We have been and still are very much focused on establishing fruitful collaborations with others, embracing the fourth P of Participation in your model. The biggest ‘pull factors’ here have been science, customers and society. Science, because we can ‘prove’ the benefits of our products and have additional credibility due to our various University & other knowledge partnerships (plus the doctorate that Bart van Straten is pursuing personally, ed.). This in turn helps our customers to trust us and our products, even if the circular solution itself is new to them. And again: timing proved to be essential for us: society is really asking for circular and other sustainable solutions also in business. This helps a lot: we couldn’t have pulled this off five years ago. Now, this is a huge ‘pull’ factor and means that beyond cost (where we already have a winning proposition), hospitals, care providers and other customers also specifically look at material use, repair/recycling and overall sustainability metrics of goods and services they buy (e.g. LCA: life-cycle assessments).
On the flipside; competitors who still produce in a ‘take-make-waste’ model are not always happy with our focus on repairs and a circular solution. It means they cannot keep on operating the same way, and they lose business to us.
What is not yet helping us, is the regulations. These are just not yet designed to deal with circular solutions like ours. For example: it takes very specialized ‘waste treatment’ licenses to even be allowed to collect and recycle ‘hospital trash’ (which for us is not trash but valuable input material); even if you operate under the highest quality standards like we do. There are temporary workarounds possible, but it is important to fix this in a structural way to stimulate the emergence of circular models. Luckily this is starting to happen now; as a frontrunner, we were asked to play an active role in shaping this together with regulators and others.
It is too bad that ‘sustainability’ has become a bit of a container term. That’s why we prefer to point out how our model is ‘circular’ in the use of resources. The tendency is to equate sustainability to carbon emissions; and we feel this is too narrow a vision. You at The Wearth Company seem to take a more integral, yet practical view on it.
An often-overlooked aspect is to really design for circular (and more broadly, sustainable) products. In the design process you have the chance to do it properly. This means, amongst others: no ‘waste streams’ in production, no welding, gluing etc. Modularity is a key element to maintain and repair products. Production techniques and processes are evolving quickly too, so that less toxic and fossil-based chemicals are needed (if at all).
There is a bit of a lag effect, but I’m confident that the current generation of industrial designers is fully aware of this and will make this the ‘normal’ way of designing.
Repairing is an asset-intensive business, this forced us to make trade-offs between investments in our ‘old’ and ‘new’ business models. We were able to invest in the circular model we believed in, partly by divesting certain aspects of the traditional wholesaler business – even though this was still profitable at the time.