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.

Dinner sets, tea sets, cutlery, plates, and dishes – You may have received them as a gift or purchased them at your fancy, yet one common thing is that they needed to match, or in other words, be a complete set.

“Match” is a tricky word we usually tend to associate with similar things when it comes to sets of items available in a pack. There is often the tendency to have them in packs of 4, 6, 8, 12, or 18. The bad part about these things coming in a pack is that when one breaks, it creates a feeling of “incompleteness” with the user. Marketing research suggests that people generally prefer to buy things as a package or pack and that is often a strategy used to promote and sell more items by producers.

In one study when participants were presented with a four-pack container, pre-filled with one, two, or three bottles of beer—they overwhelmingly said that they would purchase only the extras needed to fill all four slots, no more and no less (Barasz et al., 2017). The discomfort created by incompleteness is real!

What is likely to happen when a cup of a 4-piece tea set breaks may be different from what happens when a plate of an 18-piece plate set breaks. With the first one, there is the realization that you may not be able to provide tea for a family of four anymore and that may trigger a new purchase of another complete set sooner.

But does the “matching” need to be accomplished with identical designs? Can producers produce somewhat standardized, yet can be differently matched items? Or more importantly, as consumers can we still feel “complete” if we complete a set with mismatched items?

Here are a few things that you can do as a consumer

1. Associate your preference with the item itself, not the matching set

Pick the ones that you like best, and feel free to love them. If you break one, there is no need to lose the whole set, as you still have the option to use what remains.

2. Make it a lifestyle, do not associate with affordability

You may have money to afford a new set, but the temptation you need to manage is whether you should. The happiness you associate with still having the items you liked best, even though it’s imperfect, and the benefit you do to the environment (and the pocket) by not purchasing another should outweigh the trouble of finding another matching set.

3. Declare your choice upfront to visitors and guests

How we will be perceived when serving guests with unmatching cutlery is a concern we might have? Would it be seen as a lack of preparation or respect? But, tackling it is easy – Be bold enough to tell why you do it when you lay out the table or offer tea. You may end up being an ambassador of a message of regeneration.

4. Favor the brands that provide mismatching options that go together

Brands that offer options for mismatching items to match are something to seek and favor in the long run. Sellers need to develop the capability to offer exit to consumers (such as return an earring of a lost pair and get another set) or options to mismatch. Different patterns in the same color, the option to purchase one or many, custom order a replacement at a reasonable price are a few things producers can do to help improve this trend.

5. Gain awareness of alternative sources and schemes to purchase

It is a great idea to know where the local op-shops (or recycled items stores as we call it technically) are at because they may have several mismatched options that match. Using subscription or renting for occasions is another great alternative, where you may even get the chance to find similar matching items without having to own them at all and get a chance to have mismatched sets at your discretion for day-to-day household consumption. If we think about it deeper, a match is what we define and find appealing- rather than a set of identical items. That definition and appreciation is something we all can do, whether we have similar items or not.

Follow Anvarta for more resources for brands and producers on the “Matching does not need to be identical” theme.

The post Matching Does Not Mean Identical appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Picture credit : Pexels_Pixabay

Among a lot of the alternatives that we need to choose in order to move towards a circular, regenerative economy, the most impactful differences come from the redesign of upstream processes. Many of these involve a product or material redesign or larger industrial transformation.

There are some initiatives, which can create quick and easy wins in moving towards a circular economy. Initiatives such as product-service systems let you go a great length in achieving the fundamentals of a circular economy, just with the business model and process innovations.

Product Service Systems

Product-Service Systems (PSS) are defined as “a marketable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user’s need” (Goedkoop, 1999). The opportunities of application for these are endless while the service offering can be

1. Result-Oriented – Seller sells access to a result that a product generates.
2. Utility-Oriented – Seller sells access to the product for the extent of use.
3. Use-Oriented – Seller sells access to the product over a period of time (e.g., length of use)
4. Product-Oriented – Seller provides the product to the user and sells services to keep the product in use (e.g., access to repair, faulty product replacement)

With each of these options, the buyer and the vendor exercise various degrees of control and bears different types of risks over the same asset (or product) that provides a service to a consumer.

Chemical leasing

When Product Service Systems are applied to chemicals to focus on the performance aspect of it, rather than the chemical product selling, we call it chemical leasing. Chemical leasing provides the freedom to businesses and consumers to form models and business relationships, that focuses on improving the performance desired with the chemical to the user.

What problems does chemical leasing solve?

When it comes to the business of selling chemicals, the chemical supplier intends to make a profit by increasing their sales volumes. The higher the quantities of chemicals being manufactured, used, and sold; the higher the producer’s profits would be. The incentive they have to innovate to improve the performance of the chemical, reduce wastage, and release of waste chemical to the environment is only at their goodwill and discretion, and unlikely to happen with profit tied to the volumes sold.

On the other hand, the chemical user does not want the chemicals, but rather the service that is provided by the chemical. More likely, the user neither has the expertise to know the constituents nor the knowledge to think how to further innovate to reduce its use.

When the objectives of the producer and the user do not go hand in hand, they are in a “tug of war” working on optimizing their own gains as they define it. This is not an optimal solution neither financially or for the system as a whole, environmentally.

Picture credit: TheoRivierenlaan_Pixabay

What benefits does it bring?

Chemical leasing bridges this gap, by shifting the focus of the relationship from “selling the product” to “perform the use intended with the product” and get both the user and producer on one side, and drive them towards a single, unified objective – “increase the performance of the chemical for what it is used for and reduce the use and wastage”

When users only have to pay for the service, the producer being paid for performance is motivated to innovate to increase performance. The better the chemicals perform per unit quantity, the higher the savings are, therefore there is an incentive to improve the performance of chemicals individually, or collaboratively with partners to the upstream of the value chain. This is a unique way to motivate the producers to produce and sell less as their rewards do not decrease.

The chemical leasing model encourages the users and suppliers to break this barrier to come up with innovative and effective solutions together to achieve a common goal and exchange knowledge openly for mutual benefit. Long-term relationships that promote continuous improvement within the industry, providing better performance outcomes, as well as environmental outcomes, are the big pluses.

Additionally, instead of a one product fits all approach chemical leasing enables bespoke products and solutions.

Let’s look at a simple example of painting a house.

The house owner, who wants to have the house painted could buy paint and get a contractor to do it per hour or per job. The paint seller intends to sell more paint to make a higher profit and the left-over paint goes to waste.

If a performance-based approach is used, a contractor could be hired to pay per area painted. Chemical management is then carried out by the contractor providing the performance of the product. The contractor in this instance would urge the paint manufacturer to innovate further to increase the performance of the product per mass. , there is a strong incentive for innovation for product performance enhancement within.

More importantly, how the service for maintenance happens overtime can be tied up to the model. The supplier could provide maintenance to keep the product performance at a high-level with only the use of necessary chemicals. If there is an opportunity to recycle the chemicals at end of life, the supplier who has information of the product, know-how, and access to a network of specialists would do it than the consumer who makes a one-time purchase.

For a better understanding of the benefits of chemical leasing, let’s look at a real case study.

Evidence on how chemical leasing works

Chemical leasing was applied to washing machine manufacturing painting operations. The company, Delta Electrical Equipment (DEA), had control over the painting process which is important for high quality and durable products.

In order to achieve a high quality and durable washing machine, the painting process includes;

1. Surface treatment
2. Electro-deposition coating
3. Electrostatic powder coating

It is evident significant performance outcomes, financial outcomes, as well as environmental outcomes, can be achieved through this model through reduced and more effective, and efficient chemical use. According to this example, the supplier was motivated to go for standards like REACH, creating ripple effects along the supply chain.

For more, case studies can be found on the UNIDO chemical leasing website for inspiration.

When we look back at some innovations, there are some obvious advantages that outweigh risks or challenges very easily. A look into our future, we could ask ourselves why we did not do these sooner.

The post Chemical leasing – A performance-based business model towards a circular economy appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Photocredit: Unsplash

Packaging — is a temporary vehicle to provide us the product that we want, safely and securely containing it at times. Other times, it is just an extra dressing that does not deliver value to the consumer, the supply chain that transfers it, and the environment. Packaging dematerialisation and reducing packaging waste could just be the key to unlock a dearth of new options.

How do we figure out alternative uses for packaging and how do we get rid of the unnecessary?

Most importantly, for businesses, how do we decouple, or isolate value brought about with packaging, so that we realise what alternatives to recouple it with, to deliver the same value.

Aligning with the principles of a circular economy, there are a few primary checks businesses can do before they go ahead with packaging dematerialisation.

Possibilities to explore

The possibilities explored would differ based on the openness to find solutions influencing a bigger system or a boundary, depending on whether;

1. there is a decision to use packaging material
2. there is a decision to question the fundamentals deeper to understand the experience, service, and value delivered with the product.

If a broader and bigger change is welcome, it is good to conduct a value engineering exercise for the respective products and services.

Value engineering is a systematic approach that fundamentally questions why each component of a product or a service is necessary and how much value it delivers to the final objective. It prompts to be critical about all components and to analyse against their alternatives. Most importantly, in identifying ‘value’, insights are gathered from customers, suppliers as well as competitors, helping to identify attributes of a product that customers may or may not value and what the value chain does to deliver it. This helps to a great extent to decide the priorities to focus on, in engaging in the exercise of packaging dematerialisation.

Consumer’s concern about maintaining service reliability with the product and issues with end of life management are two things to be added on in gathering consumer insights.

A deeper look into the consumer’s need for an experience/utility/service and exploring how to provide that without unnecessary materials is the objective of the exercise.

Here are some of the strategies that can be explored for both cases in general.

Solutions to achieve packaging dematerilisation or reduce packaging

Transforming packaging into a one-time investment providing long-term benefits and repetitive use is possible through the provision of refill options.

1.Refill options — Self-refilling

Heineken recently publicised an experiment they are conducting at a bottle shop in Paris which allows customers to bring their own bottle and refill with fresh beer from kegs available.

Having an extra channel for product delivery is definitely a plus for the business. There are other advantages such as simplifying the supply chain avoiding transporting, handling, and storing of packaged products. When containers subject to refilling enter the end of life, the consumers can return the bottles for recycling to the pub.

For consumers who prefer the convenience of having a beer opened at home, getting them to take the extra trouble of storing and bringing the containers back could only work if there is an incentive to refill every time. Creating that incentive through pricing or loyalty schemes is something to be seriously looked at.

2. Refilling options — Serviced refilling

In 2019, Unilever also promoted their plans to provide a reuse, refill option, looking at multiple alternatives.

There are services that can be offered to order refilling liquid online, refill at a filling station in a supermarket, or to order refilling services to pick up empty containers from home and delivering them back re-filled. The packaging material gets replaced by a refilling service in this instance.

While these options can be initially seen as disruptions to supply chains, the advantages are numerous. Building up a loyal customer base that form a community of long-term users, is one. Logistics resource optimisation with the use of options such as back-hauling of goods and reduced ‘product in transit load/value in transit’ on the supply chain is another. The trade-off could be the organising around delivering of small quantities, and the use of demand-based pricing if one way to overcome some of these challenges.

3. Packaging to provide a new and different value

Packaging can be designed in order to have an alternative use once its primary use is exhausted. For example, plastic crates can be used as seats, cardboard boxes can be used as storage containers, business cards can be used as reusable bookmarks, newspapers can be used as gift wrappers while gift wrappers can be used as calendars and wall hangers.

Not only the outer cover, sometimes the inner filling material such as wool or scrapped paper can be designed to bio-degrade as a fertiliser.

Conceptualising the new value of packaging material at the end of life at the design stage of the product, will help optimise the value of the secondary use.

Consumers demanding to know the value of a primary product as well as its associated secondary use is not a reality too far away. Having that answer in-hand would not only help businesses communicate value better but be in the forefront at showing responsibility for product stewardship.

Where and when should the exploration start?

The answer is obvious — As early as possible and as much as possible at the inception.

Value engineering would help to question and understand the fundamental human need associated with a product and eliminate material that do not add value to increase the user experience. If service options are required to replace some of these packaging, that can be a strategic alternative. An example is to provide delivery options that take back packaging or repair or return services.

Evaluating these strategic alternatives for feasibility would be the next step. Perhaps there is a transition pathway to get to the desired point, but what matters is that a set of services are designed keeping the consumer need at the core and the ability to be  at the forefront of delivering it innovatively.

In a study by Nielsen, an alarming 73% of global consumers said that they would definitely or probably change their consumption habits to reduce the impact on the environment (ref). If the alternatives can be offered while keeping the value to the consumer guaranteed, and if they are strategized to make business sense, these are clear and easy wins to get aligned  with a circular economy.

The post Is packaging really important? Here are 3 strategies to achieve packaging dematerialisation and reduce packaging waste appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Masks may help stop the spread of the coronavirus. But according to one estimate, if everyone in the United Kingdom used a single-use mask each day for a year, it would create 66,000 tonnes of contaminated waste and 57,000 tonnes of plastic packaging.

Evidence also suggests masks may be a source of harmful microplastic fibers on land and in waterways and litter.

So let’s look at how face masks might be designed to cause minimal harm to the environment, while still doing their job – and which type is best for you.

N95 masks are used in hospital settings. Pic credit: Shutterstock

Circular thinking

China is the world’s biggest face mask manufacturer. Its daily output of face masks reportedly reached 116 million units in February this year. That creates a big waste management problem around the world.

One way to address this is to adopt “circular design” principles. This thinking seeks to reduce waste and pollution through product design, keep products and materials in use, and regenerate natural systems.

When it comes to face masks, the three common types are cloth, surgical and N-95. N-95 masks offer the highest level of protection, blocking about 95% of airborne particles. Cloth masks are designed to be used more than once, while surgical and N-95 masks are usually intended for single use.

Face masks may consist of one or more layers, each with different functions:

• an outermost layer, designed to repel liquids such as water
• the innermost layer, which absorbs moisture and allows comfort and breathability
• a non-absorbent middle layer, to filter particles.

Surgical masks are generally intended as single-use items. Pic credit: BrendanThorne/AAP

Each type of mask is made of different materials and used in varying settings:

– N-95 masks: These are designed to protect the wearer from 95% of airborne particles and are largely worn by health workers. N-95 masks are designed to fit closely to the face and are usually worn only once. N-95 masks comprise:

• a strap (polyisoprene)
• staples (steel)
• nose foam (polyurethane)
• nose clip (aluminum)
• filter (polypropylene)
• valve diaphragm (polyisoprene).

– Surgical masks: These are designed to protect sterile environments from the wearer, acting as barriers to droplets or aerosols. Generally intended as single-use items, they comprise mostly polypropylene between two layers of non-woven fabric.

– Cloth masks: These types of masks are worn by the general public. Some are homemade from fabric scraps or old clothing. They may be wholly reusable, or partially reusable with replaceable filters that must be disposed of.

These masks typically comprise an outer layer of polyester or polypropylene (or in some cases, cotton), and an inner layer designed for breathability and comfort – usually cotton or a cotton-polyester blend.

Research suggests cloth masks are less effective at filtering particles than medical masks, but may give some protection if well-fitted and properly designed. Health advice is available to help guide their use.

Designing for a healthier environment

It’s important to note that any attempt to redesign face masks must ensure they offer adequate protection to the wearer. Where masks are used in a medical setting, design changes must also meet official standards such as barrier efficiency, breathing capacity and fire resistance.

With this in mind, reducing the environmental harm caused by masks could be done in several ways:

– Design with more reusable parts

Evidence suggests reusable cloth masks perform almost as well as single-use masks, but without the associated waste. One life cycle assessment conducted in the UK found masks that could be washed and reused were the best option for the environment. Reusable masks with replaceable filters were the second-best option.

The study also found having a higher number of masks in rotation to allow for machine washing was better for the environment than manual washing.

– Make masks easier to dispose of or recycle

In high-risk settings such as hospitals and clinics, the reuse of masks may not be possible or desirable, meaning they must be disposed of. In medical settings, there are systems in place for disposal of such protective gear, which usually involves segregation and incineration.

But the general public must dispose of masks themselves. Because masks usually comprise different materials, this can be complicated. For example, recovering the components of a N-95 mask for recycling would involve putting the straps, nose foam, filter and valve in one bin and the metal staples and nose clip in another. And some recyclers may see mask recycling as a health risk. These difficulties mean masks often end up in landfill.

Masks would be easier to recycle if the were made of fewer materials and were easy to disassemble.

– Use biodegradable materials

For single-use items, placing synthetics with biodegradable materials would be a first step in circular design thinking.

The abaca plant, a relative of the banana tree, offers one potential option. Its leaf fibre reportedly repels water better than traditional face masks, is as strong as polymer and decomposes within two months. Most abaca is currently produced in the Philippines.

Which mask should you choose?

From a purely environmental perspective, research suggests owning multiple reusable face masks, and machine-washing them together, is the best option. Using filters with reusable face masks is a second-best option.

But when choosing a mask, consider where you will wear it. Unless cloth masks are shown to be as effective as other masks, health-care workers should not use them. But they may be suitable in low-risk everyday settings.

In the longer term, governments and manufacturers must make every effort to design masks that will not harm the planet – and consumers should demand this. Face masks will probably be ubiquitous on our streets for months to come. But once the pandemic is over, the environmental legacy may last for decades, if not centuries.

The post Millions of face masks are being thrown away during COVID-19. Here’s how to choose the best one for the planet appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.