Waste Is a Design Problem: Insights from the Circular Economy

A/B:Why Circular Design Is the Missing Link in Solving the Global Waste Crisis

Most of us think waste disappears after we toss it. But the real journey of a product, from raw material extraction to recycling, recovery, or landfill, is anything but simple. And that journey determines whether the planet sinks or swims.

This deep dive explores the entire waste management system shown below in the diagram, how global research explains its weaknesses, and why brands like BRiN must design against the problem at the system level.

1. Upstream: Where 80% of Environmental Impact Begins

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 80% of a product’s environmental impact is determined during the design phase (EMF, 2017). This means the materials, structure, and packaging chosen before a product is made set the fate of how recyclable (or wasteful) it will be.

Upstream includes:

• Raw material production
• Manufacturing & packaging
• Brands and distributors
• Consumer use

Why this matters

The upstream stage is the biggest driver of environmental harm.
The OECD’s Global Material Resources Outlook (2019) found that global material use is expected to double by 2060, with waste generation increasing proportionally. Products are becoming more complex and harder to recycle, while single-use consumption keeps climbing.

This is why BRiN makes decisions like:

• using long-life, reusable handles
• designing refillable or replaceable product components
• minimising mixed materials that break recycling systems

Upstream design flaws cannot be “fixed downstream.” Research is crystal clear on this.

2. Use Phase: Consumer Behaviour Still Determines the Outcome

The UNEP Global Waste Management Outlook (2024) highlights a major gap between intention and behaviour: consumers want sustainable choices, but convenience almost always wins.

Studies show:

• 67% of consumers express desire for eco-friendly products, but
• less than 30% consistently choose them when price or convenience conflicts (UNEP, 2022).

This gap reinforces why brands must design systems that reduce friction, like our SeaDifferently Replaceable Head Toothbrush that automatically cuts waste with no extra decision-making from the user.

3. End-of-Life Decision: Reuse, Repair, or Recycle?

When a product reaches its end-of-life, users have three options:

1. Reuse

The highest-impact strategy. Shifting from single-use to reuse systems offers a prime chance to curb plastic pollution. Reuse models could cut annual plastic leakage to oceans by more than 20% by 2040. At scale, they also sharply lower virgin material demand, GHG emissions, and water use.

2. Repair

Repair extends product lifespans and reduces demand for virgin materials. Repair keeps products in use longer and reduces the need for virgin materials. In electronics alone, doubling a device’s lifespan can cut up to 50% of its total emissions, while refurbished units save 57–87% of the carbon footprint of new ones.

3. Recycle

This is where reality hits hard.

The uncomfortable truth:

According to the OECD Global Plastics Outlook (2023):

• Only 9% of global plastics are successfully recycled.
• 19% are incinerated,
• 50% landfilled,
• 22% leak into the environment or are mismanaged.

Products designed with mixed materials, adhesives, or non-standard packaging often can't be processed by existing facilities, even if the consumer tries to recycle them. This is because current facilities rely on mechanical processes like sorting, shredding, and melting that demand uniform composition, and exactly why we avoid unnecessary material mixing and stick to recyclable or reusable formats.

4. Downstream: The Waste System We Expect to Save Us (But Can’t)

Once waste leaves the consumer’s hand, it goes through:

• Collection & transportation
• Sorting at materials recovery facilities (MRFs)
• Recycling, energy recovery, or landfill

The problem:

Most waste systems were built decades ago for basic materials like paper and glass, not the complex products of today.

The World Bank’s “What a Waste 2.0” (2018) report warns:

• Global waste generation will grow by 70% by 2050 from urbanisation and population growth
• Many cities lack the capacity to sort even basic recyclable materials efficiently.

In Southeast Asia, the issue is worse:

• Regional cities face acute shortages in sorting capacity
• The waste management rate in various regions of Indonesia has only reached around 10 percent, with landfills across the country projected to reach maximum capacity by 2030 unless urgent and radical measures are taken 
• Malaysia’s national recycling rate has increased to 37.9% in 2024 from 35.38% in 2023, but a significant portion of recyclable material still ends up in landfills, hampered by contamination and inadequate MRFs
• Contamination and improper sorting remain major barriers

Even well-designed products fail if downstream infrastructure can’t handle them.

5. EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility): Making Brands Legally Accountable

EPR is now a rapidly expanding policy tool that shifts waste management costs from governments and taxpayers to product manufacturers, importers, and brand owners, making them legally accountable for their items' end-of-life handling.

EPR requires producers to fund:

• waste collection systems
• sorting and recycling infrastructure
• packaging recovery
• public education programs

The OECD’s EPR Policy Review (2021) found that EPR schemes:

• increase recycling rates by 10–25 percentage points,
• reduce landfill dependency,
• push companies to redesign packaging.

More than 400 EPR laws now exist globally, including packaging EPR frameworks emerging in Southeast Asia.

BRiN’s design philosophy aligns with EPR principles before laws force it—because reducing waste upstream is the most effective impact area.

6. Circularity: The End Goal (And the Only Sustainable Path Forward)

Circularity means keeping materials in the loop—and out of landfills—for as long as possible.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation defines a circular economy as one that:

1. Eliminates waste and pollution
2. Circulates products and materials at their highest value
3. Regenerates natural systems

Research consistently shows circular design creates the biggest environmental wins.

Key findings:

• Switching to circular models could reduce global CO₂ emissions by 9.3 billion tons per year (Circle Economy Circularity Gap Report, 2023).
• Reusable packaging can be 50–85% lower in carbon footprint versus single-use (EMF, 2023).
• Material-efficient product redesign could save industries $4.5 trillion by 2030 (Accenture Strategy, 2015).

BRiN’s approach—designing durable, reusable, refillable essentials—is directly in line with this evidence.

So What Does All This Tell Us?

The entire diagram boils down to a single truth supported by decades of research:

We cannot recycle our way out of the waste crisis. We have to design our way out.

Upstream design decisions have the largest environmental impact, and circular models have the highest potential for meaningful change.

BRiN’s design philosophy—long-life handles, refill formats, minimal mixed materials—fits directly into what research says will actually move the needle.

It’s not about being trendy.
It’s not about green marketing.
It’s about building products that make sense in the real world waste ecosystem.