Politique Internationale — The circular economy: everyone is talking about it but not many people know what it is. Can you tell us more about the concept?
Roland Marion — The circular economy, in a few words, means integrating resource issues into our modes of consumption and production. The acquired consumption and production reflexes are cautious with regard to renewable and non-renewable resources. This is a significant change of mindset, as it means going against the grain of firmly established phenomena: almost throughout its history, the planet has lived in a linear economy. The links in this chain are still strong: raw materials are extracted, goods are manufactured, sold and consumed and the finished products are disposed of without further ado by throwing them away, discarding or incinerating them, etc. In short, we pay no attention to the future of everything that has been used. A cycle has passed. It is over.
The circular economy is a diametrically opposed philosophy, which applies to all of the above stages. As soon as raw materials are procured, techniques are used that allow the reuse of water, energy or a range of materials, among others. Secondly, the aim in product development is to make products greener or to increase their lifespan. Finally, recycling gives new life to items that would have been destroyed before. These are, in a nutshell, the building blocks of the circular economy, the most modern economy there is.
P. I. — This circular economy is therefore very recent.
R. M. — Until the early 2010s, the theory of this approach was not really established. Another term is now gaining ground: sustainable development. The circular economy is gradually becoming established through the extension and density of its scope. Not only are all fields covered – consumption, innovation, environmental protection, etc. – but this implies unprecedented industrial, social and behavioural changes. Through the circular economy, the planet functions in a different mode, as we discussed before. It is impossible to say that anyone in particular invented this concept: it emerged gradually, after the life cycle of raw materials and products was viewed from a new perspective. The circular economy is not a school of thought that is the brainchild of a clearly identified individual or organisation.
P. I. — Does this gradual emergence mean that society may have been practising the circular economy in the past without knowing it?
R. M. — Of course. Let’s remember the rag-and-bone men at the beginning of the 20th century: they went through the streets after the prefects had given their authorisation for the recovery of particular kinds of waste, rubbish or unusable objects. The only major difference between bric-a-brac and the foundations of the circular economy was that rag-and-bone men only collected what they could quickly resell. There were no steps in between, like recycling today. Recycling is not only an ecological imperative, as is sometimes referred to. Products are recycled because there is a market for them, an economic logic that the public understands increasingly well. This logic is supported by an increasingly well-defined regulatory environment: for example, the European Commission has stipulated that plastic bottles must contain 25% recycled raw material by 2025 and 30% by 2030. It is up to the players to adapt their production chains accordingly.
P. I. — Recycling, waste recovery, eco-design, etc. Do these different processes all refer to the same thing or can a clear distinction be made?
R. M. — The common denominator between these different operations is that they are brought together under the banner of the circular economy. However, each process has its own peculiarities, which should be borne in mind. Eco-design involves manufacturing products with the end of their life in mind and incorporates factors that will shape their future. Recycling separates the components in order to reuse some of them. The functionality economy introduces a new relationship between producers and buyers: when a machine is owned by the consumer, the interests of producers and consumers diverge, the former having an economic interest in renewing it as often as possible. By making it available to the consumer for a given use, with a rental fee but retaining ownership of the machine, the producer has an interest in designing it to last as long as possible. Industrial and territorial ecology provides the opportunity for players located in the same geographical area to build bridges between their respective activities: a company that brings in products on pallets, rather than destroying these pallets, will transport them to a neighbouring company that will use them for another activity. And let’s not forget repair operations: they are now commonplace and products that were once neglected can now be perfectly restored.
P. I. — What are the most recyclable materials today? Can we establish a hierarchy according to which category can more easily be reused?
R. M. — By definition, all materials are recyclable. They are all the more so if there is a market for these operations, which is a source of competitiveness for companies. Some sectors, such as paper, packaging and textiles, already have fully operational channels. For plastics, we have to start from further back, but this industry has set itself up to recycle on a large scale. Recycling policy is not driven solely by economic and/or environmental criteria. The geostrategic dimension also plays an important part: no one discusses the problematic use of strategic metals, which are destined to be rapidly depleted unless a far-reaching change of direction is put in place. The recycling of materials made from strategic metals offers an alternative to relentlessly drawing on the deposits on which Europe is sometimes highly dependent. In the end, whether the factors driving decisions are strictly economic, geopolitical or ecological, they all combine to consider all materials from a recycling perspective.
P. I. — What about building materials? Are they subject to the same recycling conditions as lighter industrial materials?
R. M. — Building materials are a special case. These are so-called «inert» materials, for which deconstruction operations are more cumbersome. For example, concrete is handled with an arsenal of processes reserved for highly specialist operators. But professionals have fully integrated the need to recycle. They are also present upstream in the circular economy, with eco-design processes that combine the manufacture of concrete with the possibility to reuse it. Construction groups are no longer just concerned with the smooth running of their sites. Now, during the design phase of a project, decommissioning scenarios are already on the table, with precise schemes for the reuse of materials.
P. I. — Which organisations in the broadest sense are driving the circular economy? Public authorities, companies, associations, NGOs?
R. M. — We could almost start with consumers, who are increasingly concerned about adopting environmentally friendly behaviour. For example, they are tired of seeing over-packaged products. They can see a proliferation of plastics, which are used in all sorts of ways. Citizens are in the process of appropriating - or re-appropriating - their mode of consumption; they no longer want to be subjected to the diktats of marketing and traditional product sales tools.
What about the public authorities? Of course, they are even on the front line, as is the case with ADEME (the French Environment and Energy Management Agency), which set up a department for this purpose in 2015. Our role is well-defined: we are primarily involved in this operational policy that puts the circular economy at the heart of the economy. We are well-placed to see how this dimension now permeates both public policy and business life in general.
A comment on companies: they are often presented as resistant to this paradigm shift, on the pretext that it would generate additional costs and result in an avalanche of administrative texts. But on the contrary, companies themselves are asking for the circular economy to flourish: they just want everyone to be on the same footing. In other words, they are calling for no exceptions – among sectors, industry branches or types of producer – that would make the new mode of operation unclear. They also want clear and predictable regulatory guidance. Finally – but this is hardly a revelation – companies do not advance alone in their own corner. In the same way that they can hardly be expected to introduce products into the circular economy system that consumers would not like, it is not a question of consumers having requirements that would multiply the product processing stages.
P. I. — So there is no extra cost for companies?
R. M. — No, as long as there is a level playing field in terms of standards, including for companies outside Europe whose products we import. There is even a certain risk today for companies that have not fully entered into these circular procedures or that have not planned for them in advance. Not only will regulations continue to favour production methods that are more respectful of the planet’s resources, but also consumers, through the ever-increasing importance they attach to these issues, will increasingly favour products with low environmental impacts.
P. I. — Are standards, especially standards that relate to manufacturing processes, a factor that discourages companies from making commitments to the circular economy?
R. M. — With regard to standards, there are two cases. In some sectors, such as construction, there are standards that limit the possibilities for reuse or recycling. For example, the constraints imposed on new windows require double or even triple glazing, which prohibits the re-use of older windows that do not meet these standards. In construction, the standards for technical constraints are based on newly-extracted materials, whereas recycled materials would do the job but have not been tested for resistance and therefore standardisation. Finally, the use of recycled raw material may require slightly different production tools, which requires investment. This is possible, but economically delicate with regard to very recent tools, which manufacturers are not going to get rid of before the end of their depreciation period.
P. I. — Let’s go back to raw materials for a moment. Has their environmental impact improved? If so, in what proportions?
R. M. — In France and in Europe, with the regulations on classified facilities, newly-extracted raw materials are used in a way that is increasingly in line with environmental imperatives. That said, this in no way detracts from the imperative need to replace them at every opportunity, provided in particular by recycling tools, with raw materials that have already had one or more lives. In most other regions of the world, in Asia or Africa for example, the environmental and often social conditions of raw material extraction are still a major concern.
P. I. — In the same vein, what can be said about the ecological footprint of recycled products? Do the additional operations required by the recycling processes increase the carbon footprint of the products in question?
R. M. — It is exactly the opposite. For example, it has been calculated that one tonne of recycled plastic saves two tonnes of CO2 as opposed to one tonne of non-recycled plastic, taking into account all emissions: extraction, transport and processing. Overall, every year in France, 22 million tonnes of CO2 are saved through recycling. We are in a long-distance race in which the dual implementation of recycling – ecological and economic – will continue to improve.
P. I. — Can we say that developed economies are in the lead in growing the circular economy, compared to developing countries that have neither the same tools nor the same environment to switch to this new era?
R. M. — Developed economies are the most advanced, but this does not mean that developing countries (DCs) are far behind. The former have taken the plunge because they recognise the dangers of a linear economy. Having built a system, they are now moving out of it, with other benchmarks in their sights. For developing countries, the situation is different as they have not yet reached this linear stage. But this state of affairs, which is regularly presented as a handicap, could turn into an advantage: why not skip the linear stage and go immediately to the circular economy? Of course, it is difficult to imagine all parts of the developing countries’ economies making this leap, but many sectors have the capacity to do so. It should not be assumed that these countries only have a distant perception of the key indicators reported by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the CoPs.
P. I. — Are there categories of professionals in companies who are primarily involved in the circular economy? If so, which ones?
R. M. — In particular I’ve noticed an increase in training. In a growing number of companies, employees are taking the time to learn about the circular economy. This is not a simple initiation: the desire to learn is all the more marked as the various players – directors, managers, trade unions, etc. – know that the circular economy permeates all components of the company: production, sales, marketing, etc. We are no longer in an environment, as was the case at the beginning of the discourse on sustainable development, where these matters were the prerogative of a few people in the company who were responsible for drawing up a strategy from a lofty distance. The circular economy has become a priority for everyone.
P. I. — You are contributing to the recently launched Les Ecolos movement. How do you see this commitment in relation to your activities at ADEME?
R. M. — Yes, I am vice-chairman of Les Ecolos, and this commitment is ideologically consistent with the issues I care about. It is not new either, as I am an elected member of the Pays de Loire Regional Council and as such am responsible for matters related to the ecological and energy transition. For the record, I have been interested in environmental issues since I was 12 years old, when I read Pagnol and in particular Le temps des secrets, in which we read about Marcel’s little brother, Paul, who is attached to his country and close to nature. Mind you, as far as I can remember he also took pleasure in tearing the wings and legs off insects, but despite this I became a geologist for this reason and I have always taken care to keep my professional world strictly separate from these more personal commitments. This is still the case at ADEME. The cases I have to deal with differ completely from one case to another, but I hope they contribute to advancing the cause for which we must all take action.