Manufacture close to home makes controlling and improving your supply change easier.

Sourcing locally, whether that be materials or manufacturer can all significantly reduce CO2 emissions and simultaneously ease logistics. It also allows greater control over the flow of materials, making it easier to consider implementing further circular economy principles.

The supply chain within products can easily become messy and extremely CO2 heavy when materials are continually processed in various countries, or continents. Using materials which are closer to manufacturing brings ease to the supply chain, often cuts high MOQ’s, opening possibilities for a near to made-to-order production, all whilst lowering CO2e as transportation (the often biggest add on of CO2e) is lessened. Sourcing locally also cuts lead time and brings an ease of communication as factory visits are more readily available and simpler to plan.

The brand Lasso uses a small radius approach to their production of bags and slippers. Based in France, they source materials from France and Italy, focusing on a 500km radius of all materials, suppliers and manufacturing. This of course doesn’t take into account shipping to customers however, and the brand notes that “As our base of clients expands, we may consider manufacturing in America or Asia to avoid shipping from too far away.”

Moving tooling from a factory overseas closer to home isn’t overly complex for a simple product, but some projects will need a much bigger overview with a change to both business model and design for this strategy to work. See systems change strategies for more on this.

Further reading: Sourcing locally

Less material generally means less energy and less waste.

Whilst this might require a small alteration to the design, considering how the amount of material could be reduced has the potential to lessen material waste as well as Co2e during transportation and production.

This is a common practice in packaging production. “Doing more with less”; it is often seen as a short term method of reducing a products Co2e when systematic changes are not possible, or can not be altered within a short period of time. It should be noted if executed poorly, however, lightweighting can have detrimental effects; products broken in transit; products not lasting as long as needed; products not meeting required performance.

Abel & Cole have a clear Material vs Carbon vs Reuse analysis. The comparison is of different types of milk packaging; HDPE, Ecolean's lightweight pouches, traditional glass bottles, Tetra Pak and a reusable PP bottle. The results showed that “all of the plastic derived options have a much lower carbon footprint than glass in the context of our study.” due to the weight reduction and different material processing.

Switch out current materials for ones that are recyclable, biodegradable or more valuable at end of life.

Within the design process, material selection is a prominent factor for a product's overall sustainable and environmental impact. Understanding what material is best fit for use, performance, longevity and end-of-life, in a biological or technical sense is a key factor to improving overall sustainability and aligning to the circular economy.

An example of a biological cycle can be seen in Haeckel's use of mycelium for protective and external packaging. This use of an ‘alternative’ material is aligned to reducing Co2e, creating securely packaged products as well as ensuring a natural breakdown of materials.

Another example is Shellworks, a material derived from seafood waste, used within the cosmetics industry, again aligned to the biological cycle of the circular economy, the brand is changing perceptions on how waste stream materials can be used. The use of ‘alternative materials’ has grown in popularity, and uptake is expanding, however high prices are currently the biggest barrier to mainstream adoption.