Circular Asia News - Issue 20

Standards for the Circular Economy

Establishing standards for the circular economy has been something I have been interested in since I registered Circular Economy Asia Inc in 2016. Although it never left my mind, unfortunately, I was sidetracked by other matters for a number of years until recently. On 19th November, I created a LinkedIn post about the New Zealand company, saveBoard, who are manufacturing Low Carbon Building Materials made from upcycled packaging. After reading saveBoard's website, it brought me back to the question of circular economy standards.

Now, saveBoard presents an excellent case study to examine. First up is saveBoard's Material Safety Data Sheet, which states, "saveBOARD building products are manufactured using 100% recycled composite packaging using a minimum of 95% post-consumer / industrial recycled content (i.e. used beverage cartons, soft plastics and mixed fibre)."

• saveBOARD products are also Declare certified to be Red-List Free and can be used in Living Building Challenge projects. The Declare Red-List was established by the International Living Future Institute (ILFI) to identify and eliminate pollutants and substances harmful to construction and factory workers and chemicals that bio-accumulate up the food chain until reaching toxic concentrations.?

• In addition, saveBoard has completed P21 bracing tests in NZ on their board products.?Technical Paper P21 outlines the P21 test method for wall bracing elements, which is called up in NZS 3604:2011?Timber-framed buildings?as the means to determine wind and earthquake ratings of timber-framed sheet-lined bracing elements for buildings within the scope of NZS 3604.
• Then there is the New Zealand Product Substitution Plasterboard Guidance which provides building consent authorities (BCA), designers and contractors with the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) position on the appropriate way to apply the Building (Minor Variation) Regulations 2009 with respect to the substitution of plasterboard wall and ceiling linings.

But is it Circular?

Whereas I have no doubt as to saveBoard's credentials, after all, they have all the right mechanisms in place; the issue is one of scale. Two questions come to mind:

1. Business model - saveBoard has an End of Life recovery process of used boards for reprocessing and recycling into future Save Board products.
2. Feedstock - On the FAQ questions page, there is an answer regarding the price competitiveness against standard plasterboards - "It costs more to sort through waste than buy virgin materials. However, if you compare our products against similar products, there is little difference."?

For the most part, saveBoard would meet the criteria to be certified as 'Circular' if such a standard existed. The use of technology to record production numbers to cross-reference against a takeback scheme may be more practical than relying on customers, but how much material listed as lost before a takeback scheme is considered invalid would need to be considered?

The issue of sorting through waste as an extra burden or cost is a simpler problem to solve once we stop looking at end-of-use-cycle items as 'waste' and value them as secondary raw materials. Consumer and industry engagement to improve disposal behaviours and reduce contamination is critical. Collection systems would also need to be ramped up in order to meet the demand for secondary raw materials and the sheer volume of end-of-use-cycle products available.

ISO has been working on a Circular Economy voluntary guidance for some time. ISO:59004 approach is to "...define key terminology, establish circular economy principles, and provide guidance for its implementation by using a framework and areas of action. It is intended to be used by organizations seeking to understand and commit to a circular economy while contributing to sustainable development." There is no doubt that a unified definition of the circular economy would be a significant improvement and the alignment we need.

The British Standard - BS:8001

In 2017, the British Standards Institution published the BS:8001 which aims to provide a framework and guidance to a broad range of organizations, of differing sizes and with varying levels of knowledge and understanding of the circular economy. The standard is divided into two areas:

1. What is the circular economy and why move to a more circular and sustainable mode of operation?
2. How to implement the principles of the circular economy within an organizational context?

Shortly afterwards, a German researcher, Stefan Pauliuk, published 'Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations.' which states, "The standard contains a comprehensive list of CE terms and definitions, a set of general CE principles, a flexible management framework for implementing CE strategies in organizations, and a detailed description of economic, environmental, design, marketing, and legal issues related to the CE."

In 2017, BS8001 was considered a trailblazing attempt to push the circular economy forward. Except for one major flaw. The circular economy can never be implemented company-by-company. The circular economy is a system and the easiest way to engage companies, regardless of size, is to establish the system which then allows individuals and organisations to become part of the system.

The world is full of systems. Ground transportation (excluding private cars) operates as a system based on timetables, vehicles, roads, tracks, signals, maintenance, drivers and passengers. Taking an existing system and reviewing all the materials and energy usage is where the circular economy and circular standards begin. In other areas, such as a secondary raw materials industry, there is not enough of the system in place so some of the components will require pushing or pulling to make it functional.

What About Everyone Else?

Optimally we need a lot of organisations and entities participating in the circular economy. The main aim is to scale circular systems, whether that be scale from one industry sector or a large number of MSMEs who are able to collectively push for scale. Currently, we are seeing pockets of a circular system emerging, such as the textile industry with a small but growing number of reprocessing facilities combined with improved collection. Ditto for many other industry sectors, such as building and construction, energy, packaging and electronics.

However, the biggest problem we face is the belief that participating in any of the Circular Rs automatically qualifies a consumer or company as being circular. Many companies believe that specialising in product-use-cycle-extension, such as reselling clothes or other consumer goods, is contributing to resource management or a circular system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Product-use-cycle-extension is only half circular.

The key to resource management are materials and if the materials cannot be reprocessed to become feedstock for new products, then it is not circular. The above diagram on repurposing seeks to provide clarity of how items should be repurposed with material resource management in mind. The target audience of this diagram are micro-companies and the bar has been set quite low. Admittedly, most of the materials we use everyday have very limited options to reprocess. However, companies involved in repurposing or recommence do not appear to fully comprehend material value and why they should start considering the types of paint, resins, binding agents plus takeback schemes to limit products going to landfill.

Conclusion

The point of a circular standard lies in the details for a system to emerge and function. saveBoard's whole business model is based on materials, so quality and volume of feedstock, together with adequate collection services is critical for their bottom line. It is why they make a good casestudy. Of course, a circular system for saveBoard to scale does not quite exist yet, but it will evolve and I expect they will be very successful.

There will also be competition. Not just from other circular building suppliers but also for the increasingly valuable secondary raw materials. It is why a Material Value Assessment (MVA) will emerge. What this means is that an economic assessment will be made regarding the value of end-of-use-cycle materials. For example, it may be more valuable for plastics to be chemically reprocessed rather than used for building materials. Until that time, it is still a free-for-all.

***************************

Ms Adrienna Zsakay is the Founder and CEO of?Circular Economy Asia Inc,?and this article represents her opinions on the circular economy.

References

The Rise of the Circular Economy - BS:8001-2017

'Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations' by Stefan Pauliuk, Industrial Ecology Group, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, published in Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling, October 2017.