Why circularity is becoming one of consumer tech’s smartest business models
For years, consumer tech has followed a fairly simple model: buy, use, replace. Something breaks, the battery stops performing, a better version launches, and the old device ends up in a drawer.
That model has been very good at selling new products. The question is how much longer it can keep working in the same way.
According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2024, published by UNITAR and ITU, the world generated 62 million tonnes of e-waste in 2022. By 2030, that number is projected to reach 82 million tonnes. More importantly, since 2010, e-waste generation has been growing almost five times faster than documented formal collection and recycling.
So this is no longer only a waste problem. It is increasingly a product, resource and business model problem.
And that was one of the most interesting ideas James Harmer of Cambridge Design Partnership brought to the stage at Bucharest Tech Week’s Innovation Summit 2026.
Circularity is a value story
During his session, James challenged one of the most common assumptions around circularity: that it belongs mainly in the sustainability conversation.
Sustainability matters, of course. But his argument went further. Circularity is also about retaining value for longer: not only the value of the materials inside a product, but the value of the product itself, the experience it delivers and the relationship a brand can continue building with its customer.
That led to one of the central questions of his session: “How do we make products so that they keep creating value?”
Not just for the person who bought them, but for the companies that can build a longer-term relationship with that customer.
Once a product can be repaired, upgraded, refurbished or adapted instead of simply replaced, the transaction no longer has to end at the first sale. For businesses, that changes the conversation considerably.
Regulation is making that question harder to ignore
The timing matters too. Under the EU Right to Repair Directive, Directive (EU) 2024/1799, Member States were required to apply the new rules from 31 July 2026. For products covered by EU reparability requirements, including categories such as mobile phones, tablets, washing machines and vacuum cleaners, the framework strengthens consumers’ ability to choose repair over replacement.
Among other measures, manufacturers covered by the rules must offer repair within a reasonable timeframe and for free or at a reasonable price, provide accessible information about repair services and offer spare parts and tools at prices that do not discourage repair. When a consumer chooses repair instead of replacement within the legal guarantee period, that period is extended by at least 12 months.
In other words, repairability is moving from something companies can choose to explore into something more businesses will increasingly have to design for.
James anticipated exactly that pressure during the session: “Consumers are going to need to have access to batteries. Consumers are going to need to have access to motors.”
His broader point was that companies waiting until regulation forces the redesign may already be late. As he explained, businesses that are already designing around regulatory changes can turn that preparation into a competitive advantage.
What happens when circularity becomes part of the business model?
There are already signs that this can go beyond compliance. According to Philips’ Annual Report 2025, circular revenues represented 27.9% of total revenue, up from 24.4% in 2024 and above the company’s 25% target. Philips measures this across circular design, in-use services, end-of-use management and circular delivery and financing models.
And the opportunity is much broader than one company. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation cites an estimate that circular markets in the EU could be worth €1.5 trillion by 2040.
During the Q&A, James also pointed to Caterpillar as one of the strongest examples he has seen of circularity working commercially.
Its Cat Reman model is built around bringing used components back into the system. Customers return eligible end-of-life components, or “cores”, which can then be remanufactured to like-new specifications and returned to the supply chain.
It is a real-world example of the principle James was describing on stage: instead of allowing all the value embedded in a product to disappear at the end of its first life, build a system capable of capturing that value again.
Different industry, same underlying idea: design the product and the business so that value can come back instead of continually leaking out of the system.
But circular products still have to be better products
This may be the most important part. Circularity will not work simply because it is more responsible. During the Q&A, one audience member challenged James on modular phones, pointing out that similar concepts had appeared before without convincing consumers.
James agreed that the consumer side is critical. If a circular solution creates a compromise or makes the experience more difficult, people are unlikely to adopt it. His point was simple: circular products still have to be good products.
That is where modularity becomes interesting. Instead of building every possible feature into every device, a modular approach can allow customers to add what they actually need, from additional battery capacity to different camera capabilities, while keeping the base product in use for longer.
But modularity is only one part of the equation. James stressed that circularity has to be considered from the beginning of the design process, alongside repairability, component replacement and the ability to recover value when products are opened, changed or upgraded.
Circularity cannot simply become an end-of-life programme added after the product has already been designed.
And the resource question is only getting bigger
James ended by widening the conversation far beyond smartphones. Humanoid robots, electric vehicles, automated home systems and emerging mobility technologies may feel like very different categories, but they share something fundamental: they all depend on physical infrastructure, materials and energy.
The same applies to AI. Digital may feel intangible, but the infrastructure behind it is not. During the session, James specifically raised the growing water and energy demands associated with AI and large-scale computing as another example of why resource efficiency has to become part of the technology conversation.
As he put it: “Digital is not digital by itself. It’s built from atoms.” And that may be the bigger lesson from circularity.
It is not simply a phase consumer tech has to go through before moving on to the next technology wave. It is increasingly becoming one of the principles that will determine how well that next wave is built.
So perhaps the question for a product roadmap is no longer only What should we build next? It is also: How much value can what we build today continue creating tomorrow?
Sources
Global E-waste Monitor 2024, UNITAR / ITU / Global E-waste Statistics Partnership.
European Commission, Right to repair: New consumer rights for easy and attractive repairs, 31 July 2026; Directive (EU) 2024/1799.
Royal Philips, Annual Report 2025.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Circular business models: Rethinking how value is created, 2025; Building Prosperity, 2024.
Caterpillar, Cat Reman / Circular Economy.
James Harmer, Cambridge Design Partnership, The Circular Advantage: Redesigning Consumer Tech for Long-Term Value Creation, Bucharest Tech Week Innovation Summit 2026.
Comments