The “3 GEN” — three terms from the Toyota Production System. But what do they have to do with product circularity?
I learned them on my first day at the Suzuki car factory in Hungary, long before I worked in sustainability. And I’ve been thinking about them a lot lately.
Three words that change how you solve problems
-
Genba — the actual place. Go where the work really happens.
-
Genbutsu — the actual thing. Look at the real object, not a report about it.
-
Genjitsu — the actual facts. Decide from reality, not assumptions.
The principle is simple: go and see. Don’t start with the report. Don’t start with the database. Don’t start with the spreadsheet, or with what you think is happening. Go to the place, look at the thing, understand the reality.
After more than ten years working with Japanese companies, this became second nature to me — and I used it everywhere, not just in production. In sales. In project management. In roles that had nothing to do with a production line.
Then I moved into sustainability. And I noticed something.
Why circularity struggles
In most organisations, sustainability sits in the central organisation — away from the production floor, unless it’s about energy or waste. Which means it often gets done exactly where the 3 GEN warns you not to be: in the meeting room, working from targets, reports and assumptions.
This isn’t because sustainability teams don’t know their products. They do. Everyone along the value chain holds a piece of the picture:
-
Engineers know the design.
-
Service knows the failures.
-
Logistics knows the flows.
-
Sustainability knows the environmental and regulatory context.
-
And circularity consultants know the possible strategies.
But before a circularity project even begins, someone needs to see the actual product. Not the product description. Not the material database. Not the lifecycle assessment. Not the PowerPoint. The actual thing.
The questions only the real product can answer
When you hold the product in your hands, you start asking the questions that decide everything:
-
How is it assembled?
-
How does it come apart?
-
Where is the value?
-
What actually wears out?
-
What condition could it realistically come back in?
-
What would it take to recover that value?
These details can completely change the circularity question. A strategy that looks right on paper can become irrelevant the moment you see the product. And sometimes the opposite happens: you discover an opportunity the data never made obvious.
Go and see — first, not last
That’s why I believe the Genba check shouldn’t be the last step of a circularity project.
It should be the first.
Even if you’re the circularity consultant. Especially then.
Where in your work has going to the “real place” changed a decision you thought you’d already made? I’d love to hear your experience.