kg GHG-e.

“Shifting your choice from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally, even if you do it one day a week.” (Weber & Matthews, 2008).

             3. Know you menu – and optimize the recipe 

There are creative ways to look at conserving food, at the menu design itself, without having to alter the verity of dishes on offer. Providing value to the food parts that are typically unused with a creative menu, have seasonal menus designed to absorb excess supply of a certain type of food, offering variety in the menu by providing half-half choices to discourage consumption of certain items are some of those. Seeking out new opportunities to cross-utilize the different parts of the same ingredient on multiple menu items or designing “food sink” dishes that can absorb leftovers of the last meal, are few of the other ways.  

4. Know how packaging matters – and avoid and reduce when possible 

Single-use packaging is to be avoided at all cost despite it being made of plastic or any other material. While plastic persists in the environment for some time and have received the biggest attention as a polluting material, other materials such as paper are not better as it has a significant environmental footprint associated with production Purchasing packaging with recycled material , if these are certified as safe for use, will encourage purposeful design of packaging to include recycled products. 

However, the best packaging for the environment is the one that is not used.  

If you can encourage customers to bring their own reusable packaging and offer benefits for those that follow through such as discounts or special offers, that not only does the best for the environment, but will also entice customers to return. 

5. Know what to do with what’s left – and have plans to divert for use, recover,  or recycle 

Even with all the steps taken to reduce the food waste, some amount of food will be left over or thrown away. But, that does not mean that it needs to end up in a landfill. The options below can be pre-identified while you make plans to minimize waste.  

Food donation 

Food that was prepared but not sold can be donated to food banks and soup kitchens, and partnering with charity organization will help distribute meals to those in need.   

Onsite or Centralized Composting  

Onsite composting can be a good option if you have the adequate area and means to perform it. This will lead to reduced or negligible hauling and disposal costs for the waste produced. With an initial investment and an appropriate area requiring for this, the next best would be to divert it to a commercial facility. 

Diverting to other places such as animal farms may be an option to explore if such is available in the locality. 

Continual Improvement 

The goal to achieve zero waste is not just a vision – It is a practical reality if the commitment for continuous improvement remains. The proposition for such improvements is not purely environmental, rather it creates value for businesses. A review of 1,200 business sites across 700 companies in 17 countries found that nearly every site evaluated achieved a positive return, with half seeing a 14-fold or greater return on investment(Craig Hanson & Peter Mitchell, 2017).  

At testing times such as this, however invisible it may seem, humanity directly or indirectly competes for resources, and food is one such basic need. Being the privileged to have access to food, there is never a better time to make the best use out of what has travelled in a global value chain to feed us, so that it conserves the produce for many others.  

The post Inflation Is Rising, Why Reducing Food Waste Is More Important Than Ever appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Most of the products we use every day are influenced by the ideas and mindset that originated from the industrial era (when resources seemed infinite, and sustainability was a mere niche). Designing to produce at the lowest cost (i.e. for products differentiating on cost) or the optimum cost (i.e. for products differentiating on quality and optimizing economies of scale opportunities) are at the heart of this industrial era design mindset. Manufacturing products with superior performance that earns a competitive edge in the market is also a similar aspect. In trying to optimize costs, aesthetic appearance, and performance, incorporating aspects that consider the environment in that era is given little thought.

The trade-offs of that model are evident. A few would be, economies of scale that need excessive resource extraction or manufacturing in regions that offer the lowest cost and shipping across the globe. Both have detrimental impacts in terms of resources and emissions respectively.

Regenerative design that aligns with circular economy has a different line of thinking. One such concept is to design for end-of-life management from the perspective that it will be converted to a different product. End of life in this instance does not necessarily have to be dismantling the product into components and recycling the components to recover the materials. The design of the primary product can be considered enough to take into account the design of the secondary product that uses the same components as the primary.

One such example is the do-it-yourself (DIY) projects of IKEA, which provides design challenges to use the components and remanufacture new products. Another example would be designing a gift wrapper to be wallpaper or a calendar, or designing an envelope to be a file cover at the end of its first useful life.

With all that said, as consumers, we have our part to play as well.

1. Question the end of life of the product at the time of purchase

We should be able to visualize what would happen to the product and how we use it during and at the end of its life. If you are buying a souvenir and branded merchandise, for example, a thorough questioning will help you understand whether it will be a dust collector at the use phase and end up as a mixed waste following spring cleaning.

2. Demand end of life information

A product design that has carefully considered the end of life and has at least provided disposal or recycling instructions is worthy of your consideration. Products that go the extra mile and encourage upcycling are even more desirable.

3. Embrace creativity

Though some products have detailed upcycle pathways, the majority of products do not. Does this mean we must throw away the products that are reaching their end of life? No. If we sprinkle in a little creatively and look at the products in a different light we can give them a new purpose and a new lease on life. For example, teapots to flowerpots or old ladders to bookshelves, and many more. The safety and practicality of the new use of the product is the only aspect needing a little extra consideration.

4. Patronise products with multiple service cycles and designed for secondary life

Buying a product makes the consumer a custodian of the resources that it constitutes. Better performance for the resources paid for comes with multiple cycles of regenerative use. Products that provide a specific material pathway that caters to two different needs of the same consumer would indeed be a prized buy.

For example, Patagonia, in one of their Black Friday Sales campaigns in 2020 had the tagline “buy less demand more.” Making a statement about the consumer’s power to ask for more things in a product rather than buying more things to fill in the needs.

Using the discretionary power of consumers and asking the manufacturers to rethink the optimum resource use through multiples cycles of regenerative products is a reality not too far away. So let’s take our first steps to achieve this goal.

If you’re interested in the other articles in this series please feel free to read my other work,

• Matching Does Not Mean Identical
• A Product Can Still Be Functional Even Though It Is Imperfect

Follow Anvarta for more of these stories and insights.

The post Purposeful Design Is the One That Thinks of the Next Life of a Product appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

We dread to have our favorite kettles, toasters, mixers, or irons broke. Not only is it hard to repair them, having to let go of something that we liked and was working perfectly fine is also not an easy thing. What comes on top of that is the extra burden to now search for a replacement, compare, evaluate and make the purchase.

Research suggests that people’s purchasing habits are such that they do not like to keep on buying or upgrading all products the same way (Cox et al., 2013). The perceived lifetimes of various products can be broken down into 3 categories,

• Up–to-date products are replaced before they are broken because the consumer perceived them to be out of date. (Eg: Clothes, mobile phones)
• Workhorse products are more in line with the functional durability of the product. (Eg: small appliances, replicable furniture)
• Investment products are perceived as ‘special’ in some way and therefore worth investing in. These are generally expensive products and/or have an emotional connection and can be unique for each consumer. (Eg: Vehicles, or the favorite cooking appliance)

When we are looking to replace these products, our behavior is influenced by a range of factors that affect each category differently (van den Berge et al., 2021). How we value a product is at the core of whether we keep using, repairing, or replacing it.

Here are some of the things to think about when deciding on the fate of such products.

Is it safe to keep on using it is it one of the key questions to ask? If a product breaks down exposing the users to a potential safety hazard, it is out of the question to keep using it. On the other hand, if it is aesthetics or a minor glitch, it makes sense to try out several other solutions. Our current problem is that the product manufacturers are not geared or equipped yet to provide us more options other than buying another brand new or discarding the product entirely (Even though the right to repair movement is gaining traction in some counties it will take some time before it becomes a mainstream practice. )

Here are some of those services in the middle that we should make ourselves ready to accept and considering that these options had been available, are we ready to settle with a less than perfect product but good enough to function on for its intended purpose.

What we can do as consumers and what should we increasingly demand from producers?

Here are some of the things we can do as consumers 

1. Cleaning

At times products are thrown away due to sheer discoloration from use. Fingerprints created with prolonged use, stains that have persisted which may require some specialized knowledge of chemicals to apply are some examples. If a cleaned product provides a renewed appearance for an otherwise functional product, that is worthy to consider.

2. Servicing

Often mechanical equipment is discarded due to their noise while operating. A bit of lubrication and mechanical parts cleaning may be all it needs.

3. Minor repairs

A kettle handle may break or a toaster would have one of the rubber cushioning pads which provides a perfectly flat landing may go missing. The product remains functional but needs additional consideration from the user.

Discarding an item such as this is only the third option, where the first option is to keep using it with additional consideration in operating the product, and the second is whether there is anything that can be done to fix/reduce the effect and use it. If we do not have the mentality of “perfection” in a product to provide us the “perfect convenience” several safe options may be uncovered.

What can manufacturers do,

1. Encourage product care and maintenance.

People only take care of products that can be maintained easily, have the means to repair, and are motivated to keep using the product without replacement. A few strategies to encourage product repair are making the maintenance process enjoyable, less technical, and providing a trigger such as a notification to remind the consumer.

2. Offer product buyback and subscription models

Manufacturers that offer products that are in the up-to-date product category such as mobile phones can offer buyback services that will provide discounts on future purchases. This creates a win-win situation where the customer is satisfied and the manufacturer retains the loyalty of the customer. Offering a product service system and access to services rather than the ownership of the product is another great way to go so that the product remains in use.

3. Provide services for major repairs

This is where the safe use of the product has been compromised or functionally it is inoperable so having it sent to the manufacturer for proper repairs might be the obvious choice. Therefore providing an easy and hassle-free process for customers to receive this service is important.

4. Provide support for minor repairs

Introducing buying options for spare parts for do-it-yourself (DIY) minor repairs and providing repair guides for such are other options, which would come as a value-added service to the product.

5. Testing and certifications

Manufacturers are still far away from refurbishing and recertifying products for reuse giving pre-loved and used products the credibility it requires to create consumer confidence.

If we shift from the “privileged ” mindset that resources are infinite and the notion of “a new product is always within hands reach as long as there is means to afford it”, a whole new set of middle-level consumption options start to appear.

A product’s operability is not always one or zero, there are many in between if we care to notice.

Follow Anvarta for more of these stories and insights.

The post A Product Can Still Be Functional Even Though It Is Imperfect appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Evaluating alternative products is key and unavoidable when we want to replace ones with better environmental performance.

Usually, the process entails having to consider more than one aspect – product performance may be key but there are several other.  To have the environmental aspect comprehensively covered, we use life cycle assessment (LCA), which is considered the ‘holy grail’ for that purpose.

The results of such an assessment do not lie, as it provides an absolute answer considering scientific facts. Yet, we may need to interpret it correctly for our purpose and ask the correct questions from the specialized practitioners who perform it, to ensure that it covers all the angles of a product evaluation that we intend to cover.

Let’s take a popular product evaluation problem – An everyday product which we collectively call – grocery bags.

What are the product alternatives?

There are many types of grocery bags in the market, and some are for single-use while some are reusable.

Following are some of the most popular types of grocery bags among consumers.

What do the life cycle assessment results say?

Many LCA studies have been conducted with a combination of alternatives of different types. Most of the results indicate that LDPE and HDPE bags have lower environmental impacts compared to other alternatives. This may seem counter-intuitive and contradict our general understanding, as there are several negative associations made with “plastic” specifically.

Here are some facts and results:

• In a life cycle assessment that was conducted in Denmark (2018) it showed that the environmental impact of reusable low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags was less than other alternatives, such as
• A similar assessment that was conducted in the United States (Kimmel, 2014) concluded that reusable LDPE bags have a lower impact compared with single-use HDPE bags
• Bags made of polyethylene (specifically LDPE and HDPE bags) have a much lower environmental footprint compared to cotton bags (which need to be used 52 times (to match the impact on climate change of LDPE bags) or PET bags (which need to be reused 8 times to match similar) (Schlanger, 2019)

At the same time, most of these studies highlight that reusing these LDPE or HDPE bags even as a liner for the waste bin (Edwards and Fry, 2011), may improve the environmental performance by a couple of fold.

In using results from the life cycle assessment, we need to critically question a few aspects in each study, in order to better compare them for decisions. The three main things would be 1) the boundary for analysis, 2) the method used and 3)the data source/s.

What are some of the other key considerations?

The reason for most plastic products (usually single-use plastic products) to be considered as “demons” isn’t to do with the product or the material itself, but the problems created with its end-of-life disposal. Litter created with these bags has not a common topic for discussion.

All or most of the studies assume that the product gets collected and goes in a recovery pathway as intended, so the impact of littering needs to be looked at separately

A study that was conducted in Spain (Civancik-Uslu et al., 2019) considered the littering scenario for the following grocery bags and developed a littering potential (LP) indicator for different types of grocery bags.

The results say a different story compared to the LCA studies we discussed above. If we have the Littering Potential and Global Warming Potential of grocery bags hand in hand, here is what we see.

Figure extracted from (Civancik-Uslu et al., 2019)

As the results suggest littering potential is highest in LDPE and HDPE bags as the litter gets accumulated in the environment and waterways causing environmental damage which goes unaccounted in LCAs.

While litter is completely a man-made, behavioral problem, which has nothing to do with the material itself, the flaws in behavior and the collection systems lead to a bad perception created about LDPE bags overall.

What else should we consider?

Here are a few other aspects we need to consider when interpreting LCA data in combination with other aspects to reach a decision.

1. Do the bags have reuse potential and are they actually being reused?

In the above study by (Civancik-Uslu et al., 2019) LDPE is assumed to be reused 10 times, whereas the actual times reused is much lower in real life. That makes their littering potential even higher.

Having reuse potential comes with the responsibility to design for reuse and pass on that information to the consumer and provide instructions on how to do it.

We do not see this happening currently for grocery bags.

2. What is the ability of the bags to regenerate in line with the principles of a circular economy?

The question here is whether they can be designed to have multiple useful reuses (such as using as a wrap, garbage liner or cover) or several useful economic lives following upcycling. With the weight of material content in a bag being very low, collecting it using a segregated approach is not a profitable exercise for collectors. On the other hand, collection of bags in a municipal bin rather than the recycling bin is encouraged due to the troubles it causes in recycling stream during processing. (Elejalde-Ruiz, 2015)

3. Is there a significant difference between recyclability and actual amounts being recycled?

The difference between these two is ascribed to poor disposal behavior, causing cross-contamination and the inefficiency of the collection and recovery systems resulting due to that.

Summing up all

If we bridge the gap between two schools of thought regarding Polyethylene grocery bags…

Yes, they create a negative environmental impact with litter compared to others, yet they are a better alternative even if they are used once compared to alternatives such as paper and cotton bags, with the impact decreasing even less when used multiple times.

Having LCA data provides an excellent foundation to start with comparing environmental performance. The ideal would be that all the above scenarios we considered outside LCA, can be used in environmental data modeling through LCA to provide a representative answer.

We often tend to do nothing when the domain knowledge, information, or the decision they lead to, in front of us are not clear. Breaking it into simple segments and progressive improvement in measurement is what we should aim to achieve in evaluating alternatives such as this.

What solutions can this information lead to?

It is important to remember that LCA data guides us to a decision as a key parameter, as the footprint of a material or a product cannot be altered significantly unless the production technology and raw materials are changed drastically.

Our decision may be shaped by seeking of additional information through questions.

As an example, some of the strategic alternatives to deal with the situation may come up through exploring answers to questions such as:

• Can we achieve alternative product designs with LDPE to have high reusability and promote reusability more?
• Can we have financial instruments that discourage litter (e.g. penalties), so that the intended recovery pathways are followed for LDPE bags?
• Should we discourage their use as the excess trouble for the recovery system is not worth it?
• Should we have better pricing for plastic to reflect the external cost and create affordability through product-service systems by providing access to products rather than ownership?

The post Unpacking the Problems of Packaging – Choosing Product Alternatives – Part II – Grocery Bags appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Pic credit: Pexels_Laura James

Packaging has had an evolutionary change of roles over the industrial era. From simply carrying, containing or covering a product, it is now a marketing tool that is directly used for communicating the product’s identity.

However, after improving the visual appearance and making a statement to its host product, packaging conveniently retires in a waste stream, destined to get sorted in a recycling facility or heading to a graveyard – a landfill.

There are no better reasons to reconsider why we need to rethink the design and package of products other than looking at its environmental impact.

• In the US, 28.1% of total generation of municipal waste contains packaging material which accounted for 82.2 million tons in 2018.
• In the European Union, the average packaging waste per inhabitant is 174.1kg in 2018.
• 40% of the plastic waste produced is packaging discarded after single use.
• From these discarded single-use plastics, only 14% of plastic packaging is being collected for recycling while 5% of it being successfully recycled into new products.

Why is packaging important?

In a competitive marketplace, packaging plays the crucial role of making a first impression of the product it contains.  In a consumer market, not only should it stand out to attract the consumer, but it should also provide a satisfying product experience that creates a lasting impact. The choice of packaging is therefore a critical decision, due to the role it plays in the buying process as well as in consumer satisfaction, retention and creating brand loyalty.

What are some of the key considerations that go in to packaging product choices?

Let us look at a non-exhaustive list of things that we consider in choosing a packaging product/material.

1. Functionality

What is the function that the packaging fulfils and how well does it perform that? For example, a milk carton is expected to contain the milk, preserve it for safe consumption as a food product before and after opening the package, and enable opening/closing to consume and store.

2. Appearance or the aesthetic appeal

As packaging has a direct influence on the consumer’s buying decision, it should ideally stand out or attract the consumer. In some instances, it is used to make a brand statement – for example, the packaging of a premium-priced item is designed to communicate its differentiation, inspiring its good first impression and acting as a trailer for what is inside.

3. Cost

Packaging is another sub-product associated with a product and we can classify it into product, component and material constituents. Each element has a cost attached to it for design, production, and distribution as well as for customization.

4. Environmental aspects

Although this element is not given due consideration in the commercial world, considering how much resources are converted from raw material to waste by simply having it as the package of a product, the aspect of the environment becomes a crucial factor that cannot be ignored.

What is packaging and what does it contain?

It is important to note that the packaging of a product is not only what we see and get as consumers – there is much more to it when we consider the value chain that delivers us the product.

For the most part, there are main layers of packaging involved in a product. We call them primary, secondary and tertiary packaging.

Primary packaging is the packaging that encounters the product. This will be the package that the consumers receive with their product.

Secondary packaging is where multiple units of primary packaging are packed, such as a corrugated cardboard box.

The next level, tertiary packaging is when a number of secondary packaging are stored together, such as a stretch-wrapped palate. Both, secondary and tertiary packaging act as safe houses along the supply chain for the product and the primary packaging.

Choice of packaging – What do we need to consider?

Let us unpack what we need to consider when we choose a product packaging.

Take for example how milk packaging adds benefits to the product.

Pic credit: Pexels_meruyert gonollu

The shelf life of milk is extended using a combination of processing and packaging. Milk usually has a very short shelf life (3 to 5 hours) and today we have been able to extend it to three months to one year. If we consider bottled fluid milk, its shelf life depends on the quality of the milk, processing condition, microbial growth, packaging material, exposure to light and temperature.

What should we consider?

When selecting a packaging material for fluid milk, the following are some aspects that need to be considered, and which form the criteria for packaging material selection.

When it comes to alternatives for milk packaging, there is an array of choices as packaging material: glass bottle, paperboard laminated cartoons and PET bottles, coextruded high density polyethylene bottles, etc.

In selecting the most suitable packaging from a pool of alternatives, a structural analytical method could be adopted when reaching a decision. That is where multi-criteria decision analysis methods come in to the picture. A conscious choice regarding packaging can be made based on what is important for each specific product, the criteria required and what is important to the decision maker.

Organizations could ensure that a 360 degree scan is carried out to capture all essential elements by following a proper methodical analysis in choosing a packaging material.   Above all, apart from the fact that environmental and cost factors become more visible with factual data put on the table, the choices can be made to align with strategy and competitive positioning of a product.

More on applying multi-criteria decision analysis to choose packaging material in upcoming articles.

Some  peer-reviewed papers that have discussed similar case studies

Carbonated soft drinks

Food Packaging

The post Unpacking the problem of making packaging choices – What do you need to know and where to from there? appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Pic credit: Startupphotos/pexel

We are often faced with alternatives or choices, prompting us to make decisions.

Making a decision implies that there are choices to be considered, and in such a case we want to not only identify as many of these alternatives as possible but to choose the one that best fits with our goals and objectives (Harris,1980).

Circular economy – Leading to complex policy decisions

In making the transition to a circular economy, we replace our current linear practice with a more regenerative alternative.

When such alternatives affect a country or an economy, their decision-making becomes quite complex. Public policy decisions are typically made not only considering criteria such as “value” typically measured through prices or financial indicators but also wider benefit to society such as “environmental quality” and “community well-being”. While some of these are measurable with money or another commodity (CO2 equivalent for example), some are not.

Let’s take an example

To understand the complexity, let’s look at the case study from Iran where there was a decision to be made by the public sector on the best reuse application for wastewater.

Given the geographical location of the country, water is a precious resource. The alternative reuse applications they had to choose between are as follows:

• Agriculture
• Industry
• Landscape
• Groundwater recharge
• Environment use

Here is how the four main criteria and sub-criteria look like when they are laid out.

In a situation like this, selecting the best alternative that is aligned with the criteria can be tricky and that is when decision-making tools come in aid.

A decision problem can have multiple criteria that affect its outcome and each of them could have different units of measure. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) can address the complexity of the problem in these instances.

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods – Why are they important?

1.   We make decisions without considering all possible impacts.

Using MCDM in decision-making leads to thinking about and considering the impacts which we could have missed otherwise. When you understand the philosophy behind the tool you are able to engage in that line of thinking and observe all the aspects that affect the final decision.

2.   We make decisions not knowing what can be assessed and what cannot.

There is a preconceived idea that these cannot be assessed, or evaluations cannot be done. They surely can be, and sometimes can be incorporated into simple decision-making tools. This is mostly the case for social and environmental aspects as monetisation is not straightforward as cost, where representative numbers can be readily identified for estimations (prices in the market for example)

3.   We make decisions for the wrong reasons.

This is not something MCDM can solve, but if the reason for not considering the right criterion is due to difficulty in assessing – MCDM can help. Due to the lack of knowledge in MCDM some decisions may seem impossible. In these scenarios, decisions are being made for the wrong reasons.

But, today due to the complex nature of decisions made, many measurement tools are being developed to measure these aspects and they can be simpler than what is commonly believed.

How do you actually compare “apples and oranges”?

To understand how these tools work, here is a broad categorization we can use to simply explain.

Let’s draw our attention to multi-criteria decision-making tools and draw the simple analogy of apples and oranges.

1. A single representative indicator derived out of multiple criteria.

All criteria are converted to provide a single representative answer as an aggregated indicator.

Basically, apples are converted to oranges and added to oranges to provide the total no of oranges. Cost-benefit analysis is such a tool, where all criteria are converted to monetary values to produce net present value (monetary) as the final representative result. 

       2. Multiple indicators providing multiple answers 

You will then need to count apples and oranges distinctively and use a method to determine the decision outcome based on what is more important for you. Your decision will vary, based on what you consider as important in a complex setting. 

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one such method where you make the decision by specifying the relative importance of one criterion over another. This is used when there are a finite number of choices are involved. Based on what you specify to be relatively important, the decision will prompt different choices for you. 

When the complexity of problems increase, there may be an infinite number of choices. Then there is an optimisation problem in front of us, for which we will  then need to employ optimisation techniques to find an answer.  

How easy or difficult is it to use these methods?

According to a survey carried out on IT companies, it was found that 71.9% of these companies knew about the existence of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods while 33.1% used them. As opposed to MCDM methods, traditional financial methods or methods such as cost-benefit analysis were known by 89.5% and used by 74.6%.

When considering the popularity, simple decision-making tools are quite popular while MCDM methods are mostly limited to be used by experts and the academic community. (Ishizaka and Siraj, 2018).

The need for specialised knowledge to choose and apply the complex methods are attributed as reasons for their limited use.

Not only to make decisions right the first time but also to change the course

What needs to be understood is that the decision-making process matters not only at the point of making the decision but also when decisions need to be re-evaluated with the change of circumstances. Laying out a rational and well-connected systematic process helps understand how the varying factors shift the decision output to a different one.

For strategic, long-term decisions and those that affect a bigger community (such as a nation, an economy) the use of these tools is invaluable as the right or wrong decision will leave a legacy that affects generations.

The post Decisions – Wish they were simpler, but they can be simplified! appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Image credit: Pixaby\qimono

Circular Economy has become a familiar buzzword over the last decade, and more recently we observe a range of definitions developed to describe it.  A research conducted in 2017 found that there are 114 definitions to describe a circular economy in the research literature.  The question is which is legitimate and which is not. Let’s first explore the ideas proposed by the major proponents of the circular economy.    

Schools of thought and concepts embedded in the idea of a circular economy   

Ellen McArthur Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that globally advocates principles of a circular economy, states that there are seven  schools of thought that have contributed to shaping the concept .   

Each of these represents different principles, some relating to material or nutrient flows, while others relate to economic systems thinking. We can also note some contradictions among these principles themselves. In addition, there are a couple of other economic concepts that complement the thinking of a circular economy.   

1. De-carbonised economy – where the economy is organised to achieve lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions indicated by GHG emissions per unit economic value.
2. De-materialised economy – where the economy is organised to lower the amount of material consumed indicated by material consumption per unit economic value.

In a nutshell, the current discussion around the circular economy has a few embedded concepts incorporated into it, which contain different goals.  

So, what is the core concept or is it a combination of all these?    

And most of all, do they have a converging purpose?   

An easier way to understand the concept of the circular economy is to revisit the fundamentals to understand the base.  

Explaining from the perspective of material (nutrient) flows   

Cradle to cradle principle (C2C) has set the foundation for all principles now communicated associated with a circular economy, yet later modified or interpreted differently. To understand it better, we refer to its purpose, vision, and mission. 

 Going by “Purpose guides you, Mission drives you, Vision is what you aspire to be”… 

1. Core purpose  

The distinctive purpose of a circular economy drills down to nothing other than “enabling regeneration”. Based on C2C, and to be more specific “enabling regeneration through addressing upstream activity design” is at its core.   

Let’s differentiate where the difference should be made.   

If we make consumption a reference point, the activities prior to consumption are referred to as upstream activities and the processes following that to bring post-consumption resources back to the economy are called downstream activities. 

2. Vision  

The vision or the state to be, for a circular economy is that all products and services are designed to regenerate through a defined nutrient pathway either via biological or industrial cycles.    

C2C talks about celebrating human footprint rather than apologising for it, as increased consumption will nourish the earth if products and systems are defined in line with that. So, consumption can actually be guilt-free, as long as the designed nutrient cycles do their job.  

3. Principles  

Cradle to cradle has three main principles that it identifies with.    

1. 1. Resources: Nutrients are nutrients   : All resources to be nutrients in circulation. They either belong to a biological cycle or an industrial cycle.   

1. 2. Energy:  Use of renewable energy  : Produce energy as renewable energy not through depleting resources.   

1. 3. Support diversity  :  The complexity of natural biological systems, as well as economic, social, cultural systems, are to be embraced, appreciated, and celebrated for their uniqueness. Devising context-specific solutions are encouraged.    

4. Strategies/ Course of action    

There are specific strategies for the biosphere and technosphere, to define ‘how to do it”.   

For the biosphere, regeneration can happen through industrial or natural processes to add the nutrients back to nature.   

 For the Technosphere, the strategies are:   

1. Share (products)
2. Maintain (products)   
3. Reuse (products)     
4. Repair (products)     
5. Refurbish (components )
6. Remanufacture (components )
7. Upcycle (materials) 
8. Recycle (materials)    

                                   Adopted from: https://epea.com/en/about-us/cradle-to-cradle 

Recycling is the 8th strategic priority, which might be a little alarming, yet it is the last resort in a world where regeneration is made possible.  

If Cradle to Cradle principle is understood correctly, “recycling materials to form a closed loop” or “achieve circularity by recycling” is truly not the underlying message. A number of strategies need to be employed to redesign upstream activities (production, distribution, and consumption) so that a reverse nutrient flow is achievable.  In fact, the focus should be on optimally designing the upstream, rather than sub-optimally modifying downstream activities to achieve regeneration of nutrient flows.   

An economy generating waste and requiring it to be recycled and repurposed at a material level is a linear economy, as waste is a strong signal that ‘designing upstream to regenerate nutrients’ have not or sub-optimally taken place.   

Why can Cradle to Cradle be considered a clear and integral way to explain a circular economy?  

Cradle to Cradle principle talks about optimum product, component, and material strategies and the use of renewable energy as the ideal case. Therefore, regeneration of products, components, and materials are optimised in the strategy hierarchy itself.  

As an example, a gold jewellery item would explore the first six strategies in the industrial cycle before it is remelted to make another product when none of the six strategies at the top require energy-intensive material modification processes.   

Attempts to make waste flows circular can create worse outcomes   

Waste materials, which is a by-product of a linear economy, may need high energy for resource-intensive recovery and repurposing processes to reinstate it to form a closed loop. If the principles of regeneration are achieved at the cost of resources and energy, they can produce contradictory outcomes, where there is a trade-off between “decarbonising” and “regenerating”.   

For example; let’s take a quick look at the process of concrete recycling. Once concrete waste is crushed, it typically separates into several constituent streams – coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, steel pieces, etc. If we separate the coarse aggregate portion that contains residue mortar from concrete and take it through a heat treatment process or a series of cleaning processes to remove mortar on the surface of the aggregate so that the resultant product is similar to natural coarse aggregate, theoretically you can achieve circularity or a closed-loop. However, a life cycle assessment (LCA) result is likely to suggest that the environmental impact of relevant categories (such as Global Warming Potential) is reportedly high, with high consumption of energy.   

Repurposing has its own costs – we need to be objective to see them

Resource and energy use generating further waste and undesired by-products, are other likely outcomes of recycling to achieve “purity”. Minimising energy and resources often end up with a “downcycled” ingredient, which would add complexity to a different product stream. All these negative consequences are a result of sub-optimally designed product in the upstream.  

This form of regeneration is not the essence of a circular economy.

Solutions in line with a circular economy would be – either to, design the materials in the concrete mix to enable recovery of some components (remanufacturing and designing for recycling), replacing concrete with a material which is more regenerative (upcycling) in buildings, or changing the way buildings are built and sold (Sharing).   

Using circularity as a “goal” or “strategy” in repurposing waste (downstream processing) can often lead to worse environmental impacts. Even for upstream process design, circularity does not necessarily mean restating to original condition, but to be regenerative into multiple cycles enriching the environment rather than depleting it.    

How far away are we from being “circular economy – ready”?   

Being in a linear economy, we do generate waste currently and seek alternatives better than landfilling and incineration. 

When recycling stands as the next best alternative, it is important to measure those with absolute environmental impact indicators such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). A comparative LCA would provide an idea of the resource and energy consumption associated with recycling to regenerate materials. The decision to replace a traditional material with a waste-derived material is a multi-criteria decision involving cost and performance aspects in addition to the environmental impact. There is also the need to make a call on whether the repurposing complicates a simple material cycle, in which case a bigger problem remains to be addressed in the next generation of the product when its end of life is reached. There are a series of “due-diligence” questions to ask to qualify solutions that lead to reduce impact than to worsen it.   

Above all, rather than considering ‘circularity’ or ‘closed-loop’ status achieved as a win, it is important to acknowledge that we are in a linear economy if we are repurposing waste. 

Measurement criteria   

If we go back to the base, Cradle to Cradle adopts measurement criteria employing five aspects to qualify and rate products. The “ability to regenerate” and “consumption of energy” is captured in the second and the third criteria, whereas the first criterion focuses on “material health”, i.e., removing toxic and complex compounds from product chemistry to make the end of life management simple.    

Transitioning from a linear economy to a circular economy is complex and not knowing what to aim at to implement small transition actions can be daunting. Setting a roadmap for high-level transformation and implementing a phased transformation with goals addressing the key fundamentals would be a better approach to take. Measurement of where the alternative stands compared to the current practice is absolutely important, to avoid creating a worse outcome.  

This article is one of a series of articles that we will use to discuss different concepts, principles, and strategies associated with a circular economy, compare and contrast them, point out where their validity and contradictions lie as well as discuss common myths around the concepts.    

The post Aiming to achieve circularity as is – Where could we go wrong?  appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

The post Erasing babies’ environmental footprint ahead of their first steps appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.