- The best way to build resilience against future pandemics and the impact of climate change is to move to a circular economy.
- Doing so could address 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions and provide a $4.5 trillion economic opportunity.
COVID-19 has created a human tragedy on a huge scale, with deep consequences for the global economy that will lead to an extended recession and long-term hardship.
This foreshadows the greater challenge we face in the years to come as the climate crisis escalates. Already, droughts, tornadoes and floods are threatening the lives and livelihoods of far too many people around the world, yet we are not doing nearly enough to deal with it.
As our thoughts move towards recovering from COVID-19, we must create a more resilient system that ensures the health and safety of all people. We must make sure that we are stronger in the face of the challenges to come. And we must do so without delay
The only way to do this is by re-imagining our relationship with the natural world. We need to entwine social, environmental and economic progress, and decouple economic growth from unsustainable consumption, while driving concrete and collective actions that speed up the adoption of the circular economy and realize systematic change.
Understanding the problem: the take, make, waste system
If we are to build a more resilient system, we must first understand what makes us so vulnerable. Our current linear economic model – in which economic growth is dependent on the endless extraction and use, or misuse, of natural resources – is pushing our planet to the brink.
Over 100 billion tons of resources flow into the economy each year, with the majority eventually lost as waste or emissions, causing lasting damage to the environment and leaving us vulnerable to the ever-worsening effects of the climate crisis.
Any disruption to this flow of resources into the economy also leaves us exposed to huge economic shocks, as has been made all too clear by COVID-19. Global shifts in the labour market, transport and consumer demand have led to wildly fluctuating commodity prices and widespread economic hardship.
With demand for resources expected to double by 2050, our exposure to both environmental and economic challenges will continue to grow.
A visualization of the circular economy in action
A vision for a more resilient world: a circular economy
We need a clear vision for an alternative future. A world in which we can breathe clean air; a world without the climate threats of droughts and floods. A world where resources are plentiful, with enough for all of us to earn a good livelihood. Our vision for the future is ambitious, but it is possible: a circular economy.
A circular economy is focused on designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems, so that we do not exhaust the resources of our planet.
Changing the way we make and use products can contribute to addressing 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making a critical contribution to mitigating the impending climate crisis. Reducing our reliance on scarce resources increases our economic resilience, and building a circular economy offers a $4.5 trillion economic opportunity by avoiding waste, making businesses more efficient, and creating new employment opportunities. By creating a circular economy we can create a stronger system and flatten or even reverse some of the trends that now threaten the existence of future generations.
1. Focus recovery stimulus on green and circular investment
As economic stimulus packages are introduced to support recovery from COVID-19, there is a huge opportunity to deepen our commitment and promote a circular economy as part of a green recovery. The priorities will be investing in renewable energy, protecting biodiversity and transforming agriculture, and funds should also be used to directly encourage circularity – for instance by investing or providing loan guarantees to circular economy start-ups that are driving solutions.
2. Create a policy framework for a circular economy
Governments play an important role in creating this vision. We need to see an ambitious and broad range of policies introduced to shift our relationship with natural resources and incentivize a move towards a circular economy. There should be subsidies for the re-use of materials, and taxes on waste.
Recycling should be enforced, with an associated investment in the recycling infrastructure needed to make this possible. Carbon pricing is crucial. Procurement should take into account the ‘total cost of ownership’. Single-use plastic should be banned outright.
An ever growing number of global businesses have made a clear call for the introduction of policies for a green recovery to support their own pledges to embed the SDGs in their ways of working, via initiatives such as the UN Global Compact.
What is a circular economy?
The global population is expected to reach close to 9 billion people by 2030 – inclusive of 3 billion new middle-class consumers.This places unprecedented pressure on natural resources to meet future consumer demand.
A circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design. It replaces the end-of-life concept with restoration, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, systems and business models.
Nothing that is made in a circular economy becomes waste, moving away from our current linear ‘take-make-dispose’ economy. The circular economy’s potential for innovation, job creation and economic development is huge: estimates indicate a trillion-dollar opportunity.
3. Pioneer the adoption of circular business models
Many companies are already shifting away from one-off transactions towards ongoing relationships with their customers. Sharing platforms are on the rise. Some companies are starting to take products back at the end of their economic life – this has the dual benefits of keeping scarce materials in use for as long as possible, while also reducing reliance on availability of raw materials and thus creating a business model that is more resilient against shocks.
The immediate crisis caused by COVID-19 is certainly putting pressure on many companies, but it is crucial that business leaders maintain their commitments to sustainability and circularity during any short-term impact. Long-term thinking is key, but actions make all the difference. When governments introduce measures like carbon pricing and border adjustment tariffs, the companies that are innovating and adjusting their business models will find themselves at a clear business advantage – as well as contributing to the better world we so desperately need.
4. Innovate to stimulate circularity
There are many opportunities for encouraging innovation to change our relationship with our ecosystem, by using new technologies that enable more circular business models. COVID-19 has seen a sudden and dramatic shift towards home working, remote healthcare, and digital virus-tracking, and we can take these lessons forward into the recovery.
We need to encourage the use of new, competitive technologies to reduce energy consumption, to harvest and re-use materials, scale the availability of green energy sources, expand lifecycles of products, and reduce waste. The technology breakthroughs are within reach; we just need to invest in and adopt them.
As we move towards recovery from COVID-19, we must embrace the future, and not postpone the inevitable by hanging on to the past. We must reject waste and adopt circularity. By leveraging all the knowledge, power and influence we have to push forward on these priorities we can build a circular economy. It will take deep collaboration between business, government and civil society, but the rewards will be well worth it; a stronger ecosystem that will be resilient for the decades to come, and a world where people and nature can live together in harmony.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.
Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.
The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.
Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.
In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.
Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.
“Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.
India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.
With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.
They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.
India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.
As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices
The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).
The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.
Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):
a)Base Price | 39 |
b)Freight | 0.34 |
c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b) | 39.34 |
d) Excise Duty | 40.17 |
e) Dealer Commission | 4.68 |
f) VAT | 25.35 |
g) Retail Selling Price | 109.54 |
Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.
So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?
India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.
However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.
That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.
Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.
Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.
But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.
Globally, around 80% of wastewater flows back into the ecosystem without being treated or reused, according to the United Nations.
This can pose a significant environmental and health threat.
In the absence of cost-effective, sustainable, disruptive water management solutions, about 70% of sewage is discharged untreated into India’s water bodies.
A staggering 21% of diseases are caused by contaminated water in India, according to the World Bank, and one in five children die before their fifth birthday because of poor sanitation and hygiene conditions, according to Startup India.
As we confront these public health challenges emerging out of environmental concerns, expanding the scope of public health/environmental engineering science becomes pivotal.
For India to achieve its sustainable development goals of clean water and sanitation and to address the growing demands for water consumption and preservation of both surface water bodies and groundwater resources, it is essential to find and implement innovative ways of treating wastewater.
It is in this context why the specialised cadre of public health engineers, also known as sanitation engineers or environmental engineers, is best suited to provide the growing urban and rural water supply and to manage solid waste and wastewater.
Traditionally, engineering and public health have been understood as different fields.
Currently in India, civil engineering incorporates a course or two on environmental engineering for students to learn about wastewater management as a part of their pre-service and in-service training.
Most often, civil engineers do not have adequate skills to address public health problems. And public health professionals do not have adequate engineering skills.
India aims to supply 55 litres of water per person per day by 2024 under its Jal Jeevan Mission to install functional household tap connections.
The goal of reaching every rural household with functional tap water can be achieved in a sustainable and resilient manner only if the cadre of public health engineers is expanded and strengthened.
In India, public health engineering is executed by the Public Works Department or by health officials.
This differs from international trends. To manage a wastewater treatment plant in Europe, for example, a candidate must specialise in wastewater engineering.
Furthermore, public health engineering should be developed as an interdisciplinary field. Engineers can significantly contribute to public health in defining what is possible, identifying limitations, and shaping workable solutions with a problem-solving approach.
Similarly, public health professionals can contribute to engineering through well-researched understanding of health issues, measured risks and how course correction can be initiated.
Once both meet, a public health engineer can identify a health risk, work on developing concrete solutions such as new health and safety practices or specialised equipment, in order to correct the safety concern..
There is no doubt that the majority of diseases are water-related, transmitted through consumption of contaminated water, vectors breeding in stagnated water, or lack of adequate quantity of good quality water for proper personal hygiene.
Diseases cannot be contained unless we provide good quality and adequate quantity of water. Most of the world’s diseases can be prevented by considering this.
Training our young minds towards creating sustainable water management systems would be the first step.
Currently, institutions like the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IIT-M) are considering initiating public health engineering as a separate discipline.
To leverage this opportunity even further, India needs to scale up in the same direction.
Consider this hypothetical situation: Rajalakshmi, from a remote Karnataka village spots a business opportunity.
She knows that flowers, discarded in the thousands by temples can be handcrafted into incense sticks.
She wants to find a market for the product and hopefully, employ some people to help her. Soon enough though, she discovers that starting a business is a herculean task for a person like her.
There is a laborious process of rules and regulations to go through, bribes to pay on the way and no actual means to transport her product to its market.
After making her first batch of agarbathis and taking it to Bengaluru by bus, she decides the venture is not easy and gives up.
On the flipside of this is a young entrepreneur in Bengaluru. Let’s call him Deepak. He wants to start an internet-based business selling sustainably made agarbathis.
He has no trouble getting investors and to mobilise supply chains. His paperwork is over in a matter of days and his business is set up quickly and ready to grow.
Never mind that the business is built on aggregation of small sellers who will not see half the profit .
Is this scenario really all that hypothetical or emblematic of how we think about entrepreneurship in India?
Between our national obsession with unicorns on one side and glorifying the person running a pakora stall for survival as an example of viable entrepreneurship on the other, is the middle ground in entrepreneurship—a space that should have seen millions of thriving small and medium businesses, but remains so sparsely occupied that you could almost miss it.
If we are to achieve meaningful economic growth in our country, we need to incorporate, in our national conversation on entrepreneurship, ways of addressing the missing middle.
Spread out across India’s small towns and cities, this is a class of entrepreneurs that have been hit by a triple wave over the last five years, buffeted first by the inadvertent fallout of demonetization, being unprepared for GST, and then by the endless pain of the covid-19 pandemic.
As we finally appear to be reaching some level of normality, now is the opportune time to identify the kind of industries that make up this layer, the opportunities they should be afforded, and the best ways to scale up their functioning in the shortest time frame.
But, why pay so much attention to these industries when we should be celebrating, as we do, our booming startup space?
It is indeed true that India has the third largest number of unicorns in the world now, adding 42 in 2021 alone. Braving all the disruptions of the pandemic, it was a year in which Indian startups raised $24.1 billion in equity investments, according to a NASSCOM-Zinnov report last year.
However, this is a story of lopsided growth.
The cities of Bengaluru, Delhi/NCR, and Mumbai together claim three-fourths of these startup deals while emerging hubs like Ahmedabad, Coimbatore, and Jaipur account for the rest.
This leap in the startup space has created 6.6 lakh direct jobs and a few million indirect jobs. Is that good enough for a country that sends 12 million fresh graduates to its workforce every year?
It doesn’t even make a dent on arguably our biggest unemployment in recent history—in April 2020 when the country shutdown to battle covid-19.
Technology-intensive start-ups are constrained in their ability to create jobs—and hybrid work models and artificial intelligence (AI) have further accelerated unemployment.
What we need to focus on, therefore, is the labour-intensive micro, small and medium enterprise (MSME). Here, we begin to get to a definitional notion of what we called the mundane middle and the problems it currently faces.
India has an estimated 63 million enterprises. But, out of 100 companies, 95 are micro enterprises—employing less than five people, four are small to medium and barely one is large.
The questions to ask are: why are Indian MSMEs failing to grow from micro to small and medium and then be spurred on to make the leap into large companies?
At the Global Alliance for Mass Entrepreneurship (GAME), we have advocated for a National Mission for Mass Entrepreneurship, the need for which is more pronounced now than ever before.
Whenever India has worked to achieve a significant economic milestone in a limited span of time, it has worked best in mission mode. Think of the Green Revolution or Operation Flood.
From across various states, there are enough examples of approaches that work to catalyse mass entrepreneurship.
The introduction of entrepreneurship mindset curriculum (EMC) in schools through alliance mode of working by a number of agencies has shown significant improvement in academic and life outcomes.
Through creative teaching methods, students are encouraged to inculcate 21st century skills like creativity, problem solving, critical thinking and leadership which are not only foundational for entrepreneurship but essential to thrive in our complex world.
Udhyam Learning Foundation has been involved with the Government of Delhi since 2018 to help young people across over 1,000 schools to develop an entrepreneurial mindset.
One pilot programme introduced the concept of ‘seed money’ and saw 41 students turn their ideas into profit-making ventures. Other programmes teach qualities like grit and resourcefulness.
If you think these are isolated examples, consider some larger data trends.
The Observer Research Foundation and The World Economic Forum released the Young India and Work: A Survey of Youth Aspirations in 2018.
When asked which type of work arrangement they prefer, 49% of the youth surveyed said they prefer a job in the public sector.
However, 38% selected self-employment as an entrepreneur as their ideal type of job. The spirit of entrepreneurship is latent and waiting to be unleashed.
The same can be said for building networks of successful women entrepreneurs—so crucial when the participation of women in the Indian economy has declined to an abysmal 20%.
The majority of India’s 63 million firms are informal —fewer than 20% are registered for GST.
Research shows that companies that start out as formal enterprises become two-three times more productive than a similar informal business.
So why do firms prefer to be informal? In most cases, it’s because of the sheer cost and difficulty of complying with the different regulations.
We have academia and non-profits working as ecosystem enablers providing insights and evidence-based models for growth. We have large private corporations and philanthropic and funding agencies ready to invest.
It should be in the scope of a National Mass Entrepreneurship Mission to bring all of them together to work in mission mode so that the gap between thought leadership and action can finally be bridged.