Trewin Restorick, Founder of Sizzle Innovation, explains why quality standards are the missing link in scaling a circular economy.
For the past two years, I have been part of a growing movement to remove peat from horticulture. The environmental case is well rehearsed: peat extraction degrades irreplaceable habitats, releases stored carbon, and undermines biodiversity.
In the UK alone, lowland peatlands store an estimated 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon more than all the forests in the UK and France combined. Once extracted and spread in compost, that carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
The policy direction is clear. The market messaging is clear. ‘Go peat-free’ has become a rallying cry across the retail sector and professional growing.
But the commercial reality is less straightforward. Because when a grower, landscaper or home gardener picks up a bag labelled ‘peat-free’, the question that follows is immediate and entirely rational: Yes – but is it any good?
The trust gap holding back circular products
‘Peat-free’ is not a specification. It is a category descriptor. It tells you what is not inside the bag, but very little about what is.
At the lower end of the retail spectrum, a £2.60 bag of compost may contain a variable mix of green waste, wood fibre or other organic residues with limited quality control.
Performance can be inconsistent. Water retention may be poor. Nutrient balance may be unstable. Contamination risks – though often small – are a persistent concern in the minds of buyers. The result is predictable: hesitation.
Through my own work launching a social enterprise that produces Wonderfuel – a peat-free compost made entirely from recovered waste materials – I have seen this reluctance firsthand.
Despite positive growing trials, strong nutrient analysis and circular credentials, the most consistent barrier has not been price or availability. It has been confidence. And that confidence gap is not unique to horticulture.
A major global study conducted by the British Standards Institution in partnership with the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership found that more than half of respondents were held back from buying circular products because of trust concerns.
Specifically:
- 51% cited safety concerns.
- 49% cited reliability concerns.
- Many also referenced hygiene and contamination worries.
In other words, sustainability alone is not enough. Buyers need proof of performance.
Sustainability sells but standards close the deal
Consumers and professional buyers increasingly support environmentally responsible products. But when quality is uncertain, good intentions rarely translate into repeat purchase. We can see this dynamic play out in other sectors.
In food and agriculture, certification has proved transformational. The Soil Association organic mark is widely recognised and trusted. Certified organic sales in the UK grew by 7.3% last year, significantly outperforming non-organic categories even amid cost-of-living pressures.
Research consistently shows that independent verification is one of the most powerful drivers of perceived credibility.
Certification works because it does three things:
- Creates a level playing field.
- Reduces buyer risk perception.
- Provides shorthand assurance at the point of purchase.
Horticulture now faces a similar inflextion point.
Why peat-free needs a quality mark
The current landscape for peat-free compost is fragmented. While organisations such as Which? conduct comparative evaluations, only selected products are submitted for testing. That is useful, but it does not create a universal baseline.
What the sector has recognised is the need for an independent, technically robust quality standard that verifies:
- Efficacy and growing performance.
- Nutrient consistency.
- Contamination controls.
- Safety parameters.
- Batch traceability.
Encouragingly, approximately 70% of the market share has already committed to participating in the emerging scheme. That level of engagement signals recognition that trust is now a commercial imperative, not a marketing add-on.
For growers, retailers and local authorities specifying materials, such a mark reduces procurement risk. For manufacturers investing in higher-grade inputs and process controls, it protects against being undercut by inferior products trading on the same ‘peat-free’ claim.
Most importantly, it reframes the conversation from what is removed (peat) to what is delivered (performance).
Circularity’s commercial challenge
The peat-free debate illustrates a broader truth about the circular economy.
We have spent years building the environmental argument for using recovered, recycled and surplus materials; but markets move on confidence, not conscience alone.
There remains a persistent cultural bias that anything derived from ‘waste’ must be inferior. This perception is reinforced by decades of linear consumption messaging that new is better, the latest is best, and replacement is progress.
Some sectors have managed to shift the narrative linguistically, fashion’s embrace of ‘pre-loved’ and ‘vintage’ being notable examples. But language alone cannot solve performance scepticism in technical sectors such as horticulture, electronics, construction or manufacturing.
Only measurable, independently verified standards can do that.
The business case for quality
Developing and maintaining quality standards is neither quick nor inexpensive. It requires laboratory testing, technical committees, auditing systems and governance frameworks. It demands collaboration between competitors. It requires transparency from producers. But the commercial case is compelling.
Without standards:
- Price becomes the dominant purchasing driver.
- Poor-quality products damage the reputation of the entire category.
- Early adopters face disproportionate risk.
- Market growth stalls.
With standards:
- Premiums become defensible.
- Procurement frameworks gain clarity.
- Retailers reduce reputational exposure.
- Consumers gain repeatable confidence.
Most critically, standards enable scale.
From niche to norm
If peat-free compost and circular products more broadly are to move from niche to norm, performance assurance must sit alongside environmental benefit.
The next phase of circular economy growth will not be won on sustainability messaging alone. It will be won on demonstrable quality, verified independently and communicated clearly at the point of purchase. The question buyers are asking is not ideological: it is practical.
Will it work?
When the answer is backed by a recognised quality mark, robust data and transparent testing, circular products stop being a risk and start being the rational choice. Once that happens, circularity is no longer a compromise. It becomes the standard.
