Promoting remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and direct reuse : as a contribution to the G7 alliance on resource efficiency 7-8 February 2017 Brussels, Belgium : workshop report.
Date: 2017-05-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU industrial policy, environmental economics, environmental policy, exploitation of resources, industrial manufacturing, natural resources, report, sustainable development, technical rule

Workshop Report

Workshop Report

Promoting 
Remanufacturing, 
Refurbishment, 
Repair, and Direct Reuse

As a contribution to the G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency
7-8 February 2017 Brussels, Belgium

Motor vehicle parts

Industrial printing equipment

Heavy duty equipment

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union

New freephone number:
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://ec.europa.eu).

ISBN 978-92-79-67964-3 
doi:10.2779/181003

© European Union, 2017
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Table of Contents 

The Workshop .................................................................................................................................. 2 

Chairs’ Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 2 

Workshop Programme .................................................................................................................... 8 

Report by Workshop Session ........................................................................................................ 11 

Tuesday 7 February 2017 ............................................................................................................... 11 

Opening session: the welcome and introduction to the workshop ........................................ 11 

Session 1: Presentation of the preliminary findings of the IRP report .................................... 15 

Summary of discussions ......................................................................................................... 16 

Session 2: Addressing barriers on a firm level .......................................................................... 18 

Summary of interventions ...................................................................................................... 18 

Summary of discussions ......................................................................................................... 20 

Session 3: Effective policy frameworks for remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and 
direct reuse ................................................................................................................................ 23 

Summary of interventions ...................................................................................................... 23 

Summary of discussions ......................................................................................................... 28 

Session 4: Increasing consumer acceptance of remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and 
direct reuse ................................................................................................................................ 29 

Summary of interventions ...................................................................................................... 29 

Summary of discussions ......................................................................................................... 31 

Wednesday 8 February 2017 ......................................................................................................... 33 

Session 5: Strengthening collaboration between scientists, businesses and governments .. 33 

Summary of break-out group discussions .............................................................................. 33 

Session 6: Recommendations for the 2017 G7 Environment Ministers’ Meeting under Italy’s 
Presidency .................................................................................................................................. 35 

Summary of break-out group discussions .............................................................................. 35 

Definitions of terms used in the draft IRP report on Remanufacturing, Refurbishment, Repair, 
and Direct Reuse ............................................................................................................................ 37 

List of Speakers…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37  
About the Organizers………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..39  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Workshop 

The International Resource Panel and the European Commission, under the aegis of the G7 
Alliance  on  Resource  Efficiency,  organised  a  workshop  in  Brussels  (Belgium)  to  present  the 
preliminary  findings  of  the  upcoming  report  by  the  International  Resource  Panel  on 
remanufacture, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse, and discuss measures for overcoming 
market and policy barriers to promote these circular economy processes. The workshop was 
held  back-to-back  with  a  G7  Meeting  on  Resource  Efficiency  and  the  recommendations  on 
how to advance remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse fed into discussions 
about the G7 Roadmap on Resource Efficiency. 

Chairs’ Conclusions 

Introduction 

1. The 20th century saw material extraction increase by a factor of about eight. Global resource 
consumption  is  expected  to  continue  growing  significantly  due  to  population  expansion  and 
increasing resource use per person as average incomes rise. This will probably require natural 
resource extraction to more than double from 85 to 186 billion tonnes by 2050. Despite the ap-
parent decoupling of GDP from resource use in member countries of the Organisation for Eco-
nomic Co-operation and Development (‘OECD’), global resource productivity has been worsen-
ing in recent years as a result of the transfer of production of globally traded goods to countries 
with lower average resource productivity. Each year, the urgency to act on resource productivity 
becomes greater.  

2 

 
 
 
 
2. The continued  expansion of global resource consumption poses a number of challenges for 
the  achievement  of  sustainable  development,  including  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals 
(‘SDGs’)  in  the  Agenda  2030  for  Sustainable  Development  adopted  by  the  UN  Assembly  in 
September 2015. The International Resource Panel has shown that it is physically impossible to 
overcome resource constraints on delivery of the SDGs without significant increases in resource 
productivity1. Moreover, the International Resource Panel has highlighted that most SDGs can 
be cost-effectively achieved through greater resource efficiency. Furthermore, meeting the 2°C 
scenario provided for in the Paris Agreement can be made cost-positive through the adoption of 
policies for resource efficiency2. 

3.  Circular  economy 
thinking  offers  a  model 
that  can  help  to  signifi-
cantly  reduce  pressure 
on resources and lead a 
transition  to  an  eco-
nomic  system  that  en-
compasses  the  concept 
of  decoupling.  The  Eu-
ropean 
Commission’s 
Circular Economy Action 
Plan3  was  adopted 
in 
December  2015  with 
the aim to go further in "closing the loop" of product lifecycles through greater recycling and re-
use, and to bring benefits for both the environment and the economy. Circular economy in prac-
tice needs to be based on proper scientific evidence to inform policy-making about the potential 
environmental, social and economic consequences along the life cycle. For this reason, the In-
ternational  Resource  Panel  is  currently  undertaking  an  assessment  of  the  resource-saving 
potentials of the circular economy, looking at the less resource-intensive lifespan extension ac-
tivities such as reuse, repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing.  

4.  The  purpose  of  the  International  Resource  Panel  assessment  report  is  to  estimate  the  re-
source  efficiency  contributions  of  remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  in 
three  sectors:  motor  vehicle  parts,  heavy-duty  equipment  and  commercial  imaging  products. 
The  study  will  quantify  current  and  potential  material  savings,  energy/emissions  avoidance, 
waste reduction, economic value generation, and job creation opportunities in both developing 
and  developed  countries.  The  study  will  also  identify  potential  gains  through  barrier  removal, 

1 Policy Coherence of the Sustainable Development Goals (2015) 
2 Resource Efficiency: Potential and Economic Implications (2016) 
3 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6203_en.htm.  

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
suggest product design strategies, and policy options to accelerate promotion of these product 
life-extension  practices.  The  quantification  of  resource  efficiency  potential  for  different  life 
extension processes will help to inform the development of policy options and strategic industry 
insights.    No  study  has  yet  been  conducted  which  addresses  these  aspects  of  circular  and 
product life extension processes. The final report should be available at the end of 2017. 

Key messages of the workshop 

The potential scale and benefits of remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse  

5.  Remanufactured  or  refurbished  products  can  help  firms  compete  at  a  lower  price  with 
cheaper or lower quality competitors, without reducing quality, due to the resource savings re-
alised, allowing firms to secure greater 
market  share.  Whilst  the  resource 
saving differs per piece and material, it 
is  often  between  80%  to  95%  for  the 
first  extension  of  life,  compared  to  a 
new  product.  Each  component  goes 
through  its  own number  of  life  cycles, 
which can vary from 2 to 9.  However, 
after  a  certain  number  of  cycles,  it 
becomes  economically  unviable  to 
continue to remanufacture.  

6.  Based  on  the  interim  findings,  the  potential  economic  and  resource  benefits  appear 
significantly  greater  than  previously  analysed.  There  are  net  national  employment  gains, 
because creating valuable products through remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair and direct 
reuse  involves  a  greater  share  of  labour  inputs  than  manufacture  of  new  products.  There  are 
also  substantial  societal  benefits  that  are  not  captured  in  prices  and  benefits  to  companies  – 
these  reflect  the  reduction  in  environmental  harm  and  the  increased  availability  of  future 
resource stocks which are current unpriced externalities. These benefits appear to be available 
to both developed and developing countries, in about equal measure, per product.  

The International Resource Panel takes a system-wide view of barriers  

7.  To  investigate  needs  for  the  promotion  of  remanufacturing,  refurbishment  and  repair  the 
International Resource Panel is taking a system-wide view – modelling product flows and then 
looking at all the barriers to actions to extend lifetimes in those flows. Identified barriers can be 
categorised  as:  regulatory  barriers,  technical  barriers,  market  barriers  and  barriers  to  product 
recovery. Successful support needs the removal of all barriers, as removing one is not sufficient 
if others remain.  

4 

 
 
 
8.  Definitions  are  one  cause  of  regulatory  barriers.  End-of-use  or  broken  products  are  often 
categorised  by  legal  definitions  as  waste.  The  same  applies  to  what  the  industry  calls  'core'  - 
product  components  that  are  destined  to  be  remanufactured  or  refurbished  but  that  legally 
speaking are often classified as waste.  

9. According to the industry, cores destined for remanufacture or repair can be disadvantaged 
or  excluded  from  trade  as  a  result  of  being  classed  as  waste.    Remanufactured  products 
themselves  are  neither  new,  or  used,  and  can  also  be  disadvantaged  or  blocked  in  trade.  In 
addition,  imports  of  remanufactured  products  between  jurisdictions  can  be  blocked,  even  if 
remanufactured sales are allowed within that jurisdiction because these products do not fulfil 
the  new  standards  and  requirements  that  have  been  introduced  by  regulators  since  the  time 
when the product had been first put on the market.  

Areas for further research were identified 

10.  Workshop  participants  identified  the  following  knowledge  gaps  and  research  questions  as 
being of high priority: 

  The  trends  in  the  value  of  remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse 

globally 

  The barriers in trade, in consumer perception and for SMEs  
  A  stocktaking  exercise  on  the  best  practices  and  existing  policies  related  to 
remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  in  order  to  allow  for  an 
exchange of experience between countries 

  The effectiveness and impact of current and suggested support instruments to promote 
remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  by  conducting  a  comparative 
policy analysis 

  The macro and micro-economic benefits of large-scale economic change from product-

supply to service-provision models  

Policy needs were identified - Packages of tailored policy will be needed 

11. Remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse can be promoted by a) levelling the 
playing  field  between  remanufactured,  refurbished,  repaired  and  reused  products  and  new 
products, b) removing legislative barriers, and c) facilitating international trade in used products 
for remanufacture and refurbishment and in sales of remanufactured, refurbished and repaired 
products. Examples discussed included: 

  Creating clarity on the definitions that differentiate true ‘waste’ from products that have 

life left in them 

  Agreeing international standards for remanufactured products as this would harmonise 
the  way  in  which  countries  apply  environmental  or  human  health  trade  restrictions, 

5 

 
 
 
including by addressing possible mis-classification as waste. New international standards 
would  set the  boundaries  of  what  is  interpreted  as  ‘legitimate’  with beneficial  impacts 
for the interpretation of international trade law 

  Facilitating  the  development  of  international  reverse  logistic  chains,  i.e.  collection  and 

transport systems of cores 

  Asking 

industry  to 

identify  perceived 

legislative  barriers  to  remanufacturing, 
refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  innovation  in  their  businesses  and  inform 
regulators,  so  that  these  can  be discussed  and addressed  (similar  to  ‘Innovation  Deals’ 
launched by the EU) 

  Framing waste in the context of its economic value, rather than its environmental risk, 

partly by ensuring its risk to the environment is eliminated 

12. Increasing remanufacturing and repair is partly a cultural challenge, reliant on a change in 
values inside companies and product users, so that engineers see ways to use remanufactured 
parts  and  consumers  understand  the  value  of  repair  and  of  returning  products.  Such  changes 
often need to be driven by legislation, for example, by changing incentives or stimulating design 
for repair. Examples discussed included: 

  A  Swedish tax-refund for  the  labour  segment  of  household  repair bills for  white  goods 

and electronics  

  The  first  mandatory  Italian  Green  Public  Procurement  scheme  covering  17  product 
sectors  and  setting  minimum  criteria  for  eligibility  and  further  criteria  to  reward 
innovation which are revised every three years 

  The use of modular fees in France, which reduces Extended Producer Responsibility fees 
for  producers  who  inform  consumers  consumer  how  long  spare  parts  will  be  available 
for the product on purchase  

13.  Several  measures  can  be  used  to  increase  consumer  acceptance  of  remanufactured  or 
introducing  standard 
refurbished  products 
contractual clauses, working with consumers’ existing trusted sources to shape opinion, peer to 
peer marketing, support for local community communication and exchange platforms (IT tools 
and physical spaces), and marketing aiming at young people. Specific examples included: 

including:  changing  the  financial 

incentives, 

  Clubs to share experience on how to repair products (e.g. London’s Restart Project) 

  Technology platforms which can  provide the links to create reverse supply chains from 
consumers  to  repair,  reuse  or  remanufacture  (e.g.  returns  management  software 
developed by 12Return) 

  Certified quality standards for recycled materials (e.g. label ReMade in Italy) 

6 

 
 
 
  Campaigns  to  change  values  and  educate  on  options  (e.g.  Ljubljana’s  waste  collection 
authority,  Snaga,  which  runs  many  inventive  campaigns  to  stimulate  consumers  to 
reconsider the value of reducing waste and what they buy) 

  Putting in place national and municipal consumer education plans to raise awareness on 
circular economy (e.g. see examples from the report ‘Enjoying more with less. Leading 
examples of grassroots circular economy initiatives and lessons for policy-makers’ by the 
European Environment Bureau) 

14.  Neither  industry  nor  policy makers  currently  know  the  true  extent  of  the  market  share of 
remanufactured, refurbished, repaired, and directly reused products. Policy progress will need 
agreed metrics for the activities which are to be promoted, and the setting of targets. 

15.  To  overcome  the  barriers,  resource  policy  will  need  to  be  taken  seriously  across  different 
departments  within  a  company  (e.g.  sales  people  talking  to  sustainability  and  design  people) 
and  by  different  arms  of  government  (e.g.  economics  ministries  working  with  waste 
management policy makers). 

16. There are many, simultaneous areas of policy action which are needed to promote circular 
economy. Solving barriers individually will not have much impact on levels of remanufacturing, 
refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse.  Packages  of  measures,  applied  appropriately  to  each 
situation in a systemic manner will be required.  

Astrid Schomaker 
Director  for  Global  Sustainable  Development,  Environment  Directorate-
General, European Commission 

Janez Potočnik 
Co-Chair, International Resource Panel 

Federica Fricano 
Director  for  EU  Affairs  and  International  Climate  Negotiation,  Ministry  of 
Environment, Land and Sea, Italy 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Workshop Programme 

09:30-10:00 

Tuesday 07 February 2017 

Opening session: Welcome and introduction to the workshop 
Welcome addresses by:  
-Kestutis  Sadauskas,  Director,  Circular  Economy  and  Green  Growth,  Environment 
Directorate-General, European Commission 
-Federica  Fricano,  Director  for  EU  Affairs  and  International  Climate  Negotiation, 
Ministry of    Environment, Land and Sea, Italy 
-Janez Potočnik, Co-Chair, International Resource Panel 

10:00-11:40 

Introduction and objectives of the workshop 
Luca Marmo, Environment Directorate-General, European Commission 
Session  1:  Presentation  of  the  preliminary  findings  of  the  report  on  'Resource 
in  Circular  Economy  through  Remanufacturing, 
Efficiency  and  Innovation 
Refurbishment, Repair, and Direct Reuse' by the International Resource Panel. 
Moderator: Janez Potočnik, Co-Chair, International Resource Panel 

Gains from remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and direct reuse: insights from 
the International Resource Panel 
Nabil  Nasr,  International  Resource  Panel  member,  lead  author  of  the  report  and 
Director  of  Golisano 
Institute  of 
Technology, USA 

Institute  for  Sustainability  at  Rochester 

Barriers  for  advancing  remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair,  and  direct  reuse: 
insights from the International Resource Panel 
Nabil  Nasr,  International  Resource  Panel  member,  lead  author  of  the  report  and 
Director  of  Golisano 
Institute  of 
Technology, USA 

Institute  for  Sustainability  at  Rochester 

11:40-13:00 

Questions and answers 
Session 2: Addressing barriers on a firm level 
Moderator: David Parker, European Remanufacturing Council (CER) and European 
Remanufacturing Network (ERN) 

Panel  to  discuss  actions  to  be  taken  by  businesses  to  advance  remanufacturing, 
refurbishment, repair, and direct reuse: 

  Markus  Braun,  Siemens  Healthcare,  Head  of  Quality  Management  of  the 

Business Unit for Refurbished Systems  

  Patrick Carminati, Lexmark’s Manager Supplies Sourcing & Manufacturing 

Operations 

  Nestor  Coronado  Palma,  Circular  Economy  Expert,  former  Director  of  the 

Circular Economy Program, Philips Healthcare 
John Disharoon, Director, Market Access, Caterpillar Inc.  

 
  Salvador Munoz Zarate, WABCO Reman Solutions - General Manager 

Discussion with the audience 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13:00-14:30 
14:00-16:00 

Lunch 
Session  3:  Effective  policy  frameworks  for  remanufacturing,  refurbishment, 
repair, and direct reuse 
Moderator:  Carsten  Wachholz,  Senior  Policy  Officer,  European  Environmental 
Bureau (EEB) 

16:00-16:30 
16:30-18:15 

Panel to discuss actions to be taken by governments to advance remanufacturing, 
refurbishment, repair, and direct reuse: 

  Fabio Eboli, Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea, Italy 
  Anna Karin Jönbrink, Swerea-IVF, Sweden 
  Michal Len, Director, RReuse 
  Aik  Hoe  Lim,  Director,  Trade  and  Environment  Division,  World  Trade 

Organization 
  Hugo-Maria 
Commission 

Schally, 

Environment  Directorate-General, 

European 

Discussion with the audience 

Coffee Break 
Session  4:  Increasing  consumer  acceptance  of  remanufacturing,  refurbishment, 
repair, and direct reuse 
Moderator: Tristan Steichen, ANTEA Group 
Presentation of the report “Enjoying more with less. Existing grassroots initiatives 
for circular consumption and how to overcome barriers to scale them up’’4  
Carsten Wachholz, Senior Policy Officer, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) 

Panel  to  discuss  strategies  and  actions  to  increasing  consumer  acceptance  of 
remanufactured, refurbished or repaired products: 
  Stef de Bont, Founder and CEO, 12Return 
 
  Klaus  Hieronymi.  Global  Resource  Efficiency  and  Circular  Economy 

Jože Gregorič, Project Manager, Snaga, Ljubljana 

Strategies, Hewlett Packard 

  Ugo Vallauri, Co-Founder, The Restart Project 
  Carsten  Wachholz,  Senior  Policy  Officer,  European  Environmental  Bureau 

(EEB) 

18:15-18-30 

Discussion with the audience 
Summary and closing of Day 1 
Janez Potočnik, Co-Chair, International Resource Panel and Fulvia Raffaelli, Internal 
Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  Directorate-General,  European 
Commission 

4 The full report can be found here: http://makeresourcescount.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EEB-Report-on-Circular-
Consumption-Patterns-1.pdf. The summary report can be found here: http://makeresourcescount.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/Enjoying-more-with-less-Summary-of-the-EEB-report-2.pdf  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Wednesday 8 February 2017 

09:30-09:40 

9:40-10:40 

Re-cap and scene setting 
Fulvia Raffaelli, Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Directorate-
General, European Commission 
Session 5: Strengthening collaboration 
Moderator: Janez Potočnik, Co-Chair, International Resource Panel 

10:40-11:00 
11:00-12:15 

12:15-12:30 

Discussion open to all participants, to identify knowledge gaps/research questions 
of high priority and discuss future collaboration opportunities between scientists, 
businesses and governments to promote product lifetime extensions activities 

Coffee Break 

Session 6: Recommendations 
Moderator:  Federica  Fricano,  Director  for  EU  Affairs  and  International  Climate 
Negotiation, Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea, Italy 

Discussion open to all participants,  to identify possible recommendations related 
to  promotion  of  product  lifetime  extension  activities  that  could  feed  into  the 
preparation  of  the  2017  G7  Environment  Ministers’  Meeting  under  the  Italy’s 
Presidency. 
Closing session 
Addresses by: 
-  Federica  Fricano,  Director  for  EU  Affairs  and  International  Climate  Negotiation, 
Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea, Italy 
- Janez Potočnik, Co-Chair, International Resource Panel 
-Astrid  Schomaker,  Director,  Global  Sustainable  Development,  Environment 
Directorate-General, European Commission 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Report by Workshop Session 

Tuesday 7 February 2017 

Opening session: the welcome and introduction to the workshop 

Kestutis  Sadauskas,  Director,  Circular  Economy  and  Green  Growth, 
Environment Directorate-General, European Commission 

Kestutis  Sadauskas  welcomed  participants  by  setting  the  context  of  the 
workshop  and  the  EU’s  goals  for  the  related  international  resource 
efficiency agenda. 

The  workshop  is  a  contribution  to  the  G7’s  work  on  resource  efficiency. 
Resource  efficiency  is  now  part  of  the  DNA  of  the  European  Commission’s  agenda,  taken 
forward by the Circular Economy Action Plan and specific policy measures, like the revision of 
the Regulation of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) which should deliver €170m in health savings, 
and  facilitate  much  greater  markets  for  secondary  materials.  The  possibility  to  decouple 
economic  progress,  job  creation  and  environmental  harm  exists  –  practical  solutions  are 
available. 

The  EU  realises  that  the  potential  and need  for  resource  efficiency is  global,  and  is  looking  to 
promote  it  globally,  through  work  with  the  G7,  the  IRP  and  the  OECD.  The  G7’s  Toyama 
Framework  must be  taken  forward.  Resource efficiency is  essential  for  implementation  of the 
Paris  Agreement  on  climate  and  the  achievement  of  the  2030  Agenda,  with  its  Sustainable 
Development Goals. Even more progress can be made by working on resource efficiency within 
the G20, upstream, and in all parts of the world. With the G20, the growth of green finance can 
be  better  promoted.  So,  the  ambitions  of  Italy’s  Presidency  of  the  G7  on  promoting  resource 
efficiency are to be applauded and supported. 

The draft IRP report on remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse is robust. We 
need action in these areas on a bigger scale – the kind of scale that co-operation at G7 and G20 
level can offer. 

Federica  Fricano,  Director  for  EU  Affairs  and  International  Climate 
Negotiation, Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea, Italy 

 Frederica  Fricano  thanked  the  European  Commission  and  IRP  for  hosting 
the workshop, affirming its importance. 

Resource Efficiency is very high on the Italian agenda,  and has been since 
the  Italy’s  EU  Presidency  in  2004.  The  rising  profile  of  resource  efficiency 

11 

 
 
 
was  satisfying  to  see.    It  would  most  likely  be  on  the  agenda  of  the  G7  Leaders’  Summit  and 
would  certainly  be  discussed  at  the  subsequent  G7  Environment  Ministers  Meeting  on  11-12 
June 2017 in Bologna.  

This  workshop  was  an  occasion  to  feed  recommendations  into  substantive  discussions  on 
priorities for the G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency taking place directly after this workshop on 
8-9  February.    Italy’s  Presidency  would  pay  particular  attention  to  the  priorities  and  activities 
discussed over these  three  full  days,  to  feed  into  the  G7  Environment Ministers’  Meeting  and 
Summit. 

Janez Potočnik, Co-Chair, International Resource Panel 

Janez  Potočnik  thanked  the  European  Commission  for  their  support  in 
organizing the workshop, stressing the importance of the discussions.  

According to findings from the International Resource Panel (IRP), the 20th 
century saw material extraction increase by a factor of about eight. Meeting 
the needs of a growing and increasingly affluent population, ever more concentrated in cities, 
will require natural resource extraction to more than double from 85 to 186 billion tonnes by 
2050. The urgency for decoupling escalating resource use from economic growth is now widely 
acknowledged  by  policy-makers,  industry  leaders  and  civil  society.  Circular  economy  thinking 
offers  a  model  that  can  help  to  significantly  reduce  pressure  on  resources  and  lead  to  a 
transition to an economic system that encompasses the concept of decoupling.  

In  order  to  realise  a  transition  to  a  circular  economy,  policy-makers  need  to  create  enabling 
regulatory  conditions,  increase  incentives  and  remove  barriers  that  can  hinder  the  transition. 
Manufacturers  need  to  re-think  their  production  strategies  and  redesign  business  models  to 
allow  for  more  durable,  reparable  and  recyclable  products.  In  addition,  raising  consumer 
awareness and engagement will be essential to change consumption patterns and  to increase 
demand for reused products and services.  

In  practice,  the  circular  economy  needs  to  be  based  on  sound  scientific  evidence  to  inform 
policy-making of the potential environmental, social and economic consequences along the life 
cycle.  To  respond  to  this  knowledge  need,  the  International  Resource  Panel  is  conducting  an 
assessment  analysing  the  resource-saving  potentials  of  the  circular  economy,  looking  at  less 
resource-intensive  lifespan  extension  activities  such  as  reuse,  repair,  refurbishment,  and 
remanufacturing. 

Luca Marmo, Environment Directorate-General, European Commission 

Luca  Marmo  introduced  the  political  context  of  the  workshop  for  the 
European Commission and its specific objectives. 

12 

 
 
 
The  European  Commission  has  a  history  of  policy  engagement  on  sustainable  resource 
management.  Milestones  were  the  Natural  Resource  Thematic  Strategy  in  2005  (which 
launched the idea of the International Resource Panel), the Raw Materials Strategy in 2008, the 
in  2011,  the  Towards  a  Circular  Economy 
Roadmap  to  a  Resource  Efficient  Europe 
Communication  of  2014  and  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  in  2015.  Current  policy 
emphasises the co-delivery of environmental and economic goals through: preservation of the 
value  of  products  and  natural  resources,  increased  competitiveness  through  innovation, 
minimisation of waste and more complete delivery of societies’ wider values. 

The  importance  of  resource  management  for  societal  progress  is  well  reflected  in  the  2030 
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its Sustainable Development Goal 12 deals directly with 
resource management, and several of the other SDGs reliant on improved resource productivity 
for their achievement. 

This workshop forms part of a series of workshops that are at the heart of the work of the G7 
Alliance on Resource Efficiency, which was launched in 2015 under the German G7 Presidency. 
The work was taken forward in 2016 under the Japanese G7 Presidency with the adoption of the 
Toyama  Framework  on  Material  Cycles  and  may  be  taken  further  by  a  roadmap  on  resource 
efficiency  to  be  adopted  in  Bologna  at  the  G7  Environment  Ministers'  Meeting  under  Italy’s 
Presidency. The G7 meeting on the 8-9 February, that takes place just after this workshop, will 
contribute to that work.  

The IRP will publish a report at the end of 2017 on Resource Efficiency and Innovation in Circular 
Economy  through  Remanufacturing,  Refurbishment,  Repair  and  Direct  Reuse  with  a  research 
focus  on  three  sectors:  motor  vehicle  parts,  heavy-duty  equipment  and  commercial  imaging 
products. 

This  workshop  is  designed  to  present  the  preliminary  findings  of  the  IRP  report  and  receive 
feedback from participants on its findings, specifically: 

  To  better  understand  the  role  that  remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair,  and  direct 

reuse can play in a circular economy 

  To identify main barriers and how to address them 

  To discuss policy frameworks and consumer acceptance 

  To  identify  the  main  knowledge  gaps  and  research  needs  associated  with  transitioning 

towards a circular economy 

  To discuss possible recommendations that could feed into the preparation of the 2017 

G7 Environment Ministers’ Meeting under Italy's Presidency 

Luca Marmo concluded by inviting the participants to take an active part in the discussion at the 
workshop and looked forward to a successful outcome. 

13 

 
 
 
14 

 
 
 
 
 
Session 1: Presentation of the preliminary findings of the IRP report  

Nabil  Nasr,  International  Resource  Panel  member,  lead  author  of  the 
topical  report  and  Director  of  Golisano  Institute  for  Sustainability  at 
Rochester Institute of Technology, USA.  

Prof. Nabil Nasr provided an overview of the ongoing study undertaken by 
the International Resource Panel on “Resource Efficiency and Innovation in 
Circular  Economy  through  Remanufacturing,  Refurbishment,  Repair,  and 
Direct  Reuse”.  The  report  aims  to  estimate  the  resource  efficiency  contributions  of 
remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  for  motor  vehicle  parts,  heavy-duty 
equipment  and  commercial  imaging  products  in  both developed  and  developing  countries.  To 
conduct this analysis, a hybrid approach is utilized: bottom-up modelling is used to quantify the 
resource inputs at the product level, and to aggregate these impacts to the sector/country level, 
while top-down modelling is employed to reflect the impact that the presence/absence of key 
technological, regulatory and market conditions can have upon the scaling of remanufacturing, 
refurbishment, repair and direct reuse within the economy. 

The preliminary findings show that the first cycle of remanufacturing entails significantly lower 
material (steel, copper, aluminium, cast iron) requirements for both developed and developing 
countries. In the second cycle, some new components are added in order to ensure the quality 
of a “like-new” product. Each component goes through its own number of cycles which can vary 
from  2  to  9  cycles.    The  design  for  remanufacturability  and  reparability  of  these  components 
plays  an  important  role  in  the  number  of  feasible  cycles.    After  a  certain  number  of  cycles,  it 
becomes economically unviable to continue to remanufacture.  

In  addition,  the  most  important  barriers  that  have  a  real  impact  on  the  intensity  of 
remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  have  been  identified  using  sensitivity 
analysis. They can be classified into four categories:  

1.  Regulatory  and  access  barriers  are  typically  imposed  though  government  regulations 
and/or  policy.  They  affect  production  permits  and/or  access  to  capital;  import/export 
restrictions;  additional  import/export  requirements  (e.g.  taxes,  fees,  inspections);  and 
relate  to  definitions  for  ‘previously  used  products’,  ‘wastes’,  and/or  specific  circular 
economy process. 

2.  Technical  barriers  are  typically  a  condition  of  the  state  of  the  economy.  They  affect 
access  to  technology  and  equipment,  skilled  labour,  key  inputs  (including  cores),  and 
product information (specifications, core location).  

3.  Market  barriers  are  typically  a  reflection  of  the  predominant  culture  of  an  economy. 
They  affect  customer  awareness  of  circular  economy  processes,  customer  attitudes 

15 

 
 
 
 
towards  circular  economy  processes  and  prevalence  (supply)  of  circular  economy 
processes in a marketplace. 

4.  Recovery barriers are typically a reflection of infrastructure and predominant end-of-use 
behaviour  in  an  economy.  They  affect  the  social  norms  associated  with  diversion  vs 
disposal;  the  efficiency,  cost,  and  convenience  of  diversion  programs;  the  allocation  of 
cost  associated  with  reverse-logistics  for  circular  economy  processes;  the  overall 
diversion  rate,  and  domestic  supply  of  ‘cores’  for  circular  economy  process  inputs.  For 
example,  in  75%  of  cases  the  damage  to  a  recovered  product  happens  during  the 
collection phase because the product is not properly packaged for being sent back.   

The  preliminary  findings  show  significant  differences  between  barriers  in  developed  vs 
developing countries. The modelling  also shows that solving barriers individually will not  have 
much impact on levels of remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse; a package of 
measures is needed that addresses the barriers in a systemic way.  

Prof.  Nasr  also  highlighted  the  problem  of  definitions.  The  term  “remanufacturing”  does  not 
have a standard internationally approved definition and the potentially recoverable “cores” are 
often classified as “waste”. In addition, there is a difference between the processes: repair and 
direct  reuse  allow  the  continuation  of  a  product’s  lifetime,  while  remanufacturing  or 
refurbishment  return  a  product  to  a  “like  new”  condition  and  start  a  new  life-cycle  of  the 
product. So, the term “life-extension processes”, which has been used to describe the aggregate 
activities of remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and direct reuse, is not accurate.  

The  final  report  to  be  published  by  the  end  of  this  year  will  quantify  current  and  potential 
material savings, energy/emissions avoidance, waste reduction, economic value generation, and 
job  creation  opportunities  based  on  micro  and  macro  level  data  collected  in  Brazil,  China, 
Germany and the USA. The study will also analyse the rebound effect, identify potential gains 
through  barrier  removal,  suggest  product  design  strategies,  and  policy  options  to  promote 
remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse.  

Prof.  Nasr  welcomed  feedback  and  additional  data  from  participants  in  order  to  further 
strengthen the report.  

Summary of discussions 

  One  of  the  findings  that  most  surprised  the  research  team  was  the  potential  of 
commercial printers, for which remanufacturing or refurbishment was expected to have 
a  lot  less  value  due  to  obsolescence  of  different  electronic  components.  It  turned  out 
that these printers were designed for remanufacturability and reparability and took into 
account  technological  advancement  by  designing  fast  obsolete  parts  to  be  easily 
replaceable 

16 

 
 
 
 

It becomes economically unviable to continue remanufacturing and refurbishment after 
a  certain  number  of  life-cycles  due  to  the  degradation  of  cores,  which  then  require 
excessive  substitution  with  new  parts.  Often  the  remanufactured  product  is  no  longer 
produced  in  high  volumes  and  the  company  needs  to  acquire  new  parts  from 
somewhere else, which brings the cost up 

  According  to  the  preliminary  findings,  overall  net  job  generation  is  much  higher  for 
remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse than for manufacturing of new 
products because there is much more variability/irregularity in product, which requires 
more labour force 

  The take back system to recover cores from B2B products varies according to the sector. 
For example, the commercial imaging sector often uses leasing schemes; the automotive 
sector  relies  on  a  large  network  of  core  collectors;  the  heavy-duty  equipment  sector 
collects through dealerships 

 

If  society  keeps  looking  at  waste  only  through  an  environmental  lens,  end-of-life 
products  will  always  be  considered  as  a  problem,  but  if  it  starts  also  looking  at  waste  
through an economic lens, waste suddenly becomes a resource 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Session 2: Addressing barriers on a firm level  

This  session  asked  a  panel  of  experts  from  businesses  involved  in  remanufacture  and 
refurbishment  to  discuss  the  actions  to  be  taken  by  businesses  to  advance  remanufacturing, 
refurbishment, repair, and direct reuse. Each panellist was asked for their views, and responded 
to questions from the audience. 

The  moderator  was  David  Parker,  of  the  European  Remanufacturing  Council  and  European 
Remanufacturing Network. 

Summary of interventions 

Patrick  Carminati,  Lexmark,  Manager  Supplies  Sourcing  &  Manufacturing 
Operations 

Lexmark  has  about  10%  market  share  of  laser printer  cartridges.  In  2012,  it 
was  importing  all  laser  cartridges  from  China  and  Mexico  and  none  were 
produced in Europe. By 2016, Lexmark produced 45% of its cartridges in the 
EU – while the cost to manufacture such product in the EU was higher, the decision was taken 
to  do  so  thanks  to  the  remanufacturing  benefits  which  turn  the  case  positive.  Lexmark  can 
remanufacture  these  cartridges  close  to  the  sources  of  returned  cartridges,  avoiding  long-
distance  shipping  costs.  So,  thanks  to  remanufacturing,  there  was  an  opportunity  to  produce 
again in Europe and create new jobs. 

Fundamental  success  factors  for  remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  are: 
the design of the product (e.g. separation of toner cartridge from imaging unit) and excellent, 
efficient  reverse  logistics  which  avoid  contamination  of  the  product  with  waste.  To  boost 
remanufacturing across the board, companies need regulatory targets and incentives. 

John Disharoon, Director, Market Access, Caterpillar Inc.  

Caterpillar is the world’s largest producer of heavy-duty construction and 
mining vehicles, with a very large remanufacturing business. It promotes 
the safe return of used and end-of-service-life components (called ‘cores’) 
for  remanufacture  by  charging  a  ‘core  deposit’  on  each  remanufactured 
product  sold.    This  ‘core  deposit’  is  refunded  when  the  core  is  safely 
returned  to  Caterpillar.  The  value  of  the  core  is  about  45-50%  of  the  corresponding  new 
component,  and  a  high  deposit  price  incentivises  the  proper  packaging  and  transportation  of 
cores across the world.  This deposit system also avoids the cores having the problem of being 
treated as waste by trade regulations – the value given to the core is convincing evidence that it 
is not waste.  

The  remanufacturing  work  is  very  labour  intensive,  creating  higher  employment  than  the 
manufacture  of  new  components,  and  the  sale  of  remanufactured  components  allows 

18 

 
 
 
Caterpillar  to  sell  same-as-new  components  at  lower-than-new  prices,  defending  its  market 
from  inferior  and  cheaper  competition  in  the  market  while  providing  factory  warranted 
products to the customer.  

Markus Braun, Siemens Healthcare, Head of Quality Management of the 
Business Unit for Refurbished Systems  

Siemens  Healthcare  remanufactures  high  value  medical  imaging  devices, 
such as MRs and CTs so that they are as good as when they were put on the 
market,  earn  an  existing  valid  declaration  of  conformity  (the  CE  - 
Conformité  Européenne  -  mark)  and  resells  them,  usually  to  a  new 
customer.  Siemens  Healthcare  experience  unnecessary  restrictions  on  their  business.  The 
industry  has  worked  (for  ten  years) on  a  standard  to  ensure  that  refurbished  medical  devices 
are tested to be as safe and effective as the new products at the time they were first placed on 
the  market.  However,  there  are  different  prerequisites  and  requirements  for  refurbished 
medical devices, depending on whether they were placed on the market for the first time inside 
or outside of the EU even though both are CE-marked goods. Products from within the EU can 
be resold if they meet the technical standards and requirements applicable at the time that the 
products  were  first  placed  on  the  market,  but  CE-marked  remanufactured  products  from 
outside the EU must comply with the legal and regulatory requirements which are valid at the 
time the refurbished medical device is placed on the EU market as well as the relevant current 
technical standards.  Technical standards and requirements have usually changed with time – so 
for  remanufactured  products,  which  might  be  10  years  old,  meeting  new  standards  and 
requirements would require too much investment to be economically viable. The discriminatory 
treatment  therefore  acts  as  a  barrier  to  successful  remanufacture  business  and  to  serving 
demand in Europe for affordable high quality medical imaging devices.  

Salvador Munoz Zarate, WABCO Reman Solutions - General Manager  

There  are  significant  restrictions  on  the  potential  of  remanufacturing, 
refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  business  around  world  due  to  the 
assimilation of products which could be remanufactured (‘cores’) to waste. 
An illustration of this is found in the EU Directive 2008/98/EC on waste that 
classifies end-of-use products as waste. It defines “waste” as any substance 
or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. Furthermore, the Court 
of Justice of the EU has confirmed that this implies that the definition of waste covers a wide 
range  of  substances  and  objects,  irrespective  of  their  market  value  and  destination.  As  a 
consequence,  it  is  impossible  to  exclude  a  certain  object  or  substance  from  the  definition  of 
waste in advance.  

In  addition,  each  EU  country  has  its  own  interpretation  of  ‘waste’  which  makes  it  difficult  to 
transport  cores  across  borders.  It  is  of  course  not  attractive  for  remanufacturers  to  enter  the 

19 

 
 
 
waste  management  industry.  The  additional  costs  of  transportation  of  waste  are  significantly 
higher  and  therefore  highly  restrictive.  The  solution  would  be  to  have  an  EU  regulation  that 
recognizes  the  difference  between  cores  and  waste  and  enforces  appropriate  sorting  at  the 
source  (by  the  holder  that  discards),  transport  and  handling  of  used  products  intended  for 
remanufacturing. 

Nestor Coronado Palma, Circular Economy Expert, former Director of the 
Circular Economy Program, Philips Healthcare 

When talking about changing the business models of a company it is very 
important to consider first changing the business culture if you want a long-
lasting  change.  The  following  factors  can  help  the  companies  to 
successfully change their business culture: 

1.  Defining company values so that the firm considers product value loops 

2.  Creating  economic  incentives  for  circular  businesses  for  the  firm’s  leadership,  and 
rewarding  longer  term  commercial  agreements  (which  are  not  usually  something 
management are looking for) 

3.  Measuring the transformation of business results (the costs and revenues)  

4.  Encouraging long term value creation in the business (creating several loops within and 

beyond your industry)  

5.  Defining circular business processes 

When talking about changing business models, the following aspects can be considered: 

  Visionary partnerships that are economically attractive for all stakeholders 

 

Integral life cycle management, where value is updated and upgraded, creating common 
platforms and modular systems 

  Rewarding  customers’  access  and  usage  vs.  ownership,  which  can  ease  the  access  to 

technology in emerging markets 

  Making the focus all about the customer needs rather than the age of the equipment 

Summary of discussions 

Delivering new business models, based on services, that facilitate remanufacture 

  Shifting business models from the sale of devices to the delivery of  services (originating 
from  a  product  that  remains  owned  by  the  firm)  instead  of  the  sale  of  product  looks 
promising  as  a  way  to  facilitate  ‘core’  return  for  remanufacture  and  incentivize  design 
for the long-term – the business model has integral life cycle management.   

20 

 
 
 
  Another  model  that  looks  at  the  lowest  owning  and  operating  cost  of  the  product 
throughout its lifetime – not just the initial purchase price – will drive customer behavior 
to invest in more durable and sustainable goods, for example, Caterpillar products 

  These  have  potential  because  they  are  designed  about  what  the  customer  needs  (the 
service), when and how that can be delivered hassle-free.  They also allow products to 
be transformed as technology and customer needs change 

  Although  forms  of  leasing  would  make  remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and 
direct reuse much easier, customers do not always want to lease – it can be perceived as 
expensive or bad value. Customer mindsets need to change here 

  The environmental benefit of leasing depends on what it does to replacement life-times 
of the products  – for some, it might increase replacement rates, with greater resource 
use if the subsequent remanufacture is not substantial 

  Moving  to  these  kind  of  business  models  requires  a  shift  in  thinking  from  capital 
expenditures  and  revenues  to  operational  expenditures.  As  its  often  an  unfamiliar 
business (e.g. in the reverse logistics) firms will need partnerships 

  An advantage of leasing is that customers are more inclined to use products coming from 
remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair or direct reuse because they are not concerned 
about the risk of malfunction 

Scaling reverse logistics through collective schemes 

  Collective reverse logistics could theoretically be more cost effective than individual firm 
logistics.    In  some  lower-income  countries  there  is  already  a  very  high  rate  of  reverse 
logistics, but for developed countries it is lower 

  The big barrier is confidentiality – for collective schemes you have to tell a third company 
who  your  customers  are,  and  what  products  they  have  –  information  which  is  very 
sensitive for the competing firms likely to be sharing those reverse logistics schemes. A 
truly independent company would be needed 

  Where  remanufactured  products  are  high  value  –  for  example  Caterpillar’s  cost  from 
EUR 100,000 to millions, standardised individual transporting kits and individual logistics 
already pay off 

  Where product markets are more generic, and there is potential for generic, disruptive, 

third party remanufacturing, collective solutions may come more naturally 

Michelin tyres as an example of ways to increase remanufacturing business  

  Michelin produces high quality  tyres which it can remanufacture up to 3 times – yet is 
now  losing  market  share  to  cheap,  low-quality  and  less  remanufacturable  imports, 
because some tyre purchasers are not concerned about longevity 

21 

 
 
 
  The panel advised that increasing customer awareness that they could return  tyres in 3 
years  and receive  (for  example)  30%  of  the purchase  price  might help  them  factor the 
long-term value of the better tyre into their decision making 

  Michelin might also try selling remanufactured  tyres at a price that competes with the 

low-quality imports – in the way that Caterpillar does 

Solving the problem of ‘cores’ being defined as waste 

‘Cores’  for  remanufacture  tend  to  fall  outside  regulators’  waste  categories  where  they  are 
clearly  treated  as  having  particular  economic  value.  (For  example,  when  vehicle  garages 
separate  out  used  car-parts  for  refurbishment  and  pack  them  appropriately,  in  the  same  way 
that householders separate recycling from waste.)  When parts are correctly packaged, labelled 
for refurbishment and shipped in return for economic value, they do not appear to be waste.   

Ways to stimulate new remanufacturing businesses 

To  stimulate  new  remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  businesses, 
leadership  is  key,  you  need  passionate  people  driving  the  new  business  forward  who  will 
overcome  repeated  obstacles.  Success  metrics  must  change,  for  example  the  way  that 
profitability is  accounted.  Company structures may  also need  to  change  –  changing  incentives 
and mindsets, for example i) the mindsets of engineers, whose technical challenge changes into 
how  to  find  the  best  way  to  transform  cores  into  remanufactured  products  with  a  “like-new” 
condition, or ii) mindsets of business leaders and sales associates so that they develop business 
strategies, financial incentives and sales approaches that include integrally closed business loops 
practices (from repair, maintenance and upgrades to refurbishment and remanufacturing). 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Session 3: Effective policy frameworks for remanufacturing, refurbishment, 
repair, and direct reuse  

In session 3, individual panellists made interventions in response to specific questions. 

This session asked a panel of experts on effective policy measures to advance remanufacturing, 
refurbishment,  repair,  and  direct  reuse.  Each  panellist  was  asked  for  their  views  on  a  specific 
question, and responded to questions from the audience. 

The moderator was Carsten Wachholz, Senior Policy Officer, European Environmental Bureau. 

Summary of interventions 

What are the EU policy frameworks for promoting remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and 
direct reuse activities and how do they relate to the measures proposed in the EU Action Plan on 
the Circular Economy?  

Hugo-Maria Schally, Head of Unit for “Sustainable Production, Products and 
Consumption“, Environment Directorate-General, European Commission  

In  the  framework  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  the  Circular  Economy,  the  EC  is 
currently  developing  several  activities  which  deal  with  barriers  to 
remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair  and  reuse.  For  example,  in  order  to 
address legislative barriers to innovation and to new business models, the EC has launched the 
"Innovation  Deals",  creating  a  pilot  approach  to  provide  practical  help  to  innovators  in 
overcoming perceived regulatory obstacles and ambiguities. The currently selected pilots focus 
on water, waste and energy innovations.  

Different pieces of legislation often deal with remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and direct 
reuse. Each of them exist in their own logic and are not always coherent with each other. That is 
why the EU Action Plan on the Circular Economy includes an action on the interface between 
chemicals,  waste  and  product  policy,  which  aims  to  identify  among  many  other  things  where 
the interpretations, applications and use of different policies can stand on the way of smooth 
functioning  of  the  market  for  secondary  raw  materials  and  for  remanufactured,  refurbished, 
repaired  or  reused  products.    The  EC  plans  to  announce  by  the  end  of  the  year  how  these 
frameworks can work better together. 

At  the  end  of  last  year,  the  EC  adopted  a  new working  plan  for  eco-design,  which  has  a  very 
strong focus on reparability, upgradability and recyclability. Through development of eco-design 
standards, the promotion of remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and direct reuse should be 
facilitated. Furthermore, the EC put forward a proposal to update legislation to restrict the use 
of  certain  hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  (RoHS  Directive).  This 
will have a direct impact on remanufacturing, and will address some of the concerns raised by 
the  industry  (e.g.  how  products  produced  several  years  ago  can  be  remanufactured  and  put 

23 

 
 
 
back in the market, for example of medical equipment). The EC is mindful of the importance of 
consumer  protection  in  the  context  of  circular  economy  and  the  importance  of  regulation  to 
encourage producers to provide products that last longer and can be refurbished and repaired. 
DG Environment therefore works in close collaboration with DG Justice and Consumers on these 
questions,  including  work  on  proposals  on  consumer  protection  in  the  on-line  sales  of  goods 
and the guidance document in the area of unfair commercial practices. 

Overall  there  are  a  number  of  initiatives  underway  in  the  EU  which  should  facilitate  the 
operations of companies involved in remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, and direct reuse. 
In 2018, the EC aims to look at the product policy framework in a larger sense to see how it can 
be  turned  into  a  more  supportive  legislative  framework  to  facilitate  the  transition  to  a  more 
circular economy.   

What  are  the  findings  from  the  Swedish  project  focusing  on  policies  that  drive  or  in  contrary 
become a barrier to circular economy?  

Anna Karin Jönbrink, manager of research group, Energy and Environment 
at Swerea-IVF, Sweden 

SWEREA,  together  with  IVL  and  Profu,  conducted  a  research  project  within 
the  Swedish  research  program  RE:source  looking  at  the  policy  drivers  and 
barriers  to  circular  economy  for  three  sectors:  buildings,  textiles  and 
electronics.  The  project  classified  the  challenges  into  three  groups:  1)  design,  production, 
cooperation; 2) consumption and waste prevention and 3) waste management and recycling. It 
looked  at  different  scenarios:  1)  today’s  situation  2)  a  scenario  with  the  EU  Circular  Economy 
Package 3) a scenario with the suggestions from the research team.  

The  findings  show  that  today  for  almost  all  criteria,  the  challenges  of  transition  to  circular 
economy  have  not  yet  been  addressed  and  the  EU  Circular  Economy  Package  will  help 
addressing  some  of  these  challenges  but  will  not  cover  them  all.  The  study  calls  for  a  more 
holistic  vision  and  actions  rather  than  focusing  on  a  specific  issue,  sector  or  circular  economy 
process.  It  also  calls  for  better  information  among  the  SMEs,  regarding  the  existing  and 
upcoming  pieces  of  legislation  on  circular  economy.  In  addition,  incentives  should  be  put  in 
place to make it less costly for compliant companies to transition to circular economy, which is 
not  always  the  case  today.  The  study  also  highlights  the  importance  of  clear  definitions  and 
harmonization  between  European  and  national  definitions  and  regulations.  Labelling,  quality 
innovative  business  models  and  cooperation  between 
standards, 
companies have been highlighted as important elements of the transition to circular economy.  

information  sharing, 

Sweden  has  recently  put  in  place  a  reduced  VAT  rate  on  labour  cost  for  repair.  The  Swedish 
repair companies have not felt the full consequences of this incentive yet but say that it is still 
very  costly  to  repair  because  of  the  high  price  of  spare  parts.  Some  of  them  suggest  that  a 

24 

 
 
 
legislation that sets a long product warranty (e.g. in Norway, the minimum product warranty is 5 
years)  could  have  been  more  effective  and  could  have  forced  companies  to  provide  better 
products and establish systems for repair services.     

How  can  remanufactured,  refurbished,  repaired  or  reused  goods  be  promoted  and  included  in 
the public procurement criteria?  

Fabio Eboli, Senior Environmental Economist at the Directorate-General 
for Sustainable Development, Environmental Damages and Internation-
al  Relationships,  Ministry  of  Environment,  Land  and  Sea,  Sogesid  T.A., 
Italy  

Italy  is  in  process  of  implementing  the  Law  221/2015  (Environmental 
annex  to  the  stability  law)  to  further  promote  the  green  economy  and 
reduce  pressure  on  natural  resources  in  Italy.  It  is  also  in  process  of  developing  the  national 
strategy for sustainable development, the first report on the state of natural capital as well as 
the national plan for sustainable consumption and production.  

In 2015, Italy spent around 4 billion euros on “Green Purchases by Public Administration”, which 
is four times more than in 2010. Introduced on a voluntary basis in April 2008 with the adoption 
of the National Action Plan, then revised in 2013, the application of “green” criteria for Public 
Procurement  is  now  mandatory.  In  fact,  the  article  34  of  the  updated  code  of  public  conduct 
(Legislative  Decree  n.  50/2016)  explicitly  mentions  minimum  environmental  criteria  to  be 
applied  for  public  procurement  in  17  sectors,  which  should  promote:  eco-design;  modular 
design;  durability  of  materials;  recycled  content;  criteria  for  reuse  and  repair;  and  leasing  vs 
buying  options.  This  will  be  implemented  progressively,  setting  different  targets  for  different 
sectors.  The  minimum  environmental  criteria  are  currently  undergoing  stakeholder 
consultation. They will be revised every 3 years to avoid negative impacts on competitiveness. 
The regulators hope that it will not only increase competitiveness on price between companies 
but  also  relevance  for  the  quality  of  products.  Moreover,  the  possibility  to  add  to  the  basic 
criteria  for  eligibility  through  specification  of  additional  criteria  to  further  characterize  the 
supply of goods and services to the public sector provides a large incentive for innovation.  

In addition, Decree 140/2016 offers a discount on eco-tax to electrical and electronic equipment 
producers 
if  they  reduce  end-of-life  management  costs  by:  1)  using  recyclable  and 
biodegradable  components;  2)  minimizing  quantity  and  heterogeneity  of  materials;  3) 
increasing  recyclability  of  the  product  and  its  components;  4)  limiting  the  use  of  hazardous 
elements; 5) optimizing reparability of the product; 6) increasing durability. 

25 

 
 
 
 
What are the international laws, multi-lateral frameworks and trade agreements that promote 
or impede trade of remanufactured or refurbished goods and cores between countries?  

Aik  Hoe  Lim,  Director,  Trade  and  Environment  Division,  World  Trade 
Organization 

One of the key aspects for scaling-up the use of remanufactured goods is 
through  the  increased  supply  of  cores.  That  is  why  it  is  important  to 
understand  where  the  cores  are  coming  from  and  the  barriers  to  trade 
that these cores might face.  

In terms of trade obstacles, trade tariffs do not play a very important role in remanufacturing 
because customs do not often make a distinction between new and remanufactured goods. This 
means that a remanufactured good would in principle be classified into the same tariff line as 
the equivalent new good, and be subject to the same tariff rate.  The barriers that affect trade in 
remanufactured goods stem mainly from the fact that there is no commonly accepted definition 
of remanufactured goods. As a consequence, many customs authorities classify remanufactured 
goods  as  used  products  and  cores  as  waste,  which  for  health  or  environmental  reasons  are 
often heavily restricted and in many cases prohibited.  Thus, from the trade perspective, the key 
challenge  to  promoting  the  freer  circulation  of  cores  and  remanufactured  goods  lies  in 
developing a classification for remanufactured goods that can be applied by customs authorities 
and avoids the default categorization "used" or “waste” products.  

Non-tariff measures typically faced by remanufactured goods can consist of a complete ban, a 
quota, the application of discriminatory and/or unnecessarily burdensome technical regulations, 
standards  and  conformity  assessment  procedures,  a  requirement  for  import  licensing  or  pre-
shipment  inspections,  and  so  on.    Since  such  measures  are  particularly  targeted  at  used  and 
waste products, the challenge for policy makers is to carve out a distinct trade classification for 
remanufactured goods. In doing so, reference to a harmonized international  standard for that 
category  would  help  to  ensure  the  balance  between  promoting  the  trade  of  remanufactured 
goods  and  cores  on  the  one  hand  and  environmental,  health  and  consumer  concerns  on  the 
other one. 

In brief, there are a number of actions that could help promote remanufacturing, including: 1) 
product  classification,  which  would  distinguish  between  remanufactured,  used  and  newly 
manufactured  products;  2)  international  standards  for  remanufactured  goods  including  the 
involvement of developing countries (and stakeholders) in the formulation of such standards; 3) 
regulatory  cooperation  between  different  countries/organizations  to  ensure  that  their 
regulations are compatible with each other, are inclusive and improve market opportunities for 
all; and 4) further research to map out the trade barriers in the remanufacturing value chain and 
the  economic  and  environmental  benefits  of  opening  up  to  the  trade  of  remanufactured 

26 

 
 
 
products,  taking  into  consideration  concerns  of  developing  countries  for  capacity  building, 
technology transfer, investment.  

What are the effective regulations that could promote remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, 
and direct reuse activities?  

Michal Len, Director of RREUSE 

Repair  is  increasingly  more  expensive,  because  of  high  labour  costs,  VAT 
and prices of spare parts. According to a recent study conducted by ADEME, 
people  tend  to  repair  their  products  if  the  cost  of  repair  does  not  exceed 
30-50% of the price of a new product. According to a recent Eurobarometer 
survey,  77%  of  people  would  like  to  have  their  items  repaired  but  they  tend  to  replace  them 
because  they  find  it  too  expensive  to  repair.  In  addition,  spare  parts  are  not  available;  it  is 
sometimes impossible to disassemble the product with commonly available tools or there is a 
lack of information about how to repair the appliance. All these issues put severe pressure on 
independent  repair  operators  and  many  are  shutting  down.  It  is  also  an  issue  for  consumers 
because  they  have  less  options  on  where  to  repair  their  goods.  Policies  need  to  account  and 
respect the different business models that exist and not only concentrate on recycling.  

To promote repair on the EU level several measures can be put in place:  

  Repair-friendly criteria could be included within the eco-design to ensure that products 
are easy to disassemble and spare parts are available. This will cut the amount of time 
needed to repair and thus labour costs (e.g. “right to repair” bill in the USA)   

  Set  price  and  fiscal  incentives  for  repair  services.  In  Austria,  there  is  a  proposal  put 
forward by the Federal Chancellor Christian Kern in January 2017 to make repair cheaper 
by reimbursement of 50% of the labour costs of repair. The maximum amount would be 
600 EUR per year per private person, applicable for bikes, shoes, clothes, leather goods 
and electric household appliances5. The city of Graz had already introduced this system 
in November 2016 with maximum support of 100 EUR per household  per year6. In the 
state  of  New  York  USA,  there  is  a  tax  deduction  to  encourage  donation  of  goods  to 
charitable organizations. In France, there are differentiated EPR scheme fees depending 
on how easily you can dismantle a product for repair, on the availability of spare parts or 
on whether the information/instructions on how to repair a product are available 

  Provide  information  to  encourage  consumers  to  repair.  This  could  include  information 
about  where  to  repair,  the  average  expected  lifetime,  etc.  (e.g.  in  France,  the  law  on 

5 Action programme for Austria “Plan A” available here (in German). 
6 Guideline for support of repair in Graz available here (in German) 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
consumption obliges the manufacturer to tell the consumer how long spare parts will be 
available for the product on purchase) 

  Set national or sectoral targets for repair and reuse (e.g. France, Spain and Flanders) 

  Collaboration  with  other  stakeholders  (e.g.  cooperation  between  re-use  centres  and 
waste management companies to avoid waste being directly recycled; or organization of 
take back systems in cooperation with big retailers) 

Summary of discussions 

  There should be a variety of both voluntary and mandatory instruments and measures to 
advance  the  transition  to  the  circular  economy.    Voluntary  agreements  could  be 
effective if a significant part of the market complies and consumers are actively involved. 
It  is  important  to  ensure  that  labelling  is  not  creating  even  more  barriers  for 
remanufactured goods  

  The EC could consider setting up targets on the percentage of circular goods to be put on 
the market if it sees that the market for circular products is not picking up. However, the 
circular economy has a very good economic and business case and mandatory measures 
might  not  be  necessary.  The  EC  is  therefore  willing  to  continue  discussing  with 
stakeholders about their experiences and suggestions on how to scale up the transition 

  Green  Public  Procurement  measures  are  crucial  for  the  promotion  of  remanufactured, 
refurbished, repaired, and directly reused products. Based on experience, policy makers 
need  to  assess  whether  and  to  which  extent  these  products  should  be  included  in  the 
public procurement criteria  

  There were some discussions in the past about the creation of a special customs code for 
remanufactured  goods.  In  order  to  move  forward  with  this,  there  is  a  need  for  a 
standard  definition  of  remanufactured  goods  (which  could  be  created  by  the 
International  Standard  Organization).  It  should  then  be  brought  to  the  World  Customs 
Organization  for  creation  of  a  harmonized  custom  code  system  and  to  the  WTO 
afterwards for adoption 

  The  EC  is  piloting  a  product  and  organisation  environmental  footprint  methodology, 
which  provides  information  to  consumers  about  the  environmental  performance  of 
products  and  organisations  throughout  their  lifecycle.  This  methodology  is  especially 
interesting for the types of products that do not have an eco-label 

  The EC is developing standards for material efficiency to be delivered in 2018-2019 

28 

 
 
 
 
Session 4: Increasing consumer acceptance of remanufacturing, refurbishment, 
repair, and direct reuse  

An expert panel discussed ways to increase consumer acceptance of remanufacturing, 
refurbishment, repair and direct reuse, stimulated by the findings of a recent study. The session 
was moderated by Tristan Steichen of ANTEA Group. 

Summary of interventions 

Carsten  Wachholz,  Senior  Policy  Officer,  European  Environmental  Bureau 
presented findings from the new report  “Enjoying more  with less. Existing 
grassroots initiatives for circular consumption and how to overcome barriers 
to  scale  them  up’’7  written  by  EEB  and  their  member  organisation 
Legambiente for the Italian Ministry for the Environment and the Sea. 

The  study found  that  many  people  are  currently  rejecting  the  classic  take,  make,  and  dispose 
approach of today’s consumerism, and explored the reasons for these positive behaviours, and 
how they could be encouraged to spread.  

People  are  extending  the  life  of  products  for  lots  of  different  reasons:  from  saving  money  to 
convenience and reigniting social links in their neighbourhoods. Those reasons are mostly about 
enhancing (and not limiting) consumption experiences, handing back consumer control over the 
things that we buy and how we use them.  

The result is a patchwork of initiatives, with different features and goals, linked by the common 
benefits  of  repair,  re-use  or  reduction  in  the  need  for  new  materials.  The  report  presents 
examples of organisations co-ordinating these activities – like “Made to last”, which promotes 
the buying of products that can be repaired or upgraded, reused or given for  reuse or buying 
second-hand, refurbished or remanufactured products – for example, heirloom goods, products 
with a long warranty period or reusable items. Another example is “Disown ownership”, which 
facilitates  the  sharing  of  products  that  we  do  not  use  every  day,  renting  or  leasing  and 
exchanging.  

The study highlighted several key areas of activity to increase consumer acceptance, including: 

  Multiply  the  number  of  initiatives  supporting  remanufacturing,  refurbishment,  repair 

and direct reuse that consumers can choose or use 
  Change the financial incentives for repair and reuse  
  Standard contractual clauses, and standard quality assurance for repair shops 

7  The  full  report  can  be  found  here:  http://makeresourcescount.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EEB-Report-on-Circular-
Consumption-Patterns-1.pdf. 
http://makeresourcescount.eu/wp-
can 
summary 
content/uploads/2017/02/Enjoying-more-with-less-Summary-of-the-EEB-report-2.pdf 

report 

found 

here: 

The 

be 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
It also recommended marketing to shape consumers‘ awareness and behaviours. In particular, 
working with consumers’ existing trusted sources to shape opinion:  

  support local community communication and exchange platforms (tools and real spaces) 
  work through peer to peer marketing 
  aim at young people (who are often trend leaders/early adopters) 

Segmenting consumers can help identify the potentials and the challenges of spreading circular 
economy  consumption  patterns,  and  so  help  focus  resources.  Categories  of  consumers  like 
‘occasional purchasers’, ‘aspirational’ and ‘practical’ consumers should be targeted, since they 
can  systematically  adopt  circular  consumption  patterns  when  barriers  are  removed.  These 
segments of consumers represent both the majority of consumers and the groups most ready to 
change practices if convenient and not over costly.  

Klaus  Hieronymi,  Global  Resource  Efficiency  and  Circular  Economy 
Strategies, HP 

HP  is  in  the  middle  of moving  from  ‘transactional  to  contractual’  i.e.  value 
from providing services, rather than hardware. A good goal to set would be 
40% of revenues from contractual (sale of services) in 5 to 10 years. We do 
not know the existing extent of used product exchange (for example, for IT 

products). There is incomplete data, but the potential here may be huge.  

HP remanufactures 2.5 million laptops per year. 70% of HP spare parts are remanufactured. For 
their  business,  free  movement  of  ‘core’  is  essential  –  if  their  input  products  are  considered 
waste, increases costs by 15 to 20% (estimated by German university research) and this means 
that  the  competitive  price  point  of  remanufactured  products  compared  to  new  products 
disappears.  

Ugo Vallauri, Co-Founder, The Restart Project 

The avenues for repair of broken products seem to be decreasing, as does 
knowledge  of  when  it  makes  sense  to  repair  a  product.  The  increasing 
complexity  of  electric  and  electronic  devices  removes  trust  in  IT  and  the 
capability of repair.  For example, research done by Restart in East London 
found  that  only  15%  of  commercial  repair  services  offered  warranties  and 

had good online customer approval ratings.   

To counter these trends, the Restart Project runs pop-up repair events for small electrical and 
electronics  in  London,  and  supports  groups  replicating  them  in  10  countries.  At  their  “Restart 
Parties” events, volunteers share repair tips and support participants to repair. Half of all repairs 
are successful within these repair parties, other require spare parts or additional support work.   
The Restart Project are collecting real life data about barriers and potentials of repair, focussing 
on  the  needs  of  the  consumers  -  helping  those  who  have  products  to  continue  to  realise  the 

30 

 
 
 
value of their product (e.g. updates or repair). They are now working with other repair-focussed 
organisations to create an open standard for data on repair  – more information is available at 
https://therestartproject.org/fixometer  

Stef de Bont, Founder and CEO, 12Return 

Technology  platforms  (like  12Return)  can  deliver  reverse  supply  chains  to 
take  product  from  consumers  to  repair,  reuse  or  remanufacture,  even 
though  these  reverse  supply  chains  can  be  complicated  and  must  be  low-
cost.   

These platforms allow customers to initiate the return of products by making that return hassle 
free, in effect making the cost of return lower than the cost not returning it. Platforms facilitate 
efficient  and  effective  return  by  providing  information,  smart  routing  and  pooling  logistics,  so 
that a product can be easily collected for return, and cost-effectively pooled by different actors 
(transportation and disposition companies) along the complex return supply chain without the 
customer needing to make those links themselves. 

The technology  offers  the  other  benefit  that  it can  allow  better  exchange  of  information  with 
the  customers,  including  about  their  follow  up  product  needs.  Finally,  technology  offers  the 
benefit of preventive and predictable analytics. 

Jože Gregorič, Project Manager, Snaga, Ljubljana 

Snaga  is  an  example  of  a  public  waste  management  authority  which  has 
embraced  the  benefit  of  its  customers  reducing  the  waste  they  produce, 
and  so  actively  promotes  waste-reducing  behaviour  through  a  series  of 
consumer-oriented  initiatives.  From  2013,  they  went  beyond  encouraging 
recycling,  to  include  campaigns  and  facilities  for  repair,  re-use  and 
exchange.  They  also  emphasise  the  value  of  reducing  waste  and  promote  consumer 
consideration of how much they buy. Their initiatives include a repair café, a resale shop, and a 
packaging-free supermarket, together with publicity campaigns.  

Summary of discussions 

For the purchase of extended life products, there is a tipping point depended on price/quality 
and  performance.  Business  to  business  customers  are  very  sensitive  to  these  price/quality 
balances. Private consumers are more influenced by cultural issues.  This can lead to problems 
changing  consumer  behaviour  –  for  example  selling  a  printing  service  (rather  than  ink 
cartridges) did not really work initially with consumers, and needed to be tailored, so that the 
customers received a hassle-free, constraint-free service.  

There are opportunities for greater return of products – there are many customers who want to 
give the product back for remanufacture, refurbishment, repair or direct reuse, but bring back 

31 

 
 
 
needs to be easy, and it has a social component around creating norms and new practices for 
return.  

The movement of support around community repair activities shows that consumers care about 
product durability, and that it would be unfair to assume that we should concentrate only on 
returning products and creating secondary uses. A lot of people do not want to upgrade all of 
the time and would rather keep using the products they own, as long as they are secure.  

For many electronic products, in particular with the growth of the Internet of Things sector, the 
key  issue  for  the  future  or  remanufacture,  refurbishment,  repair  or  direct  reuse  is  not  with 
hardware  but  with  the  continued  operability  of  the  hardware  after  software  updates,  for 
example for security. Manufacturers need to act in this area.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
Wednesday 8 February 2017 

Session 5: Strengthening collaboration between scientists, businesses and 
governments 

refurbishment, 

In  this  session,  all  participants 
were  asked  to  identify  knowledge 
gaps  and  research  questions  of 
high priority in the area of  reman-
ufacture, 
repair 
and  direct  reuse  and  so  identify 
future  collaboration  opportunities 
between scientists, businesses and 
governments  to  promote  reman-
ufacture, 
repair 
and  direct  reuse  activities.  The 
outcomes  of  the  discussion  would 
inform the ongoing work of the International Resource Panel as it planned its future work and 
they were taken across into discussions of the G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency’s discussions 
of its future actions.  

refurbishment, 

Participants first discussed in four smaller groups, with the overall session moderated by Janez 
Potočnik, Co-Chair, International Resource Panel.  

Summary of break-out group discussions  

The participants identified a range of issues of further interest for policy-relevant research: 

Establishing Baselines  

Exploration of the baseline of remanufacture, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse activity in 
the  context  of  overall  market  trends,  looking  at  over-arching  trends  over  time,  including 
identification  of  the  major  actors  and  organisations  behind  remanufacture,  refurbishment, 
repair and direct reuse, and the reasons for those trends.  This could be established by bringing 
together  already  existing  data  sources  and  complementing  it  with  additional  market  and 
environmental data sets to understand past and future potential impacts of different products. 
The  choice  of  indicators  is  important  –  it  would  be  ideal  to  develop  an  indicator  for  impacts 
which was able to represent impacts from more than one cycle of product lifetime extension. 

Greater understanding of barriers 

Development  of  greater  clarity  of  the  detailed  nature  of  trade  barriers,  in  sufficient  depth  to 
allow the development of solutions.  

33 

 
 
 
Deeper  understanding  of  the  factors  which  drive  consumer  perceptions,  acceptance  of 
remanufacture, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse products and return behaviours, starting 
from  a  clear  understanding  of  what  (segmented)  consumers  really  want  and  what  drives  the 
difference  between  B2B  and  B2C.  Use  this  information  to  consider  which  solutions  might 
promote  change  –  including  which  information  might  help  consumers  understand  their  best 
action when a product breaks.  

Development  of  a  greater  understanding  of  the  process  of  business  transition  to  a  service-
supply  model,  and  the  barriers.  Exploration  of  the  barriers  for  SMEs,  how  to  improve  reverse 
supply chain management and the barriers to remanufacture, refurbishment, repair and direct 
reuse  from  intellectual  property  rights,  and  how  they  might  be  overcome  in  practice. 
Exploration of how accountancy rules and norms could change to avoid company ownership of 
products appearing as stock instead of sales. 

Analysing potential policy solutions 

To  inform  future  policy  action,  development  of  a  comparative  policy  analysis,  based  on  the 
impacts of existing policies to promote remanufacture, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse, 
and exploration of the potential impacts of some suggested policies, like; extended guarantee 
periods,  favourable  changes  to  labour  and  tax  regulations,  training  programmes  to  promote 
product design for remanufacture, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse.  

To  scope  where  policy  should  best  go  forward,  quantification  of  the  potential  benefits  from 
different  actions  (e.g.  comparing  remanufacture,  with  refurbishment,  repair  and  reuse)  and 
identification of the products likely to have the greatest potential benefit. 

Going further, development of an understanding of the macro and micro-economic benefits of 
large-scale  economic  change  from  product-supply  to  service-provision  models.  The  analysis 
would  usefully  look  at  material  flows  and  changes  in  jobs  (skilled,  unskilled  and  jobs  for 
disadvantaged workers), take into account net fiscal impacts for government, sectoral  impacts 
and environmental impacts. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
Session 6: Recommendations for the 2017 G7 Environment Ministers’ Meeting 
under Italy’s Presidency  

In this session, participants provided policy recommendations related to promotion of product 
lifetime extension activities that could be used by policymakers and feed into the preparation of 
the 2017 G7 Environment Ministers’ Meeting under Italy’s Presidency. The session was moder-
ated by Federica Fricano, Director for EU Affairs and International Climate Negotiation, Ministry 
of Environment, Land and Sea, Italy.  

Summary of break-out group discussions  

Participants suggested that policy-makers: 

  Take a holistic approach looking at all related sustainability issues, product and lifecycle 
issues  and  continue  highlighting  the  economic  benefits  of  these  policies.  Take  up  the 
message at the G7 Leaders’ Summit level to demonstrate that the G7 countries are living 
up to their responsibilities under the SDGs on these issues 

  Develop  an  indicator  and  set  a  tar-
get for the market share of reman-
ufactured,  refurbished,  repaired, 
and directly reused products 

  Take  national  measures  (e.g.  eco-
nomic 
incen-
instruments,  fiscal 
tives,  extended  producer  responsi-
bility  measures, 
longer  product 
guarantees)  to  ensure  a  level  play-
ing  field  for,  and  promotion  of  re-
manufacture, refurbishment, repair 
and direct reuse 

  Remove  barriers  to  market  access  and  global  movement  of  remanufacture, 

refurbishment, repair and direct reuse products 

  Agree on international definition and standards  

  Remove trade barriers to support reverse logistics 

  Promote  remanufacture,  refurbishment,  repair  and  direct  reuse  goods  through  public 

procurement  

  Agree  on  indicators for the  lifetime  of  products and  establish  a  consumer  and  product 

information system based on these indicators 

35 

 
 
 
  Put  in  place  consumer  education  plans  to  raise  awareness  on  circular  economy  in 
general  and  in  particular  on  products  from  remanufacture,  refurbishment,  repair  and 
direct reuse  

  Encourage information sharing and collaboration between different stakeholders 

  Conduct  a  stocktaking  exercise  on  the  best  practices  and  existing  policies  related  to 
remanufacture, refurbishment, repair and direct reuse in order to allow for an exchange 
of experience between the G7 countries 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Definitions of terms used in the draft IRP report on Remanufacturing, 
Refurbishment, Repair, and Direct Reuse 

Circular Economy: A continuous positive development cycle that preserves and enhances natural 
capital,  optimizes  resource  yields,  and  minimizes  system  risks  by  managing  finite  stocks  and 
renewable  flows.  It  works  effectively  at  every  scale.  A  circular  economy  is  restorative  and 
regenerative by design, and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest 
utility and value at all times. (From the Ellen MacArthur Foundation) 

Core:    A  core  is  a  previously  sold,  worn  or  non-functional  product  or  part,  intended  for  the 
remanufacturing process. During reverse logistics, a core is protected, handled and identified for 
remanufacturing to avoid damage and to preserve its value. A core is not waste or scrap and is 
not  intended  to  be  reused  before  remanufacturing.  (From  the  international  agreement  on  a 
remanufacturing  definition,  developed  by  six  global  remanufacturing  associations  in  the 
automotive sector8, September 2016) 

Direct Reuse: The using again of a product, object or substance that is not waste for the same 
purpose  for  which  it  was  conceived  without  the  necessity  of  repair  or  refurbishment.  (From 
document UNEP/CHW/OEWG.10/INF/10 under the Basel Convention) 

Repair:  Fixing  a  specified  fault  in  an  object  that  is  a  waste  or  a  product  and/or  replacing 
defective  components,  in  order  to  make  the  waste  or  product  a  fully  functional  product  to  be 
used  for  its  originally  intended  purpose.  (From  document  UNEP/CHW/OEWG.10/INF/10  under 
the Basel Convention) 

Refurbishment: Modification of an object that is a waste or a product to increase or restore its 
performance  and/or  functionality  or  to  meet  applicable  technical  standards  or  regulatory 
requirements,  with  the  result  of  making  the  waste  or  product  a  fully  functional  product  to  be 
used  for  a  purpose  that  is  at  least  the  one  that  was  originally  intended.  (From  document 
UNEP/CHW/OEWG.10/INF/10 under the Basel Convention) 

Remanufacturing:  A  standardized  industrial  process9  by  which  cores  are  returned  to  same-as-
new, or better, condition and performance. The process is in line with specific technical specifica-
tions,  including  engineering,  quality,  and  testing  standards.  The  process  yields  fully  warranted 
products. (From the international agreement on a remanufacturing definition, developed by six 
the  automotive  sector10,  September  2016) 
global 

remanufacturing  associations 

in 

8  From  Europe,  the  European  Association  of  Automotive  Suppliers  (CLEPA),  and  European  Organization  for  the  Engine 
Remanufacture  (FIRM);  From  USA,  the  Motor  &  Equipment  Remanufacturers  Association  (MERA),  and  Automotive  Parts 
Remanufacturers  Association  (APRA);  From  Brazil,  the  Automotive  Parts  Remanufacturers  National  Association  (ANRAP);  and 
from China, the Remanufacture Committee of China Association of Automobile Manufactures (CPRA) 
9 An industrial process is an established process, which is fully documented, and capable to fulfil the requirements established 
by the remanufacturer. 
10  From  Europe,  the  European  Association  of  Automotive  Suppliers  (CLEPA),  and  European  Organization  for  the  Engine 
Remanufacture  (FIRM);  From  USA,  the  Motor  &  Equipment  Remanufacturers  Association  (MERA),  and  Automotive  Parts 
Remanufacturers  Association  (APRA);  From  Brazil,  the  Automotive  Parts  Remanufacturers  National  Association  (ANRAP);  and 
from China, the Remanufacture Committee of China Association of Automobile Manufactures (CPRA) 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
38 

 
 
 
 
39 

 
 
 
About the Organizers  

The  European  Commission  (EC)  recently  adopted  a  Circular  Economy  Package  to  stimulate 
Europe's  transition  towards  a  circular  economy.  With  this  new  plan,  the  EC  is  delivering 
ambitious measures to cut resource use, reduce waste and boost economic development and 
job creation. 

The  International  Resource  Panel  (IRP)  is  a  UN  Environment-based  initiative  created  in  2007, 
supported by the EC. It provides independent and authoritative scientific assessments of policy 
relevance on the sustainable use of natural resources. In 2016, the United Nations Environment 
Assembly  adopted  resolution  2/9  which  acknowledges  that  a  circular  economy  approach  can 
contribute  to  sustainable  consumption  and  production,  and  encourages  countries  to  find 
innovative ways to become more resource efficient. The resolution invited the IRP to produce 
reports related to this resolution.  

The  G7  Alliance  on  Resource  Efficiency  was  launched  at  the  G7  Summit  in  2015,  to  share 
knowledge  and  create  information  networks,  in  collaboration  with  businesses,  small  and 
medium  sized  enterprises,  and  other  relevant  stakeholders.  The  objective  is  to  advance  the 
opportunities offered by resource efficiency, promote best practices, and foster innovation. This 
includes  through  public-private  partnerships  and  collaboration  with  developing  countries. 
Recently complemented by the Toyama Framework on Material Cycles (adopted at the 2016 G7 
Environment Ministers’ Meeting in Toyama, Japan), the Alliance provides a common vision and 
a  guide  for  future  actions  to  deepen  G7  efforts  on  resource  efficiency  and  the  3Rs  (reduce, 
reuse, recycle). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
K
H
-
0
1
-
1
7
-
3
2
7
-
E
N
-
N