Hypotheses
During the workshops, all 11 foresight files were presented to the members of the group, who were able to comment on them and add to them. Working from the material in the files, hypotheses on how the macro-variables might evolve were built collectively, distinguishing between:
- Trend-based hypotheses: which relate to dynamics already under way.
- Contrasting hypotheses: which take up uncertainties, controversies and the seeds of change.
- Disruptive hypotheses: which relate to disruptions.
Trend-based hypothesis (H1): The EU faced with its own contradictions: uneven regulation and hampered innovation
The European Union (EU) plays a crucial role in establishing regulatory frameworks for the circular economy. However, regulations apply only to member states, while the principle of subsidiarity leads to multi-speed regulation within the EU itself, thereby creating problems of unfair competition with non-EU countries and between member states. Regulations also tend systematically to support the same industries, such as the waste and energy sectors and the extended producer responsibility schemes in France. By focusing on certain "flagship" industries, European regulation limits innovation in other, less supported sectors, thereby holding back the diversity of solutions needed to develop the circular economy. Finally, the complexity of the rules, the burden of checks and the mismatch with regulations' sustainability objectives slow the adoption of circular practices within companies.
Moreover, strategic dependence and speculation on certain critical raw materials represent challenges that the EU attempts to counter through initiatives aimed at diversifying European supply. But these efforts are sufficient.
Consumption patterns also play a decisive role in how circular economy regulation evolves. Although the latter tends to better protect consumers, notably with the beginnings of a right to sustainable consumption, the economic criterion remains consumers' main decision factor. Within this framework, demand for eco-designed products remains marginal. Finally, environmental labels, which strengthen consumer confidence, have become a business in their own right. NGOs' whistleblowing role ("blame shaming") can also deter companies from committing fully to innovative approaches.
Contrasting hypothesis (H2): Simplified regulation and a single label
The EU, in order to avoid a rupture and gain in effectiveness, has no choice but to put an end to the vagueness surrounding its schemes and to the layer upon layer of regulation that had characterised it until now. It then takes a radical and innovative turn by now proposing single regulation aligned with the sustainability objectives connected to the development of the circular economy.
This new simplified regulation is co-constructed with the various stakeholders: institutions, companies and consumers. The right to sustainable consumption is now established and rolled out to all European consumers. Thanks to this inclusive approach, the new simplified regulation gains in legitimacy and effectiveness. It also helps developing countries outside the EU move closer to European objectives.
Moreover, the accelerating scarcity of critical raw materials becomes the number one issue, bringing about a new alignment between economy and ecology: regulation now requires the systematic reuse of raw materials in calls for tender. Extending the service life of objects through re-employment, reuse or repairability is given value. Finally, the re-employment of a proportion of materials is also required in construction for new builds.
Progress must nevertheless still be made in the field of intellectual property in order to further encourage companies to innovate, and what characterises an eco-designed product needs to be better defined. Finally, a single label, recognised by all stakeholders, is introduced, while NGOs see their powers strengthened. They now work together towards common objectives and take on more of an arbiter's role.
Disruptive hypothesis (H3): Regulatory fragmentation in the face of the EU's limits
Regulation becomes above all a local matter. The EU imposes a regulation for the preservation of the environment, stripped of its substance during the various negotiations by member states and disconnected from the sustainability objectives announced. As a result, some member states break away from the EU and apply stronger regulation for their territories, and some even consider leaving the EU (e.g. Frexit).
Social movements make it difficult to apply regulations within certain territories, notably where households are poorest (e.g. Romanian households are 22 times poorer than Danish households). The absence of a strong EU prevents the development of a genuine European right to consumption; only the precautionary principle remains. Finally, some climate-sceptic consumers are mistrustful of regulation that could restrict their right to consume. Requiring a product to be repaired (instead of replaced) would thus represent a regression of their rights.
Faced with the growing scarcity of critical raw materials, which becomes the number one issue for companies, the EU fails to adopt a common strategy. As a result, companies attempt to find solutions (other sources of supply, etc.). Innovation to address this challenge is therefore not automatic within companies, and there is no standardisation of practices, either at European or national level. Innovation is therefore above all regional, in order to meet market needs, within an EU defined above all as a common market.
In this context, labels proliferate at local and/or national level, with two logics coexisting: on the one hand, labels remain above all a business, and NGOs are then confined to a whistleblowing role; on the other, within certain territories, some labels become unavoidable, with NGOs then managing (and guaranteeing!) them.