Green finance – investing sustainably

Image credit: Joshua Mayo

From green bonds to sustainable banks, a quiet revolution is changing the way money flows. Green financing is no longer a niche concept, but it is developing into a central pillar of global economic policy and corporate strategy worldwide.

With burgeoning climate and other environmental issues, there is a strong possibility that green finance activities and products will increasingly become a necessary part of individual, organizational, corporate and government strategy.

Green finance is a structured financial activity that ensures a better environmental outcome.  It goes hand in hand with sustainable financing which integrates environmental, social and governance factors into investment decisions to promote long-term economic growth, social outcomes and environmental sustainability.

Green finance encompasses a range of investment instruments offered by financial institutions, including green bonds, green loans and ethical equity funds that collectively support projects that promote environmental sustainability and social outcomes.

Green bonds

Green bonds are one of the most used instruments. These are fixed-income investments that are used to finance environmentally beneficial projects. In 2024 Australia issued the first green bond worth $7billion. It supports projects aimed at mitigating climate change, adapting to its impacts and improving environmental outcomes. While Australia’s green bound market is still developing, the European Union demonstrates a more advanced model of green finance. By the end of 2023, the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) had issued 197 billion under its Green Bond Program – a figure much higher than that of Australia’s entire green bond market.

Green Loans

Green loans support investments in areas such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, pollution reduction, sustainable agriculture and clean transportation. An investor might receive a discount on the loan’s interest rate, relative to the lender’s standard product. There are different types of loans: 

• Green mortgages are available for the purchase of green homes or renovations to satisfy green criteria such as solar systems.

• Green automotive loans are available for the purchase of new green vehicles.

• Green personal loans fund improvements to the energy efficiency of a home.

Global sustainable loan issuance slowed in the first half of 2025, falling to US$206 billion, down 21% from US$261 billion in the same period in 2024. Green loans still accounted for 48% of the total. In Australia, the green loan market remains relatively small at around US$9 billion.

Ethical Equity Funds

While green loans offer direct financing, ethical equity funds enable investors to participate in the growth of companies in the form of shares that prioritize sustainability and responsible behavior. In Australia prominent providers of sustainable and ethical Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) are Betashares, Australia Ethical and VanEck. According to the UN the global market value of sustainable funds amounted to $3.2 trillion in 2024. This represents an increase of 8 % over the previous year and demonstrates a clear growth potential.

The growing popularity of ethical equity funds reflect a broader trend: investors are motivated not only by financial returns but also by the desire to contribute to positive social outcomes. For clients, investing in or borrowing from socially responsible institutions can be highly appealing. It creates a sense of alignment between financial decisions and personal values – a psychological incentive as much as an economic one. However, this dynamic also carries risks. How can investors be certain that the funded projects will deliver the expected returns or social impact?

The renewable energy industry provides a telling example: while it promises sustainability and growth, it is also subject to technological uncertainty, policy shifts, and fluctuating market demand - making it riskier to invest.  These sector-specific risks highlight some broader challenges that green finance faces across industries.

Greenwashing in finance

Greenwashing occurs when companies sell their products with false or misleading claims about the sustainability benefits to boost their sales.  Michelin’s Indonesian rubber operations provide a prime example of greenwashing: despite promoting “zero deforestation” and issuing green bonds for sustainable projects, deforestation occurred, and investor are questioning whether the promised environmental claims were realistic. Another example of green washing is Fiagro, a financial instrument created by the Brazilian parliament to attract private investment into agribusiness. While promoted as sustainable, some Fiagro-funded projects have been associated with illegal deforestation, cattle farming in embargoed areas, and the expulsion of Indigenous people from their territories, showing how the green label can mask environmental and social harm.  Where misconduct has no consequences, green sacrifice zones arise – areas where environmental harm is tolerated in the name of advancing “green” goals. In practice, green finance often sustains business as usual, focusing on superficial solutions rather than tackling the systematic drivers of environmental crises.

To avoid greenwashing financial institutions and investors should look for third-party verification. This year the Australian government has introduced the Australian Finance Taxonomy – a classification system designed to define and categorize economic activities based on their environmental and social sustainability. This taxonomy enables to compare investment products, thereby strengthening investor confidence in claims and mitigating greenwashing. In fact, it builds and expands on the EU taxonomy’s approach while covering key sectors including green mining, metals, minerals and agriculture and has an explicit focus on credible transition activities. It is also the world’s first taxonomy to set out expectations for collaboration with First Nations peoples and the management of cultural heritage.  At the global level, the UN has established a high-level expert group to develop stronger and clearer standards for net-zero emissions pledges by companies, financial institutions and regions, and to accelerate their implementation.

Financial Institutions Incapability

Many banks and lenders lack the expertise, risk assessment tools, and long-term financing structures needed for green projects, as green finance is more technically demanding than conventional financing. Bankers often struggle to navigate the taxonomy of green finance terminology, and the operational capacity of the financial institutions frequently falls short of the high demand from green industry players craving credit assistance to green financing their projects.

Political and Regulatory Uncertainty in European Green Finance

In Europe, the political landscape has shifted from relative stability to a more volatile state. Rising military spending is placing additional pressure on the continent’s financial agenda, including green finance. The increase in defense spending raises questions about the future availability of resources for climate-related initiatives, creating uncertainty for investors.

At the same time, there are signs of a possible rollback of sustainability regulations. While the EU remains committed to its environmental objectives, recent regulatory changes- including the European Commission’s proposal to ease corporate sustainability reporting - have generated uncertainty. Critics argue that reducing reporting requirements by 25% risks undermining corporate accountability and investor confidence in ESG commitments. Nevertheless, ESG investments continue to grow in the EU, reflecting a sustained market’s ongoing interest in sustainable finance despite these challenges.

To wrap up green finance is a financial instrument designed to support environmentally friendly projects. While green finance faces significant risks and uncertainties, emerging regulatory frameworks and guidance from international organizations such as the Australian Finance Taxonomy and the UN expert group, offer important tools to enhance transparency, accountability, and investor confidence.

With all the risks and uncertainties of green finance, the new Australian Finance Taxonomy and the UN’S expert group help to mitigate these risks.

You have choices in how to invest, but only one planet. Green finance, if conducted the right way for the right reasons can provide the opportunity to make a difference.

Article by Jule Veith

BRICS’ COP30 climate goals could scale up global sustainable fashion

Image credit: Mathias Reding

The fashion industry is responsible for about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions according to the United Nations. At its current trajectory, the industry’s emissions could rise to 26% or a quarter of the world's carbon budget by 2050. Deemed one of the most polluting industries in the world, it uses 342 million barrels of oil (fossil fuels) to make synthetic textiles. It produces greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to around 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 each year – more than shipping and aviation combined. Despite fashion’s contribution to climate issues, it’s not always included in top level climate discussions.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s 30th annual Conference of Parties aka COP30, is the world’s largest and most important annual climate conference with nearly 200 nations is running from November 10 to 21, 2025. The host country, Brazil, insisted that this year’s summit must lead to ‘implementation’, calling it “the COP of implementation”. In addition to setting this year’s COP30 agenda, Brazil also holds the current presidency of BRICS countries- the economic and political trade cooperation bloc made up of ten emerging economies. The COP30 agenda is structured around several themes, three of which relate more closely with fashion emissions:

Transitioning energy and industry is about transitioning away from fossil fuels towards clean energy sources. The connection with the fashion industry relates to the reliance on fossil fuels for the production of synthetic textiles such as polyester being a significant driver of climate change.

Stewarding forests, oceans, and biodiversity focuses on protecting ecosystems, ending deforestation and acknowledging the role of these areas in climate regulation. The fashion industry is a culprit here because it relies on these ecosystems for raw materials and water, yet its practices such as deforestation, pollution, and resource-intensive production severely damage them. This creates a cycle of degradation, biodiversity loss and destruction of ecosystems, which undermines the very natural resources it depends on and exacerbates climate change.

Unleashing enablers and accelerators, including finance, technology and capacity building covers guidelines of climate action, such as mobilising climate finance, developing and deploying technology and building capacity. This can provide a framework for the fashion industry to minimise its greenhouse gas emissions, aligning with goals such as those of set by the UN Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action and the Paris Agreement.

Image credit: Marcus Loke

Australia’s fashion overconsumption and COP30 commitment

In regards to fashion and emissions, Australia is one of the biggest consumers of fashion and most wasteful in the world per capita. Australia is also in attendance at COP30 and has committed to Brazil’s leadership in the COP30 agenda which addresses some fashion-related climate issues:    

• deliver the clean energy transition

• further reduce global emissions

• strengthen adaptation efforts

• mobilise resources for climate finance

• unlock investment in clean energy solutions for Australia and our region. 

BRICS green manufacturing agenda can provide a framework for the sustainable development of Australia and the global textiles & fashion sector.

BRICS’ sustainable governance declaration

In July 2025, BRICS’ ten-member states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Egypt and Iran) held a meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The bloc’s meeting reaffirmed their commitment to the objectives of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement in tackling climate change and mitigating, adapting and providing the means of implementation to developing countries. In Rio de Janeiro, the bloc produced a declaration, ‘Strengthening Global South Cooperation for a More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance’ also known as BRICS Leaders Declaration detailing a set of climate policies specifically targeted at the negotiations at COP30 in the city of Belem, in Brazil in November 2025. These policies of climate finance, carbon accounting, energy transition and a multilateral sustainability platform are additionally suitable for addressing fashion’s emissions and pollution problems.

In a statement addressing Brazil’s COP30-BRICS climate convergence, the Interim Executive Director, World Resources Institute, Brazil Mirela Sandrini said “Brazil deserves credit for bringing the BRICS together behind a more assertive vision for climate action. Brazil is deftly weaving climate diplomacy into the fabric of broader global agendas – from its G20 Presidency to BRICS and soon the COP30 summit.  This integrated approach helps reduce fragmentation across international fora and positions climate policy as a cornerstone of global economic and financial reform – driving the inclusive, green growth the world urgently needs.”   

BRICS to COP30 climate policies (à la fashion)

Climate finance

Strengthening climate finance, increased climate lending and deeper green bond markets are one of the BRICS’ climate policy asks. The BRICS declaration emphasised “ensuring accessible, timely and affordable climate finance for developing countries is critical for enabling just transitions pathways that combine climate action with sustainable development.” This means advancing the existing responsibility of mobilising and providing resources from developed countries towards developing countries under the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement.

The declaration includes the objective to strengthen pathways and mechanisms that involve and incentivise private sector climate finance & investment efforts and complement public finance flows to this mission.

It’s assumed that the declaration’s climate policy is reinforcing the agreement created at COP29 in 2024 for a new climate finance goal, New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). This was designed to provide USD $300 billion annually by 2035 to developing countries with a bigger target for all actors both in public and private sectors to mobilise a minimum of USD $1.3 trillion by 2035; far closer to the amount developing countries need for the mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage.    

Climate finance stems from wealthier nations historically contributing far more to climate change. Critics such as Oxfam have raised concerns that the mix of private investment and loans under climate finance could lead to more debt for vulnerable developing nations rather providing fair and equitable financial climate support.

The July BRICS declaration addresses debt around international financial cooperation, saying “High interest rates and tighter financing conditions worsen debt vulnerabilities in many countries. We believe it is necessary to address the international debt properly and in a holistic manner to support economic recovery and sustainable development….”

If implemented correctly, there are a plethora of ways that climate finance can be useful in salvaging the environment from fashion’s harmful operations. According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), every year, as many as 4 million tonnes of used textiles are shipped across the planet from North to South. Around 40% of imported clothing bundles are unsellable, unusable and unwearable according to Greenpeace. They are immediately destined for landfill, incineration or end up polluting beaches and waterways. Climate finance could mitigate a significant amount of the environmental impact of this waste stream.

Energy Transitions – Reaching adequate, predictable and accessible low-cost and concessional finance to bridge the funding gap for energy transitions is one of the bloc’s summit priorities. As manufacturing is a major and fundamental aspect of fashion production, the industry’s sustainability can benefit significantly from finance for energy transitions.

Carbon accounting

The declaration pushes for a mutually recognised system, methodologies and standard for assessing greenhouse gas emissions for a more balanced international approach by manifesting the BRICS Principles for Fair, Inclusive, and Transparent Carbon Accounting. It focuses on creating carbon accounting standards for product and facility footprints that consider diverse circumstances of different nations. The standard most used in the fashion industry for carbon accounting is potentially the ISO 14067 which provides a framework for only calculating a product's carbon footprint through a "cradle-to-grave" lifecycle assessment (LCA) but does not include the facility’s footprint, nor associated circumstances.  

Multilateral climate, sustainability & trade platform

The BRICS Laboratory for Trade, Climate Change and Sustainable Development is a platform for collaborating on mutually supportive approaches to trade and environmental policy. It enables BRICS members to not only benefit from trade but also collectively respond to unilateral measures and contribute to global efforts in addressing environmental challenges.

This can serve as a model for a new unified international fashion platform or for existing organisations, such as the UN Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, to either step up or create a coordinated agenda of environmental policy, legislation, sustainable trade and global best practice principles. Different countries have been passing various forms of legislation, creating policies and programs for trade to combat the harm done by the fashion industry. It could be highly effective to have a global sustainable fashion platform.

As COP30 has been designated the ‘COP of implementation’ along with the BRICS declaration climate policies for the climate summit, fashion might be able to adopt these measures to advance positive climate and environmental outcomes.

Article by Nina Gbor

Shein opens its first permanent store in Paris

Photo by Alexi Romano

Shein, the online ultra-fast fashion app store is launching its first permanent bricks-and-mortar store in the world in Paris of all places. The store will be on the sixth floor of Paris’s prestigious BHV department store, a historic building that's been located across from Paris’s city hall since 1856.

Shein has about 23 million customers in France, one of its biggest European markets. Yet, there have been protests, political anger and fury from BHV workers who staged protests and strikes over concerns that Shein's store will damage Paris city’s progressive image.

It feels like this move might be Shein’s attempt to camouflage into France's prestigious, legacy fashion space which can potentially boost the brand's reputation. Otherwise, it could represent a slap in the face on France because this year, France has been ‘punching Shein in the gut’ with policies and fines.

In several moves to protect France's legacy fashion industry, France's economic contribution from their fashion industry and the environment. These hardcore laws and fines were aimed at ultra-fast fashion brands but Shein has been hit the hardest. Here's the list of legislation and fines:

1. France introduced a new law targeting ultra-fast fashion brands like Shein and Temu with an eco-tax, an advertising ban, and an environmental impact labeling requirement. The progressive tax on ultra-fast fashion, starts at €5 per item and rises to €10 by 2030. The ban on promoting ultra-fast fashion also includes social media.

2. France fined Shein €40 million in July 2025 for deceptive commercial practices, such as misleading consumers with false price reductions and environmental claims.

3. France's data protection authority (CNIL) also fined Shein €150 million in early September 2025 for violations related to digital data tracking, specifically its website cookies. The fine was for failing to obtain proper user consent before tracking, not properly informing users about cookies, and making it difficult for users to opt-out.

With Shein's current valuation being around $30 billion, they can afford to be agile and hit France with what's allegedly a power move like this new boutique in France's fashion capital, Paris. It feels like a message.

Let me know what you think of Shein's chess move. Will it be profitable for them? Will Parisians boycott or shop at Shein de Paris? Do you think Shein will go on to open more stores in France? What do you think France will do next?

Article by Nina Gbor

Threads of Power: What BRICS’ Green Manufacturing Could Mean for Australia’s Fashion Future

Image by Gordon Johnson

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent White House visit brought focus on AUKUS, rare earth minerals, tariffs and trade. With economic resilience and productivity on the list of priorities of the Australian government, trade has become a more critical factor. In this era full of environmental crises, sustainability is an unavoidable element in global trade. As attention turns from the recently concluded meeting in Washington’s corridors of power, another trade bloc—BRICS nations have been quietly weaving sustainability into their industrial fabric.

Understanding BRICS and its Impact

BRICS is a group of major emerging economies that work together to bolster their economic and political interests on the global stage. It fosters social cooperation amongst its members and global South countries. It began more officially in 2009 and has ten full member states including Brazil, Russia, India, and China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia.

The BRICS bloc has been depicted as the fastest-growing states, projected to collectively dominate the global economy by 2050. In 2024, BRICS accounted for 40% of the global economy (measured by PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) according to IMF data.  Collectively its member states and partner states (an additional ten states) currently represent about 56% of the world population or 4.45 billion of the population and 44% of global GDP (PPP).

The BRICS presidency rotates annually. The country that holds the presidency for the year defines the agenda and organises the annual summit. Brazil assumed current the presidency on January 1, 2025.

BRICS’ green manufacturing, climate, sustainability & circularity strategy

With a decisive position on climate issues, sustainability and circularity, BRICS has advanced an environmental agenda that moves the bloc from an economic and geopolitical force to a heavyweight in global sustainability governance. The BRICS climate convergence is even projected to influence and shape COP30 negotiations in Brazil in November 2025.    

In April 2025, BRICS Industry Ministers in a meeting approved a Joint Declaration to reinforce their commitment to sustainable development- create jobs and address climate change in alignment with green manufacturing. The declaration emphasised energy efficiency, eliminating environmental pollutants, collective leadership for climate action and of course, green industrial development.

The bloc’s environmental agenda includes the circular economy and integrated waste management as a way to reduce plastic and promote recycling, along with circular principles of eco-design and responsible consumption. The declaration enforced BRICS’ stance on promoting resilient and inclusive supply chains, and aligning economic growth with developing sustainable value chains.  In alignment with green manufacturing, they identified tools for productive transformation of some of the core components of BRICS economies such as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

BRICS’ members leading global textile trade

Two BRICS members, China and India, are some of the world’s biggest textile manufacturers and exporters. From raw materials to fabrics used for different purposes such as engineering, furniture, garments and car seats, the global textile industry is one of the largest sectors in international trade. It generates billions of dollars annually and supplies nearly every market across the globe. For instance, China’s textile and garment exports totaled an estimated USD $301B in 2024. While India’s textile market is worth USD $174B and expected to reach USD $350B by 2030.

Image by Michal Jarmoluk 

Australia’s current textile industry position

As some BRICS countries are advancing their textiles industries while potentially increasing green manufacturing, Australia remains tethered to fast fashion imports. 1.5 billion new garments were imported into Australia in 2024 with Australians spending AUD $9.6B on clothing. An estimated $2.3B in ultra-fast fashion sales from just two companies occurred last year. Only about 3% of clothing is made in Australia.

All of this overconsumption makes Australia one of the biggest consumers of clothing & fashion in the world per capita. Fashion & textiles is one of the most polluting industries in the world and a contributor to the climate crisis with approximately 1.2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year globally. The industry is associated with enormous environmental degradation such as excessive landfill waste, vast ocean and microplastic pollution and biodiversity loss. Every second, one garbage truck of clothing is either sent to landfill or incinerated in the world. In Australia, over 300,000 tonnes of clothing is discarded each year.

Opportunity for a thriving sector

BRICS nations have inclined towards reshaping global textile production with increased green manufacturing incentives, signalling shifts Australia cannot ignore. The issue isn’t about joining BRICS, but about learning from their sustainability-driven growth models to strengthen Australia’s domestic textiles and fashion industry.

Australia’s fast-fashion trendmill — cheap imports, high waste — may seem disconnected from high-level diplomacy of Prime Minister Albanese’s White House visit, yet the timing aligns neatly with their talks on trade. Clothing and textiles are ubiquitous to the global population. And in an era of climate emergencies, sustainability is more needed than ever. There lies a broader opportunity for Australia to pivot toward value-added industries like sustainable fashion & textiles rather than simply being an importer of low-quality clothing.

By investing in sustainable, circular and ethical fashion, Australia can boost industry productivity, economic resilience, environmental credibility and gain global recognition. And furthermore, industry best practice & modelling for the development of other weaker and wasteful sectors. This could bode well for the government’s Future Made in Australia agenda.

Like BRICS, Australia can adopt a green manufacturing strategy while also strengthening the growth of local, innovative SMEs. For Australian policymakers, the challenge is clear: can Australia transform its clothing economy before the world’s new economic bloc rewrites the rules of trade and innovation?

The deepening Australia–U.S. economic relationship offers a window for policymakers to promote domestic manufacturing of sustainable apparel, unlocking jobs, export potential and recognition. By referencing the U.S. alliance context, Australian decision-makers can see sustainable fashion not just as fashion frivolity but as strategy aligned with national economic & trade interests. The message: in an era of shifting global supply chains (BRICS, minerals, trade blocs), Australia’s moment to rethink its clothing economy is now — and the White House rendezvous highlights that global-economic context.

To initiate a solid foundation for a thriving, longstanding sustainable textiles industry, this petition contains many of the fundamental policies required to establish a thriving domestic and global sector.

Article by Nina Gbor

Personal Perspective: Bridging Fashion, Policy, and Global Development

This topic converges a background in international development with extensive experience in textiles, fashion, and politics across the global North and South. It is further informed by a lifelong career in sustainable fashion, circular economy research, policy, and advocacy within the global political economy. By examining BRICS’ role in green manufacturing and climate finance, Australia can assess its own path towards sustainability and innovation in the fashion industry.

Built to Break: Making a Circular Economy Calls for Repair Economics

Photo by Bulat369

When your toaster breaks, you probably go out to buy a new one. It’s easier, cheaper, and usually the only option. Replacing your toaster contributes 18 kilograms of CO2 to the atmosphere. 

When your jeans develop a hole, you go and buy a new pair. You probably are not patching them yourself. According to a lifecycle assessment by the United Nations Environmental Programme, this single pair of denim contributes 33.4 kilograms of carbon equivalent to the atmosphere. Making this new pair of jeans uses 3,718 litres of water. 

Emma Rahmani (Corelens)

Looking beyond toasters, Australia generated 511,000 tonnes of e-waste in 2019, of which the majority is not recovered. Including all waste types, Australia generated an estimated 75.6 million tonnes (Mt) of waste in the 2022-2023 fiscal year.. In 2018, the United States sent 37,410,000 tonnes of durable goods, products with a lifetime of three years or more, to the landfill. 

These numbers are not to shame the urge to remain stylish or guilt for wanting toasted bread, but to show how things are and raise the question of how things could be. Instead of tossing and replacing these toasters and jeans, a circular economy with a focus on repair and reuse offers us the opportunity to extend the lifecycle of our items.  

The habit of throwing away and replacing our stuff represents our present linear economy. This capitalist model rewards companies building items designed to fail, leading to companies favoring profit over people, planet, and progress. This is a concept called planned obsolescence. These products with a designed and predetermined lifespan include electronic devices, cellphones, appliances, toys, books, furniture, clothing, and nearly every manufactured product. No matter how well you take care of an item, it is built with a limited lifespan and designed to fail. 

Shorter buy-again windows mean companies are selling the same product more frequently to repeat customers, increasing yearly profits. When products are cheaper to replace than they are to repair, it is a no-brainer why people choose to simply buy the product again. 

Apple is an example of a company that sees record sales as a result of its planned obsolescence in its iPad, iPhone, and Mac products. As highlighted in multiple lawsuits and federal hearings in the United States, Apple has acknowledged that it builds devices with deteriorating battery lives, meaning consumers will have to either struggle with their old model or pay to upgrade after just a few years. 

Not limited to Apple or even cellphones, the furniture giant Ikea has committed to reforming its entire value chain following a long history of environmental and quality complaints around products that uphold the definition of planned obsolescence. This intentional design failure is embedded in nearly all products, and it is catastrophic for the Earth.

Source: Amadori, F. B., Felta, L., Fernandez, A. R., Simeoni, F., & Vehanen, T. (2020, September 28). Planned Obsolescence and the Lifespan of Electronics. Infragraphy. https://blogs.aalto.fi/mediainfrastructures/2020/09/28/planned-obsolescence-and-the-lifespan-of-electronics/

The solution to this model is to bend the line into a circle, creating a circular economy. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation defines the circular economy as a system in which materials never become waste, and there is a greater emphasis placed on regenerating nature. In this circular system, products and materials are not sent to landfill, and instead remain in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting. 

The circular economy’s core pillars are circular design, reuse of materials, and regeneration. Focusing on circular design means that products are built for repair, reuse, repurposing, and remanufacturing. Repair is the antidote to the waste crisis created by planned obsolescence. In challenging companies’ overproduction practices, we create better products, greatly reducing new manufacturing. In tandem, repair becomes cheaper, easier, and more accessible

Source: van Ewijk, S., & Stegemann, J. (2023). THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY. In An Introduction to Waste Management and Circular Economy (pp. 306–348). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.4350575.17

Repair is one of the most crucial aspects of the circular economy that receives the least amount of utilisation. A repair economy helps to bend the line by reducing new manufacturing and extending the lifespan of products. There is power in repurposing and repairing an item, and it also makes a consumer’s connection to their stuff more personal, further enhancing the desire to repair rather than replace. 

A focus on repair also means slower depletion of natural resources, less biodiversity loss, smaller quantities of pollution, and even the potential for natural areas to regenerate. When a landfill is filled, it contaminates nearby soil and water, leaches into the local environment, disrupts avian migration patterns, poses a significant threat to both physical and environmental health when toxic materials are not properly disposed of, and has a laundry list of other negative impacts. Slowing the rate of waste sent to landfills means fewer raw materials are taken from our natural world, and the negative impacts of landfills are reduced. 

The environmental benefits of repair quickly stack. If one-fifteenth of American households were to extend the expected 15-year lifespan of their refrigerators by only one year with stronger repair infrastructure, some 2.95 million tonnes of CO2 would be spared from entering the atmosphere. This is the amount of emissions released by the entire New York City urban area, 790 square km and over eight million people, in just about 6 days. The environmental cost to manufacture one refrigeration unit is around 350 kg of CO2. Reducing emissions is not controlled by an on or off switch, but we create wins by tackling small victories at once. 

The biggest struggle of the repair movement is cost and convenience. Currently, LG Electronics’ Flat-Rate Repair Program for a refrigerator starts at USD 399, while a new 420L bottom freezer and fridge costs USD 891. When a product needs repair, consumers begin to see the end of its life. With the repair cost being just under half the cost of a new refrigerator unit, it often makes replacing more appealing or logical than repairing the unit. Additionally, it is simply easier and more convenient to replace a product than to find a qualified and available repairperson. 

Repair has monumental potential, but policy failure challenges its success. In many places, a personal or professional attempt at repair often voids a product's warranty, if it has one. In response to corporate hostility against repairs, the right to repair movement has emerged across the world, aiming to pass legislation that protects consumers as they seek out repairs and enforces cooperation from firms in making these repairs successful. 

Photo by KC Shum

Many nations, like the United States, do not have a nationwide right to repair law. The United Kingdom and Australia have selective right-to-repair legislation, largely limited to motor vehicles, failing to include household electronics or clothing. Australia’s restrictive right to repair legislation is limited to the automotive industry and requires vehicle service and repair information to be available for purchase at a fair market price. Although not progressive enough, if it can be done for automobiles, the same legislation can be used as a model in other repairable industries. 

In 2024, the European Union finally passed a largely encompassing Right to Repair legislation, providing increased protection and resources for consumers to opt to repair instead of being forced to replace. The legislation requires manufacturers to provide repair information, supply spare parts at reasonable cost, and repair products, even if a company’s warranty has lapsed for the product.

France was the first country to pass Extended Producer Responsibility legislation applicable to clothes and textiles. This legislation requires companies subject to the law to finance the management and prevention of the end-of-life of products that they put on the market. Made possible through an “eco-tax,” France’s partner in EPR uses this tax for collection, sorting, treatment management, eco-modulations, a repair fund, and a reuse fund. This tax and legislation limit the landfill impact of textiles and clothing. This repair fund sets aside €154 million between 2023 and 2028, allowing consumers who visit a participating repair shop to claim back between €6 and €25 towards the cost of their repairs. France’s progressive repair legislation sets the standard for other national repair laws and demonstrates that advocacy for repair legislation works.

With intensifying climate regulations coupled with right-to-repair movements, companies must take accountability for their role in creating waste while finding ways of making profits as they transition to circular business. By designing quality products with repair in mind, businesses can offer services for their products and diversify revenue streams. Additionally, companies can begin to design platforms and spaces where consumers can resell their products. 

In 2012, Patagonia began solving this repair puzzle through its Worn Wear program, and also powers iFixit to educate consumers on at-home repairs and product care. A commitment to repair and high-quality products has given Patagonia a committed consumer base who are willing to pay more for this service and their products.  

Photo by Luba Glazunova

Nudie Jeans is another company that wins consumers with a lifetime guarantee of free repairs. The denim company understands its products will not last forever, regardless of how well its jeans are made. They meet consumers' needs and offer free repairs, so the life of the garment is extended by years. 

It will take some time to create a system that’s more circular. It is challenging to know where to begin with such an enormous issue; however, we can start by supporting local craftspeople. Find a local seamstress to patch your jeans, discover a local repairsperson to take a crack at your toaster. Save the atmosphere from the carbon emissions and minimise waste to landfill by repairing products when possible instead of replacing them. 

Make circular actions a regular part of your lifestyle. Swap or trade items with your friends. When possible, purchase the variety of products you use from second-hand stores. Visit repair cafes, repair shops, join or host mending circles, and host and attend swaps. These choices are not just environmental: they are community and financial investments. Each of these solutions bring us a little closer to a more circular society. 

To more fully bend the linear economy into a circle, we need systems change via policy and legislation. This means, for example, campaigning for laws that eliminate planned obsolescence, right-to-repair policies, product repair schemes and rebates. Similar legislation can be created for other circular solutions. We can bring this system into effect by contacting our local and federal representatives to push these issues forward and request change. Share information about these issues to your groups, communities and neighbourhoods while encouraging advocacy actions to support systems change. This way, we will have as many people as possible coming together to form a circle. 

Article by Tyler Branigan. Tyler has a passion for sustainable solutions and circular economics.