At the Management International Conference in Portorož, I listened to a confident presentation about cradle to cradle ideas by Albin Kälin, CEO of EPEA Switzerland. I suppose I should say Cradle to Cradle® as this phrase has been registered. Anyway.
EPEA Switzerland says that it
implements with an experienced management team Cradle to Cradle® projects in all industries in Switzerland, Austria and the textile industry worldwide ... .
In terms of efficient husbanding and use of increasingly scarce and expensive resources, and the shift to more of a design philosophy that it entails, all this seems self-evidently a good idea, and something to welcome, as is the positive focus on the quality and integrity of both processes and materials. But I think there may be an elephant in this cradle, if I can mince my metaphors. It's captured in this question which I asked Kälin:
Whilst I can see the sense of this approach to resources and to product design, it seems that one might argue that the two most obvious outcomes will be  sustained (in the enduring sense) corporate profits, and  rich consumers with an eased conscience. It is less obvious that this will be of any help to the world's poorest billions. I wonder how you respond to this.
His answer was not convincing — in fact, it wasn't an answer to the question at all. Had the question been asked by an EPEA insider, it would have seems almost blasphemous, I suppose, whereas because it came from me, an outsider, it was merely an attempted critical opening to conversation.
There does need to be a convincing answer, though, as the question will get asked by people much less sympathetic to the idea, and much more anti-capitalist, than I am.