From the Editor

How many people does it take to change a lightbulb? Just over a hundred years ago, the device at the heart of that joke became the origin of one of the most damaging ideas in modern economic history: planned obsolescence.

In December 1924, the world’s largest lightbulb manufacturers gathered in Geneva and conspired to restrict bulb lifespans from 2,500 hours to 1,000. With the flip of a switch, the Phoebus Cartel—named, with no apparent irony, after the Greek god of light—repurposed engineers who had spent careers making bulbs last longer to ensure they failed sooner. The cartel lasted about 15 years. The idea has lasted a century. The impact, incalculably longer.

Fast forward to today, and the real damage went beyond the billions of unnecessary products manufactured, consumed, and discarded. Most tragic was the cultural and economic normalization of designing things to fail to the point that it became acceptable standard practice. One decision in one room in Geneva created a template that industries adopted, and nobody questioned for a century.

The lesson of the lightbulb offers a compelling strategy for advancing circularity. The ingredients of consensus, measurement, and enforcement that kept a 1,000-hour bulb on shelves for almost 100 years have also been shown to drive positive change. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) created the green building market. The GHG Protocol led to corporate carbon accounting. The key difference is the intent. The power that standards command is why we chose them as the lens for this issue, not because they’re glamorous, but precisely because they are the invisible mechanism through which the circular economy either scales or stalls.

Consider the emerging category of reusable food containers. What goes through the mind of a guest getting served a soda at a stadium or a pizza at a mall food court? Does the fact that the container is reused matter?

In order for the answer to be no—and for the operator to confidently offer it—numerous dots need to be connected, from wash temperatures and safety thresholds to replacement cycles and return logistics. Without that invisible standard, operators can’t manage risk, consumers can’t trust the container, and single-use remains the default. The work being done by PR3 and CSA Group, for example, to turn practitioner knowledge into binational reusable packaging standards, shows what’s possible when the system works.

Across this issue, an important pattern emerges: the leaders and entrepreneurs advancing circularity in Canada and around the world aren’t waiting for formal standards to be written. They’re proving what works in repair, soil regeneration, material reclassification, municipal coordination, third-party certification, and event spaces, and in doing so, they are generating the evidence that will inform what those standards ultimately need to contain.

I am simultaneously humbled and ecstatic to see the incredible lineup of organizations featured in this issue: City of Toronto, ChopValue, Circular Innovation Council, GRT, KORE Outdoors, and Ten Lives Festivals are writing the playbook through practice. CSA Group and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation bring additional depth as guest authors, contributing their perspectives directly in their own voice. We also spoke with Martin Charter, who offers a candid insider view of how the ISO 59000 series, the first international circular economy standards, was developed and where it needs to go next. And for me personally, it was reading the work of the founders of the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute that first introduced me to circular design thinking almost 20 years ago. Their presence in these pages is a full-circle moment in the truest sense.

As much as has been done to shift the circular economy to becoming “the economy,” there is still a long road ahead. International circular economy standards, like ISO 59000 or the Global Circularity Protocol, are crucial but early steps. Fortunately, as evidenced by the organizations and programs featured in this issue, the opportunities, signals, and momentum driving circularity are real. And, most importantly, the world can move far more quickly and at a greater scale in 2026 than it could in 1924. Canada, in particular, has a chance to be the global bridge builder, sitting between a US market that’s lagging, an EU market that’s already mandating circularity through trade, and an Asia-Pacific region intent on driving it forward. The window to shape these standards is now.

For our part, choosing to continue with the magazine was intentional. Based on the overwhelming positive response toward our first issue and our purpose to accelerate awareness and adoption of the circular economy, we wanted to embrace the challenges and opportunities this medium presents. Our commitment is to improve with every issue, iteratively, by thinking through every design decision, from paper stock to end of life, with circularity in mind, and to hold ourselves to the same standard we ask of our contributors.

A century ago, a cartel in Geneva used standards to dim innovation. Unwittingly, however, they also handed the world the lightbulb moment it needs to advance the circular economy: Circularity is a design choice. The same architecture of consensus, measurement, verification, and enforcement is exactly what’s required to scale what the trailblazers in these pages are already proving is possible. Wherever you may be on your journey to advance a circular future, my hope is that as you read the stories in this issue, you consider a different question: How many lightbulbs does it take to change a person?

Hamish KhamisaEditor-in-Chief, Circular Economy Magazine