Before, During and After Use: Why Lifecycle Thinking Is Becoming a Business Issue

A recent briefing from the European Environment Agency reviewed evidence on how circular economy strategies can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One of its most useful contributions is not a headline number, but a framework: impact sits across before use, during use and after use. 

For business leaders, this is less about sustainability rhetoric and more about how assets create value over time. 

Circularity is not just about recycling. It is about how products are designed, how intensively they are used, and what happens to them once their first use cycle ends. 

Increasingly, these stages are commercially connected.

Before Use: Design Shapes Cost and Performance 

A significant share of a product’s cost base – and environmental footprint – is determined at the design and production stage. 

Decisions around: 

• Durability 

• Repairability 

• Modularity 

• Material efficiency 

directly affect uptime, maintenance costs and replacement frequency. 

Manufacturers are already responding to supply chain volatility, material constraints and regulatory pressure. Designing products that last longer and can be upgraded rather than replaced is becoming a competitiveness issue. 

Business models influence this. When value is delivered over time rather than captured only at the point of sale, durability and serviceability become commercially relevant. 

During Use: Utilisation Is an Efficiency Question 

The “during use” phase is often overlooked in executive discussions, yet it is where significant operational inefficiency can sit. 

Across sectors, assets are frequently: 

• Underutilised 

• Replaced earlier than necessary 

• Maintained inconsistently 

• Disconnected from structured lifecycle planning 

From a management perspective, this represents idle capital and avoidable cost. Usage-based approaches – including leasing, product-as-a-service and performance contracts – shift the focus from ownership to output. Instead of asking “Who owns the asset?”, the question becomes “How efficiently is it delivering value?” 

Higher utilisation rates can mean fewer assets are required to deliver the same business output. Extended lifetimes reduce replacement cycles and disruption. Structured maintenance improves reliability and productivity. 

Research reviewed by the European Environment Agency suggests that these shifts can contribute to lower emissions by reducing demand for new production. But even without the climate lens, the commercial logic stands: better utilisation improves capital efficiency and operational resilience. 

Any emissions benefit is a by-product of improved asset productivity – not a standalone claim. d sustainable equipment lifecycles. 

After Use: Recovery Depends on Earlier Decisions 

Recycling and recovery remain important, but they rarely compensate for inefficient use upstream. 

End-of-use outcomes depend on: 

• Whether the product was designed for refurbishment or disassembly 

• Whether condition and usage data were tracked 

• Whether secondary applications exist 

If assets are deployed within structured frameworks where maintenance and condition are monitored, refurbishment and redeployment become more viable. 

For the user, this translates into smoother transitions, less operational disruption and more predictable asset planning. 

Again, the commercial driver is continuity and efficiency. Environmental gains follow when fewer new products need to be manufactured to replace prematurely discarded ones. chieved through declarations. It is built through operating decisions.

Connecting the Phases: Why Business Model Matters 

The EEA’s lifecycle framing highlights something practical: the three phases reinforce each other. 

• Design affects longevity. 

• Utilisation affects replacement demand. 

• Traceability affects redeployment options. 

Usage-based models operate most directly in the “during use” phase, but they influence the others. When revenue is linked to performance over time: 

• There is greater incentive to support durable design. 

• Maintenance becomes structured rather than reactive. 

• Asset planning becomes lifecycle-based rather than transaction-based. 

This alignment does not automatically reduce emissions. Outcomes depend on sector characteristics, energy systems and user behaviour. 

But it does create conditions in which lower material throughput – and therefore lower upstream production emissions – become more likely. 

For general management, that translates into: 

• Improved asset productivity 

• Lower lifecycle cost volatility 

• Reduced operational downtime 

• Stronger collaboration with suppliers 

The climate dimension increasingly sits within these operational choices, rather than outside them. 

A Practical Perspective