A product can move from a sale to a subscription without using fewer resources. Among circular economy business models, product-as-a-service merits attention because a provider may retain equipment, maintain it and recover it after use. Whether those practices reduce material demand depends on what happens in reality. We therefore start with a testable comparison: delivering the same service through individually owned products or through assets supplied and managed by a service provider.
Measure the same service on both sides
Imagine a hypothetical workplace choosing between buying its own floor-cleaning machines and contracting for access to maintained machines. Counting machines alone would miss differences in usage. The comparison needs a functional unit: for example, cleaning a defined floor area to an agreed standard over a specified period. Both arrangements should face comparable working hours, service quality and site conditions.
Compare both options over the same period, accounting for years of use rather than an isolated month. State assumptions about wear, energy consumption and replacement. If the contractor serves many sites, allocate the relevant share of equipment and travel to the service delivered. These choices belong in the method before anyone announces a resource saving.
Compare ownership and access as physical systems
Access-based arrangements include renting, leasing and sharing, as described in the European Environment Agency's analysis of circular business models. Higher utilisation can mean fewer products are needed to supply a given amount of service. Yet a provider also acquires spare equipment, transports assets and manages returns. For our assessment, the following comparison focuses on evidence rather than presumed winners:
| What to examine | Individually owned equipment | Provider-managed service |
|---|---|---|
| Products required | Units purchased and actual utilisation | Fleet size, standby units and utilisation |
| Maintenance and repair | Repair frequency, parts and product lifetime | Provider servicing, replacements and parts |
| Transport and returns | Delivery, local servicing and disposal trips | Delivery routes, collection and redistribution |
| End of use | Storage, resale, recycling or disposal | Refurbishment, next use and final recovery |
The entries describe data to collect. Repairs may extend machine life, while collection journeys consume fuel. A fair comparison accounts for both. It also distinguishes an asset returned to storage from one genuinely redeployed to another customer.
Within our circular economy work, we are interested in questions of resource efficiency that can survive this kind of scrutiny. Labels are useful for describing a business arrangement, but an environmental claim requires material flows, a clear boundary and evidence of what the service replaces.
Look beyond the equipment count
A rental may leave older owned equipment in use, limiting substitution. If access becomes easier and demand for the service rises, the provider may need a larger fleet. The underlying question is how many new products the whole system requires over time, including replacements and spare capacity.
Other effects move across the life cycle. Washing rented textiles can add water and energy use; repair can extend useful life; moving equipment between distant sites can add transport. Product design matters as well: components that can be replaced selectively may avoid discarding the whole unit. The relevant measures depend on sector and service conditions, so a single universal percentage would be misleading.
Behaviour also changes the outcome. The European Environment Agency's research on circular consumption and rebound effects considers how efficiency improvements can be offset by increased consumption. Its analysis concerns Europe and does not establish the result for an individual service provider. It nevertheless gives investigators a reason to measure demand after adoption, rather than inferring savings from a contract structure.
Set an evidence threshold before drawing conclusions
A useful assessment separates four decisions. First, define equivalent service and a shared study period. Second, account for the materials entering and leaving each pathway, including repairs and losses. Third, include important stages of the life cycle rather than choosing only those likely to favour one model. Fourth, test whether reasonable changes to assumptions reverse the result.
Suppose a provider reports a higher utilisation rate but has no reliable figures for premature retirement or return journeys. That observation supports a narrow statement about usage; it cannot yet establish lower total impact. Uncertainty should appear alongside the result, especially where data come from different owners, locations or reporting periods. The analysis may also need separate outcomes for material demand, greenhouse-gas emissions and cost. A financial saving does not prove a physical one.
Treat the result as conditional
Our interest lies in the evidence needed to judge a model's effect on resources and institutional conduct. An access contract may create incentives to repair and recover products, but its impact remains an empirical question. A useful conclusion names the service compared, the materials counted, the time period and the uncertainties that could change it. That allows a reader to judge the claim without accepting the word ‘circular’ as proof.