Training talent for the reuse economy: the missing link in acceleration

Vocational training is the major blind spot in the transition toward a reuse-based economy. This op-ed is addressed to all those who, in companies, institutions, and educational establishments, have the power to evolve skills, professions, and curricula. Training for reuse professions means both developing new skills, preserving essential know-how, and transforming how all professional disciplines integrate issues related to product lifespan. It is a systemic undertaking, on which the ability of our sectors to scale depends.

The Reuse Economy has proven its value: initially a lever for reducing waste, it is now emerging as a strategic response to the fragilities of our economies. In a polycrisis that is here to stay, extending the lifespan of products is no longer a marginal option.

It is an economic necessity.

In terms of employment, the data is clear. According to the French Ministry for Ecological Transition, repair, reuse, and refurbishment activities create 25 times more jobs than landfill disposal. These jobs cannot be offshored, are rooted in local areas, and are accessible to a wide range of profiles. They also respond to a strong search for meaning expressed by younger generations: reconciling economy, ecology, and local impact in their professional lives.

Yet the sector suffers from a chronic shortage of skills at all levels. This paradox reveals a structural blind spot: our training systems were built for a linear economy, and we expect them to produce professionals for an economy based on longevity. This is not possible without deep transformation, across three inseparable fronts.

Jobs to create, recognize, and revalue

The reuse sector is an industry in its own right, with its own professions, many of which are critically lacking in 2026.

First, there are those that must be maintained and revalued: local repairers, maintenance technicians, dismantling specialists. These are skills that the linear economy has gradually devalued and that urgently need to be passed on. According to Refashion, half of shoemakers are less than ten years away from retirement. At Fnac Darty, half of repair staff have more than thirty years of experience, and succession is difficult to ensure.

Then there are emerging professions: reuse operators, refurbishment technicians, waste diagnostics specialists, deconstruction and reuse operators. These profiles, identified by the Ministry for Ecological Transition and sector stakeholders, struggle to find their place in official certification frameworks. Without institutional recognition, there is no training funding—and therefore no scaling.

The need is urgent. In 2025, industry stakeholders estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 additional professionals would be needed in the short term in the electronic and household appliance repair sector alone.

Faced with this shortage, some players have taken the lead. Murfy created the first French certification for out-of-warranty repairers, recognized by France Compétences. The Repair School, founded by an association created by VEJA in Roubaix, trains artisans in textile and footwear repair in one year, funded entirely by private philanthropy. GSM Master aims to train 1,500 mobile device repairers over three years. b, created in 2022 as part of France 2030, trains technicians in second-life battery use from vocational certificates to PhDs.

These initiatives, led directly by sector players, prove that it is feasible and that there is real demand. But they cannot remain isolated efforts driven by a few pioneers—the entire training system must now take over.

From accounting to design: all disciplines are being reinvented

The Reuse Economy is reshaping all professional disciplines.

A buyer integrates refurbished goods into procurement. A logistics manager oversees reverse logistics flows. A salesperson sells second-hand products. A CSR manager measures material footprints. These are the same disciplines, but with new tools, indicators, and questions. These skills must be learned—they cannot be improvised.

In initial education, progress exists but remains insufficient. Dedicated modules (business games, workshops, hackathons) and specialized programs such as ESSEC’s Circular Economy Chair are beginning to emerge. These initiatives are essential but too often remain optional or peripheral.

The challenge goes beyond adding new content: existing courses themselves must evolve. Today, a student may attend an entrepreneurship class that presents the production of new goods as a success metric, then follow it with a module explaining the need to move away from new production. This contradiction is not anecdotal—it reveals a system that integrates circular challenges alongside its foundations, rather than transforming them. Core concepts (material footprint, life cycles, eco-design, etc.) should be integrated as mandatory cross-disciplinary knowledge. Because in ten years, no professional will operate without confronting these realities.

In continuing education, the gap is equally stark. Beyond a few hours of awareness training, organizations need structured programs that provide new analytical frameworks and decision-making tools—enabling them to choose reuse, justify it, and manage it. Such training already exists, from MOOCs to short courses.

Not everything needs to be reinvented—some of the skills required for this transition already exist, provided they are reoriented.

The SMICVAL Market trained its staff in retail practices to offer visitors to its recycling center a familiar and appealing experience. ADEME’s “de-seller” campaign illustrates the same idea: what if salespeople learned to question the act of purchasing and adapt their pitch to new models and uses?

Reforming tools and frameworks

Our educational frameworks and teaching tools must also evolve to better reflect the realities of a longevity-based economy. For example, the Business Model Canvas—still widely taught—is not suited to circular business models. Alternatives exist; IESEG has replaced it with the Circular Canvas in a core course, but such initiatives remain marginal.

The same issue arises in technical training. The construction sector provides a clear example: how can selective deconstruction principles be integrated when an entire industry is trained in construction techniques designed for demolition? This is a matter of frameworks—and it can be solved. For instance, planned obsolescence was still being taught in some design schools just a few years ago.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that reuse is inherently more agile, more local, and more context-dependent than the linear economy. Training for this agility requires adapted and innovative teaching methods.

Conclusion

The transition toward a reuse-based economy cannot rely on a handful of pioneering programs, nor on companies alone funding the training of their technicians. It must transform the core of training systems: content, tools, frameworks, recognized professions, and funding.

This shift requires sustained financial support, institutional recognition of new professions, and political will to stay the course.

The remaining question is: do we truly want to change the model, or will we continue teaching yesterday’s reflexes to those who will build tomorrow’s economy?

This article is a translated version. The original publication is available on Les Echos Solutions :
https://solutions.lesechos.fr/business/actu-entreprise/former-les-talents-du-reemploi-le-maillon-manquant-de-l-acceleration/