Rethinking the road to thecircular economy

ING Economics Department • January 2020

Introduction
Table of contents

Reality bites – let’s understand why, as fast as we canThere is a growing feeling of urgency about moving towards a more sustainableeconomy, as illustrated by the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris
Agreement. The circular economy is proposed as a solution for today’senvironmental challenges, such as climate change.
In 2015 we published ‘Rethinking finance in a circular economy’. It gained a lotof traction in unchartered territory. We focused our analysis on opportunities. It
helped us, and many partners, to understand the concept much better. Now,
five years on, it’s time to take the next step. But we face a situation where
reality bites: if anything, the world is becoming less, not more circular.
This reports helps us to understand what is happening. It takes a new look at thecircular economy. Firstly, it proposes seeing the circular economy as a means toan end, a way of causing less environmental harm. Secondly, we must face thestrength of opposing forces. Thirdly, business needs policy makers to step in. And
finally, the financial sector will have to step up its ingenuity to help scale up thecircular economy.
We hope this report helps to address the next steps on our road to a circular
economy. It is not an easy road, but understanding the hurdles may help us to
step up the pace. Doing so will prove vital, so let’s get started as fast as we can.

Marieke Blom
Chief Economist ING The Netherlands

ING Economics Department

2

Executive summary3

1. Why do we need to move to a circular economy?

4

1.1 Why do we need a circular economy?

5

1.2 Why is a circular economy not always the solution?

6

1.3 What is the current status of the circular economy?

7

2. What are the hurdles for circular economy growth?

9

2.1 What are the hurdles in the economy?

10

2.2 What are the hurdles in the financing market?

11

3. How can we get the circular economy going?

13

3.1 What policy actions can set into motion CE growth in the economy?

14

3.2 What actions can stimulate financing of the CE?

16

3.3 Case studies: how to deal with the hurdles in practice18

Sources

20

Appendix I: what is the circular economy about?
Appendix II: what are the main circular business models?

22
23

Colophon

24

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Executive summary

Without policy the circular economy will shrink further
We are headed the wrong way
Today’s world is far from circular. Research by Circle
Economy estimates the world was 9% circular in 2015.
As economies grow, that share falls: ING research shows
consumers are less inclined to reuse when income rises.
Also, higher demand for convenience goods drives up
per capita resource demand. The world is becoming lesscircular as a result.
Circularity as a means to less environmental harm
The circular economy (CE) is seen as a means to several
ends. We argue it should be seen, first and foremost, asa way of reducing the negative environmental impactsof resource extraction, processing and waste.
Secondary benefits of the circular economy are lower
supply risks related to geo-political tensions andresource scarcity. These risks are relevant only for a
relatively small share of all resources.
Striving for a fully circular economy not optimal
Since we see circularity as a way of reducing
environmental harm, we should compare it with otherstrategies. Sometimes other strategies can be more
effective. For example, electric vehicles and renewableenergy may be more effective in reducing greenhousegas emissions than a longer life span for cars. It istherefore neither realistic, nor optimal to strive for an
economy that is 100% circular. CE seems best suited toquickly reducing impacts via high volume & frequency
goods that consist of few, homogenous resources,
such as (food) packaging and textiles.
ING Economics Department

Market failures main obstacle for circular growth
On the supply side of the economy, market failures are
the main reason the CE is not taking off. Firstly, there
are three major market failures in the economy:
1. Negative environmental effects of market activities(external costs), such as climate change and air
pollution, are not reflected in prices;
2. Transaction and operational costs are higher in a
CE, partly explained by the higher labour intensity ofreuse and recycling strategies;
3. Too low volumes (demand and/or supply) for
secondary goods and materials prevent circularmarkets from coming about.
These market hurdles hamper growth of the CE, by
negatively affecting the business case of circularsolutions. And even in instances where a positive
business case exists, there are three hurdles in thefinancing market:
4. Innovation risks are higher: the innovative nature of
the circular economy makes investing in CE riskier
than conventional businesses;

6. The Product as a Service business (PaaS) model, oneof the main circular business models, is perceived tobe riskier than conventional businesses.
Policy needed for scale
Current progress on the CE is too slow given theenvironmental harm done. Policies that level theplaying field between the current and circular
economies are needed to scale up the circular economy.
This study identifies suitable policy actions:•Price in negative externalities via taxing, norms, bansand subsidies;•

Spur innovations, e.g. platform technology, that lower
transaction and operational costs in the CE;•

Disseminate knowledge and implement ‘nudges’ toincrease market interest in engaging in the CE;•

Increase the amount of risk capital for CE start-ups;•

Stimulate further integration of ‘linear’ risks infinancial risk models.

5. Financial institutions overlook ‘linear risks’: somerisks that are higher in the ‘linear’ than circular
economy are overlooked, such as stranded assets
risks and risks of more stringent environmental
laws. Overlooking these risks works against the CE;

Business and financial sector must tackle hurdles
At the same time, companies can take up the challengeof bringing the CE forward. Despite the hurdles, we
already see businesses are able to come up with
innovative circular business opportunities. Financial
institutions have to improve their risk approach as well as
come up with new financing solutions, such as projectbased financing.

3

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Chapter 1 | Why do we need to move to a circular economy?

ING Economics Department

1.1 Why do we need a circular economy?

5

1.2 Why is a circular economy not always the solution?

6

1.3 What is the current status of the circular economy?

7

4

1.1 Why do we need a circular economy?

Reduction of environmental impacts main reason for CE
Circular economy is a means to several ends
The current economy, which could be thought of as
linear, presents us with a few important challenges. The
circular economy (CE)1 can help to tackle some of these.
1. CE market outcome for physically scarce materials
Firstly and contrary to common belief, many resources
can not be denoted as scarce (PBL, 2017). Only a limited
amount of all minerals, e.g. antimony, molybdenum
and zinc, are scarce (Henckens et al., 2016). Here,markets will automatically support CE innovations that
increase resource efficiency and/or substitute scarcematerials, by increasing market prices

for scarcer goods. A more circular economy will
therefore be the natural market outcome for physicallyscarce resources. Given that this holds for a minority ofresources, physical scarcity can be seen as the leastpressing problem that the CE needs to tackle.
2. CE can reduce a country’s supply risks
Dependency on imported resources creates the risk of
man-made scarcity in a world with geopoliticaltensions. The threat of disrupted supply chains can add
to, and result from, political tensions. Given that geopolitical developments are often unpredictable, this canlead to sudden price increases.

Europe depends on other countries for most critical raw materials (CRMs)
Countries accounting for largest share of EU supply of CRMs
NorwaySilicon metal

FinlandCobaltFranceHafnium

RussiaScandium
Tungsten
VanadiumUSA
ErbiumHeliumSamarium

China
Antimony
BaryteBismuthCeriumDysprosium
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
HoliumIndiumMexicoFluorspar
Brazil
Niobium

Nigeria
Tantalum

Source: European Commission 2017

MoroccoPhosphate rock

Kazakhstan
Phosphorus
TurkeyBorateIndonesia
Natural rubber

3. Reducing environmental harm main reason for CE
So, scarce resources are only a small part of theeconomy. However, reducing resource use is vital for
reducing negative environmental impacts. A major
share of current negative impacts is related to resource
extraction and processing (IRP, 2019). The most pressing
environmental issues, loss in biodiversity, water scarcity,
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution are allstrongly driven by resource use (see figure below).

Use of resources puts pressure on the environment
Resource extraction and processing account for…
90%

More than 90% of global biodiversity loss andwater stress impacts

50%

50% of the total greenhouse gas emissions

33%

Around one third of the health impacts
related to air pollution

Source: UN International Resource Panel 2019

1 Refer to Appendix I for a definition of the CE.

ING Economics Department

Lanthanum
Lutetium
Magnesium
Natural graphyte
NeodymiumPraseodymium
Terbium
Thulium
Ytterbium
Yttrium

The US and most of Europe are traditionally net
importers of primary resources (IRP, 2017). For Europe,
China is the supplier of almost two thirds (62%) of all
critical minerals. Shifting towards a CE lowers importdependency to the extent that it creates new
substitutes for, or opportunities to recycle imported
resources. CE in these cases can avoid sudden shocks.

5

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

1.2 Why is a more circular economy not always the solution?

Costs of higher circularity sometimes exceed the benefits
Circular economy is a means, not an objective
The CE is a means of reducing environmental harm. But
circular strategies are not always the best solution (themost effective). There are indications of wherecircularity is, and is not, the most suitable strategy.
1. Other strategies are more effective
In some areas there are real opportunities foralternative strategies. For example in the agricultural
sector, where the shift from animal to plant-based
proteins is vital in reducing climate change impacts(Waite et al., 2018). Shifting from meat to plant-based
proteins is initially more effective than applying circular
practices in livestock production (De Boer & Van
Ittersum, 2018).
In the energy sector, energy transition is key in
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Ellen
Macarthur Foundation, 2019). Electrification andrenewable energy are relatively quick wins. Moreover,strategies that fit in the energy transition sometimes
conflict with the principles of the CE (see figure). Given
the fact that a major share of global climate impacts,
biodiversity loss and water distress are caused in theenergy and agricultural sectors, suggests that circular
strategies should not always be the first choice(European Commission, 2016; Ellen Macarthur
Foundation, 2019 , IRP, 2019).

ING Economics Department

Costs of higher circularity exceed the benefits
Sometimes the business case for circular strategies is
missing (financial costs exceed the benefits) andenvironmental gains are limited. For example therecycling of municipal plastic waste, where the optimallevel of recycling usually lies below the maximum level.
Beyond the optimum point, the extra financial costs(for collection, separation and recycling) exceed theextra financial benefits (the market value of therecyclables) and the environmental gains are small(Centraal Planbureau, 2017; PBL, 2017). In this case, theextra effort should not take place, from a welfare pointof view. Technological developments can shift the
optimal recycling level up, by lowering the costs ofrecycling and/or increasing the quality of recycledmaterials.
2. Circular rebound may do more environmental harm
Circular rebound effects explain why circular activities
can lead to higher resource use and moreenvironmental damage, if these activities increase thelevel of production. There are two main routes:

First, if circular products do not act as a substitute forprimary products, but create a new market. Think of themarket for refurbished smartphones, which rarely
compete with primary smartphones. Instead, secondhand phones are mainly sold to consumers with low
incomes that would otherwise not have bought asmartphone (Stegeman, 2019; Zink & Geyer, 2017);
Second, if circular economy activities increase supply of
secondary materials that substitute for primarymaterials. As supply increases, the prices of the primarymaterials may fall. This may in turn drive demand forboth goods up (Zink & Geyer, 2017).
Prioritise homogenous, high volume & frequency goods
So, circularity is a way to lower environmental damage,but not always the best or only way. CE seems best
suited to quickly reducing impacts for sectors with highvolume and high frequency goods, that consist of few
and homogenous resources, such as (food) packaging
and textiles. Substantive long term gains will be madevia circular solutions for complex, lower frequency goods
such as electronics and construction.

Lowering GHG emissions not always served best with circular strategies
Shift to renewable energy

Why this conflicts with the circular economy

Electric Vehicles

Replace current fleet by electric vehicles as soon
as possible to phase out fossil fuel consumption

In the circular economy we want to maintain the valueof the current fleet as long as possible to reduce theneed to win iron ore

Solar panels

Solar panels play a pivotal role in reducing GHG
emissions.

Used solar panels are currently difficult to reuse andtherefore value chains are mostly linear.

6

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

1.3 What is the current status of the circular economy? (1/2)

We are becoming less circular
Towards 2050 the global population will increase by 2
billion (UN, 2019b), leading to even more environmentalpressure. This in turn increases the urgency of becoming
more circular. However, little progress has been made so
far. We see:
1. A world that is still far from circular;
2. Two demand trends working in the opposite
direction; and3. Few regions with concrete circularity targets
1. The world is far from circular and it is getting worse
There is no single universally accepted and overarchingmeasure of circularity. However, some of the mostimportant indicators leave no doubt that the current
world is far from being circular:• Research by Circle Economy (2019) shows us theglobal economy is 9% circular. The percentage
indicates the share of recycled materials in all material
inputs into the global economy. For the EU this share issomewhat higher, around 12% (Eurostat, 2019a);
Expansive growth fast fashion conflicts with the CE
Circular economy

Trends in fashion (2000-2014)
Garment purchases +60%

Lifetime of clothing-50%

1 The calculated calendar date on which humanity’s resource
consumption exceeds the earth's capacity to regenerate those resourcesin a year. It fell on July 29 in 2019, compared to September 23 in 2000.

ING Economics Department

Based on Earth Overshoot Day1 (Global Footprint
Network, 2019), it takes 1.75 earths to support
humanity’s demands on ecosystems. One importantunderlying cause is that around one third of global
annual food production is wasted or lost (European
Parliament, 2017);• Increasing product lifetimes are an indicator of
circular economy growth. The number of garmentspurchased each year by the average consumer
however increased by 60% between 2000 and 2014,
while clothing items are kept about half as long as in2000 (McKinsey, 2016). Lifetimes of consumer
electronics also seem to be becoming shorter, which
has a negative effect on the circularity level (The
Guardian, 2015);

and ecological footprints (European Environment
Agency, 2015). Recent ING research in additionshows that countries with a higher GDP per capita
tend to reuse less (see figure below);b. Growing demand for convenience, as illustrated by
the vast increase in demand for convenience foodand e-commerce (McKinsey, 2019). This increases
the use of packaging and associated packaging
waste (ING Economics Department, 2019).
Less inclined to reuse products when income rises

Share of consumers with a positive attitude towards futurereuse of products* versus 2018 GDP per capita
80%

TR
RO

60%

2. Two demand trends are going in the wrong direction
Two global demand trends are working against growthof the circular economy:

40%

a. Welfare gains will shift consumption towards lesssustainable products. Economic growth will raise
per capita welfare levels globally (PwC, 2017).
This will in general lead to:0%• An increase in per capita consumption;• A shift towards less sustainable consumption
patterns (e.g. higher meat consumption) (Ourworld in data, 2019). Research by the EEA finds a
positive correlation between per capita welfare

7

ES
IT
PL

CZ

FR
GB

BE DE

AT
NL

20%

$0K

$20K

$40K

$60K

GDP per capita* Share of consumers expecting to increase reuse of products in next 3
years by having them repaired if they break (instead of throwing them
away)
Source: ING International Survey 2019

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

1.3 What is the current status of the circular economy? (2/2)

Adoption of CE in policy-making still limited
Circular growth needs a helping hand
The two countertrends (p. 7) illustrate that actions areneeded to push the transition to a circular economy, in
so far that it contributes to reducing environmental
harm. Without taking measures, annual resource use isforecast to double by 2050, while waste is expected to
grow by 70% (UN, 2017; World Bank, 2018).
CE acknowledged as means to reducing environmental
harm
policymakers worldwide see the potential role the CE
plays in tackling environmental issues. The UN for
example acknowledges the role CE can play to reachsome of the Sustainable Development Goals and theclimate goals in the Paris Agreement (UN, 2018; UN,
2019a). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) has also
argued the CE plays an important role in tacklingclimate change. Multiple countries are exploring ways inwhich they can apply circular practices to reduce
negative environmental impacts.

CE requires changes in all value chain phases
Moving to a CE requires changes in the way products aredesigned, produced and reused. Circularity targets in
Europe, however, focus on recycling and waste (the lasttwo product stages). The required changes in design andproduction are not translated into measurement targets.
Europe and China are leading the way policy-wise
Europe and China are the only regions so far that haveadopted the circular economy in policy making. The EU
announced in the Green Deal to design a new Action Planfor the Circular Economy in 2020 (EC, 2019b).

Some European countries have complementary circular
ambitions and targets. The Netherlands aims to be
100% circular in 2050. Given our previous discussion inparagraph 1.2, it is neither realistic, nor optimal that thiscan be achieved.
To sum up: we have discussed that moving to a CE is ameans to reducing environmental harm. Trends on the
demand side of the economy are however working in
the opposite direction, pushing down the economy’s
circularity rate. The next big question is: can the supply
side of the economy reverse this trend? We will discuss
the main hurdles for CE growth on the supply side of theeconomy in Chapter 2.

Quantitative circular targets focus on recycling and waste
EU quantitative circularity targets

Adoption of CE in policy making is limited
Despite the growing interest, inclusion of the CE inpolicy-making is still limited. The contribution of circular
strategies to policy goals needs to be better understoodand measured. The right measurement tools enable
policymakers to to define milestones, measurable
targets and identify the circular policies that are mosteffective in tackling environmental issues.
Source: European Commission 2019a

ING Economics Department

8

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Chapter 2 | What are the hurdles for circular economy growth?

ING Economics Department

2.1 What are the hurdles in the economy?

10

2.2 What are the hurdles in the financing market?

119

2.1 What are the hurdles in the economy?

Hurdles: externalities, high transaction costs and low volumes
Markets are in favor of linear production
If moving to a circular economy were easy, we would
already be much more circular today. Looking at the
supply side of the market, the circular economy is more
complicated than the current ‘linear’ economy, in that:•

The CE takes both environmental and financial costs
into account;•

Circular strategies require more intensive value
chain co-operation; and•Circular strategies require that secondary markets
emerge.

These supply barriers are holding back growth of thecircular economy. Until these hurdles are overcome, thecircular economy will not take off.
Hurdle 1. Negative externalities not priced
Extraction and use of resources cause environmental
costs (think of air pollution and biodiversity loss). These
costs are referred to as ‘externalities’, because theyoften fall outside of the current market mechanism andremain unpriced. From an environmental point of view it
is generally better to use secondary than primaryresources, in line with the circular economy (PBL, 2017).
However, as long as externalities are not fully taken into
account, the financial costs of using primary resources
will in many cases be less than the costs of secondary
resources. This puts the CE at a competitive
disadvantage to the current linear economy.

ING Economics Department

Hurdle 2. Higher costs in a CE
High transaction and operational costs pose a second
barrier for the circular economy. Transaction costs
include the costs of tracking down second-hand goods,
finding suitable partners, organizing the reverse logistics
and negotiating the terms of the collaboration. The shift
to a CE also implies an expansion of reuse and recycling
activities, which are more labour-intensive. This will
drive up operational costs related to collecting, sortingout and processing of disposed goods. The international
character of value chains makes it more difficult andmore costly to find and gather products for reuse. The
higher costs discourage new types of co-operation
within or between value chains. If these costs are too
high, circular markets will fail to emerge.

Hurdle 3. Volumes too low for circular markets
The circular economy requires markets for secondary
resources and second hand goods. Many of thesemarkets are nowadays absent due to insufficientdemand or supply. This prevents circular markets fromcoming about. In some cases potential demand forcircular goods is in place, but a lack of knowledge,
willingness and/or value chain co-ordination hinder the
manifestation of circular supply. In other cases a lack ofconsumer demand is the key issue. Previous research
indicates these are the main barriers to CE growth(Kirchherr et al., 2017a).
Volume will be less of an issue for value chains that
depend on physically scarce resources and/or that areprone to geo-political supply risks. Here, prices increasesof primary resources will stimulate the emergence of
circular supply chains and markets.

Three hurdles put the circular economy at a disadvantage
LinearCircular

Hurdle 1: Inclusion of environmental
externalities makes CE more expensive
Hurdle 2: Transaction and operationalcosts are higher in a CE
Hurdle 3: Volumes too low for circularmarkets to emerge

10

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

2.2 What are the hurdles in the financing market? (1/2)

Hurdles: innovation risks and ‘blind spot’ for ‘linear’ risks
In addition to the supply hurdles in the market
economy, there are some hurdles that impede thefinancing of circular business models1. As it turns out,
there are three hurdles to obtaining finance for CE
growth.
Hurdles in the economy hamper financing of the CE
The existence of externalities, high transaction costs
and low volumes are also a hurdle to CE financing.
Given that this puts the circular economy at acompetitive disadvantage compared to linear economy,
it is naturally less attractive to finance circular businessmodels. However, there are additional hurdles for CE
growth in the financing market.

Hurdle 4. Innovation risks hamper financing of the CE
The innovative nature of the circular economy makes
investing in CE riskier. The absence of track records
makes it harder to estimate future expected profits.
These innovation risks put the CE at a disadvantage
over conventional business models with proven trackrecords.
Hurdle 5. ‘Blind spot’ for ‘linear risks’ works against CE
Financial institutions may not fully take into accountthe extra risks of linear compared to circular loans andinvestments, also referred to as ‘linear risks’ (European
Bank for Reconstruction
and Development,
2018). If thisVisual 5 v/d redenen
dieis the case, thisagainstfinancing of the CE.
Paasworks
lastigermaken
Examples of ‘linear’ risks are stranded asset risks andrisks related to more stringent environmental policies,
which will generally be lower for circular businesses.
However, financial institutions tend to be focused moreon the short-term (Van Tilburg et al., 2018), while theserisks matter for business performance in the longer run.

PaaS model solution to some of the CE hurdles
Businesses with a PaaS business model1 sell thefunctionality of a product, rather than the product itself.
The property rights thus remain with the supplier andcustomers use the product through a lease, subscription
and/or pay-for-use arrangement. This has a positiveeffect on the PaaS business case, as it helps toovercome supply hurdles 2 and 3:•

Transaction costs of reuse strategies will be lower, as
product ownership is centralised with the PaaS
businesses. This reduces the costs of tracking down
products at the end of their lifetime (hurdle 2);•

PaaS businesses naturally take on the role ofcoordinator. If coordination failure is the root cause
circular markets do not exist, PaaS models can help
to open up circular markets (hurdle 3).

However, the PaaS model has a specific hurdle thatneeds to be addressed, as it has five ways in which
financial risks are higher than of traditional sales
models. We will discuss these risks on the next page.

Reasons that make the circular economy riskier to finance
Hurdle 4: Innovative nature
Hurdle 5: ‘Linear risks’ are overlooked
1 Refer to Appendix II for a description of the five main circular businessmodels.

ING Economics Department

Hurdle 6: Some CE business models are (Paas) perceived riskier

11

Risk

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

2.2 What are the hurdles in the financing market? (2/2)

Diverging risks of PaaS model pose a challenge
Hurdle 6. Diverging financial risks of PaaS model
Of the five circular business models the financial risks of
PaaS models diverge most from linear business models.
The perceived higher riskiness poses a barrier for thefinancing of this model, in addition to the limited
experience with the financing of PaaS models. There are
four areas where PaaS models have higher risks than
traditional sales models:The collateral value is however limited as these assets
are not directly accessible. Collateral value is further
limited if assets:a. Usage risks are higher
PaaS providers are exposed to higher usage risks, therisk that assets are used at a lower rate than expected,
and compared to traditional sales models. PaaS
businesses have longer pay back periods (ING, 2015), as
expected cash flows are spread over a longer time
period (where a sum of money is paid at once inexchange for asset ownership). Often, the length ofcontracts is shorter than the period needed to pay backthe asset investment. The increased emphasis on future
cash flows increases the level of uncertainty, as there is
no guarantee a new contract will be signed after thecurrent contract’s termination date. This negatively
affects the financial business case.

iii. By law automatically belong to the owner of thelarger good (referred to as legal accession). This ise.g. the case when lighting is integrated in theceiling of an office. It is in that case part of thesuperstructure of the building and by law owned by
the landlord. Legal arrangements exist that cansolve this issue, but this needs to be organised.

b. Risk that collateral value is limited
Liquidity risks of the PaaS model are higher andcollateral security lower than in a traditional sales
model (ING, 2015 ). The main assets of a PaaS businessare usually the assets leased to customers. These canserve as collateral to lenders.
ING Economics Departmenti.

Have relatively low value and/or are dispersed(resulting in relatively high collection costs);ii. Fulfill a primary or societal need. Social pressure willin that case prevent financiers from seizing theassets in case of a default;c. Credit risks are higher
Credit risks (e.g. the chance of bankruptcy and nonpayment) are higher for PaaS businesses. By increasing
the affordability of products, they allow customers to

use a product by paying a small amount periodicallyinstead of paying the total purchase value at once. Thisposes the risk that suppliers attract less creditworthy
consumers (adverse selection).
d. Moral hazard risks are higher
PaaS businesses face higher moral hazard risks than
traditional sales businesses. In the latter case, property
rights are transferred to the buyer when a sale occurs.
By doing so, producers shift product risks to the buyer
and avoid moral hazard risk: the tendency of consumers
to handle a product less carefully if they are not theowner.
Altogether, we have discussed six hurdles on the supply
side of the market that prevent the CE from taking off.
Given these supply hurdles and the demand trends
working in the wrong direction (paragraph 1.3), we
conclude that CE growth will not be induced by themarket itself and that there is a need for policies. We
will discuss what policies are required in Chapter 3.

Five differences that make the Paas model riskier
a. Higher usage risksb. Limited collateral valuec.

Higher credit risks

d. Higher moral hazard risks

12

Risk

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Chapter 3 | How can we get the circular economy going?

ING Economics Department

3.1 What policy actions can set into motion CE growth in the economy?

14

3.2 What actions can stimulate financing of the CE?

16

3.3 Case studies: how to deal with the hurdles in practice?

18

13

3.1 What policy actions can set into motion CE growth in the economy? (1/1)

Actions: environmental taxes and stimulation of CE innovations
Policies are needed to resolve the supply hurdles in themarket for CE growth (paragraph 2.1). This will improvethe competitiveness of circular businesses and unlock
new circular business opportunities, which will stimulatemarket players to become more circular. Policies should
be aimed at:

Taxing most effective
Policy tools to deal with externalities include taxes,
subsidies, norms and bans. Some rules of thumb help tosee how to reduce pollution at the lowest possible cost.
In general it is more effective to (OECD, 2008; PBL,
2017):

1. Pricing in negative externalities;
2. Lowering transaction and operational costs;
3. Opening up markets for secondary goods.

•

Tax polluting activities, so producers will seek alower-cost solution avoiding pollution. Bans or
standards only provide an incentive to reduce
pollution up to the point where producers are incompliance and not beyond this point.

•

Implement norms or bans where consumers are
insufficiently sensitive to prices. When implementing
a ban, make sure that banned products are notreplaced by more harmful products1;•

Tax polluting activities instead of subsidizing ‘green’
alternatives. A subsidy may increase total demand,
thereby limiting its positive impact;•

Charge polluters for the damage they cause, insteadof levying a tax on the end consumer;

Action 1: price in environmental externalities
Internalisation of environmental costs in market prices
helps to level the playing field between the linear andcircular economy. This provides an incentive for ‘green’
consumption and innovation by increasing the relative
price of polluting over that of ‘green’ products. Given
that circular production is generally moreenvironmental friendly than linear production, pricing of
externalities works in the circular economy’s favor.

Policies can create an equal level playing field between the linear and circular economy
LinearCircular

Policy actions

LinearCircular

Putting theory into practice is complex
Three aspects make pricing of externalities complex:
i.

Translating environmental externalities into
market prices is difficult: available estimates arehighly uncertain (CE Delft, 2017);

ii. Balance between effectiveness and costs: often thefirst-best option is very costly or difficult toimplement (PBL, 2017). Charging the polluter
directly for its damage can be more costly thanlevying a tax earlier or later in the value chain.
Moreover, pollutants are in general less easy toobserve and measure, than production inputs or end
products. However, taxing pollutants is more
effective.
iii. Co-operation more effective, but complex:
Internationally co-ordinated environmental policies
are more effective, but also more time consuming
and complex to implement. The fact that many
value chains are international makes local pricing
policies less effective, as externalities related todomestic consumption cause damage abroad.
Another drawback of tackling the issue at a local
level is that businesses may move abroad tocountries with more lenient environmental laws.

Price inenvironmental costs
1 This happened with the ban of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to protect the ozone layer. This triggered the development and use ofhydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which turned out to be potent greenhouse gases

ING Economics Department

14

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

3.1 What policy actions can set into motion CE growth in the economy? (1/2)

Actions: knowledge dissemination and ‘nudging’Action 2. Spur innovations that lower costs of the CE
By stimulating innovations that lower the transaction
and operational costs of the circular economy,
policymakers can facilitate CE growth. For example:•

Platform technology helps to lower information
costs by matching supply and demand for residual
waste streams and secondary products;•

Modular product design can help to improve thereusability of products and/or lower the operationalcosts of reuse;•

New business models help to improve theinfrastructure for circular strategies. An example isMadaster, a library and generator for material
passports, which helps to lower the costs of tracing
the provenance of materials in real estate.

Mission driven innovation
Mariana Mazzucato stresses the structural role ofgovernments in fostering innovation (Mazzucato, 2018;
EC, 2018). She argues that policymakers can stimulateinnovations that lower the costs of the CE by defining
concrete and engaging circular missions. These missions
need to be supported with measurable targets.
Furthermore, financial and non-financial instruments areneeded to foster bottom-up innovation: think ofconditional subsidies and loans, Public-PrivatePartnerships and CE procurement standards (Van Tilburg
et al., 2018).
Stimulate cross-value chain collaboration
Collaboration between suppliers within and between
value chains is key in a circular economy. Appendix 2
discusses the increased interactions in circular value
chains by discussing the five main circular businessmodels. Policymakers should therefore encourage value
chain players to collaborate with each other, by defining
missions from a problem-focused instead of a sectoral

Policy actions bring linear and circular more in balance
LinearTransaction andoperational costs

Circular

Policy actions

LinearSpur innovation• Platform technology• Modular product design• New business models

Volumes
Knowledge disseminationand ‘nudging’

ING Economics Department

15

Circularlens: it is for example better to aim for 100% carbon
neutral cities, than a 100% fleet by 2030. Meeting thefirst requires collaboration between multiple sectors,
while the second solely focuses on the automotive
sector.
Action 3. Knowledge dissemination and ‘nudging’
Dissemination of CE knowledge among consumers andproducers and ‘nudging’ can increase the effectivenessof environmental taxes and innovation policies(Centraal planbureau, 2018b). Kirchherr et al. (2017a)
find that lacking consumer interest and awareness anda hesitant company culture hold back growth of thecircular economy. The CE concept has not become
mainstream yet and is still mainly the domain ofsustainability professionals.
A campaign on the need to throw glass in recycling
containers in the Netherlands is a successful example ofknowledge dissemination. It has enabled the recyclingof glass by changing consumer behaviour (Centraal
planbureau, 2018a). Nudges are interventions that steer
people in particular directions but fully preserve
freedom of choice. Take for example the placement ofcoloured foot steps in the direction of stairs, toencourage people to take the stairs. Both knowledge
dissemination and ‘nudging’ can help to realise thescaling up in demand needed to open up circularmarkets, and can trigger businesses to explore available
circular business opportunities.
Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

3.2 What actions can stimulate financing of the CE? (1/2)

Inclusion of ‘linear risks’ levels the playing field
Even with the discussed policy actions on the previous
page, circular businesses are still disadvantaged in thefinancing market, due to the three hurdles in this market:•••

Innovation risks of CE businesses are higher than ofproven business models;Financiers tend to overlook the exposure ofconventional businesses to ‘linear’ risks;
Deviating risk profile of PaaS business model.

policymakers can stimulate financing of the CE in
different ways (actions 4 and 5). Financiers can further
develop financing solutions for PaaS models to reap the
benefits of this business model.
Action 4. More risk capital for CE start-ups
Governments can increase the amount of risk capital for
CE start-ups to stimulate financing of the CE. Research
by Oliver Wyman (2017) indicates that limited availabilityof risk capital is a barrier for CE growth in the
Netherlands. policymakers can influence the amount of
CE risk capital in two ways (Van Tilburg et al., 2018).
•

Indirectly, by providing guarantees for private loans orinvestments in the CE; or•Directly, by providing loans to the CE, or investing in
CE start-ups. Reviewing the conditions attached toexisting public innovation funds can help, if these arefocused on technological (‘hard’) innovations. CE
innovations tend to be ‘softer’ (e.g. business model ororganisational innovations).

ING Economics Department

Action 5. stimulate further integration ofenvironmental and linear aspects in risk models
Research shows that ‘linear’ risks and environmental
aspects are not fully incorporated in decision-making byfinancial institutions (Centre for Sustainable Finance,
2016; EBRD, 2018; DNB, 2019). Existing instruments tomeasure these risks need further improvement in orderto take them into account. This will increase the interestof financial institutions in financing CE ventures:•

Portfolio adjustments: a major shift from ‘linear’ tocircular financing will help to reduce environmental
harm. This will in turn a mitigate the adverse effects
of environmental harm on financial businessperformance;•

Individual investment decisions: circular businesses
are less exposed than conventional businesses toe.g. reputational risks and the trend towards more
stringent environmental laws.

Encourage data investments for ‘linear risk’ modelling
The researchers from CCSF show that a lack of data
discourages financiers to develop tools that include
environmental aspects in risk models. Policymakers canstimulate market players to invest in the availability andquality of the required data, by e.g. expanding
disclosure requirements on environmental aspects. An
example is the recently implemented sustainability
disclosure requirements by the European Commission(2019).

16

Shift focus to long term performance
Another way in which policymakers can stimulate
integration of ‘linear risks’ is with governanceadjustments that shift the focus of financial institutions
to the longer-term. Research shows us that thetendency of the financial market to focus on the shortterm is partly driven by the practices and regulations
that govern them (Caldecott & McDaniels, 2014).
Take for example the adjustment of the solvability rules
for insurers (Solvency II) that enable investments withlonger-term horizons (Van Tilburg et al., 2018). Sending
credible signals on future tightening of environmental
regulations is an other way to stimulate a longer-term
focus, by making lenders take into account the higher
legal risks of linear businesses. This will improve thecompetitiveness of environmentally friendly overconventional businesses and will thus work in favour of
the CE.
More risk capital for CE start-ups helps to level
the playing field

CE startup

LinearCircular

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

3.2 What actions can stimulate financing of the CE? (2/2)

Financiers need to develop tailored solutions for PaaS model
Financiers need to develop new financial solutions

Of the five circular business models, it is the PaaS modelthat has diverging financial risks compared to
traditional sales models. It requires that financiers
develop new financial solutions that help to deal withthe extra risks discussed in paragraph 2.2. The limited
experience with the usage risks of PaaS businesses
poses an important barrier for the financing of thesebusinesses. It is up to the financial sector to explore
ways of managing these risks.
Exploring ways to deal with usage risks
Financiers are currently looking into ways to deal withthe extra usage risks of PaaS models. Possible solutions
for financing PaaS businesses are different for businessto-business (B2B), versus business-to-consumers (B2C)
oriented businesses:•

B2B: usage risks can be managed with legal
contracts that provide security on future expectedcash flows. These contracts enable the use of
project-based financing models, where finance isprovided to a project, instead of a company. The
financing business case is then based on future
expected cash flows, rather than on past trackrecords. The security about future cash flows thatcan be obtained from contracts is higher for longerterm contracts. Given the long-term nature of manyof these contracts, project based financing provides
a solution for B2B PaaS models;•

B2C: these PaaS businesses often rely on short-term
contracts, limiting the security they provide on
future cash flows. An alternative scenario to fall backon is therefore needed in the case expected PaaS
revenue falls short. Guarantees may provide asolution here, e.g. if the asset manufacturer agrees
to buy back assets that cannot be marketed by a
PaaS provider.

A thorough assessment of the creditworthiness of thecustomers underlying the contracts is a prerequisite forcontract-based financing.
Identifying the most viable cases
Financiers need a method to pre-assess the business
opportunity of different PaaS propositions based on
relevant characteristics and past experience. This will
help to allocate means more effectively, as thefinancing of PaaS businesses requires a tailoredapproach and is therefore more labor-intensive andcostly (e.g. it takes time to set up the legal contracts
needed for project financing). Relevant characteristics
are e.g. collateral value, costs of relocation of assets
and estimated market size.

Embedding the circular economy
Embedding knowledge of the circular economy infinancial sector is essential to trigger financing of thecircular economy. Employee training andempowerment are needed to enable them to identify,
assess and finance circular businesses.
Financial sector as catalyst for circular growth
Beyond these actions, the financial sector can act as acatalyst for CE growth by helping to establish thecollaboration needed for a flourishing circular economy.
Due to its extensive network within and between value
chains, the financial sector can facilitate the shift
towards circular value chains.
Businesses and financial sector need to tackle hurdles
We discussed the role of policies in levelling the playing
field between the circular and linear economy1. But the
CE can only get off the ground if businesses and thefinancial sector also take up the challenge of becoming
more circular. By joining forces we can tackle thehurdles for circular growth (Chapter 2). The case studies
discussed on p. 18 and 19 show us how businesses havealready come up with innovative ways to deal with the
CE hurdles. Business ingenuity is crucial for accelerating
growth of the circular economy.

1 The actions discussed cover five important policy areas, but are not exhaustive.

ING Economics Department

17

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

3.3 Case studies: how to deal with the hurdles in practice (1/2)?

Business ingenuity can unlock circular business opportunity
Although policies are needed to lower the CE hurdles and accelerate CE growth, there are ways in which businesses candeal with them in the meantime. The case studies in this section illustrate how the circular economy is making progress,
with business ingenuity and creativity. Technological inventiveness is the starting point for most of the business cases.
One key is companies finding ‘win-win’ solutions, such as finding a way of making consumers’ lives easier or offering
them additional protection against risks. This way, customers have a personal benefit in purchasing circular solutions.
Scaling up to achieve efficiencies and finding ways to finance the related risks are other keys to success.

Success: commercial & circular interest are aligned

Success: incentives & efficiency wins to close the loop

Success: modular design, 3D printing and recycled inputs

Swapfiets offers cycling as a service in many European cities.
The bicycle fleet has grown rapidly towards 175,000 users.
Swapfiets offers its clients ‘a bike that always works’. With
this service, customers are free of the burdens of owning abike such as repairing flat tires, regular maintenance andbeing insured against theft (with a deductible excess). The
main purpose of the PaaS model is to offer cycling as aservice, not to increase circularity. However, commercial andcircular interests are aligned. In order to offer ‘a bike thatalways works’, Swapfiets uses more expensive parts toensure the high quality and lifespan of the bike. E.g. more
durable alloy rims and lighting that works on magnetism
instead of batteries.

The fairphone is a smartphone fully designed by circularprinciples. The phone is modular by design, so that batteries,
screens, cameras and so on can easily be replaced or
upgraded. It offers customers the option of having the phone
repaired (and even doing this themselves), rather than having
to replace it. Fairphone intentionally introduces new models
infrequently so that customers use their modules and phonelonger. Fairphone closes the loop with financial incentives toreturn old smartphones (both fairphones and other brands),
and optimising recycling streams per module.

Signify, formerly known as Philips Lighting, produces highquality, energy efficient and circular lighting solutions.
Production has become more sustainable througheliminating waste and the use of 100% renewable energy by
2020. Products are circular due to circular design thinking,new 3D printing techniques for which the materials can bereused and increased use of recycled plastics. The lights’material footprint has been reduced by 47% as a result.
Signify sees that clients increasingly demand circularservices, such as serviceable lights and replaceable
components.

Hurdle: moral hazard risk poses a challenge
Bikes are expected to last six years. The first Swapfiets bikes
have been on the road for two years now. So currently thereverse logistics flow of bikes is limited and confined to
repairs during the lifespan of the bike. A plan for what to dowith used bikes after six years will be developed when they
have reached the end of their economic lifespan. Besides
charity purposes, it is unknown yet if the business case togive the bikes a second life is commercially viable (hurdle 2).
Furthermore, the company wants to reduce ‘application
fraud’ as some customers stop paying soon after receiving
the bike (hurdle 6d).

ING Economics Department

Hurdle: circular phone much more expensive
The fairphone is designed to be used for five years, twice aslong as the average smartphone. However, performance anddesign are middle of the road at the time of purchase. That
could restrict repairability in 3-5 years as the model might beviewed technologically outdated by users (even when
updates are taken into account).
The circular premium of around €200 is likely to be too highto make it a product for the mass market, so demand is likely
to be limited (hurdle 3). The price difference is caused by thefact that costs for modular design and production are higher(hurdle 2) and the fact that negative externalities ofcellphones produced in the linear economy are not priced in(hurdle 1).

18

Hurdle: low demand for circular lighting
Demand for fully circular lighting is still low (hurdle 3). A
systemic change towards a circular economy requires manychanges in multiple dimensions like product design, reversed
logistics, collaboration, business models, cultures, etc. They
also need to converge at the same time.
Launching customers such as governments can acceleratedemand for fully circular service models (Light as a Service)
via government initiatives like the EU package for circular
economy, Green Public Procurement and Green Deals.

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

3.3 Case studies: how to deal with the hurdles in practice (2/2)?

Business ingenuity can unlock circular business opportunity

Success: circularity increased with operational improvements & innovations

Success: growing demand & focused on innovation

Drentea is a manufacturer of office furniture (chairs, tables and cabinets) with a strong
focus on circularity. In the past years circularity was improved by reducing waste,using better resources such as recycled monoplastics and the quantification of theecological footprints of products. Currently circularity is improved through circular
contracts, including PaaS. Drentea also puts a lot of R&D effort into bioplastics that
could be substituted for plastics from fossil fuels.

Avantium develops innovative chemistry technologies across industry value chains in order toproduce chemicals and materials based on renewable feedstock instead of fossil resources. It isbest known for the development and production of bioplastic PEF that can replace fossil fuelbased PET plastic that is used in plastic bottles for water and carbonated soft drinks. Avantium is
not a standard circular company; it however produces ‘bio-based’ resources that are essential for
circular supply chains and circular companies. Avantium has developed several technologies forbioplastics and is now increasing production capacity by building production facilities. Global
demand for bioplastics is high and global production is currently at maximum capacity.

Hurdle: circular procurement is more costly & time consuming
The product life of office furniture has been extended by circular design andproduction. However, electronics have increasingly become a feature of officefurniture. Think of electronically adjustable tables and digital lockers. As a result,software updates and replacement of electronic parts need to be an integral part ofthe circular proposition.

Hurdle: scale needed to lower operational costs
In the past, improving plastic supply chains was all about substituting fossil fuel-based plastics
with bio-based plastics and improving the quality of the bioplastics. Nowadays, this needs to becomplemented by end-of-life policies to fight the plastic soup problem, both in water and on land,
as a bio-based plastic soup is also harmful to the environment.

Circular procurement is gaining popularity but is still complex in practice.
• Customers need to have realistic ambitions. In businesses with low profit margins
like office furniture it is costly to trace the origin of every single material in the
product as is often demanded in tenders (hurdle 2).
• Furthermore, customers have diverse goals. Some focus on CO2 reduction, others
on resource efficiency or both and the focus can change during the procurement
process.
• For businesses, circular procurement can be improved by a more holistic view on
circularity (not only the office furniture, but also carpets and lighting, not only inthe headquarters but in every building of the company, etc). In practice,businesses may start with fully circular tenders that lose their impact as they
become fragmented (hurdle 2).

Global production capacity must be increased so that economies of scale can make bioplastics
cost competitive (hurdle 2). The well known 0.5 litre bottle provides a case in point. Mass
production of a plastic PET bottle costs around 6 eurocents per bottle. With current low
production volumes a bioplastic bottle costs almost three times as much. This will go downwhen produced at mass scale. The pricing of negative externalities of PET and glass bottles oraluminum cans also improves the business case of biobased bottles (hurdle 1).
Financing green chemistry is difficult as it requires a long-term horizon, is capital intensive andis a high risk business (hurdles 4 and 5). Avantium has successfully passed through the 'valley ofdeath' where many new ventures fail to attract sufficient finance or become a listed company.
Becoming a profitable business in the coming years will further improve the company’s ability to
attract finance.
Finally, better information is needed for consumers as many cannot see the wood for the trees
in the complex world of sustainability, circularity and plastics. Many believe that bioplastic meansthat it is biodegradable, while the term instead focusses on the resources from which the plastic
is produced. While PEF degrades much faster than fossil-based plastics, it will take years. This
incorrect view prevents consumers from disposing of them correctly, with many entering theenvironment instead of being recycled.

Nowadays, fashion plays a role in the office furniture market. Tables that facilitate
both sitting and standing have gained popularity quickly. As a result, prices for second
hand tables that only facilitate sitting have collapsed. Low prices limit thepossibilities to cover collection, refurbishment and distribution costs in order to givethem a second life (hurdles 3 and 6c).

ING Economics Department

19

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Sources (1)Also of interest• Accenture (2014), Circular Advantage• De Boer & Van Ittersum (2018), Circularity in agricultural production• Caldecott & McDaniels (2014), Financial Dynamics of the Environment: Risks, Impacts, and Barriers to Resilience• CE Delft (2017), Environmental Prices Handbook 2017
• Centraal planbureau (2017), De circulaire economie van kunststof: van grondstoffen tot afval• Centraal planbureau (2018a), Circulaire economie: economie en ecologie in balans• Centraal planbureau (2018b), Verkenning brede welvaart 2018
• Centre for Sustainable Finance (2016), Environmental risk analysis by financial institutions• Circle Economy (2019), PaaS question kit• Circle Economy (2019), The Circular Phone• DNB (2019), Values at risk? Sustainability risks and goals in the Dutch financial sector• Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2019), Completing the picture: how the circular economy tackles climate change• European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2018), Linear Risk. Business impacts of linear consumption practices• European Central Bank (2019), Climate change and financial stability• European Commssion (2016), Science for environment policy• European Commission (2017), Critical raw materials• European Commission (2018), Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union• European Commission (2019a), Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan
• European Commission (2019b), The European Green Deal
• European Environment Agency (2015), Correlation of ecological footprint (2008) and the human development index (2012)• European Parliament (2017), Food waste: the problem in the EU in numbers• European Union (2019), Fairphone created the world's first ethical, modular smartphone• Eurostat (2019a), Circular material use rate
• Eurostat (2019b), Private investments, jobs and gross value added related to circular economy sectors• Global Footprint Network (2019), Earth overshoot day• The Guardian (2015), Lifespan of consumer electronics is getting shorter, study finds• The Guardian (2019), Fairphone 3 review: the most ethical and repairable phone you can buy• Henckens et al. (2016), Mineral resources: Geological scarcity, market price trends, and future generations• ING International Survey (2019), Circular economy: Consumers seek help
• ING Economics Department (2015), Rethinking finance in a circular economy• ING Economics Department (2019), Plastic packaging in the food sector

Circular construction

ING Economics Department

20

Most opportunities for demolishers and wholesalers

Rethinking finance in a circular economy
Financial implications of circular business models

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Sources (2)• IRP (2017), International trade in resources• Kirchherr et al. (2017a), Breaking the barriers to the circular economy• Kirchherr et al. (2017b), Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions• Mariana Mazzucato (2018), The entrepreneurial state• McKinsey (2016), Style that’s sustainable: a new fast-fashion fomula• McKinsey (2019), Perspectives on retail and consumer goods• Our world in data (2019), Meat and dairy production• OECD (2008), An OECD Framework for Effective and Efficient Environmental Policies• OECD (2010), Taxation, Innovation and the Environment• Circle Economy (2019), The circularity gap report• PBL (2017), Fiscale vergroening: belastingverschuiving van arbeid naar grondstoffen, materialen en afval• PwC (2017), The long view: how will the global economic order change by 2050?
• Romijn (2018), Beprijs de milieuschade• Stegeman (2019), De vrije markt zal de circulaire economie niet realiseren• Van Tilburg et al. (2018), Financiële beleidsinterventies voor een circulaire economie• UN (2017), With resource use expected to double by 2050, better natural resource use essential for a pollution-free planet• UN (2018), Program of the Joint Meeting of ECOSOC and the Second Committee• UN (2019a), Circular economy crucial for Paris climate goals• UN (2019b), World population prospects• UN International Resource Panel (2017), Global Material Flows Database• UN International Resource Panel (2019), Global resources outlook 2019
• Waite et al. (2018), Without changing diets, agriculture alone could produce enough emissions to surpass 1.5°C of global
warming• Wastelab (2019), Onderweg naar zero waste met Royal FloraHolland• Working Group Finance (2016), Money makes the world go round• World Bank (2018), Global waste to grow by 70 percent by 2050 unless urgent action is taken: World Bank report• Wyman (2017), Supporting the circular economy transition• Zink & Geyer (2017), Circular Economy Rebound

ING Economics Department

21

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Appendix I: what is the circular economy about?

CE aims for growth, without natural capital loss
What is the circular economy?
Lots of interpretations of the circular economy (CE)exist. It is therefore good to make explicit what wemean by it. Consensus tells us that we should look atboth its purpose and its principles1.

Circular economy mainly focuses on ‘planet’ and ‘profit’
PeopleHuman capital
CirculareconomyPurpose: economic growth, without natural capital loss
The purpose of a circular economy is to create welfare
by realising growth within the earth’s regenerative
capacity. In other words: economic activities must not
result in permanent natural capital loss.

Viewed from the commonly used “triple bottom line”(people, planet, profit framework) the circular economy
thus mainly focuses on creating environmental (planet)
and financial value (profit).

ProfitFinancial
capitalPlanetNaturalcapitalThree basic principles
A circular economy is based on three principles, beingthat it aims to:•

Reduce resource use: by increasing resource
efficiency2, consuming less, sharing goods andsubstitution of scarce resources;•

Retain value: the value of goods and materials in
use should be kept as high as possible, for as long as
possible;•

Minimise waste: useful resources or energy ofdisposed products or by-products should berecovered to reduce waste and resource extraction.
ING Economics Department

1 There is no uniformly accepted definition of the circular economy(Kirchherr et al., 2017b)
2 Resource efficiency: resource use per product22

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Appendix II: what are the main circular business models?

Five underlying circular business models
Five main circular business models
Circular business models are mentioned a couple oftimes to discuss the hurdles for CE growth (Chapter 2).
Here we describe the main circular business models. We
adopt the five business models defined by Accenture(2014)1, which are commonly used as the main businessmodels underpinning the CE.
Why do we need new business models in the CE?
The shifted focus from transactions and cost efficiency
as main profit drivers in the linear economy, to higher
resource efficiency, less resource use and value
retention in the CE explains why businesses need toearn profits in a different way.

1. Circular supplies
Business models based on supplying fully renewable,
recyclable or bio-based resources as alternative tosingle-lifetime inputs.

4. Sharing platforms
Business models that promote a platform forcollaboration among product users (individuals and/ororganisations). The platforms enable increased
utilisation rates by facilitating shared use, access orownership of products.

2. Resource recovery
Business models that recover useful resources or energy
out of disposed products or by-products and thustransform waste into value.

5. Product as a service (PaaS)
Business models that offer product access, instead ofownership, to customers. Businesses retain ownershipof products, while products are used by one or manycustomers through a lease or pay-per-use
arrangement.

3. Product life extension
Business models that extend working lifecycles of goods
and materials by reselling, repairing, refurbishing,remanufacturing and repurposing of products.

Circular business models translate the CE concept into business opportunities
2. Resource recovery: recycle
3. Product life extension: remanufacture

1. Circular supplies

3. Product life extension: resell

Product design

Procurement

2. Resource recovery: waste as a resource
Other production proces

Manufacturing

Logistics

Sales and marketing

Product use

End of life disposal

Reverse logistics

4. Share

2. Resource recovery

3. Product life extension: repair / upgrade

5. PaaS models can be applied by businesses at any level in the supply chain
Source: Accenture, 2014; Kirchherr et al., 2017b)
1 Based on an analysis of more than 120 case studies of companies that are generating resource productivity improvements in innovative ways.

ING Economics Department

23

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020

Would you like to know more?
AuthorMirjam Bani
Economist
ING Economics Department+31 (6)150 49 126
Mirjam. Bani@ing.com

Editors
Marten van Garderen
Gerben Hieminga
Lex Hoekstra
Joanna Konings

ING Economics Department
ING Economics Department
ING Economics Department
ING Economics Department

Marieke Blom
Chief Economist Netherlands
ING Economics Department+31 (6)539 04 531
Marieke.Blom@ing.com

And special thanks to
Tom van Aken
Bert Top
Thomas Leenders
Edzard Kalff

Avantium
DrenteaSignify
Swapfiets

Joost van Dun
Nishant Parekh
Marc Borghans
Rianne Hordijk

ING Sustainable Finance
ING Sustainability
ING Sustainable Finance
ING Economics Department

Or visit ING THINK
Disclaimer
This publication has been prepared by the ‘Economic and Financial Analysis Division’ of ING
Bank N.V. (‘ING’) and is only intended as information for its customers. This publication is not
an investment recommendation or an offer or invitation to buy or sell any financial
instrument. This publication is for information purposes only and should not be considered asadvice in any form whatsoever. ING obtains its information from reputable sources and hastaken all possible care to ensure that at the time of publication the information on which it
has based its view in this publication is not misleading in all respects. ING makes no guaranteethat the information it uses is accurate or complete. Neither ING nor any of its directors or
employees assumes any liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage resulting from theuse of (the contents of) this publication as well as for printing and typographical errors in thispublication. The information contained in this publication reflects the personal opinion of theAnalyst/ Analysts and no part of the Analyst’s/Analysts’ remuneration is, or will be directly or
indirectly related to the inclusion of any specific recommendations or opinions in this report.

ING Economics Department

The analysts who contributed to this publication comply with all the requirements prescribedby the national supervisory bodies that monitor the performance of their profession. The
information in this publication is subject to change without notice. Neither ING nor any of its
directors or employees assumes any liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage
resulting from the use of (the contents of) this publication as well as for printing andtypographical errors in this publication. Copyright and rights to the protection of databases
apply to this publication. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or
published by any person for whatsoever reason without prior written permission from the ING.
All rights are reserved. ING Bank N.V. has its registered office in Amsterdam, and principal
place of business at Bijlmerplein 888, 1102 MG Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and is registeredin the trade register of the Chamber of Commerce under number 33031431. In the
Netherlands, ING Bank N.V. is registered with and supervised by De Nederlandsche Bank andthe Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM). For more information about ING
policy, see https://research.ing.com/. The report was concluded on 20-01-2020.

24

Rethinking the road to the circular economy – January 2020