Evidenced endings. The Challenge of Measuring Circular Endings in a Linear World
A fundamental part of selling any product or service is clear communication between buyer and seller. Shared understanding of terms, objectives, values, and duration is critical. In well-established industries with deeply rooted business norms, this is relatively straightforward. The dominant mindset follows a cradle-to-grave approach—design, manufacture, sell, use, discard.
Our business language and culture reflect this linear approach. We’re fluent in discussing the creation, marketing, and consumption of products. The entire system is designed around these steps, reinforcing our understanding of business “success”.
When I worked at a design agency, we sold our expertise to clients, listening to their problems and proposing solutions. Once the new product or service launched, we could immediately gauge success. If it was digital, we had access to detailed user interaction data—real-time feedback on engagement, usability, and effectiveness. This immediate feedback loop allowed for quick iterations and improvements.
But what happens when success isn’t immediate? What if the impact of a business decision unfolds over years or even decades? This is the reality of circularity.
To prove a product is truly circular, it must complete at least one full cycle. That requires collecting data from every phase—from production to reuse or recycling. However, the slow pace of many product life cycles makes this difficult. A car, for example, might take three decades to complete its cycle. Even fast-moving consumer goods, like beauty products, take months. By the time a cycle is complete, the initial data collection may be outdated or lost entirely.
Another major hurdle is the disconnect between producer and consumer at a product’s end-of-life. Unlike digital products, where user interactions are meticulously tracked, physical goods often disappear into an opaque waste system. Companies make assumptions about where products end up, and real evidence is scarce.
In a recent episode of the Talking Rubbish podcast, Alice Rackley, CEO of Polytag, plastic recycling with UV watermark technology, described how the lack of data collected from the waste stream stops brands having tangible knowledge. Bringing in to question evidence for their green promises. Brands would love to really know where their products end up. They just don’t have the data.
As a result a lot of the certification awarded to companies covers material capability (it could be recycled), sourcing (it was recycled once) and energy efficiencies (we don’t use as much oil as we used to). Good data that proves actual end of life is rare.
Waste streams lack transparency. Data on product disposal and material recovery is minimal, fragmented, and unreliable. Many waste batches are shipped overseas, outside local and even national oversight. Once dismantled and processed, materials become nearly untraceable.
The result? A critical gap in evidence. Companies trying to design for circularity are operating in the dark when it comes to end-of-life outcomes. Without robust data, proving circular success remains elusive.
If the circular economy is to be truly realised, we need better tracking, standardised data collection, and stronger producer-consumer connections. Until then, the promise of circularity will still have an end gap of data.
