Maak kennis met de communityleden van UCo

Er huizen meer dan 20 verschillende organisaties bij UCo, die allemaal vanuit hun eigen expertisen bijdragen aan een duurzamere wereld. De komende tijd ontwikkelt duurzame content creator Boudewijn Zweekhorst (Duurzame Dingen) voor ons een videoreeks waarin we kennismaken met de organisaties die onderdeel uitmaken van de UCo community.

 

Deel 1. Maak kennis met… Inge Luyten van Recycling Netwerk
Wist je dat er per juli 2021 statiegeld op kleine flesjes wordt ingevoerd? Inge Luyten, projectmanager bij Recycling Netwerk, heeft samen met haar collega’s jarenlang campagne gevoerd voor de invoering van statiegeld op kleine flesjes. De invoering van statiegeld op kleine flesjes heeft veel tijd en moeite gekost met de weerstand die de frisdrankindustrie heeft geleverd. Na meerdere jaren van inzet en het verenigen van organisaties, gemeenten en personen die deze beleidsmaatregel ingevoerd wilden hebben, is het dan eindelijk gelukt.

 

Deel 2. Maak kennis met… Charles Smeets van Nederland Opgewekt
Charles Smeets, eigenaar van Nederland Opgewekt, ontwikkelt zonneparken om de energietransitie te versnellen en Nederland onafhankelijk te maken van fossiele brandstoffen. Hij doet dit op zo’n manier dat ook omwonenden uiteindelijk iets hebben aan het park. Dit doet hij door het zonnepark te combineren met initiatieven die vanuit de omgeving gewenst zijn. Al een aantal ideeën zijn door Charles in combinatie met een zonnepark ontwikkeld: ruiterspaden, waterberging, natuurontwikkeling en een voedselbos.

Deel 3. Maak kennis met… Rachel Heijne van VVM Netwerk van Milieuprofessionals
Bij de VVM organiseren ze evenementen en cursussen. Door de coronacrisis moesten ze noodgedwongen hun fysieke bijeenkomsten omzetten naar online bijeenkomsten. In deze aflevering van ‘maak kennis met…’ verteld Rachel Heijne, directeur van de VVM, over deze omslag, de uitdaging die dit heeft geleverd, en ook over een onverwacht voordeel dat hiermee gepaard ging.

Deel 4. Maak kennis met… Vincent Smeele van InWartme en InEnergie
Bij InWarmte en InEnergie zetten ze zich voor duurzame energie en warmte. Maar dit doen ze niet zomaar. Bij InWarmte en InEnergie blijven ze tientallen jaren betrokken bij de installaties die ze neerzetten. Zo zorgen ze ervoor dat deze altijd optimaal werken en hun maximale rendement halen. De kennis die ze hierbij opdoen zetten ze vervolgens weer in voor nieuwe installaties. In deze aflevering vertelt Vincent Smeele over zo’n project. Bekijk de video en maak kennis met!

Deel 5. Maak kennis met… –> volgt binnenkort!

Duurzaam ondernemen; van delen naar gehelen

Tijdens mijn dagelijkse ochtendroutine van nieuws swipen bleef mijn blik hangen bij een artikel van het AD, met de kop “Investeer in preventie van dementie.” Los van het feit dat het lekker rijmt en bekt leek het mij, zonder de inhoud nog gelezen te hebben, vooral een logische en sympathieke oproep. Het artikel beschreef dat enkele artsen, hoogleraren en andere deskundigen een oproep doen aan minister De Jonge van volksgezondheid om meer werk te maken van het ontwikkelen van preventieve maatregelen tegen dementie.

Nu zult u wellicht denken: “Wat heeft dit met duurzaam ondernemen te maken?”

Wat mij als duurzaam ondernemer vooral aansprak aan dit artikel, was dat mensen van binnen en buiten de (zorg)keten deze oproep doen. Het maatschappelijk vraagstuk “dementie” wordt dus multidisciplinair benaderd om tot integrale en adequate oplossingen te komen.

Is dat niet de kern van duurzaam ondernemen? Het samenbrengen van expertises, om te werken aan nieuwe oplossingen voor een maatschappelijk belang? Het zoeken van de juiste partners en het steeds blijven optimaliseren van je product of dienst voor maatschappelijke vraagstukken, levert waarde op voor zowel onderneming als omgeving. De belemmeringen die ik hierin ervaar zijn dat zowel (overheids)organisaties als ons economisch systeem een gefragmenteerde benadering hebben omtrent het komen tot oplossingen.

Kijkend naar mijn eigen ervaring binnen O3-effect, heeft deze gefragmenteerde benadering een beperkende invloed gehad op het vormgeven van onze ambitie, namelijk het innoveren van het (voortgezet) onderwijs voor duurzame ontwikkeling. Daar waar alle partijen (gemeenten, onderwijs, bedrijven) het gemeenschappelijk belang onderschreven, lukte het niet om ruimte te maken voor het verkennen van nieuwe vormen van onderwijs voor duurzame ontwikkeling. Er werd aanbodgericht en geschot gewerkt. Door het leidende systeem werden mogelijke financieringen, samenwerkingen en adequate oplossingen uitgesloten.

Naar aanleiding van het advies van enkele ondernemers binnen UCo om concrete voorbeelden te bouwen, hebben we met behulp van crowdfunding Lab 18 gestart. Hier werken inmiddels leerlingen en docenten van vier scholen uit Utrecht samen met lerarenopleiders en bedrijven aan een onderwijsprogramma, dat kennis over duurzame ontwikkeling over moet dragen. In dit geval kozen de aanwezigen samen voor het thema verduurzaming van FC Utrecht. Afgelopen donderdag zaten de gemeente (Tom Fikkert), FC Utrecht (Frans van Seumeren) en CVB van de NUOVO scholengroep (Leon de Wit) aan tafel om het team te jureren. Lab18 is een experiment waarin multidisciplinaire samenwerking vorm krijgt, vanuit een gezamenlijke urgentie. Het biedt een platform aan verschillende experts en heeft betekenis voor het onderwijs en duurzame ontwikkeling. Zonder persoonlijke (financiële) investering, doorzettingsvermogen en creativiteit zou dit er niet zijn geweest.

Kortom, zou het niet mooi zijn geweest als er in het AD stond: “Preventie van instabiele toekomst; ruimte voor duurzaam ondernemen.” En het artikel beschreef hoe verschillende ondernemers, hoogleraren en andere deskundigen een oproep doen aan de verschillende ministers om vanuit gehelen te denken en vraaggestuurd en multidisciplinair samen te werken. Dat biedt de ruimte aan duurzaam ondernemen en de experimenteerfase die daar bij hoort.

 

Guido Bastiaans

 

Jacomijn de Vries en Guido Bastiaans vormen samen O3-Effect; samen bouwen aan onderwijsinnovatie voor duurzame ontwikkeling

Converting Scientific Knowledge into Practice

Utrecht Community consists of more than 25 organizations that all contribute to integrated sustainability from their own discipline. In this blogpost, one of UCo’s communitymembers shares its’ knowledge and ideas on a specific topic. 

Written by: Except Integrated Sustainability

In this article, we get curious about the divergence between science and practice. Particularly, we focus on what hinders the implementation of theory in the field of sustainability. Herein, we aim to shine a light on how you can use science as the basis for a shift in your organization, what might hinder that process, and how integrated sustainability theories such as Symbiosis in Development can bridge these gaps.

What stops the science of sustainability being used in practice?

Although scientific understanding has been implemented in practice since the beginning of civilization, sustainability is a relatively new field. As such, there is often a separation in decision makers’ understanding of sustainability and the common trends or topics within the scientific community. As the sector grows, it has been often seen that this separation acts as a barrier to an organization’s sustainable transition. The following are three trends which we have encountered throughout 20 years of helping forward looking organizations lay the foundations of a sustainable future. By taking these issues into account when designing an organizational transition, decision makers will be further equipped to convert scientific knowledge in practice.

1. Complexity Translation

“Scientific knowledge itself is often slow to permeate so it takes roughly ten years before scientific knowledge gets used in practice,” said Gertjan van Hardeveld, Except’s Business Strategist.

Understanding and communicating complexity is a prerequisite for sustainable design. “Science is often presented in complex models with interlaced with jargon which hinders the translation aspect of it,” says Gertjan. Often, this holds organizations back from making progress on their sustainability goals; you can’t solve a problem that you don’t understand.

Communicating the proven scientific benefits of a sustainable transition to a decision maker is one of the biggest issues we face as an organization. What we have found is that hyper-localization and benefit context are key to turning complex science into digestible issues which can prompt action. In other words; in order to successfully secure momentum for change, it is important to define the parameters within which you will work (local, regional, national, international), and then how the action will benefit the organization.

“Complexity translation is an important factor within the ten year adoption period, as science becomes more understandable for practitioners, so to can they integrate it into their own developments more efficiently. I believe that transparency in an overflow of information would help narrow this gap a lot,” said Gertjan.

2. Sustainability Literacy

What defines sustainability literacy is a complexity in itself and is precisely the issue. There is a lack of centralised definitions and concepts. “What do we even mean by sustainability?” says Freek van der Pluijm. “The fact that there is no definition for sustainability is a very familiar, well known subject to a lot of people.”

Freek argues that in driving change in an organization, it is as important to boost the bottom line of sustainability literacy – bringing together a common definition to work towards – as it is to implement the latest scientific findings. By building even a simple consensus of sustainability from within the framework of the organization, it is much easier to then promote action.

“The actions that you take that will actually contribute to a more sustainable society don’t have to be based on the newest insights, but rather it has to do with growing the awareness of basic insights. I think there is a lot of ground that can be covered in the short term that doesn’t need such rigorous scientific developments. It’s just about increasing literacy,” he says.

3. Lack of Common Language

For Except Director, Tom Bosschaert the third issue that commonly arises which prevents clients implementing the science of sustainability in practice is the fragmented way in which information is shared. The divergence between concepts within the sustainability world (the circular economy, cradle to cradle, industrial ecology) which serve as a similar purpose point towards a lack of a common language.

Compiling a centralized and transparent database of information that backs up actions with scientific research helps align organizations. “There is a huge gap in knowledge [from theoretical to applied] when talking about a whole lot of new topics. And that’s what’s holding us back,” says Tom.

Without a shared consensus on facts, Tom argues that it is far more difficult to get everyone to align. “Getting the budgets in the first place, getting all the people together, and having everyone on the same page starts with unquestionable scientific research.” Without bringing together the science from one or multiple credible sources as a given, moving forward on a project is incredibly difficult.

Translating Science into Practice

Whilst there is no magic solution, there are a few plausible actions which can increase science’s ability to be utilized in practice. “Using a methodology like Symbiosis in Development helps us to dissect an issue and bridge the gap,” says Tom.

“True sustainable development challenges all aspects of planning and development, from its inception to its strategy, design, and execution. SiD ties together these phases, and connects them with deep scientific sustainability frameworks, innovation tools, and co-creation processes. This helps to create oversight, reduces time, helps find better solutions, and organizes the process.”

“Sustainability is a broad, complex, and dynamic subject, of which many things are yet unknown. We lack educational resources, there’s few people with deep knowledge and experience on the subject, and we lack a universal language. SiD helps to create that language, and allows teams to travel down a pathway with an integrated, full spectrum perspective, ensuring important considerations are not left out. This pathway in itself helps translate complexity, increase literacy, and binds information to a central backbone of a process.”

Europe needs a strong plastics Directive to live up to the Paris Agreement

Utrecht Community consists of more than 25 organizations that all contribute to integrated sustainability from their own discipline. In this blogpost, one of UCo’s communitymembers shares its’ knowledge and ideas on a specific topic. 

Written by: Recycling Netwerk Benelux

The battle against the plastic soup: are European governments as ambitious as Commission and Parliament?

The European Parliament strongly backed the Commission’s proposal to ban a range of single-use plastics and to ensure that producers will pay the clean up costs. On October 24th, an impressive 91.5% of the Parliament supported the ambition to curb the ocean pollution. The members of parliament listened to the demand of the European citizens to take effective measures against the plastic soup.

However, since the Council has joined the discussion and trilogues – the trilateral negotiation between Commission, Parliament and Council – have started, the process has taken a worrying turn. In the Council, amendments have been put forward that cause confusion and will undermine the intended environmental impact of the Single-Use Plastics Directive. The plastics and packaging industry is heavily lobbying the national governments with the aim to put some loopholes in the Directive.

As an environmental organisation, we appeal to all policy makers and governments to remember that this Single-Use Plastics Directive has been drafted to protect our environment, not businesses. Next to our environment, however, there is another compelling reason why the Directive should be kept at least as ambitious as proposed by the Commission and Parliament. The EU has made preceding environmental commitments which are close to impossible to live up to without a strong Single-Use Plastics Directive.

In this article we list a handful of the international commitments that are in danger of being compromised by a weakened Single-Use Plastics Directive. Then we give some examples of Council amendments that are undermining the strength of the Directive as proposed by the Commission and adopted by Parliament.

 

Without a strong Directive, these 5 European commitments are doomed to fail

A strong Single-Use Plastics Directive, with EPR kept intact and the 90% separate collection target for bottles by 2025 upheld, is needed to live up to at least 5 earlier environmental agreements to which the EU has committed itself.

  • Already in 2014, the European Commission issued a reduction target for marine litter. By 2020, marine litter has to be reduced by 30% for the ten most common types of litter found on beaches. Now, the Council is suggesting a delay for two key measures of the Single-Use Plastics Directive that can really reduce marine litter substantially: it wants to postpone the 90% separate collection target for plastic bottles with 5 years (until 2030) and the implementation of mandatory EPR with 3 years (until 2024).
  • In the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (Plastic Strategy), which was adopted in January 2018, the EU commits herself to ensure recyclability of all plastic packaging on the EU market by 2030. Currently, different types of plastic waste are collected together, which results in a mixed, contaminated and thus low quality plastic stream which is difficult to recycle. Reaching this goal is thus inconceivable without separate collection systems that yield pure and high quality streams of plastic. It will become very difficult for the the EU to ensure the recyclability of all plastic packaging by 2030, if already the objective for separate collection for just one item, plastic bottles, threatens to be successfully undermined by industry lobbying. Moreover, recycling costs will inevitably stay steep due to mixed waste streams. By creating better manageable collection systems with as low contamination as possible, recycling will become easier and thus profitable.
  • The EU pledged to reduce consumption of single-use plastics in the same Plastic Strategy. Ultimately, to move to a circular economy, we should move away from single-use items. This Directive is a first step, of course in prohibiting certain single-use plastic items and demanding a consumption reduction in Member States. But one should not forget that EPR has proven to be an important driver in stimulating eco-innovation and eco-design, whilst boosting collection rates, and thus is necessary to move towards such circular models.
  • Finally, in these 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs, 2015), the Member States of the EU committed themselves to “by 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, particularly from land-based activities, including marine debris” (UN SDG 14.1) and to “by 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources” (UN SDG 12). The first commitment somewhat summarizes the goal of the SUP Directive and therefore obviously calls for an ambitious Directive. Both separate collection and EPR are measures of the SUP Directive that contribute to the efficient use of natural resources in a straightforward and effective manner. These measures will make EU a frontrunner in this area. However, if the EU does not seize the opportunity to implement EPR and an ambitious separate collection target in the SUP Directive, it will create a lock-in situation that will hinder reaching these UN SDGs for many years.

 

These Council amendments will weaken the Directive

The Directive would become weaker, and unable to live up to these commitments, if some of the Council amendments regarding Extended Producer Responsibility(EPR, Article 8) and the separate collection target for plastic bottles (Article 9) would be adopted. These measures form the backbone of the Directive. Impairing them would impair this legislation to such an extent that it would not contribute to the above mentioned European commitments.

 

Clinging to ineffective, non-binding agreements with industry

EPR as suggested by the Commission and Parliament obliges producers to pay the clean up costs for litter. By charging producers with the bill, this industry will be motivated to improve their efforts on litter prevention – for example by designing less litter-prone products or setting up more effective collection systems – as this will reduce the clean up costs they have to pay.

Currently, producers of plastic items are not required to take responsibility for their product ending up in litter, but can come up with voluntary actions to address their littered products. Since this voluntary arrangement has not led to the expected results in reducing the plastic soup, the Commission drafted this Directive to systematically tackle the most problematic single-use plastics.

Neither the Commission nor Parliament gave way to pressure from industry lobbyists who are heavily resisting EPR and do not want to pay for the clean up costs.

Under Austrian Presidency, however, the Council suggests delaying setting the target from 2021 to 2024. Moreover, the Council creates unnecessary confusion by tampering with EPR and its workings by proposing the following (Article 17):

“Provided that the (…) objectives as set out in (…) Article 8 (EPR) are achieved, Member States may transpose the provisions set out in (…) Article 8 (…) by means of agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned”.

This amendment has two possible interpretations that both compromise EPR and its workings. Either the Council does not want to move away from the current situation but gives Member States the chance to maintain the voluntary arrangements as long as objectives are met. Or the Council wants to give Member States the option to replace EPR with voluntary agreements with the industry once the urgently needed results have finally been achieved by means of mandatory EPR.

It just takes one look at the plastic soup to comprehend that either continuing with or returning to letting businesses aim to curb plastic pollution voluntarily will only have further detrimental effects for our environment. It is time for the EU to act decisively and to act now. EPR is an effective instrument to systemically tackle plastic pollution. It should therefore be implemented without alterations and in the short term, to last for the long term.

 

Committing to 12 years more of plastic bottles’ pollution?

A high separate collection target for plastic bottles keeps these plastic items out of the environment, as it motivates Member States to strive for the most successful collection systems. The 90% separate collection target by 2025 as suggested by Commission and Parliament is achievable both in time as in percentage: the case of Lithuania shows that a return rate exceeding 90% can be achieved in less than two years time.

Whereas Parliament added a 35% recycled content target for new bottles to strengthen the circular approach to plastic bottles, the Council seems to be only mitigating this aim. It suggests a much weaker 75% separate collection target in 2025 and delays the 90% with five more years to 2030. Given the billions of plastic bottles sold every year, that means a huge amount of plastic will continue to pollute our seas.

The Austrian Presidency should acknowledge that there is no rational justification to decrease the target in percentage or to expand the timeline and step up its environmental game. Separate collection of plastic bottles, for example by means of a deposit-return system, will guarantee high-quality recycling and a decrease in plastic pollution.

 

A strong SUP Directive is necessary to achieve the European goals

In conclusion, Europa has to adopt a strong SUP Directive as proposed by the Commission in order to reach its own environmental objectives. Watering down the SUP Directive would mean that plastic pollution levels will not decrease and, the EU will not be able to respect its international commitments.

When mandatory EPR gets replaced with voluntary agreements, Europe irrevocably gets trapped in the current situation of plastic pollution and huge costs of cleaning up for municipalities and taxpayers.

Delaying the 90% separate collection target for plastic bottles until 2030, means 5 more years of marine pollution, way beyond the deadline set by the UN Sustainable Development Goal. But confirming the 90% target, means yielding a pure and high quality stream of plastics that will facilitate qualitative recycling and make it profitable. It is a great opportunity to create a level playing field, necessary for the transition to a Circular Economy which the EU has envisioned for 2030, and creating great European business opportunities.

The SUP Directive, as drafted by the European Commission and supported by the votes of the European Parliament, corresponds to the environmental and economic ambitions the EU has committed itself to in the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. All Member States will need to make a joint effort in order to meet these goals.

Therefore, Recycling Netwerk Benelux strongly calls upon the members of the Council for visionary decisiveness and determination to support the SUP Directive as it is – and not weaken it as to leave Europe with a sea where plastics outnumber fish.

Circular economy needs trust, transparency and traceability

Utrecht Community consists of more than 25 organizations that all contribute to integrated sustainability from their own discipline. In this blogpost, one of UCo’s communitymembers shares its’ knowledge and ideas on a specific topic. 

Written by: Recycling Netwerk Benelux

In order for circular economy to become cost-efficient and economically feasible, the whole value chain will need to invest in smooth collaboration. The key to its success? Trust, transparency and traceability.

The circular transition is in impact comparable to the digital revolution. It requires a change in mindset and intrinsic alteration of DNA to fully reap the benefits of the circular model. Changes – and investments – in eco-design are required to reduce complexity and the use of hazardous substances.

When using end-of-use products as a resource, ensuring transparency and traceability of substances used is a necessity to make the circular model economically viable. Not knowing what is in, means the recycler has to guess how to exactly process the material for it to become a high-quality resource – not to mention taking a blind leap regarding safety. Not knowing makes recycling a very costly and potentially dangerous endeavour.

Take the case of carpets. In Europe, each year 1.6 million tonnes of carpet waste are generated. Only 1 to 3% of which is being recycled, meaning 97 to 99% is either incinerated or landfilled.

Why? Because a separate waste stream is absent and recycling is plainly expensive due to the intransparency and untraceability of substances used and the complexity to get resources out of the product.

The quality of the recyclate decreases due to contamination. Further, its safety cannot be guaranteed when the recycler does not know what substances the producer used to make its products.

Especially with REACH constantly evolving, it becomes increasingly important to also be able to identify and remove hazardous and – certainly – banned substances.

It is not without reason that ACEA and EURIC, respectively associations of European automotive manufacturers and recycling industry, recently panicked when European Parliament proposed a restriction of the concentration limit for the flame retardant DecaBDE.

In order for circular economy to become lean and mean so it can replace the current linear model, secondary resources will need to become more attractive to manufacturers than virgin raw materials. Recyclates will need to have a better price-proposition, offer virgin rate quality and recycled products need to at least comply to REACH.

To obtain economies of scale whilst including these requirements, recyclers will need to be able to identify what can be harvested as secondary resources and how it should be harvested in bulk.

In addition, the less contamination in the incoming stream, the higher the recyclates’ quality. Mechanical recycling has its limits due to degradation caused by contamination and impurities. Luckily developments to chemically recycle move rapidly, allowing for more control over the chemical building bricks and to unlock endless recycling – without quality loss.

 

Safe to recycle

In circular economy resources are meant to stay in the loop forever and not for just one extra round. Investments and commitments in chemical recycling from big corporates like Unilever, Nestle, DSM and LyondellBasell illustrate where the future lies for high quality recyclates.

So, the question should not be whether it is possible to recycle. It should really be: Is it safe to recycle? And does this solution have the least environmental footprint?

However complicated this all may seem, it is not impossible to realize. Yarn manufacturer Aquafil has successfully managed to close the PA6-loop with Econyl. By performing chemical recycling on fishing nets, post-production and -consumer (carpet face) fiber, the company can reach scale in a safe recyclate of virgin rate quality. The demand for this closed loop product follows naturally; nearly all European carpet manufacturers now offer a product which features Econyl.

 

Trust + Expertise = Economic Benefit

In a circular model, the identifying and harvesting part of secondary resources is not the sole responsibility of the recycler. When transparency and traceability is offered throughout the value chain, the recycling process will become more efficient as a result.

Intransparency will inevitably make proper processing of end-of-use products more complex and thus more costly, thereby making it hard for the resulting recyclates to compete with virgin raw materials. The easier it will become to recycle, the more probable it becomes for circular economy to take off.

The linear model aims at protecting all information and processes regarding the product within the company. Becoming circular in a linear model is a very costly endeavour, since it will require vast investments to process non-core business activities.

For instance, when keeping the product in a self-organized loop, the producer is the recycler and therefore benefits from knowledge of the ingredients. Take-back systems like the ones developed by carpet manufacturers Desso, Interface and DSM-Niaga – as well as Apple with its iPhones – are an essential part in the machinery of circular economy.

Though, one can question whether it is possible to obtain economy of scale in creating the infrastructure, needed for such private collection system. These costs will be too high for SME’s and leave the burden of reaching the tipping point from linear to circular on the shoulders of big corporations.

 

A chain of trust

The most challenging aspect of the circular transition might be the need to trust the partners in the value chain. Having a recyclable product is simply not enough.

The essential difference of the circular model opposed to the linear one, is that the return of investment in the circular model is higher when the entire value chain is aligned and efficient.

Depending on each other’s expertise removes the need to invest in material and internalising knowledge which is not core business. By trusting each other’s capabilities, the entire value chain becomes more agile whilst simultaneously becoming more specialized than linear competitors. In essence, it is an altruistic system.

To obtain this way of collaboration, information on substances needs to be shared. But this does not mean you have to spill out all your company’s secrets.

Platforms for material passports like Excess Materials Exchange or even ECHA’s Unique Formula Identifier, which becomes mandatory as of January 2020, offer transparency to the one who holds the key and at the same time protects secret recipes. If well organized, the circular model can be exponentially beneficial.

Europe has been dealt a good hand for circular economy. The paradigm change has already commenced and is clearly visible in the carpet industry with companies like DSM-Niaga, Desso and Interface looking to re-write their DNA in moving towards circularity for years already.

Backed by the political circular ambitions of the European Commission, European member states and China, it is only a matter of time for the circular model to prevail.

Perhaps the egg of Columbus is yet to be found. But we’ll find it faster when looking for it together.3

 

This article has been published on Chemsec’s website

UCo genomineerd voor Duurzaamheidsprijs

Het jaar 2018 is uitgeroepen tot het Europees Jaar van het Cultureel Erfgoed. De provincie Utrecht grijpt het Europees Erfgoedjaar aan om het Utrechts erfgoed extra in de schijnwerpers te zetten. In het kader daarvan wordt de Duurzaamheidsprijs uitgereikt aan een restauratieproject met de beste duurzaamheidsmaatregelen. UCo is één van de vijf genomineerden.

Verduurzaming van monumentale gebouwen is een flinke opgave. In onderstaande film worden vijf voorbeelden uit de provincie nader toegelicht: Boerderij Wayenstein in Amerongen, Rietveldwoningen, pand Brigittenstraat 20, kantoor Jongerius en de voormalige wagenmakerij UCo, alle in Utrecht. Aan de orde komen de uitdagingen, do’s en don’ts waar je tijdens een dergelijke proces mee te maken krijgt.