Zero WA Reflection on Meaning, Guardianship and the Future
of Zero Waste
Rodrigo Sabatini
Zero Waste International Alliance
Dec 2025
1. Purpose of this document
I am writing to the ZWIA Board to contribute, in good faith, to the ongoing reflection about
the future role, structure and responsibility of the Zero Waste International Alliance.
This document is not intended to prescribe outcomes, nor to reopen past disputes. Its
purpose is to help frame the present moment with clarity, historical awareness and a
forward-looking sense of responsibility — particularly toward future generations.
2. A moment that requires reflection before action
The Zero Waste movement has reached a point of maturity and visibility that inevitably
brings new pressures.
After more than twenty-five years of collective effort, Zero Waste is no longer a marginal or
purely grassroots idea. It is increasingly referenced by governments, institutions,
corporations and international bodies. This growth reflects success — but it also introduces
risk.
Recent events, including the Global Zero Waste Forum in Istanbul, did not create this
situation. However, they made visible a broader dynamic:
the meaning of Zero Waste is becoming contested territory.
At such moments, the greatest danger is not disagreement, but ambiguity.
3. Zero Waste as an ethical and intergenerational commitment
Zero Waste is not merely a technical framework for waste management. At its core, it is an
ethical position grounded in responsibility across time.
Waste represents a failure to take responsibility for the future consequences of present
choices. For this reason, Zero Waste is intrinsically intergenerational. Decisions taken today
— especially when framed as “pragmatic” or “transitional” — often shift environmental, social
and economic burdens onto future generations.
Defending the meaning of Zero Waste is therefore inseparable from defending futurity.
4. The original role of ZWIA
The Zero Waste International Alliance was created in 2003, in Wales, as a voluntary
international alliance with a focused purpose:
to define, protect and communicate the meaning of Zero Waste globally.
ZWIA was not conceived as:
● an operational organisation,
● a certifying body,
● an academy,
● or a funding or project-implementing institution.
Its legitimacy has always been moral and conceptual, grounded in shared commitment
rather than institutional power.
The later concentration of administrative functions in California reflects the dedication and
generosity of volunteers who sustained the Alliance when others could not. This contribution
deserves recognition and gratitude. At the same time, it invites reflection on how shared
responsibility can evolve more equitably and inclusively in the future.
5. The cost of inaction
Choosing not to clarify ZWIA’s role is not a neutral position.
Without conscious guardianship:
● the definition of Zero Waste risks progressive dilution;
● practices incompatible with its ethical core may be normalised;
● alternative certifications, academies or narratives may emerge that redefine Zero
Waste without reference to its original commitments.
Beyond future risks, there is also a cost to the past. Allowing the concept to be displaced or
overwritten would quietly invalidate decades of voluntary, collective work — not through
rejection, but through erasure.
Legacy and futurity are inseparable.
6. A structural dilemma — and possible paths
ZWIA now faces a genuine strategic dilemma:
● Total informality risks loss of relevance and voice in an increasingly institutional
world.
● Excessive institutionalisation risks capture, mission drift and loss of moral
authority.
Between these extremes lie intermediate possibilities, including ethical guardianship with
minimal formal structure, designed solely to:
● ensure transparency and accountability,
● enable principled public positioning,
● and protect the integrity of the concept.
Any formalisation, if pursued, must be strictly instrumental and subordinate to meaning.
Structure should serve clarity — never replace it.
7. Futurity and the next generation
A movement oriented toward the future cannot rely indefinitely on the same generation that
founded it.
While Zero Waste has benefited from extraordinary long-term commitment, other
movements have strategically organised, trained and empowered younger generations
around very different worldviews. This has long-term consequences for influence, legitimacy
and continuity.
If the current moment is understood as a constituent one — a moment to clarify purpose,
limits and responsibility — then the inclusion of younger voices is not symbolic. It is essential
to ensuring that the values being defended remain alive, transferable and meaningful across
generations.
8. A constituent moment
Rather than rushing toward predetermined structural solutions, I respectfully suggest that
this moment be treated as a constituent moment.
Much like a constituent assembly tasked with clarifying a shared constitution, such a process
would focus first on:
● purpose,
● ethical boundaries,
● responsibilities,
● and long-term orientation,
before decisions about structure, form or operations are taken.
A time-bound, representative and intergenerational process could help ensure that any
future configuration of ZWIA honours:
● the legacy of the past,
● the challenges of the present,
● and the rights of future generations.
9. Closing reflection
Zero Waste was never intended to be comfortable, fashionable or expedient. It was intended
to be coherent across time.
The question before the ZWIA Board is therefore not merely organisational, but ethical and
temporal:
How can we act today in a way that future generations will recognise as
responsible — and worthy of the legacy we inherited?
I offer these reflections with respect for the work that has been done, awareness of the
complexity of the pre
aste USA