Fourth entry in the micro series of posts in which we discuss different business models for the circular economy. On this occasion, we will talk about regenerating the cycle.
There are different ways to approach the circular economy, reflected in different business models that offer different impacts on profits and sustainability. These solutions are important because the current economy is detrimental to the planet.
The circular economy aims to reduce waste and resource use by considering every aspect of a product’s life cycle. Circular business models attempt to find economically viable ways to continually reuse products and materials, incorporating renewable resources wherever possible.
Regenerating the cycle
Regeneration seeks ways to restore or revive the original resource: the natural environment. Companies use positive strategies to improve the environment they have affected, probably through soil reclamation. They also try to eliminate toxic substances in production.
Regenerative business models are still emerging. They seek to bring value to human and non-human stakeholders through equity, partnerships with nature and leadership aligned with these principles. For example, Danone supports regenerative agriculture among its farmers by providing them with grants and guidance.
Advantages and disadvantages of regenerating the cycle
Regeneration makes environmental sense. It is difficult to argue with environmental restoration.
Does it make economic sense? At the most basic level, we cannot talk business on a dead planet. Regeneration can have reputational benefits, creating goodwill among customers, communities and NGOs. These stakeholder relationships have a real economic impact.
On the other hand, there can also be direct economic benefits. For example, Unilever has achieved higher quality soil and more pollinators through its regenerative agriculture projects. But achieving higher yields and higher profits comes at a cost in the form of time.
Photo credit: PM
