Search

Navigating asset transitions for a sustainable and equitable future

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

02 Sep, 2024

This post was originally published on Sustainability Matters

Closing major assets like power stations or mines can profoundly impact local communities, sometimes leading to job losses, a decline in local services, and a drastic reduction in population. In today’s world, there’s a clear expectation that mining and utility companies navigate these transitions thoughtfully. This requires developing a comprehensive stakeholder consultation and communication engagement plan, one that communicates a responsible transition and explores a wide variety of options to support impacted stakeholders. The industry is seeing a growing focus on ensuring that external stakeholders are included more as part of this process to consider the community and socio-economic impact of decisions made. By involving the right people and resources, we can better support communities through these challenging changes, minimising any negative impacts and paving the way for a more sustainable future.

What does a sustainable and equitable asset transition look like?

Australia has robust environmental standards for asset closure, requiring thorough land assessments and remediation to make sure the land is safe, stable and non-polluting. In many cases, carbon and biodiversity offsetting is employed as part of the transition. However, there is room for improvement in integrating economic, social, and intergenerational equity into these transitions.

Traditionally, land reuse options — like reforesting, turning land into grazing areas, or creating water reserves — can take 20 to 30 years to develop. These approaches often fail to generate the economic activity needed to replace the jobs lost when a major asset like a power station or mine closes. The result can be “ghost towns” where there are few opportunities for those left behind.

Arguably, in some regions, the voices of traditional landowners are not adequately sought or captured prior to asset planning and transition. Without legislative requirements and strong company values and strategies to support positive indigenous outcomes to enforce such practices, some companies can still avoid engagement with these groups when defining what success looks like for the transition of an asset. This kind of oversight risks undermining the cultural and social fabric of the community and overlooks the opportunity to co-create more inclusive and sustainable solutions that are respectful of cultural heritage.

For asset transition to leave a better, more inclusive legacy, we need to involve all stakeholders, including traditional landowners, and create economic opportunities that align with the community’s needs, values and aspirations. It means thinking beyond short-term fixes and working towards solutions that offer long-term benefits for generations now and into the future.

What are our options?

Land capability or suitability assessment is a critical step in determining the future of sites undergoing transition. In Australia, the process involves more than just deciding what to do with the land. It’s about navigating complex zoning constraints, environmental considerations, and community, business and socio-economic needs to find the best possible future use.

Many companies are open to a variety of ideas for repurposing land, from creating parks and hotels to developing spas and recreational areas. The reality is that many sites, particularly those associated with industrial activities, like coal-fired power stations, face a range of limitations that may present barriers to land uses more sensitive in nature.

As an example, land contaminated by metals, hydrocarbons and other containments and remediation requirements often restricts a transition to light industrial use, making more ambitious and sensitive land use projects difficult to realise. On the other hand, large areas of former mining sites can be better suited to agricultural reuse, depending on limitations associated with steep slopes and available remediation options.

Another key factor to consider is the financial viability of either retaining ownership or selling the land. The land rehabilitation process required to make a site suitable for a new purpose can be costly. Most companies will naturally lean towards options that offer the highest returns with the most cost-efficient rehabilitation and least long-term liabilities. This financial bias can sometimes limit the scope of creative or community-focussed land reuse projects.

Asset transition also offers the opportunity to embrace the principles of a circular economy. Companies can repurpose materials from existing property, plant and equipment for new developments on the land, reducing waste and potentially lowering costs. Taking this approach supports sustainability goals while also adding in a layer of innovation to the asset transition process.

Who do we need to involve?

Involving the right stakeholders is crucial for asset transitions to be sustainable and equitable, starting with local communities and governments. Communities are looking to companies for guidance on potential land uses for transitioning assets and are eager to share their own insights about what will work best for them. A collaborative approach means the transition will align with the needs and aspirations of those directly impacted.

State governments and local councils play a significant role in shaping the outcomes of asset transitions. They have the power to influence regional planning, making sure considerations like housing affordability, transport and job creation are factored into the decision-making process for potential land uses. When communities express strong support for a sustainable and equitable transition, local governments can be instrumental in driving the necessary changes, improving planning, establishing legislation and enforcing compliance to achieve these goals.

While we need government bodies and asset owners to lay the groundwork for positive asset transitions, it’s just as important to bring in people with big, bold ideas. Innovators from the private sector, local businesses, academia, or the community can offer fresh perspectives and creative solutions, making sure the transition is both sustainable and forward-thinking.

According to GHD’s recent CROSSROADS report, more than 70% of citizens in all surveyed countries agree that governments should do more to grow community understanding about the importance of clean energy and the associated infrastructure required to make it happen. In Australia, 64% of those surveyed believe the switch to clean energy will open new industries and jobs for their communities. The substantial support for clean energy underscores the need for governments and the energy industry to invest in and advocate for sustainable energy solutions as part of their asset transition plans.

A roadmap for asset transition

As industries grapple with the challenges of the energy transition, asset transition planning has become a crucial part of the process. Sectors like mining and coal-fired power are already looking decades ahead, with some planning for closure at the very start of the asset lifecycle. Foresight and early planning are essential. Waiting until just a few years before closure to start thinking about the future of a site is far too late.

The earlier the planning, the more opportunities there are to transition sustainably and equitably. Delaying these decisions not only puts the success of the transition at risk but also threatens the wellbeing of affected communities.

So, what should you do if you’re on the cusp of an asset transition? Start planning now. Engage with local communities, businesses and governments early and often. Look beyond traditional land reuse options and explore innovative approaches that align with both economic and environmental goals.

Asset transition is more than a logistical challenge — it’s an opportunity to do right by the environment, the economy, and the community.

Michelle Kiejda

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Renewables Helped Prevent Blackouts on New England’s Hottest Day This Summer

Renewables Helped Prevent Blackouts on New England’s Hottest Day This Summer

Renewable energy sources, such as solar power and battery storage, have helped keep power on in New England, even during peak demand on the hottest day of summer. According to a recent report from the nonprofit Acadia Center, more than 5 gigawatts of behind-the-meter solar provided additional support during peak demand times, despite the temperature […]
The post Renewables Helped Prevent Blackouts on New England’s Hottest Day This Summer appeared first on EcoWatch.

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

In June, I had the privilege of attending the 2025 E-Waste World, Battery Recycling, Metal Recycling, and ITAD & Circular Electronics Conference & Expo events in Frankfurt, Germany.

Speaking in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track on a panel with global Circular Economy leaders from Foxway Group, ERI and HP, we explored the evolving role of IT asset disposition (ITAD) and opportunities in the circular electronics economy.

The event’s focus on advancing circular economy goals and reducing environmental impact delivered a series of insights and learnings. From this assembly of international expertise across 75+ countries, here are some points from the presentations that stood out for me:

1. Environmental impact of the digital economy

Digitalisation has a heavy material footprint in the production phase, and lifecycle thinking needs to guide every product decision. Consider that 81% of the energy a laptop uses in its lifetime is consumed during manufacture (1 tonne in manufacture is equal to 10,000 tonnes of CO2) and laptops are typically refreshed or replaced by companies every 3–4 years.

From 2018 to 2023, the average number of devices and connections per capita in the world increased by 50% (2.4 to 3.6). In North America (8.2 to 13.4) and Western Europe (5.6 to 9.4), this almost doubled. In 1960, only 10 periodic table elements were used to make phones. In 1990, 27 elements were used and now over 60 elements are used to build the smartphones that we have become so reliant on.

A key challenge is that low-carbon and digital technologies largely compete for the same minerals. Material resource extraction could increase 60% between 2020 and 2060, while demand for lithium, cobalt and graphite is expected to rise by 500% until 2050.

High growth in ICT demand and Internet requires more attention to the environmental footprint of the digital economy. Energy consumption of data centres is expected to more than double by 2026. The electronics industry accounts for over 4% of global GHG — and digitalisation-related waste is growing, with skewed impacts on developing countries.

E-waste is rising five times faster than recycling — 1 tonne of e-waste has a carbon footprint of 2 tonnes. Today’s solution? ‘Bury it or burn it.’ In terms of spent emissions, waste and the costs associated with end-of-life liabilities, PCBAs (printed circuit board assembly) cost us enormously — they generally achieve 3–5% recyclability (75% of CO2 in PCBAs is from components).

2. Regulating circularity in electronics

There is good momentum across jurisdictions in right-to-repair, design and labelling regulations; recycling targets; and voluntary frameworks on circularity and eco-design.

The EU is at the forefront. EU legislation is lifting the ICT aftermarket, providing new opportunities for IT asset disposition (ITAD) businesses. To get a sense, the global market for electronics recycling is estimated to grow from $37 billion to $108 billion (2022–2030). The value of refurbished electronics is estimated to increase from $85.9 billion to $262.2 billion (2022–2032). Strikingly, 40% of companies do not have a formal ITAD strategy in place.

Significantly, the EU is rethinking its Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) management targets, aligned with upcoming circularity and WEEE legislation, as part of efforts to foster the circular economy. A more robust and realistic circularity-driven approach to setting collection targets would better reflect various factors including long lifespans of electronic products and market fluctuations.

Australia and New Zealand lag the EU’s comprehensive e-waste mandated frameworks. The lack of a systematic approach results in environmental degradation and missed positioning opportunities for businesses in the circular economy. While Australia’s Senate inquiry into waste reduction and recycling recommended legislating a full circular economy framework — including for imported and local product design, financial incentives and regulatory enforcement, New Zealand remains the only OECD country without a national scheme to manage e-waste.

3. Extending product lifecycles

Along with data security and digital tools, reuse was a key theme in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track of the conference. The sustainable tech company that I lead, Greenbox, recognises that reuse is the simplest circular strategy. Devices that are still functional undergo refurbishment and are reintroduced into the market, reducing new production need and conserving valuable resources.

Conference presenters highlighted how repair over replacement is being legislated as a right in jurisdictions around the world. Resources are saved, costs are lowered, product life is extended, and people and organisations are empowered to support a greener future. It was pointed out that just 43% of countries have recycling policies, 17% of global waste is formally recycled, and less than 1% of global e-waste is formally repaired and reused.

Right to repair is a rising wave in the circular economy, and legislation is one way that civil society is pushing back on programmed obsolescence. Its global momentum continues at different speeds for different product categories — from the recent EU mandates to multiple US state bills (and some laws) through to repair and reuse steps in India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Commission has done a scoping study to identify product groups under the Ecodesign framework that would be most relevant for implementing an EU-wide product reparability scoring system.

Attending this event with the entire electronic waste recycling supply chain — from peers and partners to suppliers and customers — underscored the importance of sharing best practices to address the environmental challenges that increased hardware proliferation and complex related issues are having on the world.

Ross Thompson is Group CEO of sustainability, data management and technology asset lifecycle management market leader Greenbox. With facilities in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, Greenbox Group provides customers all over the world a carbon-neutral supply chain for IT equipment to reduce their carbon footprint by actively managing their environmental, social and governance obligations.

Image credit: iStock.com/Mustafa Ovec

0 Comments