Realizing the vision of a truly circular economy requires common commitments for common rules. By establishing standardized rules for infrastructure and product design, the implementation of circular solutions at scale becomes possible.

To move us toward that circular future, it’s important to have convenors who can be standard-bearers and can assist with identifying challenges, setting vision and direction, and implementing solutions.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has been instrumental in doing this work. For over a decade, the Foundation has worked to unite businesses, policymakers, and global institutions, and has become a trusted voice that has helped put the circular economy on the global agenda.

Combining a consistent practical approach to uniting stakeholders, the Foundation has been active throughout its history in standardization-related initiatives to scale innovation.

We were honoured to connect with the Foundation and are excited to share these insights, provided by Danielle Holly, Executive Lead, North America at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s goal is to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. What is the current state of the transition, and what do you think the next few years will bring?

Since the Foundation’s creation in 2010, the circular economy has grown from a concept to an actionable strategy to address urgent global challenges. Today, over 100 countries have the circular economy in their respective national road maps, over US$400 billion of capital has been deployed toward the circular economy, and businesses are actively working toward or expanding circular business models, redesigning products, piloting new businesses, and demonstrating how those businesses can drive profitability. 

Today, the value of the circular economy for businesses is well understood—including opportunities for new revenue streams, increased supply chain resilience, tools to address emissions targets, and strategies to restore nature. The circular economy represents a relevant, core solution that can bring on the transformation we need at both a local and global scale. 

Now, with businesses asking what comes next, the Foundation is shifting its focus from educating business leaders and policymakers about the fundamentals of the circular economy to more hands-on implementation. This includes scaling its three core missions: plastics and packaging, critical minerals, and fashion and textiles. Each of these areas has urgent challenges and significant momentum from both business and policymakers. The circular economy represents a relevant, core solution that can bring on the transformation we need at both a local and global scale.

Can you talk a little more about your work in each mission?

Each mission area has its own systemic barriers that stand in the way of the market becoming fully circular. We work with our network of partners and policymakers to address these barriers by helping to align visions and coordinate market and policy changes. 

For instance, we work with our business network and research teams on landscaping, research, and workshops. Our recent report, “Leading the charge: Turning risk into reward with a circular economy for EV batteries and critical minerals,” is one example of this work. The report identifies five areas for immediate action to build a circular economy for EV batteries. These actions provide a baseline framework that can be adopted as standards across the industry.

Within the Foundation’s Critical Minerals Mission, we are also doing work on the circularity of electronics, and how digital infrastructure can contribute to critical mineral recovery. We explored the landscape of specific electronics markets, which led to deeper research and workshops with companies and other stakeholders to understand their needs. We will share many of these insights in upcoming publications.

Joint projects are another way of tackling barriers. For example, the Foundation’s ongoing demonstration project, The Fashion ReModel, works with participating fashion companies to increase the percentage of revenue from circular business models, such as resale, rental, and repair. Shaped in consultation with over 150 fashion industry organizations, the project will scale circular business models and generate insights and evidence needed to create a guiding roadmap for the fashion industry.

On top of our work in these mission areas, we engage with policymakers to encourage the viability—and often the economic proposition—for circular solutions. 

Critical minerals have become such a big topic of discussion—can you tell me a bit more about that mission area?

It certainly does feel like a constant news story! And that makes sense because of the importance of critical minerals to so many of the technical innovations that are driving our world—from the electrification of our energy use to electronics and the AI boom.

By 2035, demand for many of these critical minerals is projected to exceed supply. At the same time, e-waste is one of the fastest-growing waste streams, growing five times faster than we recycle it. To address both of these challenges, we can adopt circular economy strategies to better use existing materials and meet the growing demand. 

These strategies present an enormous financial opportunity. A recent report estimated that there are more than a billion unused devices in US homes worth more than $65 billion. Pound for pound, these devices actually contain more concentrated amounts of critical minerals than can be extracted from the same weight of mined ore. 

By designing products for longevity and repair to extend the life of the materials, and then efficiently recovering critical minerals, the circular economy can add enormous value for companies at every stage of the value chain. 

How does that work in practice? 

Well, it starts with focused work with our network partners. For example, we hosted a workshop last summer to explore how to better collect and recover more e-waste to feed back into production. There is a range of solutions that we focused on, including circular business models that deliver electronic products as services. This model encourages less resource-intensive production, more durability, and can often be more profitable. We also discussed how important parts standards are for electronics, as they enable repair and resale business models.

And, at a Climate Week New York City event that we hosted, we talked with a number of companies that are using technology and business models to have a significant impact. For instance, we heard from HP about their Renew Solutions group, which helps companies to recover, repurpose, and recycle their hardware. We also spoke with Google and SAP about how to integrate circularity data into core financial and operational systems, which creates more coherent standards to measure success.

Does AI play into that?

Definitely! AI can play a part in system solutions just because it’s so good at parsing large data and finding patterns. This can help with tracking material flows through suppliers and value chains, but it can also help to improve tasks like material sorting that can be resource-intensive. 

The AI infrastructure itself, while materially intensive, can also—with intentional design—be a source of resources for the next generation of devices.

An example of AI being used to push circularity forward is CircularNet, an open-source machine learning model for waste management, which addresses non-standard single streams of recycling by improving the accurate detection of different material types, including metal and plastics. 

You’ve talked a little about policy—how can policy help support the transition to the circular economy? What policy levers can help us achieve a circular economy?

It’s crucial that policy supports the transition to the circular economy. The linear economy—or the take-make-waste economy—which is currently dominant, extracts resources, uses them, and sends them to landfill. This system has been optimized for more than 100 years. While it’s clear that the circular economy offers more efficiency over the long term and a huge upside for value creation, systems change is challenging and requires support from multiple stakeholders.

Policy gives businesses and investors confidence that investments will be supported, and that the environment will be stable to realize long-term returns. In addition, policy can establish standards and ensure that entire markets move together so that leaders are not penalized for taking on early risk. 

For instance, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations place responsibility on producers with regard to the collection, sorting, and recirculation of products they put on the market. These policies can benefit the entire industry by building more resilient supply chains, creating jobs, enhancing brand reputation, and avoiding waste and pollution. 

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has published a policy brief on its website that lists actionable policy instruments to unlock circular economy outcomes. Can you discuss these policy instruments?

Yes, the policy brief “Keep it in use: Retain resource value and unlock economic opportunities” is the first of a series of three policy briefs on policy instruments for a resilient and competitive circular economy. This first policy brief features three key policy instruments that can help keep products, parts, and materials in use: waste regulations and resource classifications, EPR, and support for secondary materials markets. 

These instruments establish clear legal baselines, incentivize material loops, and secure demand for secondary materials, delivering economic and social gains, such as cost savings and job creation. When used together, they form a strategic package that creates supply and demand signals, ensuring that valuable resources are collected, processed, and reintegrated into the economy. 

The policy brief includes six case studies illustrating the implementation of these policy instruments and concludes with policy recommendations for national policymakers. For instance, creating precise definitions is important so that all stakeholders are aligned. Setting specific reuse and recycling targets that are adaptable as progress is made is also key. And making sure that laws are enforceable is required for follow-through. 

Two more policy briefs will complete the series. The first one focuses on stimulating design for the circular economy, so that all products—from everyday consumer goods to durable products and infrastructure—are conceived from the outset with circularity in mind. The second will look at policies that help circular business models to become more competitive, such as public procurement and subsidies. 

Can you share with us the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s vision for the circular economy over the next decade? 

We’re at a truly exciting moment for the circular economy. Over the past two decades, the circular economy has moved from concept to a pilot phase. We now need to move from pilot to truly embedded practice and implementation.

Finally, how can everyone do their part to help achieve this vision?

I love this question on what each of us can do. It’s so central to actually making the transformational change that we want to see—something that can often feel so distant and conceptual. The place to start is to talk about the circular economy in a way that’s tangible for both your context and the reality of those you’re trying to bring along. You don’t need to use the term “circular economy” to talk about the circular economy. You can talk about the joy you get when you find a fabulous thrift store find, and share the brands and circular business models that made that find possible. You can talk about companies like Back Market and iFixit that are making it possible for you to turn your old electronics into something other than e-waste. 

An exciting aspect of transitioning to a circular economy is that one of the biggest levers we have to unlock it is our collective will. We now have the vision for what a circular economy looks like, and we have many working business models, pilots, and bright spots that are waiting to scale. 

There are few transformations that have been made in human history that are as attainable and would make as much of an impact as the circular economy—improving prosperity, resilience, and the environment for the long term.

We are grateful to Danielle Holly and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for sharing these insights with us.

This story was featured in Circular Economy Magazine:

By: Michael Leering, Director of Environment & Business Excellence Standards at CSA Group

The transition to a circular economy is often described in aspirational terms: redesigning systems, eliminating waste, and keeping materials in use for as long as possible. While those ambitions are broadly shared, the practical challenge remains the same across sectors: how do we move from intent to implementation in a way that is credible, consistent, and scalable?

In my role as Director of Environment & Business Excellence Standards at CSA Group, I sit at the intersection of two complementary streams of work. On one hand, we are developing sector-specific standards that support circularity in areas such as plastics, reuse systems, food loss, and waste. On the other, we are mobilizing and supporting Canada’s experts in the development and adoption of international standards that provide a common foundation for circular economy practices across all industries.

Together, these two lenses highlight both the opportunity and the challenge of advancing the circular economy. Before we can scale circular solutions, we need to first agree on the language, the expectations, and the ways we measure progress.

Standards as a Consensus-Driven Foundation

National Standards of Canada are developed through a rigorous, consensus-based process that brings together diverse expert perspectives from across impacted parties.

As an accredited national standards development organization, CSA Group convenes technical committees composed of subject matter experts representing a balance of interests. These typically include industry, government and regulators, academia, non-governmental organizations, and general interest parties. The intent is not to privilege one perspective but to help ensure that the resulting requirements are balanced, practical, credible, and broadly supported.

The consensus-based standards development process is supported by formal stages of review to ensure openness, transparency, and broader public input. Draft national standards undergo a public review period, where anyone can submit comments. Comments are then reviewed and dispositioned by the technical committee and undergo technical approval before publication. In the Canadian context, this process also includes bilingual publication in English and French.

Over the past few years, this consensus-based model has become increasingly important for mobilizing the circular economy. Circularity cuts across sectors, and without a shared process for bringing different perspectives together, it can be easy for solutions to become fragmented. By convening government, industry, and other experts around the same table, standards help ensure that circular economy requirements are grounded in real-world systems and can be applied consistently across sectors.

Speaking the Same Language

One of the most consistent challenges I see in advancing circular economy initiatives is the lack of common definitions and terminology. Across sectors, whether agriculture, construction, plastics, or food systems, organizations are often pursuing similar objectives but using different language to describe them and report on their efforts.

In many cases, the lowest-hanging fruit is simply agreeing on what we mean by “circular.” What constitutes recycling versus reuse? How is recycled content measured? What qualifies as a circular system rather than a linear one with incremental improvements?

Without standardized language, it becomes difficult to compare approaches, align policies, or measure progress. This is why common definitions are such a critical starting point. They establish a shared narrative and provide the foundation upon which more detailed, sector-specific requirements can be built.

Closely linked to definitions is the question of measurement. Once we agree on what circularity means, we need a common structure for understanding how circularity is measured. Without that, claims of circular performance risk becoming inconsistent, incomparable, or misleading.

International Alignment Through ISO Circular Economy Standards

To address these foundational challenges, CSA Group supports Canada’s participation in the development of international circular economy standards through ISO Technical Committee 323 (ISO/TC 323).

ISO/TC 323 has developed a series of standards that provide a high-level framework for the circular economy across sectors. CSA Group has adopted three of these as Canadian National Standards:

• CSA ISO 59004, which establishes principles, terminology, and guidance for implementing circular economy strategies
• CSA ISO 59010, which focuses on business models and value networks that enable circularity
• CSA ISO 59020, which provides guidance on measuring and assessing circularity

These standards are internationally recognized and sector-agnostic. They are designed to transcend individual industries and apply broadly across the economy. In that sense, they act as an umbrella document, providing common definitions, principles, and measurement approaches that can be adapted and operationalized within specific sector verticals.

From Common Definitions to Sector-Specific Solutions 

Building on this international foundation, CSA Group is working with interested parties to develop national circular economy standards tailored to specific sectors. In many of these areas, the initial focus remains on establishing common definitions and terminology that reflect sector realities while aligning with the broader ISO framework, but the way standards support circularity goes much deeper.

In the plastics space, for example, CSA Group published CSA R117:24, “Plastics recycling — Definitions, reporting, and measuring”—a standard that clarifies how recycled content is defined and measured across different recycling processes. These definitions are essential for ensuring that recycled content claims are credible and comparable, and that downstream users understand exactly what is being measured and reported.

CSA Group is also doing work in areas such as food loss and waste within agriculture and municipal systems, and circular construction within the built environment. While these sectors differ significantly in their materials and processes, they face similar challenges in aligning terminology and expectations for circular performance. CSA Group has launched additional standards projects in these areas to set a foundation for circular performance.

At this stage, much of this work is about building the foundation. In many sectors, we are at first or second base, establishing shared language and concepts that enable more advanced requirements to follow.

Measuring Circularity Across Industries

Measurement is a critical enabler of circularity. Without a consistent way to measure and assess circularity performance, it is difficult for organizations and jurisdictions to understand where they are making progress, where gaps remain, and how their efforts compare across sectors or jurisdictions.

CSA ISO 59020 provides an internationally aligned framework for circularity performance evaluation across multiple system levels and distinguishes between circularity measurement and circularity assessment. Building on this foundational standard, CSA Group has invested in cross-industry research to understand how circularity measurement and assessment can be applied in practice—at the level of organizations, products, and public systems—and what is needed to support credible implementation in Canada.

Across this work, a consistent finding has emerged: measuring circularity requires more than tracking material flows alone. Effective evaluation also depends on assessing the environmental, social, and economic impacts of circular actions, as well as the financial and strategic viability of circular business models. The research also highlights the importance of sector-specific indicators, harmonized definitions, and phased implementation approaches that build on existing data while strengthening measurement capacity over time.

Together, these insights are helping translate the principles of CSA ISO 59020 into actionable, decision-relevant guidance that supports credible, comparable, and scalable measurement of circularity across industries and jurisdictions.

Going Deeper on Reuse: From Standards to Pilot Projects With Impact

Reuse is also an area where CSA Group has done significant work.

CSA Group and PR3, a US-based standards development organization, are developing a suite of binational standards that support reusable container systems, including standards for washing and sanitation, container design, labelling and recognition, and logistics and distribution. Together, these standards move beyond high-level principles to establish detailed requirements for how reuse systems should operate in practice.

Two of these standards—the washing standard and the container design standard—have already been published, with additional standards in development. Importantly, these standards are not theoretical. They are being applied in real-world systems and demonstrating tangible impact.

One example is the growing adoption of reusable containers across institutional settings, including universities. As reuse programs expand into new campuses and jurisdictions, standards provide a common reference point for safety, sanitation, and system design. They help to enable operators to demonstrate that reusable containers meet established requirements and build confidence among users and administrators alike. 

This depth of work—and the resulting circularity impacts already being recognized—illustrates how standards are supporting circularity not only in principle, but in practice. It is in areas like reuse, where requirements are clear, systems are operational, and impacts are measurable, that the value of standards becomes most tangible.

Laying the Groundwork for What Comes Next

The circular economy will not be built overnight. In many sectors, the immediate priority remains establishing shared language, aligned expectations, and credible measurement approaches. That foundational work is essential—not as an end in itself, but as a prerequisite for meaningful action.

At the same time, examples like reuse demonstrate what becomes possible once standards move beyond definitions to support real-world implementation. As governments embed circularity into policy and procurement, businesses seek credible ways to demonstrate progress, and consumers demand greater transparency, the need for common frameworks will continue to grow.

By aligning international guidance with sector-specific application, standards are helping translate circular economy ambition into action, reducing uncertainty and helping to enable solutions to scale. This is what drives my passion for standards. As we move forward, I am excited to continue my role supporting circularity through standards, to reduce impacts on our environment, and to catalyze the drive toward a cleaner, more sustainable future. 

This story was featured in Circular Economy Magazine:

Our lands are under threat, down to the very soil. As social media broadcasts this issue from every corner of the globe, many young people are feeling increasing climate anxiety and uncertainty about what the future holds. 

Thankfully, it’s not too late, and we aren’t powerless at all. In just one moment of focused effort, we can make a direct impact to help reverse our trajectory—and have fun in the process.

We spoke with Louis De Jaeger, Networking and Regeneration at Ten Lives, about how this movement is flipping the festival script and bringing people together to get their hands dirty and repair the land.

What inspired your co-founders to start a regenerative festival movement and engage in environmental stewardship?

It started with one of our founders learning about the Paani Foundation in India. They run competitions where villages get 40 days to build rainwater harvesting systems. But here’s what really got us: it wasn’t just about the water. Once those systems were in place, everything changed. Water started flowing, plants came back, and people who’d left for the cities came home. The land could sustain them again.

That story stuck with us. We kept thinking: “What if we could do something like that here in Europe, but make it a cultural movement? Combine that regenerative power with the energy of festivals like Burning Man or Tomorrowland and excite people to want to be part of it.”

And honestly, we didn’t have a choice. The science is terrifying: most of the world’s soils could be degraded within decades. We just refused to sit around feeling helpless about it.

How does eco-anxiety influence your approach to festivals and community-building?

There’s this massive Lancet Planetary Health study that surveyed 10,000 young people aged 16–25 across ten countries. Three-quarters of young people think the future is frightening. Every other youngster said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning.

So we thought, what if instead of talking about it, we just let people do something? Come plant trees, build water systems, get your hands dirty. Spend a few days actually shaping the land.

When we test this, we see that the shift is immediate. You see it in people’s faces. They’re covered in mud, they’re exhausted, but they’re watching something real take shape together. Later, we’ll show people drone shots so they can literally see the water being captured, plants settling in, life returning. That’s when it clicks. They realize, “I can actually do this. I’m not powerless.”

When they go home, they will be different. They will have proof that change is possible, that they can be part of it. It’s not the end of the festival; it’s the beginning of something else.

What makes the Ten Lives model different from traditional sustainable or circular festivals?

Most sustainable festivals are trying to be less harmful—we can’t blame them; that’s what we all do. Reduce waste, recycle, offset emissions. Fine, but that’s still playing defence. 

We’re asking a different question entirely: what if the festival actually improved the land?

Regenerative means the land is healthier after we leave than before we arrived. Soil gets richer. Biodiversity increases. Water cycles start working again. You’re not just preserving, you’re investing.

Festivals tend to trash the landscape. Fields get compacted, vegetation dies, ecosystems get wrecked. We’re flipping that. The festival becomes the catalyst for restoration, not destruction.

Can you describe a moment when the impact of this movement truly surprised you?

The people, honestly. We kept hearing the same thing over and over: “I’ve wanted to do something like this for years, but there was nowhere to go.” The festival became this space where suddenly people had a role. Volunteers, artists, farmers, former festival crew, all working together to get this project off the ground.

People get to use skills they’d never found a place for before. Or they discovered they had something valuable to contribute that they didn’t even know about. Someone handed them a blank page and said, “Go.”

And then there’s Portugal. Even tiny interventions can change things fast. We built some simple swales to catch rainwater. Within weeks, you could see the difference. Rain stayed in the soil longer. 

It hit us: ecosystems are fragile, but they’re also incredibly responsive. You don’t need millions of euros or fancy tech. You need intention—people who give a damn and are ready to roll up their sleeves.

What challenges have you faced in building the Ten Lives regenerative festival movement?

Try coordinating fifty people when you can’t pay anyone! That’s where we are starting, completely bootstrapped, running on fumes and trust. But people are showing up, putting in real work, real time. That’s a heavy responsibility. You can’t just waste that. Every promise becomes a moral contract. We’re worried about burning people out, while some complain we don’t give them enough to do, because “they need this” and “this is hope.” 

And logistically? Festivals are already difficult to organize. Permits, safety, infrastructure, crowds—it’s chaos. Now add ecological design, land management, seasonal timing, and monitoring. We’re essentially running two massive, complex systems at once and trying to make them work together.

Plus, people think we’re over our heads. Large-scale collective regeneration? Most assume it’s impossible because it’s barely been tried in Europe. We’re operating without a blueprint, pushing against what everyone—including us, sometimes—believes is realistic.

What are the next steps for the Ten Lives movement?

We crushed our crowdfunding goal. While we needed €30,000, we knew we could aim for a maximum of €10,000. Yet we still ended up with over €23,000. The money wasn’t even the best part. Working through that campaign together, so early in the process, under pressure, with real stakes, it forged the team in a way nothing else could have.

We held  Genesis on April 30 – May 3, 2026. About 100 people, music, communal work, restoration—everything a festival should be, but regenerative. We’re planning another festival for May 2027, but even if Genesis’ is the only event we ever pull off, it matters. The cultural impact alone is worth it.

We’re also getting interest from established festivals wanting to integrate regenerative elements into their events. People are changing. They don’t just want to party and forget about the world anymore. They want to contribute. They want their money and time to actually fix something.

What are your hopes for the future of environmentally focused economies in Europe, and why do you advocate for a regenerative economy alongside circularity?

The circular economy is better than the take-make-waste model we’ve been running; it’s keeping things stable. Reusing materials puts a stop to the continual extraction of new resources, which helps prevent environmental harm and reduces emissions. This is a solution to one side of the problem, but we believe we can take things even further, working in tandem to effectively restore and renew. 

“Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better,” said Einstein. Regenerative works like nature; growth creates more abundance, not less. Plant a tree for a few euros today, and in thirty years it’s giving you food, shade, carbon storage, ecosystem services worth thousands of times what you paid. That’s the logic we should apply to everything: agriculture, buildings, clothing, energy, cities.

The festival proves it works. People spend a week seeing their own power to change ecosystems. Not just thinking about it, doing it.

There’s research showing that when even just a small percent of people shift their mindset, the whole culture tips. That’s what we’re building toward: a critical mass of people who see themselves as stewards, not spectators. Regeneration isn’t some fringe idea; it’s joyful, it’s normal, it’s what we do.

And it cuts through the climate anxiety. Fear turns into action. Paralysis turns into participation. We’re not pretending everything’s fine, but we’re also not letting the crisis own our future. We’re showing that restoration is possible, that economies can heal, and that you can have fun while doing it. Let’s turn rage into beauty. Let’s bring back life.

This story was featured in Circular Economy Magazine:

Today, as countless products can be bought brand-new with just a touch of a finger, repair-related skills have largely fallen to the wayside, and the perpetual manufacturing of new items has made tracking down replacement parts a challenge. 

In these conditions, buying a replacement seems like the easy way out, especially when it comes to outdoor gear—a convenience that negatively impacts the environment that same gear helps us enjoy.

KORE Outdoors, a grassroots, non-profit organization in the Kootenay region of British Columbia, has always supported the outdoor gear sector’s ecosystem. Seeing a deep need for a better way of doing things, they launched the Re-Hub program to offer a circular solution to everyone in the region.

We spoke with Kevin Pennock, Co-Founder and Executive Director at KORE Outdoors, about how this program is equipping people with the repairs and skills they need to save costs and protect our planet.

What inspired you to start your circular economy initiative, the KORE Re-Hub?

A lot of this came out of personal need. All of us reside in the Kootenay region, where we live and breathe the outdoors. We all use outdoor gear. I don’t know if there’s exact data on this, but my guess would be that per capita in the Kootenays, we are probably the highest users of outdoor gear in Canada. Yet there are very few people in the Kootenays who fix outdoor gear as a full-time gig.

Another component is that KORE Outdoors is a local outdoor gear collective—we have 80+ different gear makers and designers in the Kootenays. We just can’t bear to think of it as a take-make-waste linear flow of consumption. We wanted to advocate for a circular model, to consider what you do with the gear at the end of its life. We can’t just wash our hands of that and not think about how to help solve the problem.

So we had the idea to do a mobile gear repair tour, travelling throughout the Kootenays, fixing outdoor gear for free, and educating communities about the importance of circularity. We were fortunate to get a grant from the CleanBC Plastics Action Fund to make it happen. 

In the summer of 2025, we toured 12 different towns all throughout the region, stopping at farmers’ markets, sporting events, and festivals. We fixed everything from jackets to backpacks to tents—more than 500 pieces of gear in total.

Why is building a culture of repair important for advancing the circular economy, and how is your initiative helping to integrate circularity in the outdoor gear industry?

Repair is one of the pillars of circularity, and the best available option—given current technology—for keeping outdoor apparel out of the landfill. Upcycling and recycling are complex and difficult. Less than 1% of materials in outdoor clothing and gear are recycled; 85% end up in landfills. That’s because the fabrics are usually a blend of highly technical materials. You’re not just taking cotton and re-spinning it into another cotton fabric. You’re working with blended fabrics that are really difficult to deconstruct and spin back into a raw material.

Repair, on the other hand, isn’t difficult. Most of the fixes we did were straightforward, like swapping a worn zipper slider on a jacket so it zips properly again. People don’t want to throw away technical apparel; they just don’t have access to even basic repairs. The KORE Re-Hub Tour brought repair into the community and proved there’s strong demand. We repaired outdoor apparel for free, but our survey showed participants were willing to pay, on average, 29% of an item’s value for repair. That suggests it could be a viable business.

What do you consider to be your biggest success in advancing the circular economy both locally and in your industry? Can you share any stories of impact your work has had that have surprised you?

The vast majority of a garment’s footprint—whether we’re talking emissions, water, or energy—happens at the beginning, when the item is made. If you can keep a piece of outdoor apparel in use for a year longer, five years longer, ten years longer, you’re mitigating having to create that huge upfront footprint to make another one. 

The KORE Re-Hub Tour extended the lifespan of 509 items by an average of 9 months—that’s 382 years of extended gear life. We had a consultant run the numbers, and she determined that 14.5 tons of CO2e emissions were avoided by repairing those items instead of buying new ones. Approximately 1.13 million litres of water and 6,286 kWh of energy were saved.

What surprised us was the sheer volume of requests we’re now getting from other organizations. Can the Re-Hub repair trailer come to the FAST Ski Swap in Fernie? Can it come to Nelson for an Earth Day event in April? Can it come to the BC Outdoor Recreation Council Conference in May in Kamloops? And it’s not just in the Kootenays. People from North Vancouver have contacted us to do a sustainability initiative with them this summer. The Surfrider Foundation Canada in Ucluelet—which is doing amazing work with surf gear and apparel—wants us to come out for a joint project. So really, it’s opened up a floodgate of invitations to promote circularity in places all across BC and Western Canada.

What are some of the challenges you typically face working to advance the circular economy in the outdoor recreation industry?

In the soft goods side, the biggest challenge is the textile blends and the recyclability of these high-tech fabrics. But overall, in the outdoor gear world for circularity, the hard goods category is really the most challenging. 

As part of our Re-Hub Tour last summer, we worked with Selkirk College’s Selkirk Technology Access Centre on a hard goods pilot project. Gear users from the Kootenays brought ski boots, trekking poles, and ski bindings to our repair trailer to see whether it was feasible to actually fix these specific pieces of gear.

The answer was most often yes, it’s repairable. But to actually follow through with the repair was a different story. Say you need to fix a hard goods widget. Even though it’s only five years old, the brand no longer carries the part. So you have to go on a treasure hunt to find it. In the end, between the time and the labour, it often isn’t feasible or affordable.

Some hard goods, like bicycle frames and parts, are very recyclable because they’re scrap metal (steel, aluminum, titanium, carbon), but there’s no system in place to do it. So the question becomes, how can we put together a system with the transfer stations, with the municipalities, with the regional districts, working with industry partners like bicycle shops, to have scrap bins, to have a diversion path to process end-of-life bicycle frames?

Same thing with bicycle tubes and tires. For car tires, you can take them to your local dealership and pay a disposal fee when you buy the new tires. There’s a diversion path for your car tires, but there’s nothing for bicycle tubes and tires. There’s nothing set up for diversion and upcycling for plastic helmets either.

We’re trying to explore ways to solve some of these problems, like can we work with the plastic recyclers and do a pilot project to actually disassemble a ski helmet, bike helmet, or a climbing helmet, take out the liner, and divert the shell to a plastic processor in the Lower Mainland? These are some of the immediate challenges but also the opportunities that we see.

Are there any upcoming events, projects, trends, or advancements related to your work with the KORE Re-Hub Program you’d like to share?

We are planning to do the Re-Hub Tour again for 2026—we’re working to source the funding for it right now—and hoping to be able to say yes to some of the invitations we’ve received to take the mobile repair trailer beyond the Kootenay region.

A new project that we’re very excited about is creating a Re-Hub Circularity Centre at the College of the Rockies, a permanent repair facility to complement the mobile tour. It will be an outdoor gear repair school; there’s currently nowhere in BC where you can go to learn these skills outside of learning on the job at a major brand or teaching yourself. We’ll do gear repair there, and also repurposing, taking dead stock and end-of-life gear and turning it into something new. There will also be a shared community space—kind of like a commercial kitchen—that makers and designers can book for small-batch apparel manufacturing projects and prototyping.

Looking ahead, what are your hopes for the circular economy in the Kootenay region over the next decade, and how do you envision contributing to this vision? How can other individuals/organizations help?

We envision the Kootenays becoming a hub for circularity and repair in the outdoor sector, including training and workforce development. The Re-Hub Tour was an important step in that direction. We hope that the new KORE Re-Hub Circularity Centre at the College of the Rockies will officially put the region on the map and serve as a model going forward. Beyond that, we aspire for the Kootenays to become the epicentre for the outdoor rec-tech industry.

And we’re looking to collaborate with other foundations and NGOs. There’s a circular economy group in Calgary, for example, that is doing great work. There are also brands like Arc’teryx and Patagonia with a strong sustainability focus. We want to learn from them, and we hope they’ll want to collaborate with us. We will all go further and bigger if we work together.

This story was featured in Circular Economy Magazine:

Fragmentation, differing definitions, and a lack of practical guidance threaten to hinder organizations around the world from embedding circularity into their practices, operations, and products.

The solution? Internationally applicable standards that can provide consensus on what the circular economy looks like, and clearly presented guidance that’s grounded in practicality.

We spoke with Professor Martin Charter, Director at The Centre for Sustainable Design, Chair of CED/1 Committee (Circular Economy) at British Standards Institution, and Head of UK Delegation/Expert for ISO – International Organization for Standardization – TC 323 (Circular Economy), about developing the ISO 59000 series, how these standards benefit organizations stepping into the circular economy space, and ways they can be improved to make a tangible impact.

What inspired the development of the ISO 59000 series standards?

Before the ISO 59000 series was published in 2024, I was a member of the panel that produced BS 8001, “Framework for implementing the principles of the circular economy,” through the British Standards Institution. Published in 2017, this was the first organizational standard on circularity. 

Following that, there was international interest in developing an international standard based on BS 8001.

When a new topic of significant international significance is identified, a proposal is prepared by a sponsoring country that will provide a secretariat and submitted to ISO. If positively received by ISO and the international community, a technical committee is established, which is the warehouse for the development of specific standards related to the topic in question.

In 2018, ISO launched TC 323 with a French chair and secretariat to take forward standardization related to the circular economy. ISO has around 180 countries as members worldwide, including Canada and the UK, and also smaller countries like Rwanda and Jamaica. 

The development process of the three core standards in the ISO 59000 series started in separate working groups. Other standards have been developed after that, and now, there are seven standards in the series.

What are the standards set out by the ISO 59000 series, and why are these standards important for advancing the circular economy?

The first standard, ISO 59004, “Circular economy — Vocabulary, principles and guidance for implementation,” was formed under working group one. This primarily focused on listing common terms and definitions associated with the circular economy, and also core concepts. The second standard, ISO 59010, “Circular economy — Guidance on the transition of business models and value networks,” was focused around business-oriented strategies, and the third one, ISO 59020, “Circular economy — Measuring and assessing circularity performance,” around measurement and metrics. 

The fourth, ISO/TR 59032, “Circular economy — Review of existing value networks,” is focused on case studies, which is a bit more formational. 

Working group number five formed the fifth standard, ISO 59040, which focused on product circularity data sheets. How data is shared, what data is shared, and how you manage that is going to become more and more of an issue in terms of international trade, and that’s going to be particularly applicable for something called digital product passports (DPP) that are emerging in Europe. CEN/TC 473—the European standardization group on circular economy—is also picking up “information sharing” in a working group as a precursor to DPP standardization.

The sixth standard, ISO 59014, “Environmental management and circular economy — Sustainability and traceability of the recovery of secondary materials — Principles, requirements and guidance,” is around secondary materials. 

Published in 2026, there is now a seventh standard, ISO/TR 59031, “Circular economy — Performance-based approach — Analysis of case studies,” and two new standards under development, ISO/AWI 59001, “Circular economy management systems — Requirements,” and ISO/AWI 59011, “Circular economy — Organizing a value network towards circularity.”

So there are seven published standards, and the first three standards have now moved into a process of revision; two were published with no revision process, and now two new standards are starting. There will also likely be other standards that will be developed. It’s not the end of it. 

As one industry veteran said, “we really are at the beginning of a process on circular economy standardization.” We’re right back in the 1990s, in a sense, where the ISO 14000 environmental management system started, so there could be another 20 years of circular economy standards development.

For many companies, they may have heard about the circular economy, but they really don’t know how to operationalize it, so something that provides some guidance on the terms, something that provides real, clear guidance on how to do it, is what is needed. I think the current ISO standards partially do this. Within the next iteration, they will be much stronger from the practitioner’s point of view.

I think there is growing interest in standardization, particularly as the European Commission is driving circular economy policy. That’s where the legislation is emerging, and, as a result, many countries see more regulations impacting product requirements, and therefore, circularity will be part of access to the European market. In some countries in Asia, they want to use these standards for certification. However, none of these ISO 59000 standards are designed for certification or third-party verification. They’re organizational guidance standards, rather than product-based standards.

But I know from previous experience, despite stating that the published ISO 59000 series (to date) are guidance standards, you will get some countries and standardization bodies that will start to create certification for this, if they see a market opportunity. 

There is a whole other issue around being really clear about what you mean by standards, because it may mean different things to different people.

For example, we’re doing a lot of work in the fashion and clothing sector because we see that there’s been no real effective circularity regulation, and there’s a whole stack of regulation coming in from Europe. When we started to talk to companies about standardization in this sector, they didn’t fully understand ISO or CEN standardization. They considered standards to relate to voluntary codes of practice, corporate processes, or serve as an internal tool; they didn’t fully understand independent international, consensus-based standardization processes.

Bottom line, the circular economy is not going backward; it’s only going forward in terms of policy, standardization, and national plans. Some of those national plans are a little bit thin, but even if it starts that way, countries have to go through a process to publish a strategy—that’s how institutionalization works. And, if a country is going to publish a national plan, clarity over terms, definitions, and guidance is imperative. That’s where standards come in.

What do you consider to be the biggest success in developing these circular economy standards? Can you share any stories of impact your work has had that have surprised you?

In a complex area like the circular economy, where there are different viewpoints and different perspectives, the fact that standards have been published is a big success, as it is a huge, complicated exercise.

There were different chairs from different countries involved in this process. Different chairs have different styles and experiences, and you have to try to get consensus from almost 180 countries. The big challenge is that some countries that weren’t as advanced in circularity thought circularity was another word for recycling; this is a mindset that still exists out there in the world in some places and organizations. There are a lot of countries and individuals who engage in this process that don’t necessarily have the holistic picture. They’ve not read the books, they’ve not read the reports, and they haven’t got the experience of trying to make circularity happen in organizations, so that was a big challenge.

One of the other challenges is that countries have different perspectives, different positions on circularity politically, even economically. It’s quite difficult to get people to agree, particularly on terms, which becomes a big issue, big debates, on what “regenerative” even means, for example. This is tough enough in physical meetings, when you have people there face-to-face, but in the virtual world, this is even trickier. ISO TC323 activities had to continue during COVID-19 over Zoom and Teams meetings, when we were learning the ropes of managing virtual meetings. It became incredibly difficult to run and engage in the process. This led to elongated discussions and delays. Finally, ISO published the three core standards in the summer of 2024.

Can you share your insights into some of the challenges associated with standards development, as well as the challenges organizations typically face in working to advance the circular economy? How will the ISO 59000 series standards help address these challenges?

Due to the technical nature and complexity of the standards development process—and perhaps the slow nature of development—business was engaged in developing the standards at the beginning, but gradually walked away from the process. So, there was less and less practical input, which resulted in a lot of consultants and academics writing the texts.

The real issue with this is that a lot of the academics are really interested in the concepts and the systems thinking—and that’s great—but when you get down to a company level, questions like “what do we have to do first?” and “how do we drive down costs?” begin to emerge. For a lot of the companies, if they have a successful business model, they don’t want to change that to a circular model, but there are a lot of academics writing about changing business models to become more circular, without understanding the practical realities. A lot of companies are just not interested in changing their business models unless there are major opportunities or threats.

It’s a big thing to shift from a linear model to a circular model. It’s a complicated, difficult job, and it takes time. You’ve got to involve multifunctional teams, you’ve got to tackle internal language and communications, you’ve got to get senior management to buy in, all of these things. And for companies to take this seriously, they need to see the drivers. What is driving them to change? Is it external drivers, such as regulation? Customers asking more questions? Pressure over critical raw materials? Or is it those very unusual companies that step out and say, “it’s part of our vision, it’s vision-based and purpose-based.” So there needs to be a driver for this change.

I’ll bring back the example of the fashion and clothing sector, because the policy and regulatory changes to drive circularity in Europe are becoming a bigger and bigger issue. For example, you may be running a 57-person clothing company in Milan and have never employed an environmental manager. Maybe they employ a quality manager. Maybe they don’t even have a quality manager—they have a general manager, and suddenly the general manager will need to start to pick up circularity. Or maybe they’ll need an intern to work on it, one day a week, or five days a month. How do you start to bring this into the organization, especially as new European regulations are on the horizon? 

Larger companies have more resources they can employ than smaller organizations, including sustainability directors, and they even have specific people picking up circularity. So, many organizations, small and large, need guidance on how to start the process very practically. Those in standardization development need to look at this from the point of view of the company—this does not always happen!

The other element that we picked up from some depth work we did on product circularity is that, even for organizations that have sustainability departments, circularity was slightly to the side and not fully integrated. Circularity has still been managed as a separate issue, because it’s a bit new, which means that shifting from working with recyclers on materials recycling to thinking about repair and reuse is a new issue for many companies. 

A very basic point that I’ve learned is that companies will generally sell a product into the chain in some form. They’ll sell it to a retailer, an intermediary, whether it’s business-to-business, and actually, they never have a full understanding of the use phase of the product, e.g., if the product has been repaired, or if it’s in the second or third life, because the product is with the customer. In the linear economy, you don’t need to collect data on this; in the circular economy, you do. So data on reuse, repair, etc., is just not available. Companies really don’t know how to manage this, and they certainly don’t have the data on it. It’s tough; you also have to change your organizational model to do this.

I think what companies need is very practical guidance—what they need to do, how they need to do it, and how to prioritize with limited teams.

The danger is that if the management standards aren’t revised to incorporate more practicality, they’ll be seen as quite high-level and won’t really be used. Maybe consultants will buy them, but you won’t get the companies buying and using them, and they may actually develop their own standards, resulting in further fragmentation. 

So what’s now happening is that three core standards of the ISO 59000 series are going into a revision process. Those standards—let’s call them version two—will be published in 2028. So they’re out there, they’re published, but there’s still work to be done. That’s where things are at the moment. 

Are there any developments and/or advancements related to the ISO 59000 series standards you’d like to share?

I think the fact that a revision process for the three core standards is starting is good. The follow-up research completed by the ISO TC 323 secretariat indicated that there needs to be more practical guidance in the standards, not just conceptual thinking; the chair has heard that, and others have heard that. We hope this feedback will be listened to by the chairs of the working groups and those experts involved in the standards development revision process, and that more practical guidance will be incorporated, because that is what is needed.

In terms of new developments, CEN established CEN/TC 473 a few years ago, focused on circular economy standardization in Europe, which is very active, and also the revision process of the BS 8001:2017—the first standard on implementing circularity in organizations—is now starting within the UK. Chatham House, the think tank, is monitoring all the publications of national circular economy plans and strategies around the world. There are now over a hundred plans and strategies published globally; some leading countries are on the third iteration of their strategies, and some are just at the early stages, but making a commitment, so there are different levels of learnings from implementation. A lot of countries are taking the circular economy seriously now. 

Looking ahead, what are your hopes for the circular economy over the next decade, and how do you envision ISO 59000 contributing to this vision?

One of the key points about the ISO standards is they should offer guidance on how to implement circularity into organizations. They are not built around how you drive a circular economy at an economic or societal level. There’s often confusion in the language among people who have been involved in the standardization process about the context of the standards if they don’t come from the business world. Even in the standardization community, they get very confused about the context and the terms. Some were thinking about the circular economy in terms of driving a national circular economy. Well, these standards are not designed to do that. They’re designed to provide guidance to support organizations and increase their circularity.

Personally, as mentioned previously, I see the European Union as the driver of circular economy policy worldwide. New policy is emerging, and it’s not just policy—it’s regulations. For example, in the textiles and clothing sector, there are likely to be requirements to increase the durability or repairability of your garments, for example, and those regulations will be passed down through the global supply chain.

Suppliers—within and outside of Europe—will have to adapt to that, and organizations in different sectors are going to need to prepare for these regulations. The automotive and electronic sectors are more sensitized to some of these issues because they’ve had different regulations already for several decades. But sectors like clothing, textiles, and furniture haven’t had this sort of preparation. A lot of these issues are going to be entirely new to people; even the language will be new. 

This is where standards can be really useful around shared understanding of terminology. You might have a French government office that is practicing green public procurement, which requests a certain level of recycled content and repairability, in staff uniforms, for example. How do you define recycled content and repairability to keep it consistent? Having a standard that has some sort of definitions will help suppliers—often outside of Europe—to gain clarity on terminology. While the ISO 59000 series is not product-based, it can help companies bring circularity into new and existing business models, processes and operations, and product development, contributing to a broader understanding of the circular economy in the organization.

This story was featured in Circular Economy Magazine:

In a country as beautiful and resource-rich as Canada, it’s easy to think we’ll never run out of land to develop or natural resources to keep us thriving. Not only is this entirely false, but it’s also destructive. Luckily, there is a growing movement to convert waste materials into reusable resources, diverting waste from landfills. 

GRT (Generating Resources for Tomorrow) is setting a new standard in resource management with a regenerative model that can help lead the shift in mining, wastewater, and other industries. By applying a systemic approach to waste and resource challenges, a low-impact solution isn’t just possible, it’s proven. 

As part of this approach, GRT has developed and actively employs a unique tech stack that washes and sorts excess soils to make recycled aggregate rock, sand, and clay, while also treating and recycling the water on-site in a closed-loop system, resulting in positive environmental impacts and providing a pathway for resources to become resources again, rather than waste.

We spoke with Deanna Woods, Director of People and Product Development at GRT, about how this company is proving that excess soil isn’t waste and what we can accomplish when we apply circular thinking to everything—even the dirt beneath our feet.

What inspired your founders to start your organization and engage in developing circular economy processes?

GRT was founded on circular economy principles from the outset. Our founding team was frustrated with the longstanding “dig and dispose” model of excess soil management; new development taking place on a previously used piece of land generates thousands of tonnes of excavation soil that’s often sent to a landfill. Linear approaches like this prioritize short-term convenience at the expense of long-term environmental impacts and system inefficiency. 

We wanted to eliminate the convenience argument altogether by creating a business model that was actually closer to development sites than landfills and quarries, while solving two problems at once: soil disposal and aggregate supply.

Why are resource regeneration facilities and technologies important for advancing the circular economy, and how is your work helping integrate circularity into your industry?

In a country as large as Canada, it’s easy to take space and natural resources for granted. But the assumption that we can always create another landfill, or blast another mountainside for a quarry, is fundamentally unsustainable. 

We were the first in Canada to move decisively in this direction—arguably before it was strictly “necessary,” compared with parts of Europe where land and resource constraints make circular solutions unavoidable. We believed that by demonstrating a viable alternative early, we could help set a new precedent and show that a more circular approach is both practical and scalable in the Canadian and broader North American context.

What do you consider your biggest success in advancing circular economy processes in Canada? Have there been any impacts that surprised you?

Our most tangible success has been the volume of material diverted from landfill—over 400,000 tonnes since our first Resource Regeneration Facility opened in June 2021. Beyond that, what has been most striking is how quickly the market embraced the model. 

As a first mover in an industry that had been operating the same way for decades, we expected more resistance. Instead, there has been strong uptake. We’ve also been surprised and encouraged by the range of applications emerging for our regenerated products: from concrete and construction uses to beach nourishment and habitat projects.

What challenges do you face in advancing the circular economy?

Regulatory frameworks do not always move at the same pace as innovation, which is something we encountered early on. One example is the lack of clear specifications for regenerated aggregate in concrete. While standards exist for recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), current guidelines haven’t yet caught up to materials like ours: clean, sieved sand and gravel sourced from multiple sites. 

These gaps can be challenging, but we see them as opportunities to engage early with regulators, share data, and help inform the evolution of standards that better reflect circular production methods.

Are there any upcoming initiatives or projects you’d like to share?

Research and development are an ongoing focus for us, whether that means expanding the range of materials we can accept or continuing to innovate on the output side. 

We are also in growth mode, with plans to expand our business to the BC Lower Mainland and other strategic locations over the next several years. We’ll be sharing more details as plans progress.

Looking ahead, what are your hopes for the circular economy in Canada over the next decade? How can others contribute?

Our long-term vision is a system where waste is no longer treated as inevitable. At our scale, we’re focused on what’s often considered the most unglamorous material of all—the “dirty dirt” beneath our feet—and demonstrating that it can be regenerated into valuable products that displace virgin materials and keep volume out of landfills. 

If circular solutions are possible for the unwanted soil beneath an abandoned gas station, we believe similar thinking can be applied far more broadly. Progress will depend on willingness from regulators, industry, and communities to rethink entrenched systems and support alternatives that work differently, but better. 

This story was featured in Circular Economy Magazine:

In the face of today’s climate and health crises, coupled with a growing shift toward digitization and AI-driven product discovery, many brands want to take the leap into designing products that are good for people and planet. 

But navigating the switch to circularity is a complicated matter that requires clear, actionable guidance through a strong framework that can verify if they’re hitting the mark or falling short.

We spoke with Elwyn Grainger-Jones, CEO of the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, about how this organization is setting the benchmark for tangible circular integration through its measurable, science-based certification program.

What inspired your founders to start your organization and engage in developing circular economy certifications?

Our organization was born directly from the vision of our co‑founders, William McDonough and Dr. Michael Braungart, who wrote Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, 25 years ago. Their book introduced a transformative approach to designing products for human and environmental health, and it quickly sparked interest from companies eager to apply its principles.

As more organizations asked for practical guidance, the founders recognized the need for a clear, actionable framework. They created a product standard rooted in the ideas of the book, turning a design philosophy into a measurable, science‑based certification. That became the foundation of our work and continues to guide our mission today.

Why are certifications important for advancing the circular economy, and how does your organization help set the standard for integrating circularity?

Certifications turn circularity from ambition into accountable, verifiable performance. As the standard-setting body behind Cradle to Cradle Certified®, we, as the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, helped launch the modern circularity movement, building on the Cradle to Cradle design philosophy that continues to guide industry practice.

We set the benchmark for integrating circularity through rigorous product requirements and third‑party verification, including a Circularity Data Report that makes circular data and cycling instructions transparent and available to all. Safe materials are the foundation of a truly circular economy, which makes verification of material health indispensable. It is simply the only reliable way to ensure non‑toxic substances keep circulating without harm.

To ensure progress, we created a continuous improvement tool and recertification pathway that require companies to demonstrate measurable advancements over time, transforming circular design into a sustained journey rather than a one‑off label.

What do you consider to be your biggest success in advancing circular product development? Can you share any stories of impact your work has had that have surprised you?

Our biggest success has been transforming circularity from a concept into a practical, measurable reality through the Cradle to Cradle Certified® framework. Over the past decade, we have enabled thousands of companies to design products that are healthy, circular, and verified, spanning sectors from textiles and apparel to building materials and electronics. 

What surprises us most is the ripple effect: brands initially seeking compliance often become champions of innovation. For example, partnerships in fashion have led to fibre-to-fibre recycling breakthroughs and trims designed for easy disassembly—solutions that seemed aspirational just a few years ago. Seeing these ideas scale globally, influencing procurement policies, and inspiring entire value chains is proof that rigorous standards can drive systemic change.

What are some of the challenges you typically face working to set the global standard and advance circular product development?

Setting a global standard for circular products is both essential and complex. One major challenge is harmonizing diverse regulatory frameworks and market expectations across regions while maintaining scientific rigour and credibility. 

We also face the tension between ambition and feasibility, pushing innovation without creating barriers for companies at different stages of their sustainability journey. 

Another hurdle is data: ensuring transparency and comparability of circularity metrics requires robust systems and collaboration across supply chains. 

Finally, scaling adoption demands cultural change; moving industries from linear habits to circular thinking takes time, investment, and trust.

What is the role of digitization in the world of certifications, and how is your organization tackling this for the Cradle to Cradle Certified® certification program?

Digitization plays a transformative role in making certifications visible, trusted, and actionable. As product discovery becomes increasingly AI‑driven, there is a major opportunity to embed sustainability intelligence directly into search and purchasing decisions. Early research already shows that independent trust indicators (like third‑party certifications) rank far more prominently in AI‑powered product searches, creating new incentives for companies to improve their product design and transparency.

A good example of this is Amazon’s Climate Pledge Friendly program, which pre‑vets Cradle to Cradle Certified® alongside other selected certifications. By integrating these signals directly into product search results and dedicated category pages, listed items have seen an average 12%+ sales uplift, with some brands experiencing even higher boosts. This demonstrates the power of making credible sustainability information digitally accessible and reinforces why companies are increasingly motivated to redesign products for circularity.

For the Cradle to Cradle Certified® program, we are strengthening our digital foundations so the certification can serve as a reliable, machine‑readable signal in online and AI‑supported environments. At the same time, we are digitizing our entire certification process to reduce duplication, speed up reviews, and make circular product development more accessible for companies and assessors. This ensures that credible circularity signals are not only easier to find but also easier for brands to act upon.

Looking ahead, what are your hopes for the circular economy over the next decade, and how do you envision contributing to this vision? How can other organizations get on board?

According to the Circularity Gap Report 2025, only 6.9% of the global economy is circular, a figure that has remained stubbornly low despite years of awareness‑raising and policy development. Over the next decade, we hope to see circular design become a fundamental expectation in product development. Approaches like Cradle to Cradle Certified® play a key role by offering a clear, science‑based pathway for companies to create products that are made for both people and the planet.

Our contribution is to scale this transition by supporting businesses in developing products that meet these rigorous standards. By 2030, we aim to double the number of healthy and circular products on the market. Our ultimate goal is to make circular design the new normal through transparent criteria, credible verification, and practical support that helps companies turn circularity from a concept into reality. When businesses understand the economic, reputational, and compliance benefits—and have practical tools to act—circularity becomes a strategic advantage rather than a challenge.

This story was featured in Circular Economy Magazine:

All around the world, waste is piling up, and landfills are running low on capacity. Large and growing cities are on track to generate even more waste, unless we undergo a fundamental shift: a society-wide transformation to the circular economy.

We spoke with Meaghan Davis, Manager of Incubation & Design at the City of Toronto, about how the City’s 10-year Road Map for a Circular Toronto is setting out steps for addressing the waste problem and achieving a city-wide transition to a closed-loop system.

What inspired the City of Toronto to adopt the 10-year Road Map for a Circular Toronto?

The City of Toronto’s efforts to develop a Circular Economy Road Map are rooted in the knowledge that Toronto needs a fundamental shift in how we approach the waste problem.

Toronto is one of North America’s fastest-growing cities and the largest city in Canada. Our people and businesses are significant consumers of materials and goods, a majority of which end up in landfills that are running out of capacity. At our current pace, we estimate that the total amount of waste generated in Toronto will increase by another 20% in only five years.

Toronto has made great progress toward reducing waste and increasing diversion of the materials managed through municipal collections. However, Toronto manages less than half of the waste generated in the economy, and years of efforts to increase City diversion have made it clear that the root of the garbage problem lies outside of the waste management sector. It requires a society-wide transformation to a circular economy.  

Toronto’s new 10-year Road Map, Circular Toronto, sets the City on a path to not only tackle the garbage problem but also spark innovation, create jobs, address climate change, and reduce costs related to waste management. 

It was shaped by valuable input from residents, Indigenous Peoples, industry, and peer cities around the world, including London, Glasgow, Rotterdam, and members of the Canadian Circular Cities and Regions Initiative.

Road Map actions can support the City in adapting to trade uncertainties and affordability concerns, with the circular economy offering a framework for enabling supply chains and businesses to become more resilient by decoupling operations from the extraction of natural resources, increasing material security, and reducing exposure to price volatility. 

Beyond supply chain considerations, circular solutions offer a pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cannot be addressed by the renewable energy transition alone, while circular business models can deliver jobs and skills building, innovation, new business partnerships, and pathways for residents to consume more sustainably.

What are the five Strategic Directions of the framework, and why are frameworks important for advancing the circular economy?

The Road Map is organized around five Strategic Directions that provide the framework for implementation:

1. Inviting everyone to participate in Toronto’s circular economy transition
2. Accelerating the growth of Toronto circular businesses
3. Showing the benefits of circularity through City operations
4. Expanding circular opportunities in every Toronto neighbourhood
5. Collaborating with other governments to accelerate circularity

Through this framework, the Road Map will deliver incentives, supports, and programs for residents and businesses that make circular solutions easy and accessible. The City will also lead by example by embedding circular practices into our own operations and addressing barriers to create an environment for businesses and communities to pursue circular innovations.

Frameworks for the circular economy transition are important because society-wide transformations cannot be achieved by governments acting alone. We all have a role to play in building a more resilient, connected, and climate-friendly future. Circular Toronto aims to be a guiding framework for that change.

What do you consider to be your biggest success in developing and launching Toronto’s Circular Economy Road Map? Can you share any stories of impact your work has had that have surprised you?

Toronto has been working on its circular economy transition for many years, and so the process of developing the Road Map included identifying circular initiatives already underway that we can build upon and celebrate. Doing this was a fantastic opportunity to learn not only about the impact of the City’s work but also the incredible creativity, ingenuity, and commitment of circular innovators in Toronto.

The City’s Women4ClimateTO initiative is an excellent example: this program supports women entrepreneurs who are developing bold and innovative climate solutions, including circular products and services. The 2025 pitch competition winner and runners-up were all circular and regenerative businesses whose solutions are driving innovation in circular consumer goods, architecture, and building materials.

Our case studies also highlighted the scale of participation in the sharing economy in our city: for example, on an average day at the Toronto Public Library (TPL), Torontonians borrow nearly 42,000 physical items, including musical instruments and tech kits; almost 34,000 electronic items; and make use of TPL’s technology services nearly 24,000 times, including visits to a Digital Innovation Hub to print, scan, design, and record.

Circular Toronto features several case studies that provide tangible examples of what we mean by circular initiatives, while also highlighting the benefits of circularity. We invite readers to take a look at the strategy and learn about the great work already underway in our city.

What are some of the challenges faced by Toronto in achieving a circular economy? How does the Road Map help address these challenges?

Transitioning to a circular economy requires systems thinking: circularity is a comprehensive, long-term endeavour that benefits from alignment across municipal, provincial, and federal governments to enhance interconnected environmental, social, and economic systems. Building that alignment is a complex challenge, made more difficult today by the myriad economic and social pressures facing our community.

To address this, the Road Map takes a whole-of-city approach, which will also be required for its implementation, mobilizing interdisciplinary expertise and programmatic and policy levers throughout the municipal government.

During the first three years, the City’s focus will be on establishing the groundwork for the circular economy transition, as well as a framework to measure and report on progress. Through early efforts to create an enabling environment for systems change, the City’s goal is to shift from planning and piloting to deep integration in later years of implementation, normalizing circularity, expanding access to its benefits, and scaling up what works across the city.

Are there any upcoming advancements or initiatives to the Circular Economy Road Map you’d like to share?

With the adoption of the Circular Economy Road Map, the City of Toronto was proud to launch a second round of funding for small businesses through the Circular Food Innovators Fund in January 2026. 

This program, first launched in 2024, provides grant funding for reuse system projects that replace single-use and takeaway items. It recognizes that Toronto businesses are key change agents in the circular economy transition. Businesses provide the products, services, and solutions that make it possible for other businesses as well as Toronto consumers to participate in a circular economy. 

The Circular Food Innovators Fund was designed to help de-risk the adoption of circular business models by providing direct financial support to businesses that are ready to lead by example.

In the second round, which had an application deadline of March 1, 2026, grant recipients who have creative ideas to deliver additional activities that will help grow Toronto’s green and circular food economy—and create jobs for the future—may be eligible to access additional Green Workforce Development funding. The City of Toronto will announce the latest cohort of Circular Food Innovators Fund grant recipients in Summer 2026.

Looking ahead, what are your hopes for the circular economy in Toronto over the next decade, and how do you envision contributing to this vision? How can other organizations help?

Toronto faces numerous pressing challenges—from access to affordable housing, nutritious food, and public transit to global trade and geopolitical and climate-related impacts on our broader economy. While circular practices are not a solution to every challenge, they are an important source of innovation, resilience, and resource conservation

Transitioning to a circular economy also offers an opportunity to support reconciliation. The circular economy is a pathway to preserve lands and waters, restore the health of ecosystems, and create regenerative systems for all living things. The City acknowledges that these are values that have been practiced by Indigenous Peoples since time immemorial and that circularity is not a new or Western concept. 

As such, circularity is not only about adopting new practices, it also involves recognizing the importance of ancestral knowledge and Indigenous values, as well as securing the ability for Indigenous Peoples to practice traditions and conserve cultural heritage.

Realizing our vision to become Ontario’s first circular city depends on all of us. This Road Map lays the groundwork, but its success will be shaped by the choices we all make every day. For federal, provincial, and local governments, this can involve working together to create the enabling conditions for businesses, industry, and communities to embark on a circular transition.

Large and small businesses can unlock the potential of circular finance and business models, prioritize innovative design and production, and find new ways to access, use, and reuse materials. Standards authorities can establish circular metrics and indicators to measure progress toward the circular economy. Education and research institutes can drive knowledge creation, innovation, and equip workers with the skills required for a just circular transition. Community organizations can support a more equitable transition through participation in decision-making, and residents can reduce overconsumption and drive demand for circular products and services.

As the City moves from planning to action, everyone must find their place in this transformation.

This story was featured in Circular Economy Magazine: