Criterion 6: Reduction of environmental impacts at all stages of product/service life-cycle

5.6.1. Current state of business models and most important gaps The average score of criterion six was 2.15, and one firm (LOKI) achieved the maximum score of six points (see Table 15). The low average score is related to the service business models, almost all scored ‘not relevant’ on this criterion. The average on the product-based business model was 2,87. The lowest scores came from operationalization one. Firms scored on average 0,57 here. The primary reason for this was related to the fact that most firms did not measure themselves extensively enough that they truly could score a ‘yes’ on addressing the most important environmental impact before the easiest.

A high score on mostly renewable or recycled materials does not mean that firms have implemented a completely circular business model. For example, Hells Angels use renewable

materials and take back lingerie that is worn to recycle, but they are not able to recycle all:

sources online claim that more than 390,000 tons of recyclables were dumped in landfills in 2019-20 – nearly four times the level of half a decade ago. This is clearly not in line with the degrowth paradigm and does not contribute to ‘degrowing’.

Lastly, firms scored low on the ‘constant reduction of materials’’. What is analyzed is a tendency to analyze a problem a firm wants to ‘solve’ and blindly focus on that area, while sometimes ignoring innovations or other areas that need improving. This could possibly be related to the analyzed tendency to not share knowledge about innovations with other firms.

Next to this, reducing materials seems to be a strategic process set in time. Firms either do it at the beginning or after they have grown past a certain point. It does not seem to be an ongoing, iterative process.

Criterion 6: Reduction of environmental impacts at all stages of product/service life-cycle

Momu Golden origin

Hells Angels

Bali Acce ssoir es

Flowe r

MAL ORY

Ba mb oo

LOKI Mint Life cycle Assessm ent Institute

Tick Foreca sted Fashio n

Aratr am

1) Addressing the most important environmental impacts before the easiest;

No No Not

enough data

No No No Yes Yes Not

relevant Not relevant

Not releva nt

A little Yes

2) Fully/mostly use of renewable/recycled materials;

Yes Yes A little Yes Yes Not

enough data

No Yes Not

relevant Not relevant

Not releva nt

Not relevant

Not relevant

3) Constantly reduces materials, energy- and emission being used.

Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Not

relevant Not relevant

Not releva nt

Yes Yes

Total points 4p 4p 1p 2p 2p 0p 4p 6p 0p 0p 0p 1p 4p

Table 15. Analytical table for evaluation of the sixth criterion.

5.6.2. Analyzed challenges in relations to the sixth criterion Four challenges were analyzed in relation to criterion six (see Table 16). Firstly, there is a clear lack of education in knowledge as to how firms can produce less or make their supply chain truly circular. A lot of problems are analyzed when talking about circularity in relation to producing less. Stating that recycled or renewable materials are being used, does not mean

that firms have a ‘closed loop’ supply chain, where more materials are not needed anymore.

Recycled or renewable materials still end up in landfills, thus leading to more materials still being produced. There are solutions described that firms implement, such as producing from only biodegradable materials (Bamboo) that can be put in the earth at the end of life cycle or the use of materials such as wood pulp fiber (LOKI), that can be fully degrade old shirts and recreate new ones from the same pulp. Yet most firms are not implementing these, which can be related to the second and third challenge. The second challenge relates to the lack of knowledge about innovative alternatives. The third challenge relates to the fact that

consumers want cheap and fast fashion and implementing these real sustainable materials is significantly more expensive. LOKI describes it as two to three times more expensive to produce. This would mean raising prices for consumers and risk losing customers. In regards to the fast delivery, real sustainable materials take time to produce and are often not delivered in masses. Lastly, as the Customer Manager from Tick said beautifully: “we teach firms how to do bad things more efficiently”. Due to the fact that there are no laws or regulations that cap total emissions, firms can get away with incremental improvement to their production and are not pushed to look at truly sustainable innovations such as described above.

Challenges Definition Exemplary quotations

Circularity The issue that comes with the practical

side of the idea behind circularity. “Also recycled plastic t-shirts, there is no company that can make a t-shirt from the same plastic again.”

Lack of education and knowledge

The lack of education on a business level about innovative options that are sustainable, in specific the lack of education on the option of degrowth.

“Often you see when people apply to our certification […] that clients have learned so much from our standard […] where they didn't know a lot of things that they could have asked for.”

Cheap and fast The demand for cheap clothes that are trending.

“But we notice that it is now becoming more difficult for us because many people want beautiful and cheap [...] so we also lose customers due to sustainability, because we cannot make our prices cheaper.” “The consumer still wants the cheapest.”

No cap on total output

No cap on the total output of

emissions, resource- or material use or greenhouse gasses which would force firms to produce less.

“What they usually look at is relative to which the relative emission scale per unit goes down. No greenhouse gas, no emissions. And often a hard percentage is not even appointed [..] only we want continuous improvement.”

Table 16. Analytical table for challenges in relation to the sixth criterion.