
Written by Morten G. Sørensen, Head of Engineering
Does a company agree to keep producing waste to stay circular?
Recycling is everywhere. In marketing, in strategy decision making, and increasingly in sustainability claims. Waste is no longer just something to eliminate – it can suddenly become a resource, a by-product, even a business opportunity.
But that raises an uncomfortable question I’ve found myself coming back to more and more:
“What happens when recycling starts depending on waste continuing to exist?”
When waste gets a value
In many industries, production waste is sold or handed over to a third party for recycling or downcycling. On paper, this often looks like a sustainability win:
- Less waste sent to landfill
- Lower environmental burden assigned to the product
- Circularity achieved
But if a third party relies on a steady stream of waste as input, the system slightly changes. Waste stops being something to minimise, and starts being something that needs to be maintained.
At that point, recycling risks becoming less of a solution and more of a dependency.
The LCA perspective: who gets the credit?
From an LCA point of view, this is where things get tricky.
Questions quickly arise:
- Who should receive the environmental credit; the producer or the recycler?
- Should waste reduction always be prioritised over recycling?
- What happens to the footprint if waste volumes decrease?
The answers depend heavily on methods, system boundaries, allocation rules, and assumptions. And those assumptions are rarely neutral.
This is where I see many LCAs unintentionally reinforcing the idea that producing recyclable waste is good, rather than asking whether the waste should exist at all.
The CFF (Circular Footprint Formular) used by the method PEF (Product Environmental Footprint), attempts to allocation fairly and consistently in respect to locations, materials and products.
Circularity without context is risky
Circular economy principles are powerful. But without context, they can lead to odd conclusions.
If:
- A factory becomes “more sustainable” by selling waste
- A recycler needs predictable waste volumes
- A product’s footprint improves without changing its design
…then we should pause and ask whether the system is truly improving or just redistributing responsibility.
Circularity should support waste prevention first, not compete with it.
Why understanding the full system matters
This is exactly why supply-chain transparency and product-level understanding matter so much.
With platforms like Målbar LCA, build on the method of PEF, starting from the product makes these dynamics visible:
- What actually drives the footprint?
- How sensitive are results to waste assumptions?
When these questions are visible, discussions become more honest internally and with collaborators.
Instead of asking “Can we recycle this?”, companies should start asking
“Should this exist in the first place? And if it does, who truly benefits?”
A personal reflection
As an engineer working with environmental data, I don’t believe recycling is the enemy. Quite the opposite. But, I do believe that recycling without reflection can lead us in the wrong direction.
Sustainability is not about making waste fashionable. It’s about designing systems where less waste is needed, even if that makes the story less convenient.
And sometimes, asking the uncomfortable question is the most sustainable step of all.



