The Companies That Got Richer by Never Selling You Their Product
Ownership looks like the win. Buy the machine. Own the asset. Put in the balance sheet and call it a strategy. I have sat across the table from boards that repeat this logic for twenty years, and I have watched what that logic cost them five years later.
The buyer owns the failure. The buyers owns the waste. the buyer owns the disposal cost nobody put in the brochure. Ownership was never the prize. It is the risk, quietly handed to whoever signed the check.
A different model has been running for decades, mostly ignored by companies who think sustainability strategy starts with a carbon report. I have worked inside enough of these deals to know that the technology was never the obstacle.
It is called "Product as a Service".
You do not buy the light, you buy the illumination.
You do not buy the tire, you buy the kilometre.
You do not buy the jet engine, you buy the flying hour.
The maker keeps the asset and keeps the failure cost too.
The contracts are simple to write.
Getting a board to let go of the word "own" is the part that take years.
Every circular economy strategy on the market today talks about what to do with waste once it exists.
Upcycle it, downcycle it, recycle it, offset it, report it, hand it to a specialist who takes it off your books and out of your scope 3 inventory.
None of that touches the actual lever, which sits upstream of all of it: produce less in the first place, design product sustainable buy design.A service model does that without a mandate or a task force, because the seller now pays for every unit that fails, breaks, or gets thrown away. Waste stops being the customer's later problem and becomes the seller's cost line on this quarter report.
That is not circularity bolted on after the design is finished. That is sustainability built into the product before the product exists. That is sustainability by design.
That single shift changes who cares about the waste, who trains the workforce, and who answers for what breaks.
Here what evidence shows, pillar by pillar.
The seller now owns the waste
Environment
Signify, Philips lighting brand, runs a model called Light as a service [1].
The customer pays for illumination, priced per lux delivered to the room, not per appliance installed. Signify keeps the appliances (the overhead panels, high warehouse lights, and sensors) keeps the maintenance, and keeps the responsibility for what happens to the bulbs once they wear out.
The steel and mining company ArcelorMittal at its Sagunto site in Spain [2], moved to this model and had its lighting upgraded, maintained and eventually recycled by Signify rather than dumped by the client.
Switching a building to connected LED lighting under this kind of contract cuts lighting-related electricity use by up to 70% percent.
Here is the catch.
This model asks a company to swap a large upfront purchase for a smaller recurring payment. That sounds easier, but a finance department built around depreciation schedules, it is not automatically easier. It changes how the deal sits on the books, and some finance teams resist that change harder than they resist the sustainability pitch itself. The obstacle to circularity is not the physics. It is accounting.
Regulation is closing that gap whether finance teams like it or not. The EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation [3] entered into force in July 2024. It introduces the Digital Product Passport, a record that will travel with a product and document its materials, its durability, and what should happen to it when its working life ends. The requirements roll out sector by sector through 2030. A company that already tracks a product's full life cycle because it is running a service model will fill out that passport with ease. A company that sold the product and walked away will be starting from zero.
Pull out the warranty terms on you best-selling product. Does it assume the product will be thrown away and replaced, or does it assume someone, possibly your own company, will still be paying for what happens to it five years from now?The labour moves from the factory floor to the field
Social
Michelin launched a program called EFFIFUEL [4] in 2013 for trucking fleets.
The company sells more than tires under this program. It audits the fleet, installs monitoring equipment, and trains drivers in fuel-efficient driving. If the fleet hits the agreed fuel savings target, both sides share the gain. If misses the target, Michelin refunds part of the cost.
The result after the first year: fuel savings of 1.5 litres per 100 kilometres per truck. Say like this, it sound modest, but run it across a fleet doing 120,000 kilometres a year and it adds up to real money.
The savings came from training, not from a new tire compound. A person behind the wheel had to change habits, and someone had to teach them how.
That is the social pillar in practice.
A service model more than machines. It moves jobs. It creates work for driving coach, the fleet auditor, the technician who checks the equipment. Those are not glamorous jobs. They are jobs that exist because the seller now has a financial reason to make sure the product performs well in someone else's hands, for years, long after the day it left the factory.
Textile carries the same logic.
The Dutch denim brand MUD Jeans launched Lease a Jean in 2013. A customer pays a monthly fee for a pair of jeans instead of buying them outright, gets them repairs and after twelve months keeps the jeans or send them back to be recycled into new pair. A pair made this way uses roughly 400 litres of water against an industry average of nearly 7,000 litres and produces about 3.4kg of CO2e against an industry average of 23.
The model almost died [5] three years after launch, because the administrative work behind it (tracking who holds which pair, when each lease ends, what condition a returned pair is in), happened to eb harder to run than the company expected.
Selling a product once and shipping it out is simple. Staying the owner for the product's whole life cycle is an operation problem, before it is a sustainability story. MUD brought the model back a few months later because customers kept asking for it, and about half its customers now lease rather than buy.
The risk finds its way back to whoever made the promise
Governance
Rolls-Royce, or rather its predecessor Bristol Siddeley, built the original version of the model Product as a Service in 1962. The program named Power by the Hour, covered the Viper jet engine on the Havilland 125 business jet.
Airlines paid a fixed rate per flying hour, and that single fee covered a full engine and accessory replacement service, so the operator only paid for an engine that worked.
Rolls-Royce absorbed Bristol Siddeley in 1966 and kept the model. The current version is called TotalCare.[6]
An airline still pays a fixed rate per flying hour. Rolls-Royce still covers the maintenance.
What changed is the data behind it: thousands of sensor readings per flight now feed Rolls-Royce's own monitoring centre, so a shop visit gets scheduled before a part fails rather than after.
For years this looked like a clean win for manufacturer, since better-performing engines meant lower service costs and higher margin.
Then came Trent 1000 a specific jet engine built exclusively for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Starting in 2016, cracking showed up in the turbine blades of the engine. Airlines grounded aircraft. Regulators shortened how far those planes could fly from nearest airport.
By 2019, Rolls-Royce had to pay more than 2.4 billion pounds in costs tied to fixing the problem [7], a figure that later went up to 3 billion. The company had an operating loss the same year, the crisis picked.
Bristol Siddeley's 1962 version proved the principle, if it doesn't work, you don't get paid. The Trent 1000 crisis proved the principle at a scale where "you don't get paid" turned into "you pay to keep your customers flying, you pay to fix the design, and you pay for years, not weeks." Same logic, but the bill for that logic scales with how many planes are in the sky and how long they've been broken.
That is governance stripped down to its bones.
In ESG sense, governance means the apparatus: board committees, audit trails, disclosure requirements, whistle-blowers systems, third party reviewers. All of that machinery exists for one purpose: Accountability. The goal is to force someone to answer for a risk they created, especially when their instinct would be to avoid answering for it. Committees, audits and reports are the scaffolding built around that purpose because accountability does not happen automatically in most companies.
TotalCare reaches that same purpose without any of the scaffolding. Rolls-Royce designed the turbine blade. Rolls-Royce is also the party whose bank account takes the hit the moment that blade cracks. There is no distance between the decision and the consequence for anyone to exploit. No annual report cycle where the problem can get buried, no committee that has to first discover the issue before anyone acts on it. The contract itself makes the responsible party the paying party, instantly and automatically, the day the flaw shows up in the real world. Incentive alignment forces accountability faster than reporting requirements do.
None of that makes the model the villain of this story. A design flaw in the turbine blades caused the crack, one that existed the moment the engine left the drawing board, years before TotalCare had anything to do with it. Sell that same engine outright and the flaw does not disappear. It still shows up, on the airline's maintenance bill instead of Rolls-Royce's balance sheet, spread across years of warranty disputes and quiet part replacements the public never hears about. TotalCare did not create the 2.4 billion pound bill. It moved that bill onto the one balance sheet with both the knowledge and the means to fix the problem at the source, and it moved it there in months instead of over a decade of buried claims.
That is the real lesson about the model "product as a service".
A service model does not forgive weak engineering? It exposes it faster. A company weighing a move to product as a service needs its durability testing, failure analysis, and quality assurance built to match the incentive it is about to take on, because the contract will find any gap between what was promised and what was built, faster than you think.
Rolls-Royce mistake was never signing TotalCare. It was signing it before they could carry what they promised. Fix the engineering to the standard the contract demands, and TotalCare does exactly what it is supposed to do: pay for a problem before it becomes someone else's emergency at 30,000 feet.
TotalCare did not disappear after this crisis. It expanded.
In Februrary 2026, China Airlines signed a TotalCare agreement covering 36 Trent XWB engines for its A350 fleet [8], one of a string of new agreements Rolls-Royce has closed with airlines from Ethiopian to Kuwait Airways since the crisis peaked.
Rolls Royce now describes TotalCare on its website as "a circular business model, built to close the loop on material use and cut waste". The Trent 1000 is still flying, stil covered under TotalCare, and still being upgraded.
The Digital product Passport works on the same logic from the regulatory side. It does not ask a company to promise good behaviour. It asks for a record that get checked. A company already running a service model has that record because it needs it to keep the contract alive. A company that only ever sold the product and moved on will be building that record for the first time, under a deadline it did not choose.Textile companies built a version of this record decades before regulation asked for one.
Workwear providers such as Lindström, Mewa, Elis, and CWS Workwear do not sell uniforms to factories, hospitals, and hotels. They rent them, wash them, repair them, and take them back at the end of their working life. Lindström has run this model for close to a century and now operates in 24 countries. Every garment carries an RFID tag that logs how often it has been worn, washed, and repaired, a private-sector audit trail built for operational reasons, long before any regulator asked for one.
Even a model this proven hits a wall that has nothing to do with logistics. When Lindström expanded into Asia [9], the barrier was not technical. Buyers there associate ownership with trust and see rented or shared textiles as a hygiene risk, regardless of how well the laundering performs. A traceable, audited, decades-tested system still had to fight a belief before it could fight a cost.
Could your company produce, this week, a record of what happens to your product after it leaves the warehouse? Or would that take six weeks and an outside consultant to reconstruct after the fact? The gap between those two answers is the gap the Digital Product Passport is about to make public.Conclusion
Circular Economy has been presented as the answer for decades. Upcycle it. Downcycle it. Close the loop. Call it solved. As a physical chemist, the flaw in that promise was visible to me from the start. A upcycled or downcycled product still ends in a landfill or an incinerator. Circularity does not remove the waste. It postpones it, sometimes by years, sometimes by one cycle, and calls the delay a victory.
The real fix sits earlier than recycling. Produce less. Build it to last. That is sustainability by design, and it does not happen because a company writes it into a mission statement. It happens when the seller pays for every unit that fails, breaks, or gets thrown away. Product as a service is not a nicer way to sell things. It is the pricing structure that forces sustainability by design to happen, because the company eating the waste is now the same company deciding how the product gets built.
Companies keep reporting sustainability as a value statement. The evidence points somewhere else. It points to a pricing structure. Sell the outcome instead of the object, and the waste, the training, and the accountability all move to whoever is left holding the risk. Get that structure right and a company stops managing waste and starts producing less of it. That is not a philosophy. It is a contract, and it is the closest thing to sustainability by design that a pricing model has ever produced.
[7] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/rolls-royce-takes-another-1-billion-hit-to-fix-problem-engine.html
Comments