THE ONE PLANET MBA

MBA 2013/2014

Declaration

I confirm that this dissertation is my own work. I confirm that I have read and understood the

University regulations on plagiarism* and I have properly acknowledged the work of others that I

have included in this dissertation.

Full name: Sandra Norval

ID Number: 022179

Signature:

Title of Dissertation:

Inherited waste in England An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours that result in the deposition of waste on those who

cannot influence its source

Date: September 19th 2014

*Plagiarism is the use of material from books, articles, the internet, lecture notes, other

students’ work, or other sources without proper acknowledgement. Plagiarism is seen as a

form of cheating and, as such, is penalized by examiners according to their extent and

gravity.

 

2

THE ONE PLANET MBA

The One Planet MBA

Inherited waste in England An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours

that result in the deposition of waste on those who cannot influence its source

Submitted by

Sandra Norval

To the University of Exeter as a Dissertation towards the degree of

One Planet MBA

I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that

no material is included for which a degree has previously been conferred upon me.

Signature:

Date: September 19th 2014

Word count: 13169

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business

Administration

 

3

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Acknowledgements

My first thanks go to One Planet MBA Director, Professor Nicolas Forsans, who has built on the

foundations created by his predecessor Dr Malcolm Kirkup to whom I am also grateful. Both

Directors believed in me and my passion to bring change to the way business is done, I now feel

equipped to do so.

Whilst I can’t name any of them, my thanks to every respondent or correspondent, your voices are

all represented here and I am truly grateful.

I am indebted to my fantastic dissertation supervisor Ward Crawford, who helped me keep on track

when the going got tough. He knew that delivering a dissertation that served a purpose in the real

world matters to me and gave me the direction, encouragement and support I needed in just the

right measures at just the right moments and has been an inspiring lecturer too. Thank you!

I can’t put into words how grateful I am to all of the lecturers and administration team for the One

Planet MBA. I have been truly inspired by discussions with Morgen Witzel, Stephen Jollands,

Jonathan Gosling, Sally and Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud… I can’t list them all but I am a changed

woman since we began, it is because of you and I thank you. Julie Hargreaves is the font of all

knowledge and always has a smile to help you along.

A huge thank you goes to my generous sponsors, Southern Railway Ltd, who enabled me to take

part in the One Planet MBA and inspired this research. I am most grateful to former Managing

Director, Chris Burchell, who enabled me to test what I learnt as I went along, current Managing

Director, David Scorey, who supported my application to join the One Planet MBA and had the

vision to work with me as I began my development. Thanks also to James Burt and Colin Morris

who helped me nurture my talents and believed in my potential all the way.

I am forever grateful to all my colleagues on the One Planet MBA, whose friendship and support

was critical, and a special note to all the Executive One Planet MBAs, only you know the

challenges of this journey as I do, I’ve learnt so much from you.

To Jason Brooker and Kevin Bayley, my dear friends and colleagues who gave moral support

whenever I needed it and have helped me to make change happen at Southern. I hope I get to

support you on this journey one day soon!

And most of all, much love and deep gratitude to Sue Norval, my mum who has seen all the ups

and downs, been equally surrounded by all my books and papers but manages to keep life normal

while I research how we can change the world. I wish I could say this is the end, but we both know

this is just the beginning!

 

4

THE ONE PLANET MBA

1 Table of Contents 1 Table of Contents 4 2 Table of Figures 5 3 Abstract 6 4 Introduction 7

4.1 Aim 10 4.2 Objectives 10 4.3 Research Questions 10

5 Literature Review 11

5.1 Global context 11 5.2 European context 14 5.3 The UK context 21

6 Methodology 25

6.1 Choosing the circulation list 28 6.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology 29 7 Presentation and Analysis of Findings 31

7.1 Model One – Current waste infrastructure 36 7.2 Model Two – Current organisational context 39 7.3 Model Three – Worked example: The linear model of the

coffee cup 42 7.3.1 Model Three Question One – The cup 42 7.3.2 Model Three Question Two – The other elements of

beverages 44 7.4 Model Four – Worked example: Circularising the coffee cup 46 7.5 Model Five – Worked example: A closer look at the servitised

model 49 7.6 Model Six – Worked example: Going deeper into the servitised

model 51 7.7 Open comments 54 7.8 Summary of findings 57

8 Conclusions and Recommendations 58 9 References 60 10 Appendices

10.1 Appendix A – The Questionnaire 66 10.2 Appendix B – Anonymised comments 74

 

5

THE ONE PLANET MBA

2 Table of Figures Figure 1 The Waste Hierarchy 14

Figure 2 The Packaging Regulations Responsibility Allocation 15

Figure 3 The Linear Economy and The Circular Economy 17

Figure 4 Nature’s Principles 19

Figure 5 Life’s Principles Design Lens 19

Figure 6 Response Rate Summary 31

Figure 7 Summary of Responses and Cross Reference 32

Figure 8 Table of responses 33

Figure 9 Table of nil responses 34

Figure 10 Commentary Summary 35

Figure 11 Scoring Summary (Average by Group) 35

Figure 12 Model 1 – Current waste infrastructure 36

Figure 13 Model 1 scoring comparison graphs 38

Figure 14 Model 2 – Current organisational context 39

Figure 15 Model 2 scoring comparison graphs 40

Figure 16 Model 3 – The linear model of the coffee cup 42

Figure 17 Model 3 Question 1 scoring comparison graphs 43

Figure 18 Model 3 Question 2 scoring comparison graphs 45

Figure 19 Model 4 – Circularising the coffee cup 46

Figure 20 Model 4 scoring comparison graphs 47

Figure 21 Model 5 – A closer look at the servitised model 49

Figure 22 Model 5 scoring comparison graphs 50

Figure 23 Model 6 – Going deeper into the servitised model 51

Figure 24 Model 6 scoring comparison graphs 53

 

6

THE ONE PLANET MBA

3 Abstract

Inherited Waste refers to materials that have originated from sources that are

distant from the final point of disposal, which is often bins in public spaces.

The Waste Hierarchy has been a mainstay of our society’s waste management

principles for decades, yet we still deem it acceptable to focus on recycling as a

solution, which is a lesser solution near the bottom of the model, rather than divert

attention to circular models which focus on commoditising products to eliminate

waste, the top of the hierarchy.

There is potential to examine such models to eradicate inherited waste, which

represents a significant cost to organisations which have no influence over the

source.

This research explores the policy framework which enables the current working

methods and presents the possibility that this model could be challenged with

innovative new methods.

Drawing commentary from individuals involved in the cycle of inherited waste

directly or indirectly, it has emerged that there is less faith in the current framework

delivering the necessary change than there is in the potential that new thinking

could bring.

The findings confirm that there is a financial burden on those inheriting the waste

which is unlikely to be suitably addressed by the producers within the current

context. Further research is recommended to identify the opportunities fully with

potential for the entrepreneurial innovator to rise to the challenge.

 

7

THE ONE PLANET MBA

4 Introduction The waste industry is evolving. As the realities of climate change and resource

scarcity move from barely understood academic thought to generally accepted

principles driving global markets, the influences behind these developments are

coming from a wide variety of sources.

Europe exerts a strong influence on the environmental legislation framework in the

UK; particularly relevant to the waste industry is the European Waste Framework

Directive which requires a progressive move from disposal of waste to landfill,

through recovery opportunities including Energy from Waste and recycling, up to

reduction and eventually elimination of waste. (European Commission, 2008)

In the UK legislation has a strong influence, partly designed to manage types of

waste stream to ensure environmental damage is prevented as seen in the

Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (United Kingdom

Parliament, 2005) and partly to change behaviour.

The International Standard BS EN ISO 14001 requires organisations that wish to

meet the standard to commit to preventing pollution and reducing harmful impacts

on the environment as well as encouraging positive impacts. (British Standards

Institution, 2004)

In addition non-governmental organisations such as the Ellen MacArthur

Foundation are pioneering research into new methods for reducing waste and how

to make them mainstream effectively and efficiently. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,

2012, 2013 and 2014)

Within this context each organisation will also have their own governance

structures from parent companies, investors, insurers, suppliers and customers.

Further they may encounter increasing pressure from other stakeholders who

have no obvious direct connection with the business including Greenpeace or

WWF who may identify impacts way beyond their operational boundaries. An

 

8

THE ONE PLANET MBA

example of this is the increasing amount of plastic waste found in the ocean which

would seem to be far beyond the control of the producer of the plastic. (5 Gyres,

2014)

Despite such a confusing array of influences upon them organisations must

identify the best methods for managing their waste output to:

• Meet legislative requirements for a wide variety of waste streams

• Ensure compliance with other requirements such as corporate governance

mechanisms from internal and external sources

• Reduce operational costs through waste reduction

• Demonstrate their implementation of the Waste Hierarchy

• Maintain a good reputation by managing their environmental impacts

In order to establish control over this process the organisation must create a

boundary to the system over which they have a direct influence. This may mean

limits are set by their own activities or perhaps by the financial boundaries of

activities.

This dissertation aims to explore these boundaries and whether opportunities

become limited by the framework that is currently in place.

As Head of Environment for Southern Railway Ltd I have identified that almost all

waste collected from stations and the train cleaning operations at Train Care

depots is inherited from our customers and our tenants. Despite the fact that we

have not directly produced the waste, we are still required to ensure we recycle as

much as possible and manage the waste in line with the Waste Hierarchy. We

embrace this responsibility and are not seeking to avoid it. Currently we are

achieving a recycling rate at both stations and depots of 80%, with the stations

alone now achieving 90% as we have engaged with our tenants to improve food

separation and have even diverted 100% of waste from landfill at most stations

(Norval, 2014a).

 

9

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Inevitably this has led to some cost reductions, although we have also observed a

gradual increase in volumes which has offset this benefit. As a result, we are

paying an average of £40k per month for the removal of passenger waste (Norval,

2014a). To reduce this cost we must now consider whether we have options for

stimulating behaviour change within the supply chain of this major and highly

variable waste stream and have committed to do so in our Environment Strategy

(Norval, 2013) with guidance for staff in our Waste Manual (Norval, 2014b).

It is also possible that other organisations inheriting waste in this way could benefit

from this research as I intend to explore what opportunities there might be for

turning the waste stream into a resource stream, what the blocks and barriers are

and where there is an innovation space for new ways of working by presenting

some suggested models to stimulate responses and encourage fresh thought

processes from some waste industry and sustainability professionals. The aim and

objectives for this research and the research questions to be addressed are

designed to address this and my conclusion will therefore present limitations

created by the current framework from the perspective of inherited waste and

potential for further research and innovation opportunities in this context.

 

10

THE ONE PLANET MBA

4.1 Aim

To explore the implications of the Waste Framework Directive and current policies,

which result in inherited waste, how they affect organisational or process choices

by companies at the end of the chain who must pay to dispose of it and investigate

whether inherited waste could be eradicated or become an inherited resource.

4.2 Objectives

The objectives for this research are:

1 To explore the nuances of the policy framework from the viewpoint of

those at the end of the chain, who must pay to dispose of inherited

waste.

2 To map the supply chain of examples of the waste to identify where

opportunities exist.

3 To test how the policy framework is being interpreted by waste

producers.

4 To map the existing waste management infrastructure to appreciate

available options.

5 To align the three aspects to consider what possibilities are revealed,

leading to further research opportunities to develop change potential.

4.3 Research Questions

The questions this research seeks to explore are:

1 How is the waste management infrastructure set up in England?

2 Are there opportunities within the current framework for smaller, non-

producer organisations to participate in the Hierarchy in a more

meaningful and cost effective or cost reductive way?

3 Who gains from the current framework and how can this balance be

redressed?

4 How does the Waste Framework Directive apply in this context?

 

11

THE ONE PLANET MBA

5 Literature Review

The literature review process has incorporated a wide range of documents

covering the theoretical aspects of turning waste into resource as well as the

current political and legislative framework.

As I read my aim was to keep a viewpoint of organisations which are handling

waste streams which are largely inherited from other sources. I was looking for

perspectives which:

• Created limitations in how the waste could be managed once received

• Limited responsibility of those producing the waste leaving no doubt that the

waste would be generated at some point in a life cycle

• Encouraged behavioural changes within the UK society or prevented such

change

• Created path dependencies which might undermine a change in behaviour

With these perspectives in mind I could start to explore the current mindset with

which organisations operate in order to identify aspects that have led to the current

inevitability of waste arriving in organisations such as Southern and the

expectation that we will simply deal with it as required by law.

As an employee of Southern it was easy for me to want to challenge this position

and seek a solution, however, it soon became clear that there are many

constraints on the management of waste and employment of new methods

5.1 Global context

Beginning with the global context, numerous documents from United Nations

organisations describe resource efficiency as a critical factor to becoming more

sustainable and creating a Green Economy (UNEP, 2011a and 2012a) seeing this

as a clear business case that will deliver returns (UNEP, 2012c), including

references to the carbon footprint of product lifecycles (UNEP, 2007 and 2011b).

 

12

THE ONE PLANET MBA

This was included in the Rio20+ report as critical to the global Carbon Reduction

agenda alongside the direct energy reduction and decarbonisation policies as it is

expected to make significant contributions through reduction or removal of

embedded carbons at all stages of product life cycles (UNEP, 2013)

In attempts to pave the way to governments and organisations adopting new

models utilising resource efficiency in planning and development policy, numerous

tools and guides have been compiled (UNEP, 2008a, 2008b and 2012b), aimed at

sharing best practice between governments. Different mechanisms have been

used to provide detailed resource kits (UNEP and UNIDO, 2010) and to develop a

long term context through youth engagement, on the principle that teenagers will

soon join and influence organisations. (UNEP and UNESCO, 2006)

More recently the focus has narrowed to driving a change in policy making,

intended to enable a decoupling of resource use from economic growth. (UNEP,

2011e) This is a shift from consumption to reuse of materials and has received a

great deal of attention with several UNEP publications during 2011, focusing on

decoupling, with the Visions for Change publications supported by a range of

specific country papers giving clear case studies. (UNEP, 2011c and 2011d)

This was followed up with a Global Outlook on resource consumption which clearly

pushes a localised agenda for creating the shift towards more sustainable models.

(UNEP and ICLEI 2012)

The pre Rio20+ publication of the Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2013

(UN Global Compact, 2013) was not well regarded amongst sustainability

professionals. The report showed disappointingly slow progress towards even

those targets which had been set and there was little reassurance that this would

be addressed in a meaningful way.

This is a bewildering array of information for policy makers to absorb and convert

into their local context and whilst I recognise an attempt to seek solutions that

cross the boundaries of disciplines there is limited evidence to show how that shift

in thinking is happening at scale. As a result, I feel that at the present time much of

 

13

THE ONE PLANET MBA

this material can only be viewed in an aspirational context. That is to say that my

interpretation of the overarching outcome of these publications is that participants

collected views can be summarised as a strong desire to achieve a resource

efficient, inter-connected and fair society, which utilises market mechanisms to

benefit all. The reality behind that is that some of the participating countries can

demonstrate cases in which this has partly been achieved, but these are still

unusual and discussion continues as it is not yet fully understood how to make

such projects the norm.

In addition to the publications driven by the United Nations and their associates, I

have given consideration to the Living Planet Reports (WWF 2012 and 2013).

These reports demonstrate how our economic and social development is

interacting with the global ecosystem with largely detrimental impacts on fisheries,

forestries, water cycles and all forms of life on the planet. As these resources are

the basis of our entire society this is a significant concern and these reports

demonstrate little meaningful progress since the original publication of major works

such as Our Common Future (Brundtland, 2009).

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has attempted to

translate the challenges we face into a business context with its Vision 2050,

incorporating the preservation of natural resources into potential business models

(WBCSD, 2010) and has published the ORBITS model, aimed at helping business

to translate information into useable measures to drive the necessary change

(WBCSD, undated). The use of such models, however, clearly needs significant

resource to purely compile and analyse data, which during constrained economic

periods is a challenge. This narrows potential use to the largest organisations as

they are the most likely to be able to finance such work. The later publication,

Changing Pace, (WBCSD, 2012) attempts to connect the idea that a new

approach is needed in business, but as with the UN works leaves the reader

feeling that these are little more than aspirations at this point in time.

In conclusion, for the purpose of this research the thinking that is presented by the

publications of global organisations can be used to inspire change but this must be

tempered by local policy and legislation frameworks.

 

14

THE ONE PLANET MBA

5.2 European context

At the European level, the context is set by the Waste Framework Directive, or

WFD (European Union, 2008).

Figure 1 The Waste Hierarchy Norval, Southern Railway Waste Manual (2014)

This hierarchy recognises that there are connections with other policies, such as

energy but places this link fairly low in the overall model. The aim is to encourage

waste producers to work their way up the hierarchy until they have eliminated as

much waste as possible. It should be noted that the focus is very clearly on the

producer, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle that is applied in all European

environmental legislation (European Union, 2008).

Viewing this concept from the position of an organisation inheriting waste it

becomes clear that there is little direct intention for tackling waste volumes from

this perspective.

The core assumption of this legislation is that the producer will do all they can to

reduce the volume of waste at source. This is further reflected in the Packaging

Regulations which is European legislation which has been ratified in UK law.

(United Kingdom Parliament. 2007, 2008 and 2010)

 

15

THE ONE PLANET MBA

This legislation aims to identify who has created waste at each stage of

production. The theory is that by charging them for the packaging they create,

funding is generated to invest into systems which are then provided for recovering

and recycling those materials. It allocates a theoretical 0% production to the end

user. The end user or consumer, however, must then dispose of the packaging

and the legislation assumes that they must pay for its removal.

Even if the waste is placed into a public bin, in theory the cost of waste disposal is

tied up in the cost of provision of the bin, provision of the facility in which the bin is

placed (for example, a park) and this is relayed to the end user as part of either a

ticket price on commercial premises or through Council Tax on municipal

premises. The provider of the bin, the inheritee, is not represented in the model at

all and the cost relay is purely an accounting exercise absorbed into operational

costs.

Ultimately this system means that the producer absolves their responsibility legally

as soon as the product is shipped out of their premises. This also reflects the point

where the waste is shipped out of their organisational system boundaries.

Figure 2 The Packaging Regulations Responsibility Allocation Kite Environmental Services (2014)

In some cases this may occur early in the process, for example if the filling and

packing element is contracted out. Responsible businesses will work with the sub

 

16

THE ONE PLANET MBA

contractor to develop ways to reduce waste but some may relinquish control at

that point as they are legally allowed to do so.

For the organisation at the end of the chain arranging collection and disposal, this

provides a major limitation on the potential to use the Waste Hierarchy.

For an organisation such as Southern, the non-fleet related waste is mainly

inherited from customers and tenants, so opportunities for waste reduction are

severely limited by the current framework. As this is a highly visible element of the

overall waste stream there is increasing pressure from the community to recycle

as much waste as possible, however, this is not the intention of the hierarchy as

set at the European level, yet legally Southern is required to demonstrate that the

hierarchy has been applied.

The conclusion, therefore, is that under the current framework inherited waste is a

cost which is inflicted on the recipient of the waste and must simply be borne, with

little opportunity to reduce or negate the expense under the current system.

Note that this is partly in conflict with the aspirations of the global Non-

Governmental Organisations, which seek greater collaboration between

organisations to create more circularity in the flow of resources but as far as

inherited waste goes, with this framework, recycling is the limit of what can be

achieved at present.

A further conclusion is that The Waste Hierarchy model is not intended to drive

behaviour change from those at the end of the waste supply chain as much as it is

intended to change behaviours in production, strongly represented by the

‘Producer responsibility’ approach.

Beyond the legislative context, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has carried out

extensive research on creating a Circular Economy.

 

17

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Figure 3 The Linear Economy and The Circular Economy Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012)

The three reports Towards the Circular Economy Volumes 1-3 (Ellen MacArthur

Foundation, 2012, 2013 and 2014) demonstrate that a serious shift in thinking is

necessary to achieve fundamental changes in corporate and individual

behaviours.

Many businesses are actively working towards such a shift with in-depth case

studies available for companies including InterfaceFLOR, Desso, Coca-Cola and

many more, however, there is a strong bias towards projects with fiscal paybacks

to the host organisation. It is clearly recognised by these companies that there is

value in waste but the case studies prove that they generally wish to ensure that

the value is returned to their organisation.

This is perhaps unsurprising if viewed through the lens of Smith’s Invisible Hand

(Smith, 2008). In other words, adapting Smith’s famous phrase, it is not through

the benevolence of the waste producers that we can expect to achieve a circular

economy but through their regard to their own interests, that is to say, they will

seek to reduce their own costs and thus increase their own profit margins by

reducing waste.

 

18

THE ONE PLANET MBA

This is further supported with evidence provided in the work of Anderson in which

he clearly demonstrates benefits to InterfaceFLOR through various environmental

initiatives including waste elimination and the adoption of more circular models

(Anderson, 2009). Anderson regularly alludes to the work of Hawken (2010) who

explains that we are currently operating beyond our ecological boundaries and that

the application of ecosystem thinking to business enables the development of

efficiencies and more circular business models.

Whilst I have found no direct evidence that this is a factor that has driven the

current framework I am led to an observation that potentially the ‘polluter pays’

principle will only drive waste reductions where the polluter gains by reducing that

cost, or other associated costs.

When viewed from the inherited waste perspective this offers little comfort as the

producer is driven to use practices such as ‘lightweighting’ of packaging, which

reduces the quality of the material for recycling, or to use alternative materials

which may also be of less value for recycling. In turn this offers less residual value

to the organisation inheriting the waste, leading to a further observation that there

is little incentive in the current framework for the producer to provide quality

recyclates as part of their supply chain.

The Circular Economy is based on modeling systems of nutrient and resource

cycling, returning them to the start of the process or to nature where possible. The

work of Biomimicry 3.8, of which Benyus (1997) is a founder, provides a model

that shows ‘life creates conditions conducive to life’ along with a range of other

‘Nature’s Principles’ which contribute to this thinking (Biomimicry for Creative

Innovation, n.d.). This is the foundation of the Life’s Principles Design Lens which

is intended to help organisations to create more circular models. (Biomimicry 3.8,

2014)

 

19

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Figure 4 Nature’s Principles BCI Tomorrow’s Natural Business (Undated)

Figure 5 Life’s Principles Design Lens Biomimicry 3.8 (2014)

This is built on by Hutchins in his vision of a new business structure (2012). He

argues that with changes in the way communications are managed in

organisations along with new technologies, new working methods and a change in

employee mindsets already being observed, the ‘Firm of the Future’ will be a much

more nebulous structure based on networking and knowledge rather than

hierarchy. This is supported by the work of Sukhdev (2012) who sees that a strong

shift in the way that Corporations will be working by 2020 is necessary if we are to

avoid, or at least minimise the predicted impacts of climate change, resource

scarcity and the resultant economic crises that are likely.

 

20

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Whilst a great deal of research is being carried out on the Circular Economy, from

the viewpoint of inherited waste it is of limited use in its current format. Possibilities

emerge if inspiration is taken from Hawken, Hutchins and Sukhdev but it is

important to remember that these are untested ideas.

Deutz et al (2009b) argue that eco-design is a critical foundation to sustainable

waste management and the two concepts are interrelated. This paper shows that

to determine the innovation space for design the parameters must be identified

and the field of potential gradually narrowed to define the final possibilities. In

terms of inherited waste, therefore, it would be useful to inspire new thinking with

the preparation of some potential models working in a collaborative and

sustainable framework, the aim of which would be to encourage further

suggestions to begin to define the innovation space.

Deutz in 2009(a) explained that Industrial Ecology aims to break out of the system

boundaries defined by organisations whereas Ecological Modernisation in industry

uses the inspiration of ecological thinking but works within system boundaries.

Using this idea for inherited waste, therefore, it would be useful to assess whether

the use of an Industrial Ecology approach to challenge the issue could be inspired

by presenting some potential theoretical models which break out of organisational

boundaries to prompt commentary.

It may, therefore, be possible to create a circular model for inherited waste

streams, requiring the crossing of several organisational boundaries. This would

break them out of the current framework which focuses on organisations taking

direct responsibility for the waste they produce and manage, paying off their part in

the waste that leaves their control. Only the largest organisations would currently

consider working beyond these perceived boundaries and even then, only if there

is a cost benefit to them.

Further, I conclude that circular models for inherited waste may be useful to

provoke reaction and generate comment but would require further research

beyond the scope of this dissertation to assess the level of feasibility in terms of

 

21

THE ONE PLANET MBA

economics and carbon footprint as well as potential for adoption by the public and

participating organisations.

5.3 The UK context

Whilst the Waste Hierarchy model partially covers the UK context as it is European

legislation ratified in UK law, there are other aspects to be considered.

Several government departments have produced materials to give guidance on

the application of European legislation and its translation into UK policy but the

most relevant to the inherited waste issue are those issued by the Department for

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Where variances apply, I have

focused on the policies as they apply to England as Southern rail is purely an

English company.

Defra has carried out a review of the waste policy, with the first publications in

2011 (Defra, 2011a-c) and findings continuing to emerge. The focus at the start of

this process was the initial implementation of the Waste Hierarchy and the

intention was to further progress this work. The Guidance on applying the Waste

Hierarchy document (Defra, 2011c) states that using waste as feedstock for

energy production is an environmentally preferable option to some recycling

options from a carbon perspective. This is in conflict with the intentions of the

Waste Hierarchy and does not take into account that this method involves the

destruction of the resources. In the same year Defra published outcomes of

research into collaboration opportunities (Defra, 2011a) which were largely at a

national scale and also did not favour recovery, waste prevention and reduction

options higher up the Hierarchy. This leads to the conclusion that at that time the

need to generate energy from waste as an energy security measure influenced the

actions being proposed at government level.

As further reports and supporting papers have emerged this appears to be

changing.

 

22

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Defra issued a paper that reviewed the definition of waste (Defra, 2012), a debate

that is continually revisited as an enabler for behaviour change. This paper shows

that there is support for waste that is produced by one organisation to become a

resource for another. This is very important because it means that it is possible for

different requirements to apply to organisations when taking materials from others.

In the long term this could help to reduce one of the key barriers to entry to the

waste industry for new projects.

In 2013 Defra published a suite of related documents summarising the review and

demonstrating a shift of emphasis to waste prevention. (Defra 2011a-i) The

‘Prevention is Better than Cure’ policy (Defra, 2013a) still includes an element of

energy security but now recognises that there is a need to preserve resources

where possible. The summary report (Defra, 2013i) reads as a collation of existing

mechanisms for resource recovery including areas such as second hand markets

and recycling programmes, however, the full policy document (Defra, 2013c) sets

the programme up to 2017/18 and firmly places the onus of responsibility onto the

private sector for trade waste and the public sector for domestic waste. The

emphasis, remains on the producers and clearly is designed to target the largest

producers.

My conclusion from these papers is that policy is driving large producers to act

with a burden of responsibility designed to change their behaviours, however, a

gap remains for those inheriting waste as the legislative focus encourages non-

circular processes with little incentive for organisations to act in ways which do not

impact their profit margin directly.

The government funded an organisation called the Waste and Resources Action

Programme, (WRAP). This funding has now been cut significantly but the

organisation continues the work using alternative funding sources. As a result

there is a wealth of material available which includes academic research with

specific industries through to resources to encourage a standardisation of labeling

for recycling facilities.

 

23

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Whilst some of the resources, such as the 2013 report ‘Overview of Waste in the

UK Hospitality and Food Service Sector’ (WRAP, 2013) relate directly to the food

and beverage industry, which is the source of the majority of inherited waste at

Southern, the emphasis is on the producer and the biggest returns at national

scale in terms of finance, carbon and volume to landfill. From the viewpoint of

those inheriting waste this has very little useful information, other than further

confirming the earlier conclusion that organisational self interest drives decision

making.

WRAP’s 2007 report on the capacity of Municipal Solid Waste Mixed Recycling

Facilities is now largely out of date as a range of new installations have been

commissioned by waste operators, so is disregarded for the purpose of this

research.

Matsueda and Nagase (2012) demonstrate that despite the influence of the

Packaging Regulations in the UK market, economic mechanisms have led to a

decrease in landfill rates but at a slower rate than predicted due to increases in the

volume of packaging in circulation. They also demonstrate that paradoxically

increasing landfill tax actually leads to an increase in landfill waste.

In the context of this research I further note on this point that the onus of landfill

tax for primary packaging falls on those inheriting the waste, not the producer,

therefore, increasing landfill tax in this respect is not an incentive for reducing final

product packaging, merely for reducing production waste as far as the producer is

concerned.

Amienyo et al (2012) demonstrate that packaging represents between 49% and

79% of the life cycle environmental impact of carbonated beverages, of this 90% is

attributed to primary packaging, the element that is inherited from passengers in

rail, whilst some secondary packaging is inherited from on station tenants.

Therefore, a circular model for beverage packaging would lead to a significant life

cycle impact reduction as well as reducing the level of inherited waste.

 

24

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Following the Literature Review a number of key issues have emerged as

important when considering inherited waste.

Policy and legislation appear to be strong driving factors in decision making for

infrastructure, process planning and management of waste produced.

Whilst the concept of a circular economy is well documented with possible

approaches being designed at an aspirational level, application does not seem to

be well advanced, despite strong models developed by notable exceptions at an

international level, such as InterfaceFLOR (Anderson, 2009).

It is possible that the level of potential for a circular economy in the UK is shaped

by the policy and legislation framework as well as limitations in the available

infrastructure.

The desire to implement new approaches for waste management seems to be

driven by a range of factors including economics, business models and even

reputation, but these factors generally focus inwardly to the singular organisation.

When looking at this from the perspective of inherited waste the challenge is

greater. Organisations at the end of the chain have no option but to pay to dispose

of the waste responsibly and using the traditional approach of looking inwardly it is

decided that there is little scope for change as this would require development of

relationships with producing organisations which are numerous and external to the

inheritee’s sphere of current influence.

The area of research for this paper is around the potential for applying existing

ideas and models in a new context, or for identifying new models, rather than an

inward focus on volumes or cost directly. This suggested that qualitative research

at this stage would be most appropriate with potential for future studies to

investigate volume and cost scenarios if useful models were identified.

 

25

THE ONE PLANET MBA

6 Methodology

The Literature Review revealed that the concept of ‘inherited waste’ has not been

explored in research previously and is not considered a priority in policy

frameworks. As a result it was important to communicate the concept clearly and

clarify the issues it presents.

To ensure that fresh ideas could be collected whilst assessing thoughts around

existing ideas a method to assess and draw out discussion was needed. The

options considered included face to face interviews with a narrow, controlled

sample, widely circulated anonymous questionnaires to an uncontrolled sample,

compilation of a suggested model for comment or a combination of some of these

options.

To ensure that this new subject area could be easily communicated it was

determined that the use of models based on existing theories (ie a visual

presentation) along with written descriptions (ie a theoretical presentation) enabled

scenarios to be presented clearly, taking into account different personality types

that may be represented within the audience.

The need to enable comparison in responses, given the timescale involved was

also a consideration so it was deemed important that some boundaries were

created but with scope to build on answers in a more discursive way.

Because the research is being carried out by someone involved in the process and

known to be an influential character, it was decided that interview techniques

might lead to potential bias as discussion could emerge rather than direct

answers. The use of a structured questionnaire with a set scoring system would

eliminate this risk, circulated by email to ensure that all contact was controlled and

responses not influenced in any way.

This approach alone would provide a limited set of responses and would not have

enabled the respondent to voice their own opinions which did not fully meet the

 

26

THE ONE PLANET MBA

aim of exploring the issues and the opportunities around them. In order to address

this space needed to be provided and the respondent encouraged to provide free

commentary around the subject.

The circulation needed to be directed to individuals who had understanding of the

issues in some form, this included waste professionals, sustainability professionals

and students, rail professionals, food and beverage professionals and individuals

who would use public transport and purchase items that might generate waste that

would be inherited.

These considerations led me to determine that the format for the research needed

to be semi-structured qualitative research. To achieve this the questionnaire

required:

• Presentation of some demonstration models with structured questions

relating to the context they might be found in

• Set questions for each model with a scoring system to enable comparison

• Space for each model to enable free comment

• Space for general free comment

• A selected sample with potential for additional inidividuals to be included if

they suited the listed range of experience.

The questionnaire used the title ‘Opportunities for inherited waste’ with the

intention that this would start to give the term early exposure and begin to embed it

in the reader’s mind.

It was important to assume that the reader may not have considered inherited

waste as a concept previously, so the introduction explains how the research

concept was developed and how the researcher is connected to the issue. The

challenge is set up as an exploration from the introduction, with clear statements

that the intention is to provoke discussion to enable the generation of new ideas to

promote the potential for circularisation of waste and creation of a shift towards

resource management.

 

27

THE ONE PLANET MBA

A key outcome is identified at this point that ‘it would be useful to identify where

the space for innovation lies as an enabler for further research in the future.’

A further statement was made that ‘the questions aim to provoke thought and

encourage your input to the research with the presented models as a stimulus for

you to react to’ with the intention that this would further encourage open

discussion.

In order to manage the responses ethically and encourage open and honest

contributions it was decided that all responses would be treated confidentially and

anonymised for the final dissertation, although information would be requested to

enable an assessment of what background responses were from.

The questionnaire was intended for circulation to selected participants in the waste

industry, the rail industry and the sustainability profession. To capture the thoughts

of the ‘users’ of the waste produced the questionnaire was also sent to a small

number of public transport users, recognising that many of the main circulation list

were also public transport users.

In the course of my role with Southern I have found that the basic concept of

inherited waste, ie that there are sections of the market which must handle waste

imposed on them by external processes, is not something which has previously

been discussed formally or broadly. This means that to enable such discussions

would be a positive outcome from this research, with the potential to reveal

possible new avenues for developing ways to turn inherited ‘waste’ into inherited

‘resource’. Ongoing discussion of the issue is a desirable possibility but not a

specific aim of the research as it cannot be quantified prior to the finalisation of the

results.

The aim of this research is to understand what options currently exist for change,

therefore no further explanation of the options offered were provided on the

questionnaire, although it was made clear, within the email that the questionnaire

was attached to, that respondents could seek further detail if they wished to and

full contact details were provided.

 

28

THE ONE PLANET MBA

To enable the introduction of new ideas and more detailed commentary on the

models and the concept of inherited waste and circularity, each question was

provided with space for open comment along with a final section for free

commentary to be added. It was made clear in the text that the respondent was

encouraged to speak freely and the results would be anonymised to further

encourage honesty in responses.

The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. The anonymised comments are

presented in Appendix B and are transcribed exactly as presented to ensure that

there is no risk of bias. The scoring results for each model are presented in

Section 7 Presentation and Analysis of Findings.

All questionnaires will be retained for one year and can be made available for

review.

6.1 Choosing the circulation list

It was important that the circulation list would generate a range of responses.

Whilst the issue of inherited waste was identified in the rail industry, it is not

isolated to that sector alone. It was also recognised that tackling the issue would

need understanding of the full waste industry framework and the path that the

waste takes to reach the inheritee. Ultimately this could become a supply chain of

‘inherited resource’, therefore it was decided that the circulation list should include

people from the rail industry, the waste industry, academia with an interest in

waste and sustainability, the public sector, manufacturers and those contracting

with manufacturers on tackling waste issues and a small number of public

transport users. A list of fifty-four people was selected and the questionnaire was

emailed with records of responses held, including whether respondents had left

the role, were on holiday, or had made contact prior to submitting the final

response.

The responses were then collated with the details provided for analysis and all

comments from the actual response logged. Copies of separate communications

 

29

THE ONE PLANET MBA

were also held on file and referred to where appropriate but treated as separate

discussions from the actual questionnaire responses.

To assess the validity of the circulation list an analysis was carried out of the

relationship to the researcher, with the following results:

5 were rail industry colleagues

7 were colleagues from the One Planet MBA

36 were selected from the researcher’s wider network and most have only met the

researcher personally once or twice

6 were not known to the researcher personally

Once all responses had been received all respondents were allocated a reference

number. References were then also allocated to the list of nil responses for

analysis purposes only.

6.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology

The following were identified strengths:

The circulation list was strong, with representation of all the identified sectors as

listed above. This was drawn from the researchers network, enabling assessment

of credentials to ensure that responses had validity in the field of research, or

where the respondents were generalists, this could be noted in the final collation of

findings. A small number of additional questionnaires were sent to contacts of

individuals on the original list as they had specific interest in the area of research.

The responses were treated in exactly the same way as the original list.

The models compiled were based on recognised models, using existing processes

in real settings, although genericised and anonymised to enable free sharing and

open discussion.

The breadth of sources considered in preparation of the questionnaire was

sufficient to capture a range of new thinking in the field of waste and resource

 

30

THE ONE PLANET MBA

management with sufficient academic thought to ensure that the process was

useful.

Sufficient encouragement was provided to generate open comment with useful

input received from the start of the response process.

The following were identified weaknesses:

The timing of the questionnaire coincided with the summer holiday season, which

may have contributed to a lower level of response than could have been achieved,

although 46% return rate was actually achieved. This could have been improved

by adjusting the timing, but preparing the models took longer than planned and the

deadline would not have been met if any further delay had been allowed.

Presentation of a scenario may have influenced thinking more than anticipated in

some cases. Whilst the text encouraged free thinking, for those not already in the

industry ideas may have become directed by the presented process although it is

difficult to predict whether an unguided questionnaire would have produced a

stronger result.

Presenting the questionnaire to a selected list, rather than an open audience may

have limited the potential for response. The intention of selecting a list of

respondents was to ensure good quality of responses, which may have been

compromised in an open response scenario. This may have been improved if

more time had been available for seeking alternative respondents where replies

were not received.

 

31

THE ONE PLANET MBA

7 Presentation and Analysis of Findings

In order to generate a useful analysis of results a range of groupings were

identified. These were: Rail, Waste, Sustainability, Food, Councils, Public

Transport Users. It should be noted that these groupings were not intended to

stereotype the respondents and it was important to recognise that in many

instances there were crossovers, for example, an individual could be a

sustainability professional working in a council but with expertise in waste.

As the research is qualitative the range of expertise is deemed more relevant than

the overall number in each group, therefore all types of expertise identified were

noted. This means that the numbers shown in each line of the table below reflect

the overall group ie, of the 54, 41 individuals worked in sustainability, but some of

those would also reflect in the 12 individuals with specialisms in waste.

The percentage return reflects the responses within each grouping, with the

overall result of a 46% return. Of the 54 questionnaires sent out, 25 responses

were received.

Figure 6 Response Rate Summary

The table below provides a cross reference within the groupings, to reflect where

the crossovers were. For example of the 41 sustainability professionals contacted,

3 work in rail, 10 in waste, 1 in food, 5 in councils and 33 are public transport

users. Of those, 15 responded and the groupings can then be seen. All groupings

are shown in blue.

 

32

THE ONE PLANET MBA

The pink section shows the relationship to the researcher, so of the 41

sustainability professionals, 3 are rail industry colleagues, 4 are One Planet MBA

colleagues, 30 are from the researcher’s wider network and 4 are not known to the

researcher personally.

 Figure 7 Summary of Responses and Cross Reference

The following table shows the groupings, roles and industry types of the

individuals who responded which shows a useful range of expertise has presented

input into the research although there is scope for a deeper level of research to be

carried out drawing on the findings of this process.

 

33

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Figure 8 Table of responses

The nil responses were also analysed in the same way, to assess whether there

was a particular bias resulting from the loss of their potential input. It should be

noted that some of the individuals could well be working in a context which

prevented them from participating, some were away during the research period

and some had moved on since the first contact was made. The risk of bias is

regarded as represented in the selection process and no assumptions are made

about reasons for any nil responses.

 

34

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Due to the spread of the responses received no strong bias has been identified

and in fact is perhaps actually slightly more balanced.

Figure 9 Table of nil responses

To assess whether respondents felt encouraged to speak freely an analysis was

carried out of the number of comments received. In all 47 comments were

received from 19 of the respondents (76%). There was a variation in whether

individuals chose to comment on the models, the free comment page or both, but

the results indicate that potential to comment was not inhibited.

 

35

THE ONE PLANET MBA

 Figure 10 Commentary Summary

 

The summary of responses is shown below, reflected as averages within the

allocated groups and as an overall average. These results are shown in the Model

analysis sections (7.1 to 7.6). This table shows there are some similarities

between groups on some questions, however, Sustainability is a large group

therefore similarities with the overall results must be expected.

There are also some clear results at either end of the scale which indicates that

individual responses have to some extent reflected a strength of feeling which

provides an element of confidence in the validity of the responses.

  Figure 11 Scoring Summary (Average by Group)

 

36

THE ONE PLANET MBA

7.1 Model One – Current waste infrastructure

Figure 12 Model 1 – Current waste infrastructure

The description given in the questionnaire was:

‘Below is a generic model of the nature of the current waste industry infrastructure. It represents

the boundaries of councils, public waste amenity sites and private waste amenity sites. It does not

represent individual organisations in any way and aims to show the complexity of the current

infrastructure.

County, District and Borough Councils have responsibility for ensuring Municipal Waste is

managed effectively. A range of Amenity Sites are provided, sometimes crossing political

boundaries. Often the Amenity Sites are contracted to private businesses. Waste from those sites

and from trade collections through business contracts are transported to privately owned facilities

for treatment of waste. These include Mixed Recycling Facilities, Energy from Waste Incinerators,

Anaerobic Digesters and Landfill Sites. Responsibility for managing Landfill Sites continues until all

materials have degraded and land is no longer contaminated, which may be decades and may

include remediation programmes.’

The aim of this model, which was genericised, was to show the complexity of the

waste industry in the UK. There are multiple organisations working within any

given area. The extent of this model is the County Council level (the blue area)

and within that county there may be numerous District and Borough councils,

 

37

THE ONE PLANET MBA

represented by the circles. Within those boundaries, which do often overlap, there

will be a range of Amenity and Waste Management sites, performing a range of

functions. Some of these will be operated by Direct Labour for councils, some will

be contracted out to private operators and some will be wholly owned by private

operators, licensed to take waste from others.

Each of these sites is strictly regulated and there is a strong industry culture

whereby knowledge of the complexity is retained within the industry and is not

easily accessible to those outside it. As a result, although not directly stated in the

questionnaire, this model represents the public face of the industry as it might be

perceived from someone external to it.

The question relating to the model was:

‘Considering the model above:

The waste industry is made up of private companies and councils with varying types of agreement

and a variety of drivers for their infrastructure investment choices. To what extent do you feel that

this infrastructure is driven by the following? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely: Policy

requirements, Legislation, Private competition, Public need, Other.’

The aim of this question was to begin to understand how the respondents perceive

the framework as this is the underlying context in which all waste operators work.

It was expected that views would differ depending on the background of the

respondent.

The results are shown overleaf:

 

38

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Figure 13 Model 1 scoring comparison graphs

There is a strong feeling that the framework is driven by policy and legislation, with

only the food responses favouring policy over legislation. The private competition

element showed most strongly from the waste group, who are actually the

beneficiaries of that competition. Public Transport Users also showed strongly,

although this may be a reflection of the group size, which is much larger than the

waste group. Interestingly there was a much lower score for public need, indicating

that respondents feel that public need does not determine what waste services are

provided. The Public Transport User grouping shows the lowest score alongside

Sustainability and Food professionals, possibly indicating that there is a feeling

that needs aren’t being met.

In the comments, one respondent noted that historical infrastructure decisions

could limit options and that economic factors influence decisions strongly as

organisations opt for cost minimisation projects, not necessarily resource efficient

ones. The same respondent also noted that legislation is unlikely to be passed if

there is a perceived risk to the incumbent party’s political position. Another

respondent suggested ‘nimbyism’ presents a limitation here.

 

39

THE ONE PLANET MBA

7.2 Model Two – Current organisational context

Figure 14 Model 2 – Current organisational context

The description given in the questionnaire was:

‘The model below is intended to show the current organisational context and aims to show the

relationships between those producing and those handling waste.

All organisations are governed by legislation which defines how waste types must be managed and

this leads to governance structures within industries and organisations to ensure compliance. The

County, District, and Borough Councils procure services within this framework to manage domestic

waste and may opt to manage some trade waste. The vast majority of trade waste is managed

through contracts between numerous waste producers across the private commercial sector. In

addition there may be multiple projects working with reuse, reconditioning and recirculation of

unwanted materials. Most waste producers and community projects working on reducing waste

operate unilaterally with little collaboration.’

The aim of this model was to show the organisational structure of all the

influencers on the waste industry. The governing structure is the political and

legislative context, which is driven by the European Union, the UK government

and those organisations tasked with enforcing legislation such as Defra and the

Environment Agency. At a local level domestic waste is managed by County,

District and Borough Councils often through contracts with private sector

operators. Trade or commercial waste is managed by private sector operators

County, District and Borough Councils

Legislation and governance

Waste Operators (Domestic)

Waste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste Producers

Waste Operators (Commercial)

ProjectProjectProjectProjectProject

Projects

 

40

THE ONE PLANET MBA

through contracts with Waste Producers and a range of projects and social

enterprises exist, although currently in the minority, often testing new models and

methodologies. The model was intended to show that there are numerous waste

producers who currently operate unilaterally.

The question relating to this model was:

‘Considering the model above:

Currently the legislation and policy framework places responsibility for waste on the producer

focusing on recycling and waste reduction at source. To what extent do you feel that this

framework encourages behaviour change for the following opportunities? Scoring 1 for not at all to

5 for completely: Ability to recycle, Converting ‘waste’ to ‘resource’ through value

recovery, Reusable packaging, Waste eradication, Circular economy, Collaborative community

projects for waste management (eg shared trade recycling hub), Other.’

 

The aim of this question was to begin to explore whether the organisational

structure is perceived as a barrier to adopting different working models. Is it simply

accepted that this framework is just the way it is, or are there aspirations for

change that currently aren’t being met? This would only succeed if respondents

did comment freely as encouraged.

Figure 15 Model 2 scoring comparison graphs

The ability to recycle is becoming embedded in our society yet the results indicate

that respondents across the full range feel there is scope for improvement with a

 

41

THE ONE PLANET MBA

mid range score. The respondents from Rail strongly feel that the current

framework enables the conversion of waste to resource, however, given the

working relationship with the researcher and the success of current behaviour

change programmes within the Go-Ahead Group, this may be a biased, but

encouraging result. The other research groups are more aligned with a less

optimistic view, particularly in Food.

Opinions around reusable packaging are much more pessimistic with most groups

scoring 2, Food, which is the group most likely to influence packaging waste in this

context scoring 1. Waste scored 3 bringing the overall score up to 3. Bearing in

mind that the onus is on users to bring reusable packaging this score is believable,

but represents the potential for the largest change.

Scores for waste eradication are similarly pessimistic in the current framework,

with Councils showing the highest score here. The results do not include any

major producers as they did not respond, however, some consultancy in that field

is represented yet the score is still low.

Potential for Circular Economy and collaborative projects in the current framework

produced the same scoring pattern, with Rail and Waste representing the more

optimistic groups here.

These results demonstrate a lack of confidence that the current organisational

framework can deliver the changes needed to move beyond recycling, bearing in

mind that recycling is relatively low in the Waste Hierarchy this is a finding that

gives some concern.

One respondent commented that the responsibility of the producer is not sufficient

to ensure recycling as often the end of chain opportunities do not appear to be

provided. Another noted that some producers are diverting waste by redesignating

it as ‘by-product’ but there is little progress in most other areas at a corporate

level. It was also pointed out that CEO pride, customer expectation, one-

upmanship also all have roles to play beyond legislation.

 

42

THE ONE PLANET MBA

7.3 Model Three – Worked example: The linear model of the coffee cup Following on from the assessment of the context the industry works in, the

research moved on to a worked example, still intending to provoke discussion.

Figure 16 Model 3 – The linear model of the coffee cup

The description given in the questionnaire was:

‘Below is a model that aims to demonstrate the linear life cycle of a disposable coffee cup, from its

production through to its disposal.

Paper cups, lined with plastics are produced from a combination of raw and recycled materials.

This requires wood and oil, energy and paper pulp as well as labour. The cups require packaging

and transport to wholesalers before reaching coffee shops. In use the cups are filled using teas,

coffees, coffee beans, milk, sugar etc and plastic lids, cardboard cuffs and plastic stirrers are also

used. The used cup, lid, cuff, and stirrer are placed in waste bins, which may or may not be

recycled. At best, the materials may become feedstock for another process but are unlikely to be

reused directly as another coffee cup.’

This model, based on the models presented in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation

documents (2012, 2013 and 2014) depicts the current lifecycle of a genericised

disposable coffee cup from production through to disposal.

7.3.1 – Model Three Question One – The cup

There were two questions relating to this model. The first was:

‘With the current legislative and policy framework responsibility for the waste produced in this

model is passed on to those responsible for the bin in which it is left. Focusing on the cup itself, not

Dry Mixed Recycling

Production Transport Use Litter Dispose/reclaim

Cup ManufacturerCoffee Shops

Collector eg Parks Waste operator

Current Linear Model

 

43

THE ONE PLANET MBA

other elements of waste from the beverage it contained, consider this model and what

opportunities are available to prevent this waste stream. To what extent do you feel that this

framework could be changed in the following ways? Score 1 for not at all to 5 for completely:

Improve recyclability of the cup, Encourage people to bring a reusable cup, Create a servitised

circular model, Other.’

This question asked the respondent to focus on the coffee cup only, to prompt

them to narrow thinking to one specific aspect of inherited waste whilst still

working within the current frameworks.

Figure 17 Model 3 Question 1 scoring comparison graphs

Bearing in mind the changes listed in the question are presented within the current

framework, Rail and Waste were the most optimistic that improving the

recyclability of the cup was completely feasible. This remains at the lower end of

the hierarchy, so still represents a minimal aspiration. Food were less convinced

that this is achievable.

Interestingly, despite their experience, the Rail group felt that encouraging people

to bring reusable cups is a realistic option, as did Waste, Sustainability and the

Public Transport Users, however, this is not currently commonplace. This

 

44

THE ONE PLANET MBA

suggests there is potential for running programmes to encourage this type of

change for a relatively ‘quick win’.

Rail, Waste and particularly the Food group believe creating a servitised circular

model could be feasible in the current framework, but Sustainability and Public

Transport are less confident of this and Councils even less so.

The comments provided suggested both financial incentives and disincentives to

the consumer to encourage behaviour change. There is a strong recognition that

the servitised model, in this framework would place a heavy burden on the coffee

shops. Comments also strongly revert to variations on the recycling theme despite

various words in the questionnaire designed to encourage fresh thinking.

This leads to a conclusion that there may be a path dependency emerging which

is possibly curbing free thought and steering possible models towards variations

on existing themes.

7.3.2 – Model Three Question Two – The other elements of beverages

The second question was:

‘Focusing on the other elements of the beverage within the cup to what extent do you feel that this

framework could be changed? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely: More composting of tea

bags/coffee grouts, Seek new ways to dispense sugar/stirrers etc, Influence behaviour eg give up

sugar means less waste, Other.’ For this question the aim was to begin to broaden thinking, still associated with the

first concept but to demonstrate using one stream the associated waste elements

that arise and to provoke thoughts around these and potential opportunities whilst

still working within the current frameworks.

 

45

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Figure 18 Model 3 Question 2 scoring comparison graphs

All groups see potential for more composting within the current framework and

seeking new ways for dispensing stirrers, sugars etc also scores highly with Rail,

who were very optimistic that this is a way forward and Councils less so. The most

interesting results on this question, and the most emotive was the suggestion of

giving up sugar! Scoring very low in many groups, the comments also reflected

that this type of programme can lead to negative responses as people react and

an example was given of the negative response to Jimmy Carter’s energy saving

drive in the 1970’s. More recently, the public reaction to the change of legislation

around vacuum cleaner power has been negative despite significant

improvements in efficiency meaning the power is probably not needed. (Vidal,

2014)

This suggests that progress is more likely to be made with a positive suggestion

such as ‘bring your own cup’ as opposed to ‘we don’t give out disposable cups any

more’.

Hygiene is also commented on as a factor, which could add to the cost of new

recirculation and dispensing methods.

 

46

THE ONE PLANET MBA

7.4 Model Four – Worked example: Circularising the coffee cup

Figure 19 Model 4 – Circularising the coffee cup

The description given in the questionnaire was:

‘The model below presents a possible circular scenario using the coffee cup, based on tenant

coffee shops on stations as an example. This type of model may not be limited to this scenario and

you may observe limitations. Please comment on these on the open response section.

This model shows the top level of a potential circular model.

In this scenario the cup itself would need to be designed using recyclable materials to enable a

range of cycles.

In production waste materials are reused in processes. This retains materials within the producing

organisation.

The recyclable cup is collected at coffee shops to be returned to the producing organisation for

cleaning or recycling. This means that relationships need to be developed between the coffee

shops and the producer of the cups.

Alternative bins are provided at sites such as stations and high streets to collect cups that are

taken away from coffee shops. These bins are taken to sorting sites, with potential to create new

jobs but requiring the development of several new relationships.

It is inevitable that some cups will end up in standard litter bins, removing them from the cycle.’

This model, also based on models presented in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation

publications (2012, 2013 and 2014) was designed using the researcher’s

experience of the tenant coffee shops, the processes associated with their supply

chain and the waste produced by them and their customers.

Cup Production

Process residue

Cups collected at coffee shops

Litter

Sorting Site

Potential for local jobs,

value in collected

material etc

Potential circular model

 

47

THE ONE PLANET MBA

The model seeks to provoke discussion around the conceptual level of

circularising the coffee cup including the suggestion that the sorting aspect of the

system could generate potential for local jobs and divert the value within collected

materials to a new part of the cycle. The model also recognises that there would

be some losses of cups from the cycle.

The question relating to this model was:

‘Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an

approach is feasible in principle? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely: With current service

providers, With new projects or collaborations, With a new type of provider, Other.’

The intention was to introduce the new concept of a circular model to the

respondent, preparing them for the next two models, which entered into greater

degrees of detail of potential models. This was intended to provoke thoughts

around the complexity of such a shift, set in the context of the previously

presented frameworks. With this phased development of the concept it was

anticipated that respondents would offer differing views of the framework and

potential for change depending on their position in relation to the industry.

Figure 20 Model 4 scoring comparison graphs

 

48

THE ONE PLANET MBA

The results for this model prove interesting because they show that there is little

belief that the existing framework can enable a truly circular model. With the

suggestion of new collaborations and new providers this completely changes with

the Food respondents the most positive. The comments show that the concept is

understood, however, there is an assumption that the coffee shops must purchase

the cups and potentially bear any loss. There is also still a strong leaning towards

providing incentives to encourage people to switch. This suggests an expectation

that there will remain a choice between disposable cups and the circular model.

One comment suggests a return to china mugs, which in the context would

introduce safety risks and the same respondent also did not feel that a circular

model could work. Another refers to the Olympics model, which despite being on a

series of static sites still resorted to compostable cups, essentially remaining within

the disposal level of the hierarchy. This would be useful to research further to

ascertain why a more circular model wasn’t used, or indeed, to what extent it was

considered.

On the whole these responses do, however, reflect a good degree of positivity

about the potential for a new model to be introduced. Whilst the model presented

focuses on the cup itself, there is potential for wider research around circularising

the whole range of products connected with transit related beverages but this may

need to be led on a disruption basis – ie, there seems to be an expectation that

the current providers could deliver the needed change, but perhaps there is a

need for a major disruptor to enter the market.

 

49

THE ONE PLANET MBA

7.5 Model Five – Worked example: A closer look at the servitised model

Figure 21 Model 5 – A closer look at the servitised model

The description given in the questionnaire was:

‘The model below represents a possible scenario for a servitised model for a reusable coffee cup.

This type of model may not be limited to this scenario and you may observe limitations. Please

comment on these on the open response section.

This model shows the various phases that would be required for a potential servitised model for

reusable coffee cups.

In this scenario a bin would need to be designed to collect cups and lids and allow remaining

beverages to drain out.

The bin would need emptying, sorting and cleaning.

Clean cups would need to be packaged and redistributed to the coffee shops and reused.’

This model, purely aspirational, was intended to begin to demonstrate the

complexity of attempting to circularise a process. It introduces additional

processes which, although not specifically mentioned on the questionnaire, also

import additional cost. This was intended to stimulate discussion and thoughts

around how such changes and the resulting costs might impact on the existing

systems and to begin to flush out initial thoughts of where opportunities for

innovation might lie.

 

50

THE ONE PLANET MBA

The question related to the model was:

Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an

approach is feasible in principle? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely: With current service

providers, With new projects or collaborations, With a new type of provider, Other.’ It was anticipated that responses would vary depending on the respondents

relationship to the waste industry and in some cases might be the first time that

the complexity of a circular model had been considered. Others would be

expected to have strong opinions if already working in the field.

Figure 22 Model 5 scoring comparison graphs

The first point of interest here is that the overall level of confidence within the

current framework to enable this type of change increased. Food dropped to 2 but

Councils and Public Transport Users increased to 3 while Rail, Waste and

Sustainability remained unchanged.

This may indicate that with more clarity around what such a model would look like

confidence improves. At present most materials presented include conceptual

 

51

THE ONE PLANET MBA

circular models, such as those presented by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation

(2012, 2013, 2014) but it can be difficult to relate those to real world situations

without some consideration.

Many of the comments on this model mentioned the cost element, however, there

was a range of discursive elements which began to break down the challenges

seen with early ideas for possible solutions. The real challenge with the model

would be in identifying where the value sits. In designing it inspiration was taken

from the InterfaceFLOR model for servitisation of carpet tiles (Anderson, 2009). It

is accepted that the model itself is flawed but with positive feedback and

recognition that there may be scope to design new business models, there is a

clear route for further research into this area. For example, a useful research

question would be ‘Could a business or social enterprise feasibly be created to

manage the service of cup provision?’

7.6 Model Six – Worked example: Going deeper into the servitised model

Figure 23 Model 6 – Going deeper into the servitised model

 

52

THE ONE PLANET MBA

The description given in the questionnaire was:

‘The model below represents a more detailed look at a possible scenario for a servitised model for

a reusable coffee cup. This element considers the sorting of waste from reusable elements. This

type of model may not be limited to this scenario and you may observe limitations. Please

comment on these on the open response section.

This model looks at the complexities of a servitised circular model, taking into account the

additional aspects that would need to be addressed.

Collecting bins need a process for collection, sorting and cleaning. This would need creation of an

organisation to manage this process, capable of creating appropriate relationships.

A further process would be needed for dealing with breakages and to return the materials to the

production process.

The clean cups, once packed would re-enter the distribution loop, which may utilise existing

mechanisms.

Finally an element of consumer behaviour change would be required which could be challenging.’

This model begins to break the process of the circular model down into much more

detail. It starts to reveal that the model could involve numerous organisations and

has life cycle considerations of its own. For example, does the logistics process

introduce deeper waste and carbon issues?

The question related to the model was:

‘Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an

approach is feasible in principle? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely: With current service

providers, With new projects or collaborations, With a new type of provider, Other.’

The model was presented on face value with no expansion on anticipated issues

to allow for potential that respondents would present unlimited thoughts around

this and perhaps even thoughts of potential alternatives or solutions.

 

53

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Figure 24 Model 6 scoring comparison graphs

The respondent’s belief that the current framework could support this model drops

back to 2 for this more detailed model. All responses return to the scores shown in

Model 4 with the exception of Councils who remain more positive at 3.

Despite the realities of this complex model confidence that new projects or new

providers could deliver it remain high. The Food score for projects and

collaborations drops slightly to four but the overall score remains unchanged

whereas the scores for new providers are exactly the same.

Within the comments, one respondent observes that there is a challenge in the

management of the collected cups in that cleanliness throughout the process may

not meet consumer’s expectations, even if cleaning achieves approved levels. The

customer perception may be very different. Another notes that the problem of

different places of purchase, consumption and disposal present a challenge and a

solution for disposal ‘on the go’ would need to be found. Consideration for how this

would work with any incentives/disincentives is needed as this would need to be

sufficient for a consumer to want to find the right collecting bin for disposal.

 

54

THE ONE PLANET MBA

This positivity both in scores and in the willingness to go into detail in the

comments, confirms the suggestion for future research made in Model 5 that there

is scope to analyse in depth the feasibility of a new model provider, giving

consideration to

• How could relationships be built?

• What design challenges would there be?

• What would the logistics challenges be?

• How would the hygiene aspects be managed?

• And, particularly, what would the value chain for the servitised cup look

like?

As this only addresses one inherited waste stream, there is further potential for

similar models for other waste streams such as sugar dispensing, coffee grouts

and tea bags etc.

7.7 Open comments

Fifteen respondents entered comments on the open comments section, of those 9

had not commented elsewhere in the questionnaire. The number and depth of

comments suggests that there was a genuine interest in the subject matter and a

strong desire for change, even at the lower levels of the hierarchy.

An emerging challenge is that the existing mindset is a limiting factor to thinking

about new models, as one respondent said, most organisations have accepted

that recycling is profitable, but lack of understanding is slowing this change. They

also suggest lethargy is an issue, leading to their conclusion that new providers

and collaborations are needed.

The types of jobs that would be created is raised as a possible concern. The

response refers to the model clearly showing someone sorting cups, however, in

reality this entry level role may not be the only role created, if entire organisations

become necessary these would be additional jobs of all organisational levels,

forming part of the emerging green economy. Potentially these roles might lend

 

55

THE ONE PLANET MBA

themselves well to being led by social enterprises or local community

organisations and could present creative employment options such as job share

opportunities. It is interesting, though, that in contrast it is currently deemed

acceptable to have low paid roles to handle other people’s waste and the

collective mindset seems to identify that we will not move away from this in the

near future.

Hygiene is mentioned again as an important risk factor, which has guidance and

legislation available to consider how this might determine operational choices.

One respondent observes that revenue is a key driver for business decision

making but also notes that it is not frameworks and policy that drive change, but

people. They go on to say that it just needs someone to think out of the box, even

within the current framework.

A suggestion is made that the final model could be set up as a trial project and a

Life Cycle Assessment carried out to analyse carbon aspects as well as costs.

This is a very useful comment, and I would also suggest that as part of the further

research this could analyse the process from a full resource life cycle perspective,

as opposed to the product itself, perhaps using a Natural Capital model (Hawken

et al, 2010).

Respondent 10 adds a useful comment that many of the coffee shops in public

places are franchises, so local staff have little input on the process. This actually

leads to a level of detachment from the issues and would need to be considered in

the suggested further research into the feasibility of circular models as it would

impact on the value chain if there is a lack of care about another organisation’s

commodity.

An incentive scheme suggested by respondent 11, a Public Transport User, is

very reminiscent of reward mechanisms seen in video gaming, with levels

achieved and the potential for bonuses along the way. This precise method would

mean a scheme would need some form of attachment to the coffee shop but in

theory could actually be developed and applied to a wide range of servitised

 

56

THE ONE PLANET MBA

commodities, not just the cup. With the emergence of various loyalty and swipe

card technologies and chips that can be inserted into packaging, for instance,

points could be collected in numerous ways and held centrally potentially actually

negating the need for them to be connected to a particular brand.

The issue is reframed in another comment: “Difficult conundrum - a low value

material with high volumes in a commoditised sector where brand is key.” The

respondent goes on to say that customer perception is that the cup itself is low

value and has no qualms about disposing of it. Redesigning the cup to feel higher

value might change that. In a similar vein, another comment points out that to a

business with turnover of multi-millions there is little incentive to change unless

there is a risk to their status, which again, suggests a little disruption may be

necessary to drive a big change. One respondent refers to a ‘ground zero’

approach being brought by new entrants.

Reporting on use of cups and possibly taxing them is suggested, which retains a

connection with the dispenser. In this context the biggest incentive for change is

the bottom line. Thinking in terms of circularity, this raises the question, could it be

feasible to commoditise the cup through a separate organisation, but incentivise its

use through a tax mechanism via the coffee shop to the customer? This would

mean the coffee shop doesn’t bear the cost but the consumer has a disincentive

encouraging them to opt for the untaxed cup. This could be an avenue of research

for a financial researcher but would lead to very complex measurement

mechanisms along the lines of VAT processes, which suggests at this stage that

the original suggestion is the most practical. The potential on a broader scale,

could be for the mechanism to be used for a range of waste types to drive a

movement towards circularity.

Some links to reports on new projects were given, however, these focus on

recycling and composting, still low in the hierarchy and relatively unchallenging to

the existing framework.

The value chain emerges again here, with one respondent suggesting that the

cost of cleaning and collecting cups would be more than the production of the

 

57

THE ONE PLANET MBA

disposable cup, however, this does not consider the full chain. In a new model, the

number of cups produced (assuming the model was working efficiently) should be

less, but material cost higher. The logistics of collection and cleaning would be the

main cost and may well offset the production cost in the long term. It becomes

clear that the value chain assessment is critical to assessing the feasibility of a

project, but a high initial investment would be needed, a barrier to new entrants.

(Porter, 2011)

Interestingly, none of the respondents picked up on the fact that servitising the cup

would mean it is no longer a waste item, thus removing many of the barriers to

entry that exist for recycling and refurbishment schemes, which potentially leaves

a clear path for new entrants to exploit if a suitable model can be created that

meets hygiene, quality and ease of use expectations.

7.8 Summary of findings

Overall the level of response was sufficient to gain some useful insight into issues

with inherited waste. The need for change is perhaps unlikely to be taken up

directly by most large organisations as the impacts do not affect them, however,

this presents an opportunity for entrepreneurs to explore potential for new models,

subject to further research as detailed in the conclusion.

It was clear, from the number of comments provided that the respondents felt they

could respond with honesty and many comments were candid as a result.

The challenge of inherited waste will not be tackled unless those affected by it take

up the opportunity with the potential for large savings for the organisations

concerned.

 

58

THE ONE PLANET MBA

8 Conclusions and Recommendations

Generally the response to this research has been very positive. The concept of

inherited waste has been raised with a range of industry professionals and

highlighted as an issue that is not being dealt with. There is a great deal of interest

in the potential to create a circular model for cups particularly, but this is

translatable to other types of inherited waste and there is scope for the issue to be

investigated much more deeply.

Several key points have emerged including confirmation that there is a general

assumption that the producers will drive the change. Whilst this is true of waste

from which they see a cost impact, there is little incentive to focus on other

aspects of the waste they are not legally responsible for at the end of the chain.

Even when presented with ideas, many revert to projects to improve recycling,

rather than projects to eradicate waste. From comments, it is clear that there is a

feeling that the suggested change is too difficult within the current context. At

present the waste operators have much to gain from the system in place,

legislation focuses on the producers, leaving them with the opportunity to absolve

themselves of the responsibility for the waste they pass on.

This leaves two possible courses of action.

Either the policy framework needs to change to push all producers into taking

actions further up the Waste Hierarchy, or disruptive innovators need to step into

the innovation space. The models presented generated interest but the general

response was that it is not currently economically viable, however, the responses

show a lack of belief that policy and legislation will achieve the necessary change

and that the infrastructure in place doesn’t enable change as much as it should.

If no-one acts, we could see an impasse in which organisations continue to spend

increasing amounts on more creative ways to just recycle other people’s waste,

 

59

THE ONE PLANET MBA

ultimately pushing up their own costs and impacting their bottom line in ways

which drive them to save costs in other areas of their business.

The Environmental Audit Committee published their report on ‘Growing a circular

economy: Ending the throwaway society’ in July 2014. One comment on the

Packaging Regulations says why would any single producer invest in improving

recyclability of their product if the benefit is to other players in the market.

This corroborates the findings of my research, and in conclusion I recommend a

focus on seeking new models that bypass the disposable mindset completely. A

detailed study should be carried out to consider the potential for a new model to be

created using circular methodology to address, as a working example, the

dispensing of cups and associated commodities for beverage sales, to incorporate

• Life Cycle Assessment based on a Natural Capital approach,

• The potential for job creation with social benefit in mind

• Addressing the question ‘Could a business or social enterprise feasibly be

created to manage the service of cup provision and other inherited wastes?’

• Further financial research to address the question ‘Could it be feasible to

commoditise the cup through a separate organisation, but incentivise its

use through a tax mechanism via the coffee shop to the customer?’

 

60

THE ONE PLANET MBA

9 References 5 Gyres (2014) 5 Gyres For a Planet Free of Plastic Pollution. Available at: http://5gyres.org (Accessed: 10th August 2014) Amienyo, D., Gujba, H., Stichnothe, H. and Azapagic, A., (2012) ‘Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks’, International Journal for Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 77-92. [Online]. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0459-y (Accessed: 21 April 2014) Anderson, R. (2009) Confessions of a Radical Industrialist. London: Random House Business Books Benyus, J. M. (1997) Biomimicry. New York: Quill Biomimicry 3.8 (2014) Life’s Principles. Available at: http://biomimicry.net/about/biomimicry/biomimicry-designlens/lifes-principles/ (Accessed 28 July 2014) Biomimicry for Creative Innovation (Undated) Tomorrow’s Natural Business. Missoula: Biomimicry for Creative Innovation British Standards Institution. (2004) BS EN ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems - specification with guidance for use. London: British Standards Institution. Brundtland, G. H. (2009) Our Common Future The full text of the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. London: Oxford University Press Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2011a) Collaborative Waste, Resources and Sustainable Consumption Evidence Programme. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2011b) Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2011c) Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2012) Guidance on the legal definition of waste and its application. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013a) Prevention is better than cure: The role of waste prevention in moving to a more resource efficient economy. London: The National Archives

 

61

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013b) Quality Action Plan – Proposals to promote high quality recycling of dry recyclates. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013c) Waste and Resources Evidence, Plan Policy Portfolio: Climate, Waste and Atmosphere, Policy Area within portfolio: Waste Programme 2013/14 – 2017/18. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013d) Waste Management Plan for England. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013e) Waste Prevention Programme for England – Evaluation of Annex IV measures. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013f) Waste Prevention Programme for England – Household waste prevention in action – examples from across England. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013g) Waste Prevention Programme for England – Overview of Evidence – A rationale for waste prevention in England. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013h) Waste Prevention Programme for England – Priority Areas. London: The National Archives Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013i) Waste Prevention Programme – Summary of existing measures. London: The National Archives Deutz, P. (2009a) ‘Producer responsibility in a sustainable development context: ecological modernization or industrial ecology?’, The Geographic Journal, Vol 175, No 4, December 2009, 274-285. [Online]. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2009.00330.x (Accessed: 2 January 2014) Deutz, P., and Frostick, Lynne E. (2009b) ‘Reconciling policy, practice and theorisations of waste management - Editorial’, The Geographic Journal, Vol 175, No 4, December 2009, 247-250. [Online]. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2009.00338.x (Accessed: 2 January 2014) European Union. (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives OJ L312/3 Brussels: European Union Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Towards the Circular Economy Volume 1 Economic and Business Rationale for an accelerated transition. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation

 

62

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the Circular Economy Volume 2 Opportunities for the Consumer Goods Sector. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2014) Towards the Circular Economy Volume 3 Accelerating the Scale-Up Across Global Supply Chains. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2014) Ellen MacArthur Foundation Rethink the Future. Available at: http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org (Accessed 10 August 2014) Environmental Audit Committee (2014) Growing a circular economy: Ending the throwaway society – Third report of session 2014/15. London: House of Commons Hawken, P. (2010) The Ecology of Commerce Revised edition. New York: Harper Business Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B., and Lovins, L.H. (2010) Natural Capitalism 10th Anniversary Edition. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd Hutchins, G. (2012) The Nature of Business. Totnes: Green Books Ltd Kite Environmental Services (2014) The Packaging Regulations. Coventry: Kite Environmental Services Ltd Matsueda, N. and Nagase, Y. (2012) ‘An economic analysis of the Packaging Waste Recovery Note System in the UK’, Resource and Energy Economics, 34, 669-679. [Online]. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.06.001 (Accessed: 21 April 2014) Norval (2013) Southern Railway Environment Strategy (Not publicly published, internal document) Norval (2014a) Southern Railway Environment Update Period 1 2014. (Not publicly published, internal report) Norval (2014b) Southern Railway Waste Manual (Not publicly published, internal document) Porter, M.E. (2011) ‘The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy.’ In Harvard Business Review (ed.) HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, pp. 39-76. Smith, A. (2008) The Invisible Hand. London: Penguin Books Ltd Sukhdev, P. (2012) Corporation 2020. Washington: Island Press United Kingdom Parliament, Great Britain. (2005) The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005: Elizabeth II. London: The Stationery Office

 

63

THE ONE PLANET MBA

United Kingdom Parliament, Great Britain. (2007) The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007: Elizabeth II. London: The Stationery Office United Kingdom Parliament, Great Britain. (2008) The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2008: Elizabeth II. London: The Stationery Office United Kingdom Parliament, Great Britain. (2010) The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2010: Elizabeth II. London: The Stationery Office United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2007) Life Cycle Management – A Business Guide to Sustainability. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2008a) Green Breakthroughs Solving Environmental Problems Through Innovative Policies and Law. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme Division of Environmental Law and Conventions United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2008b) Planning for Change – Guidelines for National Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2011a) Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2011b) Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment – Making informed choices on products. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2011c) Visions for Change Recommendations for Effective Policies on Sustainable Lifestyles. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2011d) Visions for Change Country Papers. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2012a) Global Outlook on Sustainable Consumption and Production Policies. Paris: United Nations

 

64

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2012b) Sustainable, Resource Efficient Cities – Making it Happen! Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2012c) The Business Case for the Green Economy, Sustainable Return on Investment. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2013) Our Planet Rio+20: From Outcome to Implementation. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme Division of Communications and Public Information United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and ICLEI Local Governments Sustainability (2012) Global Environmental Outlook 5 for local government, solving global problems locally. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) International Resource Panel Working Group on Decoupling (2011e) Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (2006) Youth Exchange – Towards Sustainable Lifestyles Training Kit on Responsible Consumption, 2nd edition. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) (2010) PRE-SME – Promoting Resource Efficiency in Small & Medium Enterprises Industrial Training Handbook Resource Kit. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Department of Technology, Industry and Economics United Nations Global Compact (2013) Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2013. New York: UN Global Compact Vidal, J. (2014) ‘The super vacuum ban isn’t meddling EU bureaucracy – it’s absolutely vital’ The Guardian Shortcuts Blog, 2 September [Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2014/sep/02/threat-to-vacuum-cleaners-daily-mail-energy-efficiency (Accessed: 13 September 2014) World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (undated) Accountability and Reporting ORBITS. Geneva: WBCSD

 

65

THE ONE PLANET MBA

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2010) Vision 2050 The New Agenda for Business. Geneva: WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2012) Changing Pace: Business Solutions for a Sustainable World. Geneva: WBCSD Wrap (2007) An Analysis of MSW MRF Capacity in the UK. Banbury: Wrap Wrap (2013) Overview of Waste in the UK Hospitality and Food Service Sector. Banbury: Wrap WWF International (2012) Living Planet Report 2012: Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices. Gland: WWF International WWF International (2013) Living Planet Report: Human Impact. Gland: WWF International

 

66

THE ONE PLANET MBA

10 Appendices 10.1 Appendix A – The Questionnaire Opportunities for inherited waste During research for a dissertation for the One Planet MBA with the University of Exeter, Sandra Norval, Head of Environment for Southern Railway Ltd has identified that the majority of waste on trains and on stations is inherited from their customers and their tenants, which reduces the potential for reducing waste by implementing the waste hierarchy – Eliminate, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. With recycling rates at Southern currently reaching around 80% for trains and stations there is a desire to look for opportunities to address this issue. This paper is intended to enable an exploration of the challenges in achieving this and presents six models to stimulate discussion and potentially generate new ideas to embrace the potential for a more circular approach to waste management in this context. For the purpose of this research it is accepted that there are constraints within the policy framework, and it would be useful to identify where the space for innovation lies as an enabler for further research in the future. With this in mind, I would be grateful if you would consider the models presented which have been compiled following a literature review focused on European and UK waste policy, legislation and the Circular Economy. The questions aim to provoke thought and encourage your input to the research with the presented models as a stimulus for you to react to. Each model is accompanied by specific questions and a sheet is provided at the end for you to add other thoughts about any of the models, or the discussion generally and you are encouraged to do so. All responses will be treated confidentially and anonymised for the final report, information is requested to enable me to assess what background responses are from. Thank you for your support! Sandra Norval Head of Environment Southern Railway Ltd Mobile: 07772 682255 sandra.norval@southernrailway.com

 

67

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Model 1 Current waste infrastructure Below is a generic model of the nature of the current waste industry infrastructure. It represents the boundaries of councils, public waste amenity sites and private waste amenity sites. It does not represent individual organisations in any way and aims to show the complexity of the current infrastructure.

County, District and Borough Councils have responsibility for ensuring Municipal Waste is managed effectively. A range of Amenity Sites are provided, sometimes crossing political boundaries. Often the Amenity Sites are contracted to private businesses. Waste from those sites and from trade collections through business contracts are transported to privately owned facilities for treatment of waste. These include Mixed Recycling Facilities, Energy from Waste Incinerators, Anaerobic Digesters and Landfill Sites. Responsibility for managing Landfill Sites continues until all materials have degraded and land is no longer contaminated, which may be decades and may include remediation programmes. Considering the model above: The waste industry is made up of private companies and councils with varying types of agreement and a variety of drivers for their infrastructure investment choices. To what extent do you feel that this infrastructure is driven by the following? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely,: Policy requirements 1 2 3 4 5 Legislation 1 2 3 4 5 Private competition 1 2 3 4 5 Public need 1 2 3 4 5 Other_____________________________________________________________________

 

68

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Model 2 Current organisational context The model below is intended to show the current organisational context and aims to show the relationships between those producing and those handling waste.

All organisations are governed by legislation which defines how waste types must be managed and this leads to governance structures within industries and organisations to ensure compliance. The County, District, and Borough Councils procure services within this framework to manage domestic waste and may opt to manage some trade waste. The vast majority of trade waste is managed through contracts between numerous waste producers across the private commercial sector. In addition there may be multiple projects working with reuse, reconditioning and recirculation of unwanted materials. Most waste producers and community projects working on reducing waste operate unilaterally with little collaboration. Considering the model above: Currently the legislation and policy framework places responsibility for waste on the producer focusing on recycling and waste reduction at source. To what extent do you feel that this framework encourages behaviour change for the following opportunities? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely Ability to recycle 1 2 3 4 5 Converting ‘waste’ to ‘resource’ through value recovery 1 2 3 4 5 Reusable packaging 1 2 3 4 5 Waste eradication 1 2 3 4 5 Circular economy 1 2 3 4 5 Collaborative community projects for waste management (eg shared trade recycling hub) 1 2 3 4 5 Other_____________________________________________________________________

County, District and Borough Councils

Legislation and governance

Waste Operators (Domestic)

Waste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste ProducersWaste Producers

Waste Operators (Commercial)

ProjectProjectProjectProjectProject

Projects

 

69

THE ONE PLANET MBA

A worked example using the coffee cup Model 3 The linear model of the coffee cup Below is a model that aims to demonstrate the linear life cycle of a disposable coffee cup, from its production through to its disposal.

Paper cups, lined with plastics are produced from a combination of raw and recycled materials. This requires wood and oil, energy and paper pulp as well as labour. The cups require packaging and transport to wholesalers before reaching coffee shops. In use the cups are filled using teas, coffees, coffee beans, milk, sugar etc and plastic lids, cardboard cuffs and plastic stirrers are also used. The used cup, lid, cuff, and stirrer are placed in waste bins, which may or may not be recycled. At best, the materials may become feedstock for another process but are unlikely to be reused directly as another coffee cup. Considering the model above: With the current legislative and policy framework responsibility for the waste produced in this model is passed on to those responsible for the bin in which it is left. Focusing on the cup itself, not other elements of waste from the beverage it contained, consider this model and what opportunities are available to prevent this waste stream. To what extent do you feel that this framework could be changed in the following ways? Score 1 for not at all to 5 for completely Improve recyclability of the cup 1 2 3 4 5 Encourage people to bring a reusable cup 1 2 3 4 5 Create a servitised circular model 1 2 3 4 5 Other_____________________________________________________________________ Focusing on the other elements of the beverage within the cup to what extent do you feel that this framework could be changed? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely More composting of tea bags/coffee grouts 1 2 3 4 5 Seek new ways to dispense sugar/stirrers etc 1 2 3 4 5 Influence behaviour eg give up sugar means less waste 1 2 3 4 5 Other_____________________________________________________________________

Dry Mixed Recycling

Production Transport Use Litter Dispose/reclaim

Cup ManufacturerCoffee Shops

Collector eg Parks Waste operator

Current Linear Model

 

70

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Model 4 Circularising the coffee cup The model below presents a possible circular scenario using the coffee cup, based on tenant coffee shops on stations as an example. This type of model may not be limited to this scenario and you may observe limitations. Please comment on these on the open response section.

This model shows the top level of a potential circular model. In this scenario the cup itself would need to be designed using recyclable materials to enable a range of cycles. In production waste materials are reused in processes. This retains materials within the producing organisation. The recyclable cup is collected at coffee shops to be returned to the producing organisation for cleaning or recycling. This means that relationships need to be developed between the coffee shops and the producer of the cups. Alternative bins are provided at sites such as stations and high streets to collect cups that are taken away from coffee shops. These bins are taken to sorting sites, with potential to create new jobs but requiring the development of several new relationships. It is inevitable that some cups will end up in standard litter bins, removing them from the cycle. Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an approach is feasible in principle? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely With current service providers 1 2 3 4 5 With new projects or collaborations 1 2 3 4 5 With a new type of provider 1 2 3 4 5 Other_____________________________________________________________________

Cup Production

Process residue

Cups collected at coffee shops

Litter

Sorting Site

Potential for local jobs,

value in collected

material etc

Potential circular model

 

71

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Model 5 A closer look at the servitised model The model below represents a possible scenario for a servitised model for a reusable coffee cup. This type of model may not be limited to this scenario and you may observe limitations. Please comment on these on the open response section.

This model shows the various phases that would be required for a potential servitised model for reusable coffee cups. In this scenario a bin would need to be designed to collect cups and lids and allow remaining beverages to drain out. The bin would need emptying, sorting and cleaning. Clean cups would need to be packaged and redistributed to the coffee shops and reused. Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an approach is feasible in principle? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely With current service providers 1 2 3 4 5 With new projects or collaborations 1 2 3 4 5 With a new type of provider 1 2 3 4 5 Other_____________________________________________________________________

 

72

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Model 6 Going deeper into the servitised model The model below represents a more detailed look at a possible scenario for a servitised model for a reusable coffee cup. This element considers the sorting of waste from reusable elements. This type of model may not be limited to this scenario and you may observe limitations. Please comment on these on the open response section.

This model looks at the complexities of a servitised circular model, taking into account the additional aspects that would need to be addressed. Collecting bins need a process for collection, sorting and cleaning. This would need creation of an organisation to manage this process, capable of creating appropriate relationships. A further process would be needed for dealing with breakages and to return the materials to the production process. The clean cups, once packed would re-enter the distribution loop, which may utilise existing mechanisms. Finally an element of consumer behaviour change would be required which could be challenging. Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an approach is feasible in principle? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely With current service providers 1 2 3 4 5 With new projects or collaborations 1 2 3 4 5 With a new type of provider 1 2 3 4 5 Other_______________________________________________________________

 

73

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Open comments Many thanks for taking the time to respond to this research. Please use this page to add any detailed comments to any of the previous sections and add further pages if you wish. To enable clear cross referencing, please show the reference number of the model each comment refers to. Please provide the following information – this will be removed for the final dissertation. Name: Role: Organisation: Sector: Industry:

 

74

THE ONE PLANET MBA

10.2 Appendix B – Anonymised Comments Anonymised comments (Respondent reference number shown in bold) Model 1 (2 comments) 4 “1 Historical/planning approvals - in some geographies, waste

management/treatment facilities are dictated by historical infrastructure and often planning approvals for new facilities are difficult - locking a region into a set number of solutions. 2 Economics - in waste, most management options and recycling options are possible with enough money. However, waste is often seen by councils, residents and companies as a cost to be minimised. This also drives legislation; a government is not going to pass legislation if it thinks that it will lift its costs to a point that residents/companies will complain, resulting in lost votes.”

19 “Siting of facilities is possibly driven by nimbyism and too much

transportation is involved” Model 2 (5 comments) 4 “It is my perception that the landfill tax has driven progress towards zero

waste to landfill which has been a popular theme amongst corporates, and has, in some instances, driven companies to look for revenue streams from their 'byproducts' - no longer badged as waste. We are seeing very little progress in the corporate world on the other themes listed. Note that there are a range of dynamics/drivers beyond just legislation, including companies' desire to be sustainable, one-upmanship, CEO pride, customer expectations, 'trendy' topics like circular economy, etc.”

7 Note: in text comments were added, number in brackets cross reference to

these comments “(1) (Converting 'waste' to 'resource' through value recovery) Not sure how relevant behaviour change is here. This is more of a question of market forces and the value of different materials (2) (Reusable Packaging) Isn't this a part of waste eradication/ minimisation? (3) (Circular economy) Isn't this the same as the second one? Could do with defining this.”

10 Note: added by respondent as an extra option and scored in line with

protocol “Cost factors and incentives (scored at 4)”

19 “The opportunities for meaningful recycling are still v limited, in process and

facilities”

 

75

THE ONE PLANET MBA

20 “I think that because it is the 'responsibility' of the 'source', it doesn't mean that the final effect is very good. The source can only do so much, it really needs to be the responsibility of individuals who are enabled by the government and organisations to recycle, reuse and change their behaviour. I would love to always reuse water bottles, but if there is not free water available, I cannot. When there is not free water available and I must purchase another additional bottle, I often try and carry my bottle until I find a place to recycle (or take it home) but there are instances where this is not possible and I therefore, regrettably, end up putting plastic in a waste bin, simply because I needed additional water. The source of the water bottle making it easily recyclable did not help this dilemma.”

Model Three Question One (5 comments) 4 “This is not a very lateral-thinking set of options. What about ideas like:

Deposit (e.g. South Australia successfully uses for drink bottles and which has created a whole sub-economy which is helping the homeless) User behaviour improvement (e.g. establishing social norms that cups and all other items that can be recycled should be recycled) Providing facilities to separate recyclables (e.g. I cannot recall seeing recycling bins on trains or platform so I end up taking my recyclables home to recycle them - although I have not travelled on Southern for a while). Imagine if all rail operators had a standard set of symbols and bins for recyclables - that would start to change user expectations. Conversely if the operators don't provide recycling bins, the user thinks that the operator does not care about recycling and for those of us concerned about sustainability that also puts a black mark against the brand.”

7 Note: in text comments were added, number in brackets cross reference to

these comments “(4) (those responsible for bin in which it is left) Is that what you mean by

'producer' above? (5) (prevent this waste stream) Not sure exactly what you mean here. (6) (servitised circular model) Some explanation would help here”

10 “Incentives for loyal customers free re-usable cup after for example 60

purchases” 12 Note: This respondent received the questionnaire from another recipient,

and it appears some formatting was lost “The model has not appeared in the version I received, so I using the text to inform my responses. The servitised model you describe below would add a huge cost in this instance because of the low embedded financial cost and materials value of the 'disposable' cup. Increasing the price would reduce the use of cups but probably make the cafe business unviable. To make the reusable cup model work there would need to be a financial disincentive on the consumer to use the disposable cups (there is little cost saving to the retailer through refilling reusable cups so it would need to be a waste tax) and also there would need to be a redesign of disposable cups so they are collapsible for convenience, enclosable (so not dripping into bags etc). You

 

76

THE ONE PLANET MBA

would also incur an opportunity cost on the consumer (who now has to wash them), a hygiene risk (if the cup is not washed), and environmental lifecycle issues through the use of hot water and detergent for cleansing.”

19 “Suggest we'll never move away from on the go so re-usable is probably

the only way!” Model Three Question Two (4 comments) 4 “Ask whether the user would like sugar/stirrer/etc and not dispense if not

needed Also see my comments above Note that asking consumers to give something up has been proven to backfire and results in the company profiling it looking like the bad guy and damaging their brand. Compare the 1970's Jimmy Carter asking America to shiver in the dark, which set energy efficiency back just when it was needed most in the energy crisis at the time.”

10 “Jug of milk, pot of sugar on the counter instead of individual packets” 19 “Hygiene is important here, but the onus can be placed on the consumer.

Balancing change in behaviour and habit against potential loss of profit for vendor will be necessary. Aha, now I read on…”

20 “Once you try to change behaviours that people like, such as sugar in their

coffee, which are not directly related to the issue, you will lose people much more quickly in the discussion. You must think about what 'average Joe' will think is do-able, worthwhile and works for their life.”

Model Four (7 comments) 4 “Sorry but I can't see a circular model working economically for coffee cups

as they exist today. But what about using china cups (made in the UK of course) and then washing them? For rail, this should be easy to do because users can leave them on board and you have exit gates at which you could have another collection point. You could also charge a returnable deposit if needed. Compare the china cups for which a deposit is charged at Christmas markets (eg Salzburg, Vienna) for mulled wine. the scheme works well and no-one complains about the deposit because they get it back. This enables festive mugs to be used which add to the user experience.”

5 “It may prove difficult to engage with all coffee shops to encourage them to

purchase the same coffee cup. Collection beyond the boundaries of the coffee shops would prove difficult. WRAP have done some interesting work reviewing hospitality waste from the Olympics where production specifications were defined to enable composting.”

 

77

THE ONE PLANET MBA

7 “With legislating requiring coffee cups to be made from non-composite, commonly recycled materials”

9 “Very pessimistic I know!” 10 “With an ethical FAIR TRADE producer possibly (Scored at 4)” 12 “This could work, pay a small premium on purchase price, return the cup for

a few pence off your next cup, or a voucher if you return it to some form of collection point instead of a coffee shop. Use the same model as deposits on glass bottles. Has the added incentive that other passengers may collect discarded cups to get the discount or voucher - and good for train cleaners for the same reason!”

18 “Possible increase of non-disposable cups in static environments <>

cost/impact of energy to clean” Model Five (6 comments) 4 “I don't think this servitised model would work economically for any of the 3

options presented. However, there may be a model that would work - see my comment above about china cups which would be handled and washed at stations rather than centrally collected - saving on transport costs.”

5 “To be economically viable cups not placed in designated bins are likely to

be 'lost' from the cycle.” 12 “There would be the issue of space to collect and store the cups at the retail

outlets, often very small. This would need to be very cost efficient too, thinking again about the added costs it would add to the consumer. It would need collaboration from all the major retailers so that the cups could be commoditised and interchangeable (good luck with that!)”

18 “Have been part of system largely same as this in Tiscali/Talk Talk. Cup

collection was about 40-60%. No idea how efficient the recycling was.” 20 “I think this works better where the product has some 'economic' (traditional

sense of the word) value as a reusable object. Sadly I also think you'd have a problem with people not wanting 'used' cups. I think the from recycled paper concept might be as much as some people will be willing to follow. Drinking a drink in store and then cleaning it works, but ANYTHING could go in the cups that are then returned. I think that would be a worry for my slightly germaphobe fiancee!”

24 “Thinking here of cost limitations, if creation of new cups is cheaper than

recycling of old cups private industry and consumer demand would not drive this approach forward.”

 

78

THE ONE PLANET MBA

Model Six (3 comments) 12 “The main problem here is that procurement and consumption and disposal

do not take place in the same locations most of the time - people buy coffee to drink in their offices, on trains or as they walk as well as to have in the outlet. Unless you provide multiple collection points the problem of discards outside the loop will remain high. I buy when I travel on trains, simplest solution is to bin on train - the disincentive/reward would have to be reasonably high to make me want to carry a cup around until I can find a collection point. The lack of waste collection, let alone segregated waste collection, in public places makes responsible waste disposal quite difficult. The answer may be to improve waste segregation in trade and municipal waste, to do that the cup needs some redesign so it can be separated and is more robust, and again the problem of value comes in - it will be more expensive and resource intensive.”

18 “Can't think of anything relevant to add here” 20 “Unfortunately we still live in a traditionally economic world, I'm not sure that

any business would be willing to take a chance on this sort of change. There must be a profit aspect, so some sort of sustainable economic income would be needed, even for a social enterprise.”

Additional Comments (15 comments) 1 “I think the concept of recycling and reusing resources is something that

most organisations would consider to be a worthwhile and profitable exercise. However, I believe the fundamental issue stopping companies from doing so already is a lack of understanding of the issue and benefits, and also lethargy. ie putting systems in place is time consuming. As a result of this I believe the models discussed above would be more successful through collaboration and new providers of the service. I see this most clearly in the linear model.”

5 “Consideration would need to be given to cups taken away from the shop,

how would they re-enter this system and not be lost.” 7 “Reusable cups will need to be more durable than disposable ones, which

will result in increased material use. Also, as we know, in public spaces, people will stick anything in any bin. Also, on the job creation front - are these the types of jobs we want to be creating - sorting dirty coffee cups all day? Also, have you looked into the concept of product stewardship?”

8 “I have found that it is very rare for many private companies to put public

need first. Many say they do, however, due to the need for revenue income this will ultimately come first. Having the correct procedures and framework in place won't drive behaviour change. People inspire change, not framework. The only thing that limits people are themselves, anything is possible even with current framework, it just needs someone who can think outside the

 

79

THE ONE PLANET MBA

box. Profit will always come first and often it takes someone who is willing to see beyond the revenue streams to make an important project work.”

9 “I seem to have a very pessimistic view on what will work within the current

service providers! I would have thought though that your Model 6 would be good to try out as a project that, when it worked well (here's hoping) could be extended. I do wonder, however, whether the cost (CO2 and £) would be greater by washing and redistribution of the cups and washing of the bins rather than sending all the cups to be recycled? Not sure whether you have done an LCA type analysis on this?”

10 “I feel cost to be a very important factor when looking at recycling cups.

Existing coffee shop type businesses, which a lot of them being a franchise type, maybe can't or won't be able to sustain costs around any such schemes. I think new businesses and ethical fair trade companies could have a vested interest in such schemes with some real facts about (for example) the reduction of the carbon foot print in card board from recycling cups and other materials.”

11 “Regarding the general idea of the coffee cup cycle: Incentive, unfortunately

is usually more motivating in order to prompt consumer change, so the idea of some form of 'rewards' system could be implemented? Either by a card - similar perhaps to a Clubcard - or some form of stamp system, consumers recycling a coffee cup might be able to enter the clubcard-like card or receive a machine-delivered stamp each time they put a coffee cup in the special bin. The rewards would be meted by the individual coffee outlets, probably by way of a free coffee or similar. Might be expensive to add a function like this to the bins, but maybe the cost would be outweighed or balanced in other areas of the cycle? Perhaps even a 'loyalty scheme' for consumers who have proven use of the new bins by achieving a set number of swipes or stamps on the card - ten maybe? After fifty recycled cups, a discount of 5% is added onto this new 'clubcard' and future coffees purchased at the branch (and other branches afield of the original coffee shop). This loyalty scheme has tiers, and with every increase or tier, the discount or reward is greater. After two hundred cups, the discount becomes 7%, up to a maximum of either 10% or as much as 20%, comparative with a staff discount? Thereafter and in between the tier levels, milestones achieved will reward one-offs such as a free coffee, free muffin etc. Consumers who religiously recycle cups stand to have fairly healthy rewards for both using the bins and using them constantly. In town centres where relevant, these bins might be also placed along the thoroughfare, so that coffee cups finished away from the coffee shop can be recycled easily. More costly, but the potential for recycling is increased with the number of bins available.”

12 “An interesting topic of research. Difficult conundrum - a low value material

with high volumes in a commoditised sector where brand is key. The consumer probably doesn’t see it as an issue as the cup appears to be paper - they would not throw a china mug away I believe. So for me the answer lies in the design of the cup and the value ascribed to it by the

 

80

THE ONE PLANET MBA

industry and the consumer. It will also need buy in from the major retailers - repetitional issue might help as it is not a cost issue for them to provide a disposable cup.”

13 “With reference to the market in general as well as the specifics regarding

the coffee cups, commercial viability of any recycling initiative will have a significant impact on the long term sustainability of any project. With regards to coffee cups as a specific issue, a possible solution would be to make it a requirement for coffee shops to report on the number of cups used - similar to the packaging regulations currently in place - and then tax them accordingly based on the ability to recycle the cup. This could help to drive change within the coffee organisations either by encouraging the use of reusable cups or improving the recyclability of the cups used. From what I have seen, commercial organisations need to be encouraged to drive change and the biggest driver is the bottom line.”

14 “Consider Starbucks newest model whereby they offer used beans from

each site, in little packages, free to customers to use as compost” 15 “I've come across some interesting stories which are recent developments:

http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2014/08/paper-cup-recycling-scheme-kicks-off-with-high-profile-members-at-arsenal-s-emirates-stadium.html http://www.ciwm-journal.co.uk/archives/9601”

16 “Although in theory it looks feasible to change the way a coffee cup is

currently disposed of, it all comes back to commercial viability. My thoughts would be that it would cost far more to have a team of paid workers cleaning and repackaging the original cups, than it would to start the cup production from scratch. I believe for this to happen it would need to be driven by compliance, government led. Ultimately the additional costs for this would then have a knock on effect to the consumer who would have to pay more for the coffee! Could this then put an end to coffee shops??”

17 Note: Respondent 17 is a recent British Ex Patriate

“Far more interesting than the nonsense I do here! For me recycling feels like it is a personal thing. Appreciate you are looking at this with a wider more commercial lens, but this comes down to behaviour. Living in Manhattan it is interesting to see the huge effort taken in recycling. We receive very clear instructions in how we dispose of household waste in our apartment building. I recall back in the UK it seemed much more voluntary but appreciate this may have changed in the past few years. The key question seems to me to be finding the imperative to change. Waste I am sure is a multi-billion pound business for companies who are publicly owned and therefore answerable to shareholders. Thier incentive is to comply with the law and regulations but that is all. They are not the pioneers. Therefore it is hard to expect the man in the street to take the lead. I feel there has to be some incentive/reward. The reusable cup is a good example. I'm sure if the price of a daily coffee is discounted if one is

 

81

THE ONE PLANET MBA

used then that helps. Is it possible to go as far as making it impossible to dispose of certain items (eg covers on dustbins that only allow certain size objects?)? Who actually owns the stations? If people are forced to take ownership of their own rubbish but are then offered and alternative course of action, could this change behaviour?”

19 “Models 5 & 6: I think this is an excellent piece of thinking and well done. I

believe it is down to public behaviour, which could partially be driven by price of refreshment on offer. There is a great opportunity to involve local centres for, say, adults with learning difficulties, in this scheme, depending on legislation for the sterilisation of the cups. Have you discussed this with a creative environmental health officer? I could possibly recommend one. Guess the question is will people recycle themselves on station or still expect it to happen on train? Station must be easier - all depends on how the cups are dealt with. Doubtless I am thinking too local and it will have to be central, but I think there is the basis of something good here. How is it dealt with in Germany? They are no 1 in Tupperware sales and all seem equipped with hot drinking beakers...”

25 “I truly believe that the new entrants/new collaborators will bring about the

greatest and quickest change. They will bring a 'ground zero' approach to operating in a new way that is of benefit to all stakeholders. The current providers are only interested, from experience, if they are forced by legislation and it saves costs. Unless they have a champion, or better still a team of champions, to uphold these values, it simply won't happen.”

ENDS