WR1403: Business Waste Prevention Evidence Review …randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR1403-L4-m2-Case... · secondary relevance and the Case Study may also ... production

A report for Defra

November 2011

WR1403: Business Waste Prevention Evidence Review

L4m2 – Case Studies

This report has been prepared by: Dan Eatherley (lead author) Checked as a final copy by: Katie Deegan Reviewed by: David Parker Date: 20 October 2011 Contact: [email protected] File reference number: WR1403-L4-m2-Case-Studies.docx

Oakdene Hollins provides clients with these services: ● Modelling and impact assessment ● Programme management and evaluation ● Project management ● Ecolabelling advice ● Carbon footprinting ● Critical review of life cycle assessment ● Policy and strategy development ● Lean manufacturing ● Economic analysis ● Market appraisal.

For more information visit www.oakdenehollins.co.uk Oakdene Hollins is registered to ISO 9001:2008

The original reports referenced in this document are permanently and freely available through our infinifile® service. Visit www.infinifile.org.uk and use Project ID 246 and the document id appended to the bibliographic reference to retrieve. Conditions apply.

We print our reports on Ecolabel / recycled paper

http://www.infinifile.org.uk/

WR1403: Business Waste Prevention Evidence Review L4m2: Case Studies

For Defra

Context of Project WR1403

Waste prevention is at the top of the waste hierarchy. A major priority of the coalition government is to move towards a zero waste economy, and an important element of this will be to encourage and increase waste prevention. This review aims to map and collate the available evidence on business waste prevention. It will help inform the preparation of England’s National Waste Prevention Programme as required under the revised EU Waste Framework Directive (2008). The focus is on aspects of waste prevention that are influenced directly or indirectly by businesses - it complements a previous evidence review, WR1204, which focused on household waste prevention. The definition of the term ‘waste prevention’ used here is that in the revised Waste Framework Directive: ‘Prevention’ means measures taken before a substance, material or product has become waste, that reduce:

a) the quantity of waste, including through the re-use of products or the extension of the life span of products;

a) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health; or b) the content of harmful substances in materials and products.

Recycling activities or their promotion are outside the scope of this review.

Context of this Module

This module is one of a number of Level 4 modules that comprise technical annexes to the Level 2 modules. This module deals specifically with the aspect of Case Studies which illustrate diverse aspects of waste prevention Approaches and Interventions in various Sectors, including those six chosen for the core of this review. These Case Studies may appear in identical form in the individual modules dealing with relevant facets. A full index to the report modules may be found in L1m2: Report Index, which also provides an overview of the analysis framework.


For Defra

Contents

Case studies tabulated by intervention 1

1 Toyota and ISO 14001 4

2 Germany’s Blue Angel ecolabel 5

3 Manchester United & Danwood 6

4 The Carrier Bag Commitment 7

5 Business resource efficiency (BRE) campaign 8

6 Japan’s Top Runner programme 9

7 The Dorset Resource Efficiency Club (REC) 10

8 Achmea Parts Service and the RESPECT project 11

9 Plot-lot ordering systems co-ordinated by Wilson James 12

10 Waste reduction by apetito 13

11 Waste prevention at McDonald’s Restaurants 14

12 Oregon packaging waste prevention pilot project: Norm Thompson Outfitters 15

13 Remanufacturing by Caterpillar 16

14 Ernst & Young’s UK waste reduction programme 17

15 Off-site manufacture in supermarket refits 18

16 Surplus food redistribution by FareShare 19

17 London 2012 Olympic Games development 20

18 East Anglian Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink Industry project 21

19 Standard Life goes paperless 22

20 Envision 23


For Defra

21 The Food & Drink Federation’s Five-fold Ambition 24

22 HazRed 25

23 Quebec’s Enviroclub Initiative 26

24 Waste prevention by Xerox 27

25 Waste prevention by Marks and Spencer 28

26 Bibliography 29


For Defra

Language used in this report

This report has used a framework for evaluating both the actions a business takes to prevent waste (the Approaches), and the mechanisms that have catalysed the actions (the Interventions). The detailed description of Approaches and Interventions may be found within the respective modules L2m2: Approaches and L2m4-0: Interventions Introduction, but a brief reference outline to the Approaches is given here: Positioning of approaches in response to business drivers including waste

Source: Oakdene Hollins/Brook Lyndhurst

Key

In the following tables, a strong, primary association with the indicated Intervention or Sector is denoted by “XX” and the Case Study will also appear within the indicated Sector module. “X” denotes a weaker or secondary relevance and the Case Study may also appear in the indicated Sector module dependent on the weight of other illustrative materials.

Process FOCUS Product Performance“supply side” Drivers “demand side”

Incre

menta

lC

HA

NG

E

Radic

al

Clean Operations:More radical restructuring of

processes “new, green, clean”, often cooperating with others

in the supply chain.

Product-Service Innovation:

Fundamental redesign of the product and service

combination of a business or its suppliers to reduce life-cycle

impacts.

Waste Minimisation:Traditional in-process

housekeeping, including Lean, to improve conversion of input

to outputs within current production system.

Green Products:Redesign, eco-design, light-

weighting of products to reduce impact in manufacture ,

distribution, use or end-of-life by businesses or consumers.


For Defra 1

Case studies tabulated by intervention

L2m4-1 Standards

Ref Case Study

Sectors L2m5-1…6 Approaches

Co

nst

ruct

ion

& D

emo

litio

n

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an

Op

erat

ion

s

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

Red

uct

ion

1 Toyota and ISO 14001 X X

6 Japan’s Top Runner programme

X X X X XX X X

12 Oregon packaging waste prevention pilot project: Norm Thompson Outfitters

XX X X

17 London 2012 Olympic Games Development

XX X X X X X X

22 HazRed XX X X X XX X X X

L2m4-2 Labelling

Ref Case Study


Co

nst

ruct

ion

& D

emo

litio

n

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an

Op

erat

ion

s

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

Red

uct

ion


X X X X XX X X

2 Germany’s Blue Angel ecolabel X X X X X X X

L2m4-3 Procurement

Ref Case Study


Co

nst

ruct

ion

& D

emo

litio

n

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an

Op

erat

ion

s

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

R

edu

ctio

n

3 Manchester United & Danwood

XX X


XX X X

15 Off-site manufacture in supermarket refits

XX X X

16 Surplus food redistribution by FareShare

XX X X X


XX X X X X X X

22 HazRed XX X X X XX X X X

24 Waste prevention by Xerox XX X X X

25 Waste prevention by Marks & Spencer

XX X X X X


2 For Defra

L2m4-4 Intervention – Commitments

Ref Case Study


Co

nst

ruct

ion

& D

emo

litio

n

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an

Op

erat

ion

s

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

Red

uct

ion

4 The Carrier Bag Commitments

XX X X X

10 Waste reduction by apetito XX X X


XX X X X X X X

20 Envision X X X XX X X X

21 The Food & Drink Federation’s Five-fold Ambition

XX X X

25 Waste prevention by Marks & Spencer

XX X X X X

L2m4-5 Intervention – Communications

Ref Case Study


Co

nst

ruct

ion

& D

emo

litio

n

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an

Op

erat

ion

s

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

Red

uct

ion

4 The Carrier Bag Commitments XX X X X

5 Business resource efficiency (BRE) campaign

X X XX XX X X X


23 Quebec’s Enviroclub Initiative X X X X X X X X

L2m4-6 Incentives

Ref Case Study


Co

nst

ruct

ion

& D

emo

litio

n

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an

Op

erat

ion

s

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

Red

uct

ion

4 The Carrier Bag Commitments XX X X X


X X X X XX X X


For Defra 3

L2m4-7 Business Support – Waste Minimisation Clubs

Ref Case Study


Co

nst

ruct

ion

& D

emo

litio

n

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an

Op

erat

ion

s

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

Red

uct

ion

7 The Dorset Resource Efficiency Club (REC) - Business Support

X XX X XX XX

18 East Anglian Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink Industry Project

XX X

23 Quebec’s Enviroclub Initiative

X X X X X X X X

L2m4-8 Business Support – Other

Ref Case Study


Co

nst

ruct

ion

& D

emo

litio

n

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an

Op

erat

ion

s

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

Red

uct

ion

8 Achmea Parts Service and the RESPECT project

XX X

10 Waste reduction by apetito XX X X


XX X X


None (Voluntary)

Ref Case Study

Sectors Approaches

Co

nst

ruct

ion

&

Dem

olit

ion

Foo

d &

Dri

nk

Ret

ail

Ho

spit

alit

y

Au

tom

oti

ve

Off

ice

Was

te

Min

imis

atio

n

Cle

an O

per

atio

ns

Gre

en

Pro

du

cts

Inn

ova

tio

n

Haz

ard

Red

uct

ion

9 Plot-lot ordering systems coordinated by Wilson James

XX X

11 Waste prevention at McDonald’s Restaurants

XX X X

13 Remanufacturing by Caterpillar XX X

14 Ernst & Young’s UK waste reduction programme

XX X

19 Standard Life goes paperless XX X


4 For Defra

1 Toyota and ISO 14001

The automotive manufacturer Toyota has a strong presence in Europe with nine production facilities in the UK, France, Poland, Czech Republic, Russia, Turkey and Portugal representing a total investment of around €7bn. In 1996, Toyota Manufacturing UK (TMUK) became the first UK based car maker to gain ISO 14001 accreditation for its management processes, later asking suppliers to gain the certification by 2003. In 2000, TMUK’s sites at Burnaston and Deeside were earmarked as ‘model sustainable plants’ in which methodologies for achieving optimal environmental performance would be piloted. TMUK set a goal of zero waste to landfill by 2005, tackling it in three stages: reducing waste volume, reusing or recycling unavoidable waste, and treating any waste that could not be re-used or recycled to reduce its environmental impact. Business Benefits

TMUK has achieved its target of zero waste to landfill and, more recently, zero waste to incineration.

Between 1993 and 2007, TMUK cut waste from UK car production by 60% to around 10kg per car and reduced the release of hazardous volatile organic compounds by 70% to 20g per m

2 of paint surface.

However, whether these savings were directly correlated to the adoption of ISO 14001 is unclear. Greater efficiencies in water and electricity usage per vehicle have also been documented.

Other benefits from implementing and maintaining an EMS may include marketing advantages by demonstrating to stakeholders that the company is committed to effective environmental management and reduced risk of international non-tariff trade barriers.

Drivers

The EMS was implemented as part of Toyota’s commitment to achieve zero waste to landfill. The car maker is generally regarded as setting benchmark standards in ‘lean’ manufacturing, in other words production processes in which waste and inefficiency are continuously driven towards minimal levels. Toyota Motor Europe’s aim is to be ‘green, clean and lean’ and its long-term objective, as stated in its corporate ‘Earth Charter’ is production of the ‘ultimate eco-car’.

Key Elements for Success

Toyota is famous for its ‘kaizen’ philosophy of continuous improvement where new ideas are welcomed from anywhere within the global organisation. This approach works in synergy with ISO 14001 for which continuous environmental improvement is a key objective. New waste saving techniques are first proven at a local level within a single site and if effective the relevant procedures are then diffused to the rest of that particular location and then by degrees to the rest of the business.

Through its environmental purchasing guidelines, Toyota used its power in the supply chain to influence business partners so that they make environmental protection a priority.

Full commitment by top management to environmental protection is fundamental to the successful implementation of an EMS.

Provision of skills training and awareness building is important. A valuable approach practised at the Burnaston plant was to take employees on ‘eco tours’ around parts of the factory they would not normally

see such as the waste management facility which improved their understanding of waste.

Sources: (11) http://www.iema.net/readingroom/casestudies?filter=163%2C189&aid=584; http://blog.toyota.co.uk/behind-the-scenes-toyota-promotes-environmental-excellence-at-the-home-of-auris-hybrid; http://www.iso.org/iso/14001_decade_ims3_07.pdf http://www.mrcmekong.org/envir_training_kit/English/Case%20Studies/PDF/CS19%20-%20Toyota%20Motor%20Vietnam.pdf


For Defra 5

2 Germany’s Blue Angel ecolabel

Established in 1978, Germany’s Blue Angel (Blaue Engel) was among the world’s first ecolabels. Owned by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, it serves as a ‘ecological beacon’ marking out to the consumer those products which demonstrate environmentally superior performance. In 2009, the Blue Angel was divided into four classes depending on whether a product primarily protects the climate, health, water or – most relevant to waste prevention - resources. The scheme has several product groups addressing waste prevention including returnable transit and primary packaging. With the latter, the place of refilling may also be included enabling consumers to select those products with shorter transportation distances. Business Benefits

As with other ecolabels, products awarded the Blue Angel label may enjoy a market advantage over non-labelled competitors among consumers who are interested in purchasing environmentally-friendly products. A study found that 63% of companies displaying the Blue Angel on their products experienced some improvement in their market position.

Drivers

A study in Germany found that environmental labelling received a positive response from 91% of customers. The most frequent reasons given for companies applying for the Blue Angel ecolabel were to respond to competition and to improve the marketability of the product.

The Blue Angel label may also boost business-to-business sales, as guidelines used by procurement managers may favour such accreditations.


The Blue Angel ecolabel is guaranteed by, among others, the Environmental Label Jury, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment and the Federal Environment Agency.

The label’s extremely wide coverage is another success factor. Today 11,500 products and services in 90 categories offered by 1,050 companies display the Blue Angel.

Sources: (2) http://www.blauer-engel.de/en/index.php http://www.globalecolabelling.net/pdf/gen7.pdf http://www.blauer-engel.de/_downloads/publikationen/english/The-Blue-Angel-at-a-Glance.pdf

http://www.blauer-engel.de/en/index.php

http://www.globalecolabelling.net/pdf/gen7.pdf

http://www.blauer-engel.de/_downloads/publikationen/english/The-Blue-Angel-at-a-Glance.pdf


6 For Defra

3 Manchester United & Danwood

In 2005 Manchester United Football Club (MUFC) asked Danwood, its main supplier of office printing equipment and document management solutions, to help reduce its waste impacts. Danwood conducted a thorough print audit across the Manchester United campus and discovered that two-thirds of its customer’s 150 printers and photocopiers could be removed through the deployment of multifunctional products able to scan, email, fax, photocopy and duplex print. Danwood’s business model was based on a fixed price per print backed up with a single quarterly invoice. Danwood also provided the club with a used toner cartridge recycling service. Business Benefits

MUFC saw a 15% year on year cost saving despite an increase in printing activity.

Much of the benefit came in the form of energy efficiency savings, but waste was also prevented through a significant reduction in the number of appliances which needed to be disposed of.

Drivers

As a high-profile business, MUFC first developed a CSR policy in 1989, and its work with Danwood is just one of many efforts to mitigate its environmental impacts.

The football club’s philosophy of being “the best, both off and on the field” was applied to its environmental performance.


MUFC’s membership of Envirowise’s Supply Chain Partnership Forum added impetus to the initiative. The objective of the Forum, which operated from 2002 to 2007, was to drive down waste in supply chains by engaging with leading British brands. Other members included Boots, CenterParcs and Halfords.

As part of the Supply Chain Partnership Forum Envirowise provided free consultancy support to Danwood. The delivery body estimated that as well as streamlining MUFC’s printing operations, Danwood itself could save more than £9,300 per annum by eliminating or reducing plastic and cardboard packaging.

A close working relationship between MUFC and Danwood is important.

Sources: (30) http://www.danwood.co.uk/documents/3020%20manchester%20united%20case%20study[1].pdf


For Defra 7

4 The Carrier Bag Commitment

Twenty-one leading retailers committed in 2007 to reduce by 25% the environmental impact of their carrier bags. WRAP monitored the agreement which was made between businesses and the Government. The target, to be met by the end of 2008 against a 2006 baseline, was exceeded with a 40% reduction. The number of carrier bags issued was cut by 26%, their recycled content was increased and their average weight reduced. Seven supermarket chains entered into a further agreement to halve the number of single-use carrier bags issued by spring 2009, against a 2006 baseline. The second target was only narrowly missed - a 48% reduction was achieved. However, the overall weight of single use bags was cut by 56%, while virgin polymer content fell by 65%. Specific actions taken by signatories include charging for single-use bags, removing them from view, selling ‘bags for life’ to customers and offering bagless home deliveries via online shopping. Business Benefits

Data on the financial benefits from issuing fewer bags are strictly confidential but retailers are likely to have made significant savings.

The ‘CSR value’ of being seen to help customers help the environmental is a less tangible but important benefit.

Drivers

The retail sector felt that signing up to the Commitment would avoid the alternative of the UK Government introducing a ban or taxation as in other countries (e.g. Ireland).

The opportunity to reduce costs through avoided landfill tax was also a motivator. Key Elements for Success

Support for the Carrier Bag Commitment from two trade bodies, the British Retail Consortium and the Packaging and Film Association, was important.

While progress towards the global targets was monitored and published by WRAP, individual retailer performance was kept strictly confidential.

In-store materials, slogans and loyalty schemes devised by signatories engaged customers to reuse carrier bags.

Signatories trained their staff to discuss the issue of carrier bags with customers. Sources: (37) (6) (4) (8) (40)

Sources:


8 For Defra

5 Business resource efficiency (BRE) campaign

Launched in 2009, BRE was a Defra-led nationwide initiative aimed at effecting long term behaviour change in businesses with fewer than ten employees (micro SMEs). Other Government departments involved were Business, Innovation & Skills and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The BRE campaign consisted of ‘top ten tips’ on waste, water and energy efficiency, each signposting to further information on the Business Link web page. The first phase of the intervention was part of an existing cross-Government campaign called ‘Real Help’ aimed at all businesses. The second phase, an element of Defra’s ‘Act On CO2’activity, focused on the retail, manufacturing & hospitality sectors. Communications Channels

A one-page website www.businesslink.gov.uk/savingmoney integrated with the ‘Real Help’ campaign – redesigned to be more sector-specific for the second phase.

A combination of national and trade press advertising.

A 30-second radio ad played on regional stations for a 2-week period.

Various PR activity using a spokesperson to generate editorial coverage and radio interviews.

A short email sent to about 40,000 SMEs with snippets of case studies and a link to the campaign page.

Online – display and search advertising. Outcomes

Resource efficiency “is a noisy market place” so the direct impact of the BRE campaign was hard to quantify. It seems that the second phase resulted in little behaviour change although it may have bolstered the resource efficiency message amongst businesses, reminding them of good practice.


The involvement of ‘eco-design expert’ Rob Holdway as a spokesperson to generate editorial coverage and radio interviews was a successful element of the BRE campaign.

Targeting trade press was more successful than online advertising in terms of spend versus recognition. A more in-depth advertorial approach might have been more suitable than straight-forward tip-based adverts.

Sources: (36) *NB. ‘BRE’ in this context should not be confused with Buildings Research Establishment – formerly a government agency but now an independent organisation rebranded as ‘bre’.


For Defra 9


Introduced in 1999 and administered by Japan’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, the Top Runner programme aims to reduce energy consumption in the civil and transportation sectors by stimulating the continuous improvement in energy efficiency of products. Currently, 23 product classes are covered ranging from passenger vehicles and air conditioners to vending machines and even electric toilet seats! Rather than targeting retailers or end-users, Top Runner focuses on the supply-side, with manufacturers and importers required to meet minimum environmental standards. Appliances are tested, with the best performing model serving as a baseline for other manufacturers to meet or exceed. The next time officials set standards, the best available models will thus be even more efficient. In this way, standards are ratcheted up and energy conservation advances through the replacement of machinery and equipment by consumers. The European Union has adopted a similar mechanism to phase out non-energy efficient light bulbs. Although focused on energy efficiency, the Top Runner scheme might equally well be applied to waste prevention. Business Benefits

The Top Runner scheme has improved many appliances and products. For instance, between 2001 and 2007, the energy efficiency of computers increased by 80.8% and magnetic disk units by 85.7%, surpassing expectations. These improvements will give Japanese manufacturers a competitive edge in the international marketplace.

Drivers

Japan’s scheme works because although businesses realise they will one day have to comply with new more stringent and legally-binding standard (the hidden ‘stick’), innovation is driven primarily by the ‘carrot’ of competitive advantage. It should be noted, however, that the scheme has been criticised for rewarding incremental rather than transformative change.

As part of a voluntary ‘e-Mark’ programme, certain products within the Top Runner scheme which meet the latest minimum requirements can display a label communicating this to retailers and consumers.


The Top Runner scheme is a non-confrontational approach to environmental protection. Although minimum standards once established become compulsory, the voluntary nature of progress towards better environmental performance harnesses businesses’ own in-house expertise.

Primary stakeholders are themselves involved in setting targets so awareness and commitment levels are high, while targets are not overly ambitious. Moreover, Japan has a culture of close cooperation between business and regulators.

The scheme’s iterative and flexible nature allows failures to be addressed and remedied.

The ‘free-rider effect’ is an advantage because businesses already performing well at the start of a cycle become free-riders in needing to invest less additional effort during the subsequent compliance period.

Name-and-shame sanctions are effective deterrents in Japan. Sources: (19) http://www.asiaeec-col.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/index.html ; http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/policy/saveenergy/toprunner2010.03en.pdf http://www.aid-ee.org/documents/018TopRunner-Japan.PDF

http://www.asiaeec-col.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/index.html

http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/policy/saveenergy/toprunner2010.03en.pdf

http://www.aid-ee.org/documents/018TopRunner-Japan.PDF


10 For Defra

7 The Dorset Resource Efficiency Club (REC)

The Dorset REC ran for 12 months from September 2006, one of 70 such clubs operating across the UK between 2005 and 2008. The initiative targeted waste prevention through reduced production and office waste, packaging and usage of raw materials. Dorset Business, the county’s chamber of commerce, was appointed as the Dorset REC’s Project Manager after demonstrating the necessary skills and knowledge. The South West of England Regional Development Agency promoted the REC locally while the South West Waste Minimisation Group acted as Delivery Partner. Participation by member companies was free, but as a condition they had to produce regular reports and provide resources in kind. Members represented several sectors such as manufacturing (e.g. Pilkington floor tiles), retail (e.g. New Look), entertainment (e.g. Bowlplex) and office supplies (e.g. Osmond Group). Benchmarking visits reviewed processes, resource use and wastes with 2-3 days’ worth of consultancy advice and follow up monitoring. Green networking groups provided mentoring and an opportunity to exchange ideas and share best practice. Business Benefits

Dorset was perhaps the most successful REC in the country. It aimed to generate savings of £200,000, equivalent to five times the funding. Actual savings amounted to £261,000 for the implementation year, and the savings to grant ratio eventually exceeded 50. The South West region in general achieved the highest savings overall, although mostly as a result of improved energy efficiency.

Drivers

The main drivers for businesses were to promote competitiveness by developing resource efficient solutions and driving down costs in the supply chain.

Dorset Business promoted the REC by claiming that members could save 3% of turnover which would “go straight to the bottom line”; benefits that could come “in months not years”, saving the equivalent of “£1,000 per employee”.

Another benefit for members was access to advice on complying with environmental legislation, often a worry for smaller businesses.


Close working relationships and frequent communication between Dorset Business and member companies was vital, as was sharing best practice and networking between members.

Site visits, detailed case studies, web-based discussions, breakfast or lunch events and award ceremonies contributed to the success.

The cross-sectoral nature of the Dorset REC might also have been important as different perspectives to resource efficiency could be shared between industries.

Sources: (21) http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=124745&filetype=pdf ; http://www.swwmg.co.uk/downloads/Liam_Baker_SWWMG_presentation_Sept_2007.ppt

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=124745&filetype=pdf

http://www.swwmg.co.uk/downloads/Liam_Baker_SWWMG_presentation_Sept_2007.ppt


For Defra 11

8 Achmea Parts Service and the RESPECT project

Damaged and end-of-life vehicles generate significant quantities of waste metal, plastic, rubber and glass of which a large proportion is hazardous shredder material sent to landfill. Through its LIFE Programme, the European Union in 2000 supported an innovative approach in the Netherlands to reusing automotive parts. At the time, all hire vehicles in the country were repaired with new parts with no system for managing the flow of used parts. Achmea Parts Service created a network of car dismantlers, body shops, car fleet managers and insurance companies. It promoted large scale re-use of used car parts through a new “green insurance scheme” with lower premiums than regular policies: essentially, clients with the green policy have their car repaired with used parts. Achmea demonstrated that the system would be economically, ecologically and technically viable and that 80% of all car damage could be repaired with used parts without compromising quality standards. Business Benefits

Achmea successfully realised the large-scale re-use of second hand car components leading to a win-win situation, with significant environmental and economic benefits. By early 2002, some 75,000 green policies had been sold with 6,000 repairs performed with used parts. Emissions from painting were halved as used parts require fewer or no additional paint layers while some 60 tonnes of material were saved in 2001 alone.

However, the scheme suffers from the fact that parts suitable for newer vehicles – which represent the bulk of the lease market – are rarer. Therefore the green policy tends to be offered to customers with cars older than 3 years.

Drivers

The cost and regulations associated with disposal of end-of-life vehicles in Europe was a key driver for some elements of the supply chain, while other parties benefited from reduced vehicle repair bills or insurance premiums.


Funding from the EU LIFE Programme was important at the outset.

All parties involved in the project put much effort into the project’s implementation. They demonstrated the viability of the concept of green repairing, created the required procedures and quality assurances, and worked hard at improving the professionalism of the dismantling industry. They also undertook wide scale dissemination activities.

The information technology system developed for the project makes for effective and efficient communication between all parties in the scheme.

Sources: (42)


12 For Defra

9 Plot-lot ordering systems co-ordinated by Wilson James

Founded in 1991, Wilson James provides construction and aviation logistics and consultancy services in the UK, boasting such clients as BAA, Bovis Lend Lease, GSK, and Mace. The company employs some 2,000 people and has an annual turnover of £77m. Wilson James has pioneered the ‘consolidation centre’ approach to construction logistics. Rather than builders ordering materials on a bulk ad hoc basis, Wilson James provides a distribution centre to intercept, consolidate and carefully coordinate deliveries. A ‘just-in-time’ schedule eases the flow of materials from suppliers to sites avoiding the wastage which often results from over-ordering. A similar approach is widespread in the automotive manufacturing industry. Business Benefits

The opportunity to save significantly on materials costs explains why so many big names are working with Wilson James. For instance, Bovis Lend Lease saved £200,000 by preventing the over-ordering of plasterboard. As much as 25% of an order of plasterboard can be wasted on a conventionally-run site, Bovis and Wilson James got this down to 4.6%, with the remnants being 100% re‐used or recycled.

Drivers

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a motivating factor. Wilson James’s approach was used by Skanska during the redevelopment of two London hospitals; a primary aim was to reduce vehicle movements and hence carbon emissions during work in a restricted site in central London.


The Wilson James approach has proved effective because it promotes greater visibility, discipline and efficiency of materials management. This enables greater site productivity and improved sustainability impacts.

The greater visibility exposes vested interests among a few suppliers, who may previously have been profiting from the inadequacies of the conventional approach. Some oppose changes to normal practice; Wilson James tackled this cultural resistance by threatening to reject non‐compliant deliveries.

Sources: (32) (34) (23)


For Defra 13

10 Waste reduction by apetito

Based in Wiltshire, apetito provides frozen food and catering solutions to care homes, local authorities and hospitals, and offers a frozen meal delivery service to the public via its Wiltshire Farm Foods franchise and a private hot meal delivery service through local authorities via apetito Services. In 2009, the company invested £630,000 in a new reusable plastic transit crate system to replace the single-trip corrugated cardboard boxes previously used to supply hospital and care home clients with multi-portion and twin-portion meals. The new crates work well with apetito’s existing processes and are easy to fill up, handle, transport, store and wash. They also proved surprisingly robust, better protecting apetito’s products and expected to last for up to five years. Following advice from WRAP, apetito also eliminated “low-sales-volume products” from its inventory to further reduce waste and started directing 3,000 tonnes of food waste to an anaerobic digestion plant in Devon. Business Benefits

Switching to the new crates enabled apetito to avoid the costs associated with procuring and disposing of around 1,200,000 cartons a year, saving some 112 tonnes of carton board and 230 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Although apetito has not published the financial savings realised from this measure, the company “is confident that the investment will pay back financially in the longer-term”.

With the new plastic crates, customers are left with less waste to deal with and can more quickly access the contents than was the case with the cardboard boxes.

Each crate can contain several meals with different recipes, whereas in the previous carton system, each case would contain identical meals. Individual products can now be ordered and are packed on the day of delivery offering flexibility to customers who need to serve varied or special menus.

Drivers

Although apetito was keen to reduce the transit packaging waste, some pressure also came from its customers.

apetito was motivated in part by its being a signatory to the Courtauld Commitment, a voluntary agreement hosted by WRAP aimed at reducing food waste and associated packaging.


One-to-one assistance in the form of a waste prevention review undertaken by WRAP helped apetito achieve its goals. The review was one a series of visits to members of the Food and Drink Federation in support of the trade association’s ‘Five-Fold Environmental Ambition’ and the Courtauld Commitment.

Registration to ISO 14001 in 2009 helps apetito in achieving its environmental objectives. Sources: (3) (45) http://www.apetito.co.uk http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2010/10/14/335489/apetito-takes-the-holistic-approach.htm http://www.apetito.co.uk/Documents/apetito-Sustainability-Report-2010.pdf http://www.apetito.co.uk/Documents/Care%20Homes%20-%20Why%20Choose%20apetito.pdf

http://www.apetito.co.uk/

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2010/10/14/335489/apetito-takes-the-holistic-approach.htm

http://www.apetito.co.uk/Documents/apetito-Sustainability-Report-2010.pdf

http://www.apetito.co.uk/Documents/Care%20Homes%20-%20Why%20Choose%20apetito.pdf


14 For Defra

11 Waste prevention at McDonald’s Restaurants

McDonald’s operates more than 30,000 restaurants in over 119 countries. The target of much public criticism over the years, the world’s largest fast-food chain now claims that environmental sustainability is a core objective. A host of measures have been adopted in the area of waste management, many centring on landfill diversion or increased use of recycled or biodegradable materials. Some examples of waste prevention are though evidenced. For instance, McDonald’s Europe re-designed the McFlurry spoons to save on material and, in 2007, BigMac carton and Hash Brown bags were resized. In the UK and elsewhere, McDonald’s uses a stock control and forecasting system called ‘Manugistics’ to balance customer demand with waste minimisation – an increasing challenge as the range of products offered grows. The system evaluates how historic store-specific data, local and national events, holidays, promotions, weather and other factors affect demand. An indication of the progress McDonald’s has made is the fact that – along with Coca-Cola and Cadbury – the corporation has been invited by organisers of the London 2012 Olympic Games to advise on sustainable catering delivery. Business Benefits

Material savings of 286 tons per annum have been achieved with the shorter McFlurry spoons, while the new BigMac cartons and smaller Hash Brown bags reduce materials' consumption by 423 tons and 12 tons, respectively. The measures on this page contributed to reducing the consumption of materials from non-renewable sources by 2,302 tons. The total consumption of materials used dropped by 496 tons.

The Manugistics system significantly reduces food waste and the costs associated with unsold food and enables the company to pass on savings to customers. It also prevents restaurants from running out of stock and having to rely on expensive emergency deliveries. By taking the “hard work” out of stock management, Restaurant Managers can spend more time focusing on delivering a high standard of quality, service and cleanliness.

Drivers

The large amount of negative media coverage which McDonald’s received in the past has likely motivated the organisation to demonstrate a better environmental performance. The perennial and visible problem of fast-food chain litter motivated McDonald’s UK to sign up to the Government’s voluntary code on reducing litter, which includes a commitment to reduce packaging.


Good internal communications mean that lessons learnt in one section of the business can be passed to the rest of it.

Sources: (13) http://www.bestofgreenmcdonaldseurope.com http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4223106/McDonalds-waste-makes-up-largest-proportion-of-fast-food-litter-on-streets.html http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/case-study--managing-stock-to-meet-customer-needs--28-273-1.php

http://www.bestofgreenmcdonaldseurope.com/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4223106/McDonalds-waste-makes-up-largest-proportion-of-fast-food-litter-on-streets.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4223106/McDonalds-waste-makes-up-largest-proportion-of-fast-food-litter-on-streets.html

http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/case-study--managing-stock-to-meet-customer-needs--28-273-1.php


For Defra 15


Headquartered in Oregon, USA, Norm Thompson Outfitters is a catalogue and web retailer of clothing, outdoor products and other goods. Annual revenues were approximately $200 million in 2004. Norm Thompson was a key partner in a 2002-5 pilot project operated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to reduce the use and waste of packaging materials by businesses in the State. The project was funded by the regional government of the Portland metropolitan area and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Norm Thompson committed to cut by 25% both packaging waste generation and the use of virgin packaging material as against 2001 levels and through the better packaging efficiency and increased use of recycled content material, reduce the amount of virgin packaging material used by 25% from 2001 levels. Key measures taken by Norm Thompson included switching in 2003 to reusable plastic shipping bags for soft goods order fulfilment. The change required the company to relax an internal standard that had previously prohibited the use of plastic bags rather than corrugated cartons for shipping higher cost products. Norm Thompson also asked vendors to reduce excessive packaging associated with ‘Save Your Back’ bags, a day bag designed to reduce muscle strain and fatigue. Prior to the change up to 60 bin bags full of wadded-up paper might need to be disposed of in a single day at one distribution centre. Business Benefits

The increased use of shipping bags at distribution centres alone prevented some 370 tonnes of packaging waste per annum, equivalent to annual savings of $680,000. The reduced packing in the ‘Save Your Back’ bags cut costs by a further $2,900 a year.

A total of $77,400 was invested in the Oregon project yielding savings of more than 493 tonnes, or some $994,000, per annum.

Intangible benefits included the value of educating both Norm Thompson employees and also DEQ and contractor staff on packaging evaluation and environmental considerations.

Drivers

Norm Thompson’s commitment to environmental improvement and sustainability was identified as a motivating factor. Its mission statement is: “[We] will be a leader in developing business practices that sustain, restore and move in harmony with the natural environment.”

DEQ established the Oregon pilot in response to waste prevention goals adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 2001 couple with the fact that packaging comprised 20–25% of the State’s waste arisings.


DEQ provided crucial support in helping Norm Thompson to identify waste prevention in its own operations and to evaluate environmental marketing claims made by suppliers of packaging materials.

The fact that certain suppliers were using excessive packing only came to light because of Norm Thompson’s culture of open communication among employees, something fostered by the Oregon pilot. The suppliers were then asked to reduce this packaging.

Norm Thompson is a large company so could achieve significant change by influencing suppliers

DEQ, Norm Thompson and other project partners developed a life cycle inventory analysis which helped businesses trade off probable environmental impacts of different packaging options. This tool improved decision-making.

Although Norm Thompson had already implemented several packaging efficiency measures prior to 2002, the partnership approach embodied in the Oregon pilot created a forum for discussion of this topic.

Sources: (35)


16 For Defra

13 Remanufacturing by Caterpillar

Remanufacturing is defined as a series of manufacturing steps acting on an end-of-life part or product to return it to like-new or better performance, with warranty to match. Caterpillar (CAT), the world’s largest maker of off-road vehicles, construction and mining equipment, is a high profile pioneer of remanufacturing. The company not only makes new products but also takes back old components, cleans and remanufactures them, and sells them again. By adopting this Product-Service Innovation approach CAT has reinvented its business. Business Benefits

In 2005, CAT’s global remanufacturing operation reused 43 million tonnes of core materials. Not only does this translate as a vast financial saving, but the emission of some 52 million tonnes of greenhouse gas was prevented. Wastes associated with raw material extraction were also substantially reduced.

The demand for remanufactured products is huge; CAT sells them to large haulage fleet operators, the Ministry of Defence, train operators, mining and quarrying firms, farmers, construction companies and marine users.

Not only does CAT remanufacture its own products but from its regional hubs – such as one in Shrewsbury, UK – the company also provides a remanufacturing service to other OEMs (original equipment manufacturers).

Drivers

Customer pressure was a key driver. CAT first explored remanufacturing back in 1972 after US truck fleets operators demanded high quality, low cost replacement engines.


CAT is aware of the stigma attached to ‘second hand’ goods, so every remanufactured product or component goes through the same stringent quality test procedure as a new products and is given a warranty. In many cases, the products will be remanufactured on the same production lines as their new counterparts and often leave the plant in ‘better than new’ condition as every part is modified to include the latest design features.

CAT maximises the flexibility in the type of components it can remanufacture by using patented processes, procedures and tools to dismantle, modify, and reassemble the products.

Sources: (33)


For Defra 17

14 Ernst & Young’s UK waste reduction programme

Ernst & Young is one of the world’s largest professional services firms. In 2004, the UK division, which has 430 partners and 8,600 staff based in 22 cities, established a corporate responsibility (CR) team. Following a benchmarking exercise and consultation with internal and external stakeholders, the team reviewed and reinforced the existing environment management strategy. The CR team championed both waste recycling and prevention. The team increased the efficiency of paper use by switching machines to default double-side printing and kept staff informed of the company’s monthly paper use and the equivalent in trees. In addition, the easy availability of stationery items was reduced while bins were removed from under employee desks. Business Benefits

Between 2004 and 2006 Ernst & Young reduced its paper consumption by 18% through the introduction of default duplex printing. The financial savings which resulted are unknown but likely to be substantial.

The waste reduction programme created a high level of interest among employees, challenging their attitudes to the environment and changing behaviour both in the office and at home. This in turn might demonstrate to stakeholders that staff share Ernst & Young’s environmental values.

Drivers

Corporate responsibility was the main driver. Although Ernst & Young’s environmental impacts are small relative to those of businesses in other sectors, the company realised that employees, clients, communities and other stakeholders expected to see action. This meant going beyond mere compliance with regulations and stimulated the 2004 establishment of the CR team.


The CR team played a vital role in raising awareness, conveying the need for change and for establishing new behavioural norms.

Senior management commitment and endorsement was key to waste prevention activity by Ernst & Young.

Waste prevention efforts were boosted through the frequent, clear and tailored messages delivered at the right place and time: some audiences responded better to environmental messages while for others the potential to save costs was the main ‘hook’. A variety of communications were used including intranet and plasma screen messaging.

Sources: (44)


18 For Defra

15 Off-site manufacture in supermarket refits

Off-site manufacture (OSM) is a technique increasingly seen in the construction sector where materials are supplied to the site as pre-assembled modules. OSM can lower transport intensity and material stockholding on site compared with the traditional method whereby each material category is ordered separately. Having fewer orders and less material stored on site also reduces wastes arising from building materials being damaged in transit or storage. Pre-fabrication within a controlled manufacturing environment rather than on a building site also delivers efficiencies in labour, time and materials. Working with suppliers RG Group and Fit Out (UK) Ltd, the retailer Sainsbury’s recently combined OSM and a Consolidation Centre approach for the refitting of some of its stores. Backwalls are partition panels with mounted images and graphics and are an important marketing element in refits. Materials for these are now consolidated at off-site workshops where the backwalls are fabricated before being delivered to, and fitted at, the stores. The small amount of waste and packaging that does arise is 100% reused or recycled. Business Benefits

Construction waste was directly reduced by up to 40% which meant substantial cost savings.

The OSM approach limited the duration of departmental closures which minimised disruption to trading during store refits.

The consolidation approach optimises the efficiency of distribution vehicles and avoids the problems of congestion in the supermarket car parks.

Drivers

Clearly, the shop refitters were driven by their powerful customer to adopt OSM techniques. Sainsbury’s itself was motivated by the opportunity to cut costs and reduce disruption to trading.


Substantial savings could be achieved by adopting principles of standardisation in design or by engaging with the supply chain to ensure that standard manufactured components can be adjusted to suit a specific design.

Sainsbury’s achieves even greater efficiencies by combining OSM with a consolidation centre approach see Wilson James case study, wherein materials and modules are stored and delivered on a just-in-time basis. In addition to the 40% reduction in construction waste, a further 16.25% in material savings are realised through improved design, material procurement, storage and manufacturing.

Sources: (19 p. 32) (23) (20)


For Defra 19

16 Surplus food redistribution by FareShare

FareShare is a national charity redistributing surplus arisings from the UK’s food industry to homeless hostels, breakfast clubs, women’s refuges and other good causes. The charity works with many big names including Sainsbury’s, Nestlé, Sodexo and Brakes and operates 15 depots including two in London. The most recent was opened in Llandudno, North Wales. In 2009-10, FareShare estimates that around 3,000 tonnes of surplus - the equivalent of 6.7 million meals - was redistributed. 29,000 people a day benefited from FareShare food. This is food that would otherwise have been disposed of, often to landfill. Food and drink manufacturers accounted for 61% of the food redistributed in 2009-10, while 31% came from retailers and 8% from the hospitality sector. Business Benefits

Assuming it can be done efficiently and safely, redistributing surpluses to charity not only helps vulnerable people but saves food businesses significant disposal costs; however, not producing the waste in the first place would, theoretically, save companies far more money.

The PR value of giving food to charity rather than dumping it is likely to be considerable.

Preventing food waste also reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Drivers

The CSR agenda is an important motivator; many participating businesses publicise their involvement with FareShare in their CSR reports.

For some businesses, procurement pressure may have driven participation. According to FareShare, many food and drink manufacturers got involved after being encouraged to do so by their retailer customers. The manufacturers’ own trade body, the Food & Drink Federation, is also a strong supporter of the scheme, with 17 members now collaborating with FareShare.


Timing is key. The surplus food often has a short shelf-life so partnerships are most successful when FareShare is integrated into a company’s business processes, all levels of the company are aware, and surplus food is identified as early on as possible.

FareShare focuses its efforts on handling food from further up the supply chain as surpluses available at store level are small compared to those available at warehouse or manufacturer level. However, the charity does collect from a limited number of stores, for example, when stores are conveniently located on the way back from a delivery to a Community Member.

FareShare has enjoyed the support of the UK Government. For example, a past Secretary of State wrote to retailers encouraging them to work with the charity. FareShare has also been referenced in the former Labour administration’s food strategy ‘food2030’ and is promoted by WRAP.

Sources: (10) (24) (25); FareShare’s Marketing Manager


20 For Defra

17 London 2012 Olympic Games development

Waste prevention has been evident in the preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. While landfill diversion is a priority - LOCOG, the organising committee, has the objective of sending ‘zero waste to landfill’ – several measures have been taken to reduce the waste arising in the first place. For instance, LOCOG favours the leasing of temporary venues and other elements to limit the volume of material needing to be disposed of after the Games. These include seating, tented and modular buildings, flooring, fencing, furniture, signage, tensile fabrics, cabling and pipework. Where new permanent developments are needed, off-site manufacturing has been adopted with construction materials and products for bridges and structural frames procured in pre-assembled form. Particular construction and fixing methods are also prescribed by LOCOG to facilitate disassembly and maximise the options for reuse or recycling. Finally, LOCOG’s Sustainable Sourcing Code required that, where practicable, all packaging and products could be reused, recycled or recovered and certain hazardous materials (e.g. PVC with heavy metal additives) avoided. Suppliers and licensees were also expected to calculate the carbon impact of their products and services. Business Benefits

Quantitative evidence is not yet available on the amount of waste that LOCOG has avoided through these initiatives and the financial costs saved, but the figures are likely to be impressive.

Drivers

Although LOCOG had already pledged to divert 90% of construction refuse from landfill, its ambition was further boosted by WRAP’s Halving Waste to Landfill commitment which it signed up to in 2009. LOCOG wanted to demonstrate its part in a bigger government initiative and to show leadership.


LOCOG clearly set out its intentions in ‘Towards a one planet 2012’, the sustainability plan it published in 2009.

Given the scale of the Olympic development, the organisers were in a strong position to put pressure on a range of suppliers to prevent waste in their activities. LOCOG saw its Sustainable Sourcing Code and Materials Policy as an opportunity to inspire change and catalyse industry innovation.

LOCOG helped develop a new standard: BS 8901 Sustainability Management Systems for Events – which in turn guides preparations for the Games.

Sources: (13) (12) (5) (14)


For Defra 21

18 East Anglian Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink Industry project

Running between 1997 and 1999, the East Anglian Waste Minimisation in the Food and Drink Industry Project was a partnership between ten public and private sector organisations. The aim was to help 13 independent food and drink manufacturers to prevent waste in their operations by support in the form of a prescribed training programme with distinct learning outcomes. Topics ranged from mass balance and material loss calculations through project management skills. Members contributed to the programme design and were supported in workshops and training on specific technologies. Business Benefits

Solid waste production was reduced by 1,370 tonnes per year.

The East Anglian Project achieved net annual savings from waste, water and energy efficiencies of £1.1m from a total capital investment of £726,000. These savings represented an average of 0.4% of company turnover.

Drivers

Food and drink companies were motivated to participate in the East Anglian Project by potential to save money.

The opportunity to receive collaboratively funded training and consultancy support was another driver.

Regulations apparently did little to stimulate producers, suppliers and consumers to act on their collective supply chain responsibilities.


Reduction in the use of raw materials use through simple procedural changes such as input changes, product modification, and good housekeeping were very important, representing £350,000 of total annual savings, with an average payback of less than one month. However, these measures required intensive staff and management time to change current practice.

While investment in new technology yielded the greatest financial savings, such measures were among the most costly. However, payback on these investments was typically less than 8 months.

Participants found that the progress-sharing/workshop approach was especially valuable.

The East Anglian Project engaged and fostered a champion in each company; the same person who attended training events was then responsible for training colleagues.

Sources: (9) (1) (16) (15)


22 For Defra

19 Standard Life goes paperless

In order to achieve its target of halving paper consumption by 2012, the financial services company Standard Life introduced its ‘Go Paperless’ campaign in 2006. Similar strategies have been adopted in recent years by many other businesses in financial, utility and related sectors. Standard Life’s Go Paperless facility is now available to all of the company’s 30,000 life and pension customers who can choose to receive statements by e-communications rather than as ‘hard copies’ in the post. Business Benefits

How much waste paper has been saved by Standard Life’s campaign is unknown but the company claims a 23% reduction in the carbon footprint associated with paper consumption between 2006 and 2008.

The company saved £32,000 by using less paper, despite rising paper costs.

Employee satisfaction on Standard Life’s approach to environment has increased. Drivers

Standard Life took their decision voluntarily hoping both to reduce operating costs and to improve its brand reputation among stakeholders – employees, shareholders, suppliers and customers - who felt the company was over-consuming paper.


Excellent nationwide internet coverage and widespread access to IT equipment among its customers was essential to the success of Standard Life’s initiative.

Standard Life introduced a new document centre on a secure website ensuring a safe channel to customers.

Standard Life’s paper strategy focuses on communications and engagement, technology and efficiency changes, and sustainable sourcing.

Sources: (38)


For Defra 23

20 Envision

The Envision project, a £3.82m project financed by European Union structural funds, the South West Regional Development Agency and Devon County Council ran between 2005 and 2009. The aim was to improve resource efficiency, increase productivity and competitiveness and reduce CO2 emissions from small and medium-sized enterprises in South West England. Information, guidance and up to two hours of free advice was offered to 2,206 businesses, of which 766 received more intensive support. The latter consisted of 3 to 10 days of on-site consultancy support. Business Benefits

Estimates range from £18m to £24m for the total savings to date through resource efficiencies (water, energy and waste) achieved by businesses as part of Envision. Ultimately, businesses are expected to benefit by between £65m and £105m.

78% of businesses receiving intensive support agreed that Envision helped them achieve savings, new market opportunities or staff cultural change. The most popular actions taken were reducing energy use and reducing the volume of waste going to landfill.

Drivers

SMEs with a strong customer focus such as hotels and restaurants especially welcomed advice on how to implement environmental management systems as these were thought to attract customers and reduce the costs of resources.

Envision focused on energy, greenhouse gas reduction and landfill diversion; waste prevention did not seem to be important to the organisers.


The use of mentors to engage businesses worked well at local level, but a lack of a region-wide marketing strategy limited Envision’s overall effectiveness.

The use of case studies was beneficial although critics were concerned that they might have been used more effectively to demonstrate the business case for resource efficiency.

Businesses made a financial contribution towards the support which may have meant they were more likely to value the intervention.

Sources: (39)


24 For Defra

21 The Food & Drink Federation’s Five-fold Ambition

In, 2007 FDF (the Food & Drink Federation), the leading trade association for the UK’s food manufacturing industry, launched its Five Fold Ambition covering key environmental themes including greenhouse gas emissions, waste and transport. Three years later the body updated its targets, making some more challenging:

Raising its 2020 CO2 reduction target from 30% to 35%.

Accelerating progress to its 2015 zero waste to landfill target and contributing for the first time to a supply chain waste prevention target: namely to reduce waste in the supply chain by 5% by the end of 2012 against a 2009 baseline.

Adopting WRAP’s Courtauld 2 Commitment as the basis of a packaging target with a new aim to engage with consumers.

Building on the Federation House Commitment on water efficiency to develop guidance on water use and management in the supply chain.

Continuing to embed environmental standards through its ‘fewer and friendlier’ transport commitment and contributing for the first time to IGD’s Sustainable Distribution initiative.

To meet their commitments, members have trialled and adopted a range of waste prevention measures such as investment in new technology to improve the efficiency of food preparation, returnable and bulk transit packaging for raw ingredients, and the lightweighting of primary packaging. Business Benefits

While the FDF’s waste target focuses on landfill diversion, data from 2009 data suggests a modest de-coupling of waste generation from production with arisings per tonne of product dropping slightly at some FDF member sites. This could signify less wasteful processes and that true waste prevention is happening.

Drivers

The UK’s landfill tax escalator is likely to have been a driver for the Zero Waste to Landfill commitment.

While cost-saving is a motivating factor, the PR value of improving the environmental reputation of its members is also a consideration for FDF which in 2010 published Building on Success, a glossy report detailing progress towards the five goals.

The opportunity to contribute to society - as well as to save on disposal costs - may have encouraged 17 FDF members to work with the FareShare to redistribute surplus, fit-for-purpose food and drink products to disadvantaged people. See FareShare Case Study.

WRAP’s Courtauld Commitments have provided extra impetus for FDF ambitions on waste and packaging reduction.


FDF members are now working to optimise goods in packaging, known as ‘production-ready packaging’ and are aiming for a 1,000 tonne reduction in goods-in packaging waste by May 2011.

Unilever, a high prominent FDF member, trialled new technology at a plant in Essex aimed at tackling the waste generated when a process line switches. ‘Sensory analysis’ equipment identifies ingredients left over in the production of one low-fat spread brand for re-inclusion in a different brand.

Sources: (24) (25) (43) (26)


For Defra 25

22 HazRed

Launched in 2004, the three-year HazRed project aimed to check the rise in hazardous waste generation across Europe. Funded through the EU Life Programme, the project sought to address hazardous arisings from small and medium-sized enterprises. In the UK, HazRed was co-sponsored by the Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Envirowise, Waste Recycling Group and others. They tracked and targeted areas of highest hazardous waste arisings and impact across focus sectors including pharmaceuticals, printing, automotive and construction. Training workshops were run and specialist advisors sent to specific businesses. Measures taken included removal of such substances as chromium, cyanide and volatile organic compounds from protective finishes, paints, strippers, inks and cleaning fluids. Business Benefits

Some 1,200 tonnes of hazardous waste were diverted from landfill and savings to business totalled more than £440,000.

Drivers

Businesses saw their involvement in HazRed as a way not only to save costs but also to ensure compliance with ever more stringent hazardous waste regulation.

One company wanted to participate because taking action to limit environmental impact was ‘a central part’ of its strategy. Another pointed out that customers working towards their own sustainability targets, including the standard ISO 14001, expected suppliers to demonstrate a similar commitment.


The backing of the Environment Agency has been crucial to the success of HazRed. The Agency maintains an interest with schemes such as the European Pathway to Zero Waste targeting construction and other high-impact sectors.

Recognising that larger companies are better placed to benefit from the environmental guidance and exploit advances in clean technology, the HazRed project deliberately targeted SMEs.

Various communications tools were used to recruit companies and influence behaviour including sector champions, workshops, member communications within trade associations, regional and national press, Project Partner events, websites and newsletters.

Sources: (22) (18)


26 For Defra

23 Quebec’s Enviroclub Initiative

The Enviroclub Initiative involved seven waste minimisation clubs developed in 2000 to assist SMEs in Canada’s Quebec region. Each club consisted of 10 to 15 businesses who committed themselves, by contract, to conduct one profitable on-site project and attend four workshops within six months. Interventions included material substitution and changes in operational practice. For instance, one SME started using glass rather than steel shot as a polishing agent not only lowering hazardous arisings by 132 tonnes per annum but also producing less dust. Business Benefits

Total resource savings realised by Enviroclub included 11,300m3

of wood, 708 tonnes of hazardous waste and 53 tonnes of toxic substances. Across the seven clubs, annual savings of CAD$5.1m (£3.2m at November 2010 exchange rates) were achieved, although the longer term and wider community impacts of the club are unknown.

Drivers

The opportunities for companies to save costs and increase competitiveness were thought to be important drivers, and language used in marketing material during recruitment to Enviroclub reflected this. ‘Win-win’ was a common phrase.


As with other waste minimisation clubs, interactive workshops, knowledge exchange and support for hands-on experience was key to engaging SMEs in the Enviroclub initiative, as were strategic marketing tools and clear messaging.

The Enviroclub engaged and fostered a ‘champion’ who attended training events and workshops and returned to oversee the training of colleagues. The club also made the most of personal contacts with expertise in the relevant industries to reach those companies in most need of support.

By contracting members to attend at least one workshop, Enviroclub ensured continued engagement. Sources: (27)


For Defra 27

24 Waste prevention by Xerox

Founded in 1906 and today employing 130,000 people in 160 countries with a $22 billion turnover, Xerox is one of the world’s largest suppliers of business technology. The company is tackling waste prevention on several fronts. Green Products approaches include the development of a new toner requiring less toner mass per page which results in reduced toner waste. For certain printers, Xerox has also invented ‘ColorQube’ a solid ink colour technology eliminating the need for cartridges or other consumable items. In addition, Xerox is a pioneer of Product-Service Innovations such as leasing equipment and consumables enabling its reuse or remanufacture rather than disposal at end-of-life. The company operates numerous ‘take back’ schemes. Business Benefits

Xerox’s new solid ink cartridges generate 90% less toner waste than conventional counterparts.

In the US, Xerox’s cartridge return programme for mid- and high-volume machines enabled 65% of eligible cartridges to be returned for remanufacturing. In 2009 more than 2.2 million cartridges and toner containers were returned. Reuse of leftover toner in cartridges saves Xerox several million dollars in raw material costs each year.

Using its considerable procurement power, Xerox can effect significant change in the supply chain. For example, when Xerox (USA) asked suppliers to switch to returnable transit packaging this led to annual savings of $1.5m.

Drivers

Although many of Xerox’s initiatives appear voluntary, new regulations in territories where it does business serve as additional motivators. For example, it is working to comply with the EU’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and participates in countries’ individual collection and recycling programs.


In parts of the world where Xerox exercises direct control over the end-of-life management of equipment, return rates are high. For instance, 95% of equipment sold through direct channels in the US is returned to Xerox.

Xerox maximizes the end-of-life potential of products and components by considering reuse in the design process. Machines are designed for easy disassembly and contain fewer and durable parts. Up to 70-90% of machine components can be reused in remanufactured equipment.

Xerox works hard to challenge negative consumer perceptions of the quality of equipment made with reused or recycled components.

Sources: (2) (19) (17) (28) http://www.xerox.com/corporate-citizenship-2010/sustainability/waste-prevention.html

http://www.xerox.com/corporate-citizenship-2010/sustainability/waste-prevention.html


28 For Defra

25 Waste prevention by Marks and Spencer

‘To reduce non-glass product packaging by 25% by 2012’, and ‘to send zero waste to landfill by the start of 2012’ are just two of the aims in Plan A, Marks & Spencer’s high profile sustainability strategy launched in January 2007. The Plan sets out 100 commitments on climate change, waste reduction, raw materials, ethical trading and customers’ health to be achieved by 2012. A further 80 commitments to be fulfilled by 2015 were recently added. M&S wants to be known as ‘the world’s most sustainable major retailer.’ Examples of specific waste prevention include asking suppliers to switch to returnable and bulk transit packaging, using lighter and reduced primary packaging, and the phasing out of PVC from packaging and products. Food waste has also been challenged, particularly by improving stock planning through more accurate demand forecasting systems; in addition M&S has donated 1,200 tonnes of usable surplus food to charity. Business Benefits

A 78% reduction in packaging waste was achieved by the switching to returnable and bulk transit packaging solutions. For instance, M&S worked with its supplier Tibbett & Britten Group to use transit packaging for groups of products rather than to individually pack them.

As well as helping the environment, Plan A has helped M&S’s bottom line. In 2010, the retailer reported that Plan A had generated £50m of additional profit by acting as a ‘unique selling point’, enabling it to differentiate itself from its competitors.

Drivers

M&S’s CSR agenda is clearly a motivating factor, and seems itself to driven by changing consumer attitudes; the company states that ‘we understand that our customers still want to buy beautiful looking gifts, just with less packaging and we are making it easy for them to do this.’

Although Plan A is a voluntary initiative, M&S had previously been engaged with Envirowise’s Supply Chain Partnerships scheme which encouraged retailers to work with supply chains to improve environmental performance and maximise profit margins. Some of the Plan A actions are also compatible with WRAP’s Courtauld Commitment Phases 1 and 2, to which M&S is a signatory.


Marks & Spencer’s has used its considerable power in the supply chain to help it achieve its goals on waste prevention. Rather than simply accepting suppliers’ ‘green claims’ at face value, M&S’s buyers choose suppliers, and provide clear requirements to them, based on their contribution to Plan A.

Flexibility has been important. For instance, in 2008-9 M&S relaxed its food pricing rules in UK stores to lower the cost of items approaching sell-by dates; this led to a 20% reduction in food waste.

Sources: (10) (31) (29) (7) (41) http:// http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/documents/publications/2010/how_we_do_business_report_2010

http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/documents/publications/2010/how_we_do_business_report_2010


For Defra 29

26 Bibliography

1. Poonprasit, M., et al. The Application of Waste Minimisation to Business Management to Improve

Environmental Performance in the Food and Drink Industry. 2005. id 65.

2. WRAP. Lightweight wine bottles: less is more (Case Study). Banbury : WRAP. id 110.

3. —. apetito: waste prevention boosts business efficiency. Banbury : WRAP. id 287.

4. —. Carrier Bag Case Studies. Banbury : WRAP. id 241.

5. —. Ashdown Agreement Annual Report to 31 March 2010. Banbury : WRAP, 2010. id 897.

6. —. Voluntary Carrier Bag Agreement-Review of Supermarket Carrier Bag Use 2010. Banbury :

WRAP, 2010. id 709.

7. —. Courtauld Commitment 1 (2005-2010). Banbury : WRAP, 2010. id 630.

8. —. Reducing Carrier Bag Use. Banbury : WRAP, 2009. id 288.

9. The value of resource efficiency in the food industry: a waste minimisation project in East Anglia,

UK. Henningsson, S., et al. 2004, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, pp. 505–512. id 410.

10. Lee, P. and Willis, P. Waste arisings in the supply of food and drink to households in the UK.

Banbury : WRAP, 2010. id 819.

11. Farish, M. plants that are green. s.l. : Engineering & technology, 2009. id 826.

12. London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). LOCOG

Sustainable Sourcing Code-Second Edition. London : LOCOG, 2009. id 852.

13. —. London 2012 Sustainability Plan-Towards a one planet 2012. London : LOCOG, 2009. id 849.

14. Puckett, K. Time for a new Age-Halving waste to landfill: seize the opportunity. s.l. : WRAP, 2009.

id 495.

15. Minimising waste in the food and drink sector: using the business club approach to facilitate

training and organisational development. Hyde, K., et al. 2003, Journal of Environmental

Management, Vol. 67, pp. 327–338. id 417.

16. The challenge of waste minimisation in the food and drink 28 industry: a demonstration project in

East Anglia, UK. Hyde, K., et al. 2001, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9, pp. 57–64. id 596.

17. Kara, H. Carbon Impact of Remanufactured Products. s.l. : Centre for Remanufacturing & Reuse,

2008. id 78.

18. Foreman, J. Hazred Sector Prioritisation Workshop Background Paper. s.l. : Environment Agency,

2005. id 915.

19. House of Lords. Waste Reduction- Volume I: Report. London : House of Lords, 2008. id 397.


30 For Defra

20. Mason, H. Reducing Waste in Sainsbury’s Supermarket Refits through off site fabrication.

Banbury : WRAP, 2008. id 24.

21. Envirowise. Unpublished internal evaluation of the Envirowise Resource Efficiency Clubs

Programme April 2005 – March 2008, provided by WRAP. id 808.

22. HAZRED. HAZRED-Working with small Businesses to reduce hazardous Waste. s.l. : HAZRED. id

569.

23. Lundesjo, G. Material Logistics Planning - Barts Hospital, London. Banbury : WRAP, 2010. id 703.

24. Food and Drink Federation (FDF). Five-fold Environmental Ambition: Progress Report 2010 -

Building on Success. London : FDF, 2010. id 896.

25. —. Waste: promoting resource efficiency. London : FDF, 2009. id 330.

26. —. Reducing and Managing Waste in the Food Industry. s.l. : FDF, 2007. id 560.

27. Fostering pollution prevention in small businesses: the Enviroclub initiative. Huppe, F., et al.

2006, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 563-571. id 324.

28. Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. Choosing and Managing Re-usable Transit

Packaging. s.l. : Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme, 1998. id 700.

29. Envirowise. Packaging Design for the Environment: Reducing Costs and Quantities. Didcot :

Envirowise, 2008. id 817.

30. —. SHARING SUCCESS-Profiting from supply chain partnerships. Didcot : Envirowise, 2008. id 717.

31. —. Profiting from waste reduction in retail stores. Didcot : Envirowise, 2002. id 711.

32. Earthshine Solutions. Global Research Project: “In Search of Sustainable Business” Wilson James.

2010 : Earthshine Solutions. id 377.

33. Parker, D. and Butler, P. An Introduction to Remanufacturing. Aylesbury : Centre for

Remanufacturing and Reuse, 2007. id 657.

34. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Practical Resource Efficiency Savings - Case

Studies. s.l. : BIS, 2009. id 333.

35. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Business Packaging Waste Prevention

Project (2002 – 2005) Project Evaluation Report. Portland, Oregon : State of Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality, 2006. id 463.

36. Defra. Business Resource Efficiency (BRE) Campaign Evaluation of 2009 communications activity.

London : Defra, 2009. id 861.

37. WRAP. Carrier Bags. Banbury : WRAP, 2009. id 631.


For Defra 31

38. Business in the Community (BITC). Standard Life: Reducing embedded carbon in paper. BITC.

[Online] [Cited: 19 November 2010.]

http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_studies/stand_life_cs.html. id 839.

39. Buckman, E. An Economic, Environmental and Strategic Impact Evaluation of Envision. Emma

Buckman : Ekosgen, 2010. id 109.

40. Brook Lyndhurst. Improving Communications with SMEs. A review of Six Sectors (Forthcoming

report for Defra. A draft report was used for the purposes of this evidence review.). London : Defra,

2010. id 561.

41. —. Mainstreaming Waste Minimisation - A scoping study (Unpublished internal reference

document provided by WRAP.). 2006. id 271.

42. Janssen, B. The RESPECT project: RE-use of Second-hand car comPonEnts iin Company car fleeTs.

s.l. : LIFE. id 688.

43. Bartlett, C. Mapping Waste in the Food and Drink Industry. s.l. : Defra and The Food and Drink

Federation, 2010. id 846.

44. Article 13 and CBI. CSR Case Studies - Ernst and Young. s.l. : Article 13, 2006. id 634.

45. Apetito. Sustainability update autumn 2009. s.l. : Apetito, 2009. id 114.

Note: The id numbers at the end of the bibliographic references refer to the source file id number stored at www.infinifile.org.uk. You can access these sources for free, using project id 246 in conjunction with the file id when prompted. Requires registration. The adjacent QR code will take you to the site if you have the smart-phone QR reader app (many are free).

http://www.infinifile.org.uk/


32 For Defra

(Empty page)

Disclaimer: Oakdene Hollins Ltd and Brook Lyndhurst Ltd believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. The opinions contained in this report, except where specifically attributed, are those of Oakdene Hollins Ltd and Brook Lyndhurst Ltd. They are based upon the information that was available to us at the time of writing. We are always pleased to receive updated information and opposing opinions about any of the contents. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by Oakdene Hollins or Brook Lyndhurst, and we cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This report must not be used to endorse, or suggest Oakdene Hollins’ or Brook Lyndhurst’s endorsement of, a commercial product or service. All statements in this report (other than statements of historical facts) that address future market developments, government actions and events, may be deemed "forward-looking statements". Although Oakdene Hollins and Brook Lyndhurst believe the outcomes expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance: actual results or developments may differ materially. Factors that could cause such material differences include emergence of new technologies and applications, changes to regulations, and unforeseen general economic, market or business conditions. We have prepared this report with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the contract with the client. Although we have made every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy of information presented in this report, neither Oakdene Hollins nor Brook Lyndhurst can expressly guarantee the accuracy and reliability of the estimates, forecasts and conclusions herein. Factors such as prices and regulatory requirements are subject to change, and users of the report should check the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon specific assumptions (such as scale, location, context, etc.). Clients should satisfy themselves beforehand as to the adequacy of the information in this report before making any decisions based on it.

Oakdene Hollins Ltd Pembroke Court

22-28 Cambridge Street Aylesbury

Buckinghamshire HP20 1RS

T: +44(0)1296 423915

E: [email protected] www.oakdenehollins.co.uk

www.remanufacturing.org.uk

Registered in England No. 2937129