In the dynamic setting of Ecomondo, we spoke with Riccardo Piunti, President of CONOU, to understand the factors behind the Consortium’s success: full market independence, a strong sense of belonging to the system, a model anchored to strict and non-negotiable standards, and a clear vision for exporting this approach abroad. All while facing a major shift, as benchmark price indexes now value regenerated base oils above virgin ones.
Interview with Riccardo Piunti, President of CONOU
In the dynamic setting of Ecomondo, we spoke with Riccardo Piunti, President of CONOU, to understand the factors behind the Consortium’s success: full market independence, a strong sense of belonging to the system, a model anchored to strict and non-negotiable standards, and a clear vision for exporting this approach abroad. All while facing a major shift, as benchmark price indexes now value regenerated base oils above virgin ones.
President, let’s begin with an overview of the Consortium’s recent results. Are there updates on collection and recycling rates over the past twelve months?
The Consortium has undertaken a major effort this past year to recover even the residual oil components found in emulsions, the water-oil mixtures used in industrial processes. It has been a significant and demanding task.
Even though the market has remained essentially stable, we managed to collect more oil. In 2024 we increased collection by 5,000 tons and, so far this year, we are already at +3,000. We will surpass a total of 190,000 tons, approaching the levels of 2019, before Covid, when the market was far more active.
And in terms of percentages?
We are above 50% relative to the oil placed on the market and subject to contribution, meaning the portion that can be recovered. It is an important achievement, considering that on average, 50% is actually consumed during use and only the remaining half is recoverable. In practice, we are reaching the maximum technically possible.
So going beyond that threshold is nearly impossible?
Exactly. We now recover even the oil contained in the most challenging emulsions. This lowers the average quality of the collected material, but despite that, we continue to regenerate 98% of it. Only 2% is discarded and used as fuel.
A key aspect of your mandate is the effort to promote CONOU’s model abroad. Have there been developments?
Yes, and they are substantial. We have become fully aware that many of the Consortium’s exceptional results stem from the nature of our organization itself. Our model was built over more than forty years, a non-profit consortium that is independent and has no direct ties to any actors in the supply chain, neither collectors nor regenerators, nor lubricant producers or distributors.
We believe this structure is one of the main reasons for our success. Whenever the model is altered, such as when multiple consortia are created, the system becomes more complicated. It is like putting two traffic officers in the center of Piazza Venezia in Rome. Instead of improving traffic flow, they make it worse because they give conflicting directions.
Our consortium is unique, autonomous, and ensures balance and transparency. But it is not just organizational. Our model is built on quality standards, both upstream and downstream, which are essential for system efficiency.
This experience is increasingly recognized and observed internationally. France, for example, reached out to learn about our standards as it reconsiders its own collection and regeneration framework. And they are not the only ones. India, Saudi Arabia, and other countries have asked us to present our organizational model.
In Europe, we are working to build alliances with the more advanced countries around the southern Mediterranean. Greece is a good example. They have a system similar to ours and, despite the logistical challenges of their fragmented territory, it works. There too, oil is collected and almost entirely regenerated.
This shows that wherever our model is replicated, results follow. Elsewhere, even in developed countries, it does not happen.
Why?
Because a model is missing. The circular economy does not arise spontaneously. It is a positive deviation from the millennia-old habit of linear economics. Recycling has never been part of the “natural” process of industrial economics.
To build a circular economy, you do not need market mandates or price controls. You need a structure that naturally guides the system in that direction. Our consortium model does exactly that.
A collector once told me, “I drive 150 kilometers to pick up 100 liters of oil. I know it is not profitable, but I do it because I am part of a system that ultimately works and rewards me.” That is the impact of our model, participation that stems not from obligation but from belonging.
One of the strengths of your model is independence and the presence of standards. How do you preserve this independence, and who defined the standards you follow?
We protect independence by strictly adhering to compliance rules and entrusting management to an independent leadership team. Personally, although I once worked for one of the consortium companies, I have no economic or personal ties with any of them today. This applies to all my colleagues as well.
As for standards, we drew them from existing decrees. A ruling by the TAR of Parma established that technical tables contained in a decree remain valid even if that decree is repealed, unless they are explicitly replaced.
In our case, for example, we use the standards of a 2007 decree to ensure that regenerated base oils meet the same quality criteria as virgin ones. This is a key point in the circular economy. Secondary raw materials must be fully competitive and comparable with primary raw materials.
A highly significant development is that, for about a year now, one of the international operators that publishes benchmark price indexes for base oils has begun listing regenerated base oils as well.
In 2025 these oils will have a higher value than virgin ones, thanks to equivalent quality and the added environmental benefit, which is finally recognized as a premium.
Let’s move to your CERTO app, created to simplify the collection and disposal of used mineral oils. It has been active for a few months. What results have you seen so far?
I would say good, although it is still early for definitive assessments. We are monitoring adoption among waste producers, who are our clients. As always, some regions are more receptive than others, partly depending on the engagement of our concessionaires.
This tool is important because there is still a strong human component in our system. Our driver-collector is not just a driver. He is a chemical technician, a commercial professional, someone who has a direct and personal relationship with each of the 103,000 pickup points in Italy.
However, the future is moving toward supporting these relationships with digital tools. Our app helps establish a direct connection between collectors and waste producers. It is a long process. We gathered feedback from concessionaires, corrected some initial rigidities, and released updated versions to better reflect daily business operations.
It works better now. It is one of those tools where success breeds more success, but it still needs time to fully consolidate.
Turning to PFAS, an issue you have been following closely. Where do things stand, and what actions have you taken?
The battle against PFAS is in the hands of Europe, which is working on a ban and on stricter regulations. However, we must recognize that PFAS are present in all types of waste. They accumulate and, most critically, they do not degrade. There is already a European regulation (2019/2021) that sets limits on their presence in waste to be managed.
It is essential that we equip ourselves to identify and monitor these substances, including in oils and emulsions. We launched a research project with a university and specialized partners to develop rapid detection tools. Currently, PFAS analyses take far too long, incompatible with waste management timelines.
The goal is to find something simpler, perhaps less sophisticated but faster and digitalized, to deliver real-time results.
One last direct question: if you could improve the current regulatory framework, what would you propose?
Honestly, very little. I defend the standards we use, even in court, because they are often unpopular and that, paradoxically, is the sign that they work.
I believe the regulatory framework should recognize and support models that work, like ours. If a single independent, non-profit consortium succeeds, then it makes sense to preserve it and replicate its positive elements in other areas of the circular economy.
Before thinking about multiplying consortia, we should reflect on what already exists and works. Our Consortium is not an economic operator but a regulator, in other words, an actor that ensures system balance.
