The ability to reuse a product over and over again can have a huge impact on financial savings for an individual. If all people living below the poverty line were to do the same, it could greatly improve the lives of poor communities in multiple countries. William McDonough realized the incredible power of implementing this capability and called it “upcycling.” Upcycling aims to make this capability a reality for all production processes. The goal of upcycling is to eradicate the “cradle-to-grave” system of designing products and create a “cradle-to-cradle” process, where designs can be used again and again.

Co-founders of the McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC), Michael Braungart and William McDonough, conceptualized the Cradle-to-Cradle design philosophy as a solution to this problem. They outlined this model in their book Cradle to Cradle (2002) and updated it in their book The Upcycle (2013).

The authors think the most necessary change for all corporations is transitioning out of a Cradle-to-Grave philosophy. This methodology for design and processing creates significant negative output. According to the book, The Upcycle, there is no grave in a Cradle-to-Grave iterative process; there are only “landfills and incinerators” (McDonough and Braungart, 2013).

Manufacturer Involvement

During their research, Braungart and McDonough considered that manufacturers may be less opposed to improving the environment than as initially expected. However, the co-founders believe that significant change is possible if at least one individual crafts and proposes a strategy for change, no matter how minimal.

The founders realized that if product creation processes are able to create less waste and contamination, then waste reduction becomes a non-issue. They believe that the focus should not be on curtailing consumption or telling people what not to do. Instead, it should be on how action can be rooted in work that provides a better environmental future.

Company involvement in these solutions is far from impossible, and with brands like these, who continuously work ethically to fight poverty, the future for manufacturer participation looks bright.

Upcycling Removes Toxic Substances

Terry Pratchett’s theory of socioeconomic unfairness investigates the difficulty of impoverished individuals to buy expensive long-lasting products. Upcycling endorses that perhaps items that are forever reusable can be affordable and safe to use. In an interview with The Borgen Project, former Senior Chemist for MBDC, Howie Fendley described how his team worked to remove toxins from production companies they served as consultants for. He explained that his team often worked to present a design for continuous improvement, a method utilized throughout the MBDC.

With ongoing iterations, they were able to reimagine chemical substitutions for various products. For example, they consulted for a company called Shaw Carpeting and decided to use thermoplastic polyethylene instead of PVC. While the original PVC often clogged the machines used to recycle different types of carpet, this alternative does no such thing. This enables the recycling process to occur, perfectly demonstrating the purpose of upcycling.

According to Anne Gullingsrud’s book, Fashion Fibers: Designing for Sustainability, this toxin-removal process is particularly impactful for individuals who work in the garment industry (Gullingsrud, 2017). Gullingsrud addresses a wide array of ways to implement this concept in the garment industry in her book. She reviews a wide variety of fibers, including silk, cotton, and manufactured fabrics like polyester. She also proposes ways to implement the upcycling process and remove the toxic chemical scouring processes, both of which are necessary to assist those living in poverty.

Removing bioaccumulative toxins is incredibly helpful to garment workers living below the poverty line. It prevents avoidable diseases and illnesses that emerge with toxic cleaning and bleaching chemicals, many of which excessively impact people living in poverty.

Upcycling Reduces Poverty

Because low-income individuals are often the ones handling the clothing used in fast fashion, they often face the most adverse effects of it. Many impoverished communities are sought out as areas for companies to find relatively inexpensive labor, such as how certain companies view Ethiopia as a prime labor location. This perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as these individuals never earn a high enough wage to be able to escape poverty.

Furthermore, climate disasters disproportionately impact low-income individuals. Flooding, wildfires, and droughts ultimately affect the people who cannot pay to have resources imported or be evacuated. Upcycling provides a means through which governments, corporations, and individuals can help mitigate disasters that disproportionately impact vulnerable communities.

If upcycling becomes common practice among corporations, sustainable products will undoubtedly become cheaper. There will also be decreased demand for fast fashion, which uses unethical practices for its labor sources. Fendley explains that “the cradle to cradle methodology is good at measuring sustainability, but until there are global mandates to implement it, it will be hard to move out of the corporate sphere and into the lives of individuals.” However, it is possible that through the normalization of the practice, we can move away from the unethical aspects of fast fashion. This is a key step in addressing the disproportionate impact of fast fashion on those living in poverty.

Upcycling has a powerful influence at an individual level, but the possibilities for strong global impact are unlimited.

– Hannah Bratton
Photo: Flickr