Branded merchandise is often described as sustainable because it is made from a natural, recycled or responsibly sourced material. Material choice matters, but it represents only one part of a product’s environmental and social impact.
A broader assessment asks what happens to the product—and the resources used to make it—throughout its lifecycle. How was it manufactured? How long will it remain useful? Will it be used repeatedly? Can it be repaired or redistributed? What will happen when its original owner no longer needs it?
These questions move the conversation beyond individual product attributes and towards circular systems. This reflects established circular-economy thinking, which focuses on eliminating waste and pollution, circulating products and materials, and regenerating nature [1].
Sustainable, reusable or circular?
The terms sustainable, reusable and circular are sometimes used interchangeably, but they describe different ideas.
“Sustainable” is a broad term that may refer to materials, production methods, environmental impacts or social considerations. Because it can mean different things in different contexts, any sustainability claim should be accompanied by specific, relevant evidence. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority’s Green Claims Code similarly says environmental claims should be clear, accurate, substantiated and based on the full lifecycle where relevant [2].
A reusable product is one that can technically be used more than once. However, the ability to reuse something does not guarantee that it will actually be reused. An item may be poorly made, unsuitable for everyday needs or so closely associated with a particular event that recipients have little reason to keep it.
A circular product, by contrast, forms part of a system intended to keep the product, its components and its materials in productive use for as long as practical. This means considering durability, maintenance, repair, redistribution, repurposing and material recovery—not simply selecting a preferred material. Academic analysis also characterises circularity as a systemic shift rather than a single recycling or material choice [3].
Durability and design for repeated use
Extending a product’s useful life can generate greater value from the materials, energy and other resources used in its production. For branded bags and other merchandise, this begins with an appropriate specification. Circular-design research identifies long-life products, maintenance, repair, upgrading, refurbishment and remanufacture as important strategies for slowing resource loops [4].
Durability may be influenced by fabric weight and strength, stitching, construction quality and the performance of high-wear components such as handles, fastenings and closures. The product must also be suitable for its intended purpose. A lightweight item may be appropriate for one application but fail quickly if it is expected to carry heavy loads or withstand frequent use.
Cleaning, maintenance and repair should also be considered. If an item cannot be cleaned easily, or if one damaged component makes the whole product unusable, its practical lifespan may be shorter than anticipated.
Design influences whether recipients want to continue using merchandise. Products that are functional, appropriately sized and visually suited to everyday life are more likely to be retained. Excessive branding, event dates and short-term campaign messages can limit their relevance once the original activity has ended.
The guiding principle should be to design around genuine user needs rather than treating the product primarily as a temporary advertising surface.
Material sourcing and manufacturing
Material selection remains an important part of circular decision-making, but it should be assessed alongside manufacturing methods and product construction.
Buyers may need to consider whether materials are renewable, recycled or responsibly sourced, as well as the percentage and traceability of any recycled content. They should also examine resource use during manufacturing, the treatment of fabric offcuts and rejected products, and the use of dyes, coatings, laminations, adhesives and printing inks.
Ethical and social conditions within the supply chain are equally relevant to responsible procurement. Packaging, transport requirements and the distance between different stages of production may also affect the overall assessment.
Crucially, buyers should look at the complete composition of the finished product—not only its main fabric. A bag made primarily from a natural fibre may also contain synthetic thread, labels, linings, coatings, closures, adhesives or printing components. These additions may improve performance, but they can also affect repair, separation, recycling or other end-of-life options.
This is particularly important when terms such as “plastic-free”, “recyclable” or “biodegradable” are used. Such claims should reflect the entire finished product, the conditions required for treatment and the facilities that are realistically available. A lifecycle perspective helps avoid shifting environmental burdens from one stage or impact category to another [5].
Reuse, repurposing and second life
Circular planning should address what happens when the original user or purchasing organisation no longer needs the product.
The best outcome may be continued use by the original recipient. Other possibilities include redistribution to another user, reuse at future events, donation of suitable surplus stock, repair, refurbishment or repurposing into another useful item. Material recovery should generally be considered when further use is no longer practical.
Unused surplus stock and previously distributed products present different challenges. Surplus items held in storage may be relatively straightforward to reallocate, particularly if their design is not tied to a date or short-term message. Used products may require collection, cleaning, inspection and repair before they can be passed on safely and appropriately.
Permanent branding may also restrict redistribution. An item carrying a highly specific campaign message, outdated information or an unsuitable logo may have few credible second life uses.
Technical recyclability alone does not provide a complete solution. For recycling to happen in practice, there must be an accessible collection route and a processor capable of handling the product. Mixed materials, contamination, coatings, permanent branding and the absence of take-back arrangements can prevent a theoretically recyclable item from being recovered.
Responsible circular procurement
Circular procurement starts before an order is placed. The first question is not which material to choose, but whether a new product is genuinely needed.
Could existing stock be reused? Could the same objective be achieved without producing another physical item? If merchandise is necessary, how many units are realistically required? Accurate quantity planning can reduce overproduction and the risk of surplus stock becoming obsolete.
Procurement teams should define the product’s intended function, expected lifespan and performance requirements. They should examine its complete material composition, manufacturing transparency, packaging and logistics, as well as possible routes for repair, redistribution and recovery. Responsibility for unused, returned or obsolete stock should be agreed in advance rather than addressed after the campaign has ended.
Value should be assessed across the product’s useful life, not only through its initial unit cost. A more durable product that remains useful for longer may offer better overall value than a lower-cost alternative that is quickly discarded. In some cases, the more circular decision may be to order fewer items, select a longer-lasting specification or avoid producing merchandise altogether.
Evaluating suppliers’ circularity claims
Buyers should ask for clear, product-specific information rather than relying on broad environmental language. Useful questions include:
- What materials and components are used in the complete product?
- Where do those materials come from?
- Are sourcing and recycled-content claims independently verified?
- How is the product designed for durability and repeated use?
- Does it contain synthetic thread, coatings, adhesives, labels or accessories?
- Can it be cleaned, repaired or refurbished?
- Can its components be separated for repurposing or material recovery?
- What happens to manufacturing waste, rejected items and surplus products?
- Is there an operational take-back or recovery programme?
- Is the proposed end-of-life route available in practice?
- Who is responsible for collection and processing?
- What limitations or trade-offs should the buyer understand?
Terms such as “green”, “eco-friendly”, “biodegradable” and “circular” should be treated cautiously when they are not supported by defined criteria, relevant evidence and a realistic implementation plan.
From product attributes to circular systems
Circular branded merchandise cannot be defined by one material or environmental attribute. It requires responsible sourcing, appropriate manufacturing, durable and relevant design, repeated use, and credible plans for reuse, repurposing and recovery.
Organisations should therefore move beyond asking, “Is this made from a sustainable material?”
The more useful question is: “How will this product—and the resources within it—remain useful for as long as possible?”
References
[1] Ellen MacArthur Foundation (n.d.) What is the circular economy? Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview
[2] Competition and Markets Authority (n.d.) Green Claims Code: Making environmental claims. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims
[3] Kirchherr, J., Yang, N.-H.N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M.J. and Hartley, K. (2023) ‘Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (Revisited): An Analysis of 221 Definitions’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194, 107001. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344923001374
[4] Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C. and van der Grinten, B. (2016) ‘Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy’, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), pp. 308–320. Full article: Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy
[5] European Commission (n.d.) Environmental Footprint Methods. Available at: https://green-forum.ec.europa.eu/green-business/environmental-footprint-methods_en
Further information
JuteBag (n.d.) Ethical Production. Available at: https://www.jutebag.co.uk/ethical-production
Author:
Bonnie Lyall
Senior Copyrighter
Jute Trading Ltd
0 Comments