“The European Union has decided that the textile and clothing sectors must become circular. But there is a gap – one that no one has yet measured – between the strategy set out in Brussels and the factory that has to implement it, and it is this gap that will determine whether or not the European textile and clothing industry will survive its own transition,” writes César Araújo, President of ANIVEC, the Portuguese Association of Clothing, Apparel and Fashion Industries, and Chair of the Executive Committee of the Lusitano Project Consortium.

The textile and clothing sectors are by no means minor players in the European industrial landscape. We are talking about a turnover of around 166 billion euros, nearly 1.2 million jobs and almost 200,000 companies – the overwhelming majority of which are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. We are talking about an industrial sector which, according to the latest figures from EURATEX (the European confederation for the sector, of which ANIVEC is a member), exports €61 billion worth of goods and, in 2024 alone, invested a total of €5.3 billion in tangible assets.

This is an industry that has demonstrated truly exemplary resilience within the European Single Market, operating in a highly competitive and profoundly unequal environment; one that is open to all manner of external sources, whose requirements are applied relentlessly to domestic producers, but which, in practice, operates without any form of effective control or trade safeguards vis-à-vis external producers.

Without first rectifying the unfairness in the European Single Market, new requirements are now being imposed on the European textile and clothing industry, requiring it to absorb, simultaneously and within a short space of time, new eco-design rules, the introduction of the digital product passport and extended producer responsibility, amongst countless other demands.

The decision to move towards a circular economy is not in question. Indeed, this is probably the only way forward for an industry that Europe should wish to retain within its borders. The problem lies in the way this future is being shaped: with rules devised exclusively from the top down, aimed at a sector that continues to compete on a daily basis under conditions that no one else would tolerate. We are, moreover, well aware of the measures, support and initiatives from which the European automotive industry has benefited, precisely because it is now experiencing what the textile and clothing sectors have been facing for decades.

Let’s look at what happened a few weeks ago in Paris, on the fringes of Première Vision. The European textile and fashion federations have once again joined forces to denounce the competitive imbalance caused by fast fashion. The abolition of the customs exemption for low-value parcels and the introduction of a transitional customs duty of 3 euros were a first step. But that is just that: a first step. Now, the federations are calling for a more ambitious European handling fee, closer to 10 euros, capable of reflecting the real cost of customs control, market surveillance and the safety of the millions of products entering the EU every day. We continue to demand of compliant European brands what we do not demand of those who flood our market from outside. What is being called for is not protectionism; it is simply reciprocity.

That is why circularity cannot be treated as a mere exercise in documentary compliance. A factory that already complies with strict European environmental and social standards, operates under recognised certifications and ensures traceable supply chains, should embark on this transition with a real advantage. But this advantage will only translate into competitiveness if the EU is able to distinguish it – and reward it – from production that disregards circularity criteria and, consequently, does not internalise these costs in the final price of the product.

We have long known what needs to be done to ensure that, by 2030, we have sustainable and circular textiles and clothing in the EU. European industry is the right partner to drive the value chain forward, ensuring that products placed on the market are genuinely durable, repairable and recyclable; made largely from recycled fibres; free from hazardous substances; and produced with full respect for social rights.

However, whilst we must ensure fairness within the Single Market, the key question that remains to be answered in order to realise the 2030 vision is not a conceptual one, but a strictly operational one. Who collects? Who sorts? Who recycles? Who pays and on what scale? What is needed for textile recycling to move beyond the pilot project stage and truly become an industry?

It is to answer these questions, backed by data and practical experience, that ANIVEC, CENIT and the Lusitano Project are organising a meeting at the European Parliament in Brussels on 30 September. Under the patronage of MEPs Paulo Cunha (PT/EPP) and Bruno Gonçalves (PT/S&D) and under the theme “Making circular textiles work in Europe: Transparency, Recycling and Industrial Competitiveness” (https://shorturl.at/r8Ml4), the aim is clear: to bring together European institutions, industry and organisations that are already implementing circular solutions on the ground – with practical experience in extended producer responsibility and recycling – to discuss what is actually needed for textile circularity to work on a European scale.

At the end of the day, the question is not whether the European textile and clothing industry wants to be circular. The answer to that question is given in the affirmative, every single day, by our companies. The question on the table is whether Brussels wants to rely on the European textile and clothing industry as its chosen partner to make this circularity a reality within the European Single Market. To this end, it is imperative to ensure the industrial and commercial conditions that make circularity genuinely competitive. If the response continues to be regulation without reciprocity, we run the very real risk of being left with only the world’s most stringent standards whilst exporting whatever production we have left.

Enterprise security departments have typically been presented with one of two options: either the use of unified threat management systems (UTMs) to achieve a unified perimeter or an IDS solution that can offer greater insight into network activity. However, when considering solutions for enterprise environments running on Microsoft Windows-based products, it appears that both sides are focusing on the wrong issue. The argument from UTM vendors, who market their product as the "one-stop shop" for IT personnel with limited time resources, is that a UTM device provides all necessary functions (firewall, VPN, antivirus, etc.) within a single unit. On the other hand, the vendors of specialized IDS devices argue that the inclusion of these additional functionalities reduces the effectiveness of the IDS function. As such, organizations providing protection for Windows networks continue to be at increased risk due to this way of thinking.

Cybersecurity engineer Samuel Bemi investigated this gap through a controlled comparative evaluation of Snort, an open-source intrusion detection system, and pfSense, an open-source unified security platform, within a virtualised Windows 11 enterprise environment. His evaluation goes beyond the conventional question of whether a security control detects an attack, examining whether that detection remains operationally valuable once false positives, latency, throughput, and resource utilisation are taken into account.

Detection alone doesn't tell the whole story

The experiment simulated three of the most common attack patterns organisations face: ICMP flood attacks, port and service scanning, and denial-of-service traffic. Both Snort and pfSense were configured to defend a Windows 11 host inside an isolated network built specifically for testing.

The results were clarifying, not comforting. Snort detected 100 percent of ICMP flood attempts and 100 percent of denial-of-service traffic, and identified the large majority of port scanning attempts. Within the controlled test environment, Snort achieved strong detection performance against the traffic patterns tested. But the more important finding was that detection performance came with operational trade-offs.  Alongside that success sat a false positive rate high enough to be operationally significant, alongside a measurable increase in network latency and a meaningful drop in throughput once both systems were active.

Bemi's evaluation shifts the question from “which security control detects more attacks?” to a more consequential one: “does the security architecture remain effective when detection accuracy, false positives, and operational overhead are considered together?”  Rather than assessing IDS and UTM controls independently, Bemi's approach examines how detection accuracy, false positives, resource consumption, and network performance interact when the controls are deployed within the same enterprise environment. This perspective provides security teams with a more practical basis for designing defence-in-depth architectures, where protection is assessed not only by what threats a control detects, but also by how effectively it operates within the wider network.

"A 100 percent detection rate cannot be evaluated in isolation," Bemi says. "If achieving that result introduces significant false positives, latency or throughput degradation, the security control has to be assessed as an operational system rather than simply as a detection mechanism."

What UTM alone Mmisses

Bemi’s argument is that IDS will never replace or outperform UTM. Instead, he says both tools solve two different layers of the same issue. Layer one is Perimeter Enforcement (Firewalling, VPN termination, Traffic Shaping, Blocking Known-Bad traffic) as long as you have the correct settings with your UTM devices such as pfSense. The Layer Two that IDS addresses is what happens after you allow something past the first layer. This Layer two provides a level of detail that can't be replicated by UTM alone. In particular, this was very evident during Bemi's testing and evaluation based on Detection Capability and Operational Impact.

" A UTM determines whether traffic should be admitted into the Network," Bemi states. " An IDS answers a completely different Question; namely, now that it is inside the Network, does it appear to be anomalous?" Bemi stated enterprises who use only UTM are typically making only one determination regarding allowing traffic past the Firewall/VPN termination device. Then they are simply relying on anything that passes through to be safe."

Resource cost is a design input, not an afterthought

One of the study's most important findings is that defence-in-depth is not operationally free. Running both controls increased CPU and memory utilisation and introduced additional network latency, demonstrating that security architecture cannot be evaluated solely through detection effectiveness.

He argues the practical barrier to hybrid defence is often less about whether the controls can work together and more about whether organisations have planned for the capacity, tuning and monitoring they require. "Nobody disputes that defence-in-depth is the right architecture on a whiteboard," he says. "The resistance comes at implementation, when a smaller IT team realises that running both properly means capacity planning, rule tuning to bring false positives down, and ongoing log review. That is a resourcing conversation, not a technology conversation. But skipping it does not remove the risk; it just moves the risk from the network into the business."

The practical path forward

For organisations still treating this as a binary purchasing decision, the practical implication of Bemi's evaluation is not that every organisation should deploy both controls indiscriminately. Instead, security architects should treat UTM and IDS as complementary controls, evaluate their combined performance under realistic traffic conditions, and size infrastructure and monitoring capacity around the resulting operational overhead.

Conclusion

The challenge for Windows enterprise security is not choosing between UTM and IDS, but designing an architecture in which both controls address different layers of the same threat landscape. Bemi’s evaluation demonstrates that detection rates alone do not determine security effectiveness; false positives, latency, throughput, resource consumption, and the effort required to operate the controls also matter. The industry therefore needs to move beyond product-versus-product comparisons and assess how security controls perform together under realistic enterprise conditions. In practice, UTM can provide the first layer of perimeter enforcement, while IDS adds deeper visibility into suspicious activity that may pass through that boundary. Organisations considering a hybrid approach should test the combined architecture against representative workloads and establish clear thresholds for performance, false positives, and resource utilisation before deployment. They should also plan for ongoing rule tuning, monitoring, capacity management, and analyst involvement rather than treating these as secondary operational concerns. Ultimately, effective defence-in-depth depends not simply on deploying more security tools, but on ensuring that complementary controls work together in a way that is measurable, sustainable, and aligned with the organisation’s operational needs.

How two fields that never talk to each other arrived at the same answer.

The same protocol, two fields

ACLS (Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support) and ATLS (Advanced Trauma Life Support) are the gold standard frameworks for managing physiological crise: systems built to keep trained professionals functional when every instinct says to react without thinking. Special Educational Needs support sits, professionally speaking, at the opposite end of healthcare, in the sustained work of accompanying children through dysregulation and meltdown, through the disorientation of a nervous system that won't reliably self-regulate. Different setting, different literature, different culture of practice.

But according to Dr. Adaugo Ijeoma Nwauwa, a physician who has instructed ACLS and ATLS and also worked directly supporting children with diverse learning and behavioural needs, the two fields are running the same protocol without knowing it.

Cognitive regulation, not just medicine

The claim is more precise than it first sounds. ACLS and ATLS are not, at bottom, medical protocols. They are cognitive regulation systems for the clinician, not only the patient. Under extreme stress, cognition degrades in predictable ways: attention narrows, sequencing collapses, and emotional reactivity overrides trained procedure. Resuscitation medicine doesn't assume a clinician's competence will survive that pressure intact; it's built around the assumption it won't.

The response is to remove the need for real-time judgement wherever possible: convert decisions into automatic sequences, spread cognitive load across a team, and give each person one narrow role so no single mind holds the entire crisis.

“This isn’t an accident of medical history,” Nwauwa says. “It’s applied psychology, and it works.”

Dysregulation is dysregulation

The same architecture, she argues, is needed and largely absent in SEN support because it's the same underlying problem. A child in sensory overload meltdown is not being difficult; the prefrontal cortex, the seat of language, reasoning, and sequence, has gone functionally offline, leaving the limbic system to run threat detection and fight-flight-freeze on its own. A trauma patient in haemorrhagic shock is a different system in a different kind of overwhelm, but the logic doesn't change: the environment has to supply, from the outside, what the person's own system currently cannot generate.

In both cases, the worst thing a responder can do is the thing that feels most natural under stress: escalate. Raise the voice. Add complexity to the demand. Let their own anxiety enter the room as a signal the other person's nervous system will pick up before any words do.

What works instead is almost boringly consistent: reduce arousal, impose sequence, communicate through calm rather than instruction, and wait for the window in which re-engagement becomes possible.

Calm Is a trained skill, not a trait

This is where the argument does its most useful work, not in the parallel itself, which is intuitive once stated, but in what she does with the word "calm". Calm, in her account, is not a personality trait or an emotional state the responder happens to be in. It's a trained physiological and behavioural posture, produced deliberately, that signals safety to everyone in the room regardless of what the responder actually feels.

Emergency medicine trains this explicitly and treats it as a technical skill worth simulating and rehearsing. SEN support demands the identical output, a support worker staying regulated through a full meltdown, with a fraction of the training infrastructure and almost none of the professional recognition that it is a skill at all rather than a personality quirk.

“A support worker who stays regulated while a child is in full meltdown isn't 'being patient',"  she says. “They’re performing a skilled intervention.”

The distinction matters practically: naming it as a technical skill is what makes it teachable through simulation, scenario repetition, and deliberate practice under controlled stress, the same methods that already work in resuscitation training.

The shared failure mode

The two fields also share a failure mode, the same one emergency medicine spent decades designing its protocols around: skipping assessment in favour of immediate action. Faced with visible distress, the instinct is to do something. ACLS treats that instinct as dangerous enough to override by rule: assessment before intervention, every time, no exceptions for how urgent the moment feels, because acting on a wrong read during a cardiac arrest kills the patient.

The stakes in a classroom are different, but the mechanism is identical. A worker who responds to visible distress without first identifying its source — sensory overload, pain, an unmet need, a communication breakdown — will frequently intervene in ways that escalate the very thing they're trying to calm.

“The assessment step isn’t a delay,” she says. “It is the intervention.”

The missing cross-pollination

What she finds most frustrating is not that the parallel exists but that almost nobody has acted on it. The literature on acute crisis intervention and the literature on neurodiverse behavioural support don't cite each other, don't share conferences, and largely don't share a vocabulary, despite, in her assessment, running on the same underlying mechanism.

The traffic could move in both directions: emergency medicine has the deeper evidence base and decades of simulation science to offer SEN training, while SEN support has made real advances in co-regulation and trauma-informed practice with obvious, unexplored applications in the emergency room, where patients in crisis are often just as dysregulated, just as unreachable by instruction, as a child mid-meltdown.

Training programmes that treat physiological crisis response and behavioural dysregulation as categorically separate disciplines, she argues, are training people for a version of the nervous system that doesn’t exist. It doesn't draw that line. Neither, she'd argue, should the curriculum.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will provide a long-term loan of up to 102 billion tenge (US$224.2 million) to Alatau Zharyk Company (AZhC) to modernize its electricity distribution infrastructure and expand digitalization, writes Dana Omirgazy.

The financing will help AZhC, a regional electricity distribution company supplying around 4 million people and around 50,000 commercial consumers in Almaty and the region, procure automated metering and telemechanic equipment and upgrade its low- and medium-voltage electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, the bank’s press service reported on Sept. 7.  The project is part of Kazakhstan’s National Project for the Modernization of Energy and Utility Sectors (MEKS), a government-led program to modernize heat, electricity, water supply and sewerage networks and facilities.

The EBRD-supported investment will further digitize AZhC by installing smart meters at substations and piloting smart grid technologies. It will also strengthen the company’s cybersecurity and support related efforts at Samruk-Energy, AZhC’s parent company. The modernization is expected to generate annual electricity savings of approximately 22 gigawatt-hours (GWh) and reduce annual CO2 emissions by around 12,000 tons. It is also expected to support renewable energy growth in the Almaty Region.

As part of the five-year enhanced partnership framework between Kazakhstan and the EBRD, the project will also support Alatau city’s development by reconstructing the Zhetygen electricity substation and an associated 110-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. The EBRD has invested almost $13.6 billion in Kazakhstan through 358 projects, making the country the largest and longest-running recipient of EBRD investment in Central Asia.

Over recent decades, herrings in the Gulf of Bothnia have grown more slowly. Several factors could be behind these changes, but a clearer understanding of the actual causes is needed. Closing this knowledge gap is the aim of ImproFish.

Every year, scientists carry out research surveys in the Gulf of Bothnia to monitor the status of one of the most valuable fish species in the northern Baltic Sea: herring. Together with sprat, it forms the backbone of the region’s fishing industry, supports coastal communities and provides food for seals, seabirds and predatory fish higher up the food chain.

But despite this close monitoring, several knowledge gaps remain. Over recent decades, herrings in the Gulf of Bothnia have grown more slowly, reached maturity earlier and shown variations in weight and abundance. The research survey struggles with accurately understanding this fluctuation. 

Several factors could be behind these changes, from modifications in the food web to the fishery itself. But without a clearer understanding of the actual causes of these changes, it becomes harder to manage the fishery in a way that the stock becomes and then remains healthy over the long term, and fisheries managers are left trying to steer a stock that keeps changing shape beneath them.

Closing this knowledge gap is the aim of ImproFish. Coordinated by the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) together with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), and co-funded by the EU through the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), the project runs from May 2024 to October 2026. Its goal is to provide a stronger scientific basis for assessing the herring stock in the Gulf of Bothnia, so that fisheries advice can finally catch up with what is actually happening in the sea.

As Laura Uusitalo, the project coordinator from Luke, explained:

“Healthy herring stocks are important for both marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods. We believe that the new knowledge and methods developed in this project can improve the reliability of stock assessments and support better-informed quota setting for years to come.”

Three scientific advances for a healthier stock

Despite yearly combined acoustic and trawl survey, as well as extensive catch sampling, the assessment of the Gulf of Bothnia herring stock has remained uncertain for a long time. Stock Synthesis 3, a newer stock assessment model used since 2021, has improved stability, but significant gaps remain, especially regarding the abundance of young fish.

 ImproFish addresses this through three recommendations:

• improving the fishery-independent abundance indices by extending the acoustic survey closer to the coast and taking into account oceanographic conditions such as temperature and wind-driven water mixing
• deepening the understanding of what drives the growth and size of fish, in order to sharpen the reference points used in fisheries management 
• identifying potential sub-populations, since early genetic findings point to a more complex population structure than previously assumed, with locally adapted groups 

Together, these improvements would make the stock assessment more biologically realistic and better aligned with ecosystem-based management, while still remaining achievable with a moderate research investment.

EU funding bringing two countries’ science together

Through ImproFish, EU funding is allowing Finland and Sweden to combine their analyses on the acoustic survey, herring catch sampling and genetic analyses across the Gulf of Bothnia, instead of each country conducting research on the shared stock on its own.

For fishing that spans the water of both countries, this joint effort finally makes it possible to study the stock with a more comprehensive data coverage, and bring the assessment and advice closer to ecosystem-based management.

This also contributes to the priority of the European Ocean Pact of protecting and restoring ocean health, while supporting a fishing sector that stays sustainable and economically viable for the communities who depend on it.

A fishery worth understanding better

Reaching this point requires as much work on the water as in the laboratory: acoustic surveys, genetic analyses, catch data from commercial fleets and growth data collected on research vessels like R/V Aranda directly feed into the improvements that ImproFish develops.

Most of these benefits will take shape over the medium and long term, but their reach may extend even further: since herring share many traits with other fish, the methods developed here could help scientists elsewhere in Europe facing similar uncertainties, well beyond the Gulf of Bothnia itself.

If you need further information, check the project website. Project website https://fisheries-rcg.eu/improfish/

Funding

• Funding programme European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) (2021/2027)

Stakeholders

Coordinators

Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Finland

Website https://www.luke.fi/en

Participants

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences / Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU), Sweden

Website https://www.slu.se/en/

A new study shows that in‑cash child benefits play a vital role in reducing child poverty in the EU. On average, these benefits lower the risk of poverty among children by 10.6 percentage points.

The impact of in‑cash child benefits varies across EU countries. Austria sees the strongest effect, with child poverty reduced by 16.6 percentage points. Spain shows the smallest reduction, at 4.6 percentage points. These differences suggest there is room for EU countries to learn from each other and achieve higher social standards.

Key findings

• Child benefits can do more to reduce poverty: large differences between EU countries show room to make cash benefits more effective and help reach the 2030 poverty reduction target.
• Better targeting and wider access could make a difference: in around one third of EU countries, disadvantaged families receive less financial support than better-off families.
• Benefits in kind also support families: by making essential goods and services more affordable, they can reduce the financial pressure on families.
• More children in early childhood education and care (ECEC) could support parents in work: increasing participation could raise maternal employment by up to 5 percentage points, making it easier to combine work and care.
• Investing in children pays off in the long term: analysis shows benefits for education, employment and health. Overall, for every €1 invested in quality benefits in kind for children, the estimated return is €5.26.
  

Progress towards the 2030 child poverty target

The EU has committed to reducing the number of children in poverty by at least 5 million by 2030. Progress towards this target has stalled, so efforts need to be stepped up and policies improved.

The new study underlines that in‑cash child benefits are a key tool to support families and lower child poverty. Its findings will contribute to the preparation of the forthcoming Commission Recommendation on child‑related benefits. This Recommendation was announced in the Communication Breaking the cycle of child poverty – strengthening the European Child Guarantee, which is part of the wider Anti‑Poverty Strategy.

Report on the effectiveness of child benefits in the EU

Download

The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen (pictured), says AI has the “potential to benefit humanity”.

Her comments came on Wednesday in her landmark “state of the union” address to MEPs.

A speech touched on numerous areas and they included AI which has rocketed up the political agenda in recent times.

In her address to Euro members at their monthly plenary in Strasbourg, she referred to AI as a “tipping point of our times.”

The commission president declared, “AI is fast becoming a foundational layer for our economy and security. Europe's stance is clear. We want to make the most of AI to improve our society, our quality of life and our productivity.

“I am an optimist that AI has the potential to benefit humanity – if we get it right. But, as with any powerful new technology, AI comes with a balance of possibilities and risks. Without addressing these risks, we will never be able to unlock AI's possibilities.”

The former German defence minister noted, “As the frontier models become more capable, these risks have come more sharply into focus.

“Models being developed will allow hacking on a level we never thought possible. And they will soon be in the hands of adversaries who see the world very differently from us.”

She told deputies, “At the same time, the dangers of self-improving models are becoming ever more apparent.

“Incidents of AI agents escaping their environment or inserting malicious code are a mere glimpse. After the HuggingFace incident, developers are ringing the alarm. And CEOs of the most advanced companies tell us that it is time to slow down on the self-recursive models. To pace the frontier.”

Von der Leyen added, “If the people developing the technology are clear, then we should be too. The AI Act is of course a crucial piece to putting guardrails in place. 

"And it puts Europe in the position to shape global efforts on how to tackle this.”

In her comments on AI she said, “So, we will step up together with our like-minded partners like Canada, the United Kingdom and others. We want to team up on model evaluation, verification, early warning, AI security and much more.

“And I will invite the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier,” she said.

The circular economy is no longer an aspiration—it is becoming a necessity. As industries seek to reduce their environmental footprint while preserving valuable resources, extending the life of products through refurbishment has emerged as one of the most effective strategies available, writes Julien Morganti, General Manager of P.E.P. ecopassport®.

Across the electrical, electronic and HVAC sectors, demand for refurbished equipment is growing rapidly. Customers are increasingly looking for solutions that combine environmental responsibility with economic value, while manufacturers and service providers are investing in refurbishment capabilities to meet these expectations. Yet one major challenge has remained: how can we assess the environmental performance of refurbished products in a way that is both robust and transparent?

For new products, environmental declarations have become an established tool for measuring and communicating environmental performance. Refurbished products, however, have lacked a common methodology capable of reflecting their specific characteristics while ensuring consistency and credibility across the market.

This is precisely the challenge that P.E.P. ecopassport® has sought to address through the publication of a new methodological guide dedicated to refurbished equipment—the first initiative of its kind in France and, to our knowledge, across Europe for electrical, electronic and HVAC equipment.

Developing this methodology required answering a fundamental question: how should the environmental impacts and benefits associated with refurbishment be allocated? Inspection, repair, component replacement and testing all generate environmental impacts, yet refurbishment also avoids the production of an entirely new product and extends the useful life of existing equipment.

Finding the right balance was only possible through close collaboration between manufacturers, industry associations and technical experts. The resulting methodology recognises the environmental contribution of both the refurbished product and the original product designed with refurbishment in mind. Rather than focusing solely on carbon emissions, it evaluates the full range of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) indicators, including material and resource consumption, providing a far more comprehensive picture of environmental performance.

This broader perspective matters because the transition to a circular economy cannot be measured by greenhouse gas emissions alone. Conserving raw materials, reducing resource depletion and maximising product longevity are equally critical objectives if we are to build truly sustainable industrial systems.

Importantly, this guide is not intended to be the final word. It provides a shared foundation that the industry can build upon as experience grows. As more refurbished products are assessed, the methodology will continue to evolve and, ultimately, become integrated into the

programme's Product Category Rules (PCRs) and Product Specific Rules (PSRs), where applicable.

Standardised environmental assessment is about more than technical consistency. It creates confidence. Manufacturers gain a recognised framework for communicating the environmental value of refurbished products. Specifiers and purchasers receive comparable, reliable information to support procurement decisions. Ultimately, the entire market benefits from greater transparency.

The transition towards circularity requires more than innovation in products—it also requires innovation in the way environmental performance is measured. By establishing a common methodology for refurbished equipment, we hope to remove one of the barriers that has limited wider adoption and provide the market with the confidence needed to accelerate the circular economy.

Because if refurbishment is to become a mainstream component of sustainable industry, it must be supported by environmental assessment methods that are as rigorous, credible and forward-looking as the products themselves.

About the P.E.P Association

Founded in 2009, the P.E.P Association is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to help reduce the environmental impact of electrical, electronic, and digital products by facilitating the dissemination of reliable, transparent, and verified information across the entire value chain.

In compliance with ISO 14025, its mission is to define governance rules, develop, verify, and publish Product Environmental Profiles (PEP) or Environmental Product Declarations (EPD), while adhering to principles of transparency and ethics. It also aims to bring together industry stakeholders to promote these practices.

Recognized as a leading operator in the sector at the international level, the P.E.P Association contributes to national and European standardization and works toward harmonizing programs across countries.

On 18 August, Israel launched eight airstrikes against the Abu al-Duhur air base in northwestern Syria, located approximately 70 kilometres from the Turkish border. Israel also reportedly informed the United States that Turkey might be preparing to deploy radar systems and air defense equipment at the base, a move that could significantly alter the regional balance of power. Turkey is expected to respond to the Israeli strikes, raising the prospect of direct military confrontation between the two countries inside Syria,

As it stands, Turkey's growing tensions with Israel over issues including Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon are increasingly difficult to ignore. Turkey also possesses substantial military capabilities, which were originally intended in large part to strengthen NATO's ability to counter Russia but are now increasingly being used to pursue Ankara's own strategic interests, including those that are not aligned with the geopolitical preferences of the U.S. and Israel. Turkey is therefore demonstrating a degree of strategic autonomy that increasingly extends beyond the traditional constraints of the NATO framework. This development is a clear example of the broader process of regional polarization.

Regional polarization, in fact, creates the conditions for the emergence of regional hegemony. It reflects a tendency for countries within a particular region to gravitate toward a dominant power. That power, in turn, simultaneously expands its influence and seeks to establish a new regional order. Regional hegemony does not emerge out of nowhere. Instead, it develops gradually through a process of regional polarization.

Turkey is a prominent example of this process. Israel can also be viewed through the same lens, as can Saudi Arabia, which has been working steadily to strengthen its position and influence in the region. Beyond the Middle East, India and Japan are also moving in this direction. Iran, meanwhile, remains an important regional power despite currently being consumed by war.

Against this broader trend of regional polarization, China presents a particularly unique case. China's current strategic direction appears to differ substantially from the logic of regional polarization. Instead, Beijing continues to place considerable emphasis on building relationships among major powers at the global level. In this context, the idea of a G2 remains an attractive strategic concept for China, while U.S. President Donald Trump also appears to be seeking to leverage this possibility in developing a special relationship with China.

In Asia, India is already an unmistakable example of a country pursuing greater regional strategic autonomy. Japan is another crucial case. The election of Sanae Takaichi can be interpreted as an indication that Japan's own process of regional polarization is beginning to take shape. However, because of its security treaty with the U.S. and continuing domestic political opposition, Japan remains reluctant to openly acknowledge such a trajectory.

Nevertheless, Japan is likely to move progressively toward greater regional strategic autonomy. This would mean that Tokyo increasingly seeks to exercise influence in Asia regardless of whether Washington fully supports such a development. As a result, contradictions between Japan and the U.S. could become more pronounced across economic, financial, and political spheres. Japan's ability to say "no" to the U.S. may gradually become a practical reality.

Once Japan gains greater freedom to articulate and pursue an independent strategic position, it may also seek to improve relations with China. In this sense, Japan's increasing regional autonomy could ultimately prove beneficial to Japan-China bilateral relations over the longer term.

Perhaps the most important feature of regional polarization is that conflict among countries is inevitable. Such conflicts are not necessarily an anomaly. Rather, they are a natural expression of the polarization process. No country is willing to readily acknowledge another as the principal power or dominant pole within a region. Regional leadership therefore has to be established through competition, strategic maneuvering, and, at times, confrontation.

This dynamic applies to Japan, China, India, Turkey, and other emerging regional powers. As a result, international disputes are likely to become increasingly intense. The underlying reason is the growing competition for regional influence amid the erosion of the existing global order.

First, countries increasingly perceive an opportunity to become the dominant pole within their respective regions. Second, no major regional power is willing to accept another country's unquestioned leadership or submit to its influence. Confrontation, friction, and strategic rivalry therefore become increasingly difficult to avoid.

Ultimately, the countries that possess sufficient resources, strategic capabilities, and the ability to respond effectively to changing circumstances will have the greatest chance of emerging as regional hegemons. The struggle for regional dominance is therefore not merely a contest of military strength. This is also a test of economic resources, political resilience, strategic judgment, and the ability to shape a new regional order.