Executive Summary Evaluation of recycling feasibility ... Feasibility Trials.pdf · Evaluation of...

Executive Summary

Evaluation of recycling feasibility trials to develop recycling services for SMEs

Executive summary of the independent evaluation of the SME004 feasibility trials to provide recycling services to SMEs. The trials were focussed on food waste collections, services for SMEs in the construction, demolition and refurbishment sector, and SMEs on industrial estates and business parks.

Project code: SME012 ISBN: Research date: Oct 2007 to March 2008 Date: October 2008

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change.

Written by: Julian Fox and Mark Hilton, Enviros Consulting

Front cover photography: Recycling in the workplace WRAP and Enviros Consulting believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

Contents 1.0 Background .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 First round of recycling feasibility trials ...................................................................................4 1.2 Second round of recycling feasibility trials ...............................................................................4 1.3 Good Practice Guidance and recycling demonstration trials ......................................................5

2.0 Project method......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Trial partners’ reports ............................................................................................................5 2.2 Interviews with trial partners..................................................................................................6 2.3 Comparative analysis .............................................................................................................6 2.4 Telephone survey ..................................................................................................................6

3.0 Description of trials.................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Axion Recycling: Construction waste.......................................................................................6 3.2 Axion Recycling: Industrial estates and business parks ............................................................6 3.3 Bexley Council: Food waste....................................................................................................7 3.4 Bridgend CBC: Industrial estates and business parks ...............................................................8 3.5 CESHI: Food waste................................................................................................................8 3.6 ECT Recycling: Food waste ....................................................................................................9 3.7 First Mile: Multi-material collection........................................................................................10 3.8 Groundwork Yorkshire & Humber: Industrial estates and business parks.................................10 3.9 The Laundry: multiple-occupancy buildings ...........................................................................11 3.10 LEEP Recycling: Industrial estates and business parks ...........................................................11 3.11 LEEP Recycling: IT collection................................................................................................12 3.12 Mid Devon Community Recycling: Multi-material collection.....................................................12 3.13 Urban Mines: Food waste.....................................................................................................13

4.0 Description of comparative analysis ...................................................................................... 13 4.1 Multi-material collections......................................................................................................14 4.2 Food waste collections .........................................................................................................14 4.3 Industrial estate and business park services: ‘milk round’ collections ......................................15 4.4 Industrial estate and business park services: shared facilities on a host site ............................16 4.5 Industrial estate and business park services: shared facilities on managed sites ......................16

5.0 SME telephone survey............................................................................................................ 17 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................17 5.2 Key findings from the telephone survey ................................................................................17

5.2.1 Participants ............................................................................................................17 5.2.2 Non-participants .....................................................................................................18

6.0 Key conclusions...................................................................................................................... 18 6.1 General points – relevant to all SME recycling services...........................................................18 6.2 Points relating to food waste services ...................................................................................21 6.3 Points relating to industrial estate and business park services ................................................22 6.4 Points relating to construction and demolition waste services .................................................23

Appendix: Key data from trials .......................................................................................................... 24

Evaluation of recycling feasibility trials to develop recycling services for SMEs 3


1.0 Background There is a need to improve and increase recycling services provided to small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Many SMEs find it difficult to access appropriate recycling services for the waste materials they generate and the result is that much of the waste produced by SMEs is disposed of to landfill. There are a variety of reasons why SMEs can find it difficult to recycle their waste. These include:

SMEs generate low volumes of waste individually and hence it is often difficult to collect the materials on a

commercial basis;

SMEs often lack space to collect and store materials for recycling, which can be a barrier to registering with

services that have a relatively high minimum collection quantity requirement;

SMEs can lack the internal resources and capacity to establish and manage a recycling scheme, as there will

not usually be a dedicated member of staff responsible for environmental management initiatives;

the way in which SMEs currently pay for waste management services; it may be difficult for them to identify a

clear financial benefit from recycling;

a lack of service provision: in the past services have tended to focus on larger producers of waste for

commercial and logistical reasons.

1.1 First round of recycling feasibility trials WRAP received funding for three years from Defra’s Business Resource Efficiency and Waste programme (BREW), the Scottish Executive, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Welsh Assembly to deliver a programme of activities to improve and increase recycling services for SMEs. As part of this programme an initial round of SME recycling feasibility trials was commissioned in 2005. The purpose of the trials was to evaluate a range of factors including:

the most effective methods of recruiting SMEs on to a recycling service;

the most appropriate recycling services for SMEs in practical collection terms;

how recycling services can be developed so that the services are cost effective for SMEs and financially

sustainable for the businesses/organisations providing the recycling service; and

how recycling schemes can be promoted internally within SMEs to encourage staff to participate.

The final report from the first round of SME recycling feasibility trials can be downloaded from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sme_recycling . 1.2 Second round of recycling feasibility trials In year two of the SME recycling programme (2006-07) a second set of feasibility trials was commissioned (WRAP project code SME004). This report summarises the findings of the second round of feasibility trials, which built on the first round of trials but focused on a number of new issues and sectors that had not been sufficiently addressed in the previous round. These included:

developing appropriate recycling services for SMEs in the construction sector;

developing collection and recycling services for commercial food waste; and

developing location-specific services, for example for SMEs based on industrial estates and business parks.

Following a competitive process in summer 2006, thirteen trials were commissioned. The trials started in October 2006 and the SME recruitment element of the services was delivered from January to June 20071. Ten trials took place in England, two in Scotland and one in Wales. Of the trials:

one developed solutions for SMEs in the construction sector;

four focused on collection of commercial food waste;

five delivered services to industrial estates, business parks or multiple occupancy buildings;

one collected IT equipment from SMEs;

two delivered multi-material collections, one in an urban area (central London) and the other in a rural area

(Devon).

1 Except for the CESHI trial scheme which was extended to December 2007.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sme_recycling


Four of the trials – London Borough of Bexley (food), The Laundry (multiple occupancy buildings), First Mile (multi-material) and Centre for the Environmental Studies in the Hospitality Industry (CESHI) (food waste) were part-funded by the London Development Agency. The CESHI trial was also part-funded by the South East of England Development Agency. A key learning point from the first set of feasibility trials was that many of the service providers had limited experience of actively marketing and selling their recycling service to businesses. WRAP therefore employed consultants Corporate Culture to provide specific marketing support to the trial partners in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Ptarmigan, a PR consultancy, was sub-contracted to provide PR support to the trial partners, to maximise exposure of the trials to appropriate media. For trial partners in Scotland, PR and marketing support was provided by the Scottish Waste Awareness Group (SWAG). The support provided to the trial included the following:

two workshops focussing on development of marketing plans, PR and sharing of learning from the trials;

support in one-to-one marketing and sales support; and

support in development of press releases and help in gaining their publication.

Recycle at Work branded materials were provided to trial partners; these included resources for service providers to help recruit SMEs to the service (e.g. sales folders, FAQs sheets, certificates of participation) and resources for SMEs to use within their business to encourage staff to recycle (e.g. information posters). 1.3 Good Practice Guidance and recycling demonstration trials Following the first round of recycling feasibility trials, the report on the trials’ experiences became the basis for the Good practice guide for providing recycling services to SMEs2. The second year of the SME recycling programme saw (as well as the second round of recycling feasibility trials covered by this report) the commissioning of a set of recycling demonstration trials (project code SME007), which were intended to draw on the learning of the first round of recycling feasibility trials and the resulting good practice guidance, by testing the effectiveness of three Good Practice Models for delivering; multi-material recycling services to SMEs; services for SMEs located in city centres; and collections of container glass from SMEs.

The outcomes and learning points of these demonstration trials are covered in a separate report. The key findings from the second round of recycling feasibility trials, covered by this report, will feed into three fact sheets which will be made available as addenda to the good practice guidance. 2.0 Project method The information for this report was gathered from three main sources: trial partners’ reports and monthly data sheets; interviews with trial partners; and a telephone survey of SMEs that did and did not (having been approached) take part in the trials.

The findings from each trial then fed into a comparative analysis of similar trials to uncover further findings. 2.1 Trial partners’ reports Each of the thirteen feasibility trial partners provided monthly data sheets covering information on SME recruitment methods, businesses recruited and amount of material collected/dropped off for recycling. They also submitted two interim project reports during the trial and, at the end of the project, produced a report detailing: the trial method; project management approach; sales and marketing activities leading to the recruitment of SMEs; materials collected; collection and/or drop-off arrangements;

2 Downloadable from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sme_recycling


financial sustainability of service; and conclusions and recommendations.

2.2 Interviews with trial partners Each of the trial partners was visited by a researcher and interviewed, to gain a more detailed understanding of the workings of the trial and to gather any additional information that was not included in the trial partners’ reports. In the main this involved clarification of points made in the original reports and the filling of data gaps. 2.3 Comparative analysis A comparative analysis was carried out between the following groups of trials: multi-material collections; food waste collections; industrial estate and business park services, ‘milk round’ collections; industrial estate and business park services, shared facilities; and industrial estate and business park services, managed sites.

This part of the project compared the experiences of the trials in each of these categories, to see what patterns emerged and what lessons could be drawn. 2.4 Telephone survey A telephone survey was commissioned and carried out, interviewing approximately 210 SMEs that had signed up to a trial service and 240 non-participants (those who had been approached to participate in a trial but declined). 3.0 Description of trials This section provides a brief introduction to each of the trials in terms of what was done and how well they worked in practice. For each trial, a brief description of what was done is given, followed by the key findings and a summary table of the trial’s key data. 3.1 Axion Recycling: Construction waste Axion Recycling in Manchester worked in conjunction with Aggrecycle (bulk bag collection company in St. Helen’s) and three waste transfer recycling stations: ADS (Lymm Cheshire), JWS (Salford, Greater Manchester) and Singh UK (Peterborough). SMEs in the construction, demolition and refurbishment sectors were asked to segregate materials into inert waste, timber, plasterboard, packaging and glass and were offered a choice of three recycling options depending on their location and the quantity of material: drop-off facility; on-site bulk bags; and on-site skips.

During the six month recruitment period 51 SMEs were recruited (against an agreed target of 45) to use one of the services offered. A total of 6,001 tonnes was collected although 3,200 tonnes was from one single site clearance. The average quantity collected per business per month (in June) was 54.9 tonnes. The trial tested a number of sales and marketing approaches. The key findings were as follows: It was found particularly difficult to recruit using mailshots and telephone sales. This was thought to be

because many in the sector are small employers (often self-employed sole traders) and are not office-based. Mailshots and telesales were to their home addresses where they were probably lost amongst the unwanted domestic sales flyers and telesales calls. Face-to-face meetings, in particular information sessions at local builders’ merchants and ‘free bacon butty’ events, were more successful for recruitment.

Offering a range of collection or drop-off options to suit the different types and sizes of construction company or jobs was well received and helped to increase participation. Micro-sized builders tended to utilise the drop-off option or bulk bags (reflecting the lack of on-site space available to them) while small and medium-sized SMEs tend to use skips.

The amount of material collected or dropped off will vary according to the type of construction work, which to an extent is seasonal.

Increasing the price difference between segregated and non-segregated material (the latter charged at a higher rate) helped to increase recycling and also ensure cleaner recyclables.

3.2 Axion Recycling: Industrial estates and business parks Axion Recycling ran a second project working with Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) and Houghton’s Waste Paper to establish co-ordinated collections from trading estates in Stockport. The project aimed to identify businesses on industrial estates in Stockport to host a skip for collection of office paper,


cardboard and plastic film on their site, with the intention that neighbouring ‘satellite’ businesses be recruited to share the use of the container. Costs were to be apportioned between users with the host site receiving a discount. The cost of the skip lift was £40 and discussions with the SMEs found that a typical SME was not prepared to pay more than about £5 towards this; this implied a need for 8 or more users of each skip for it to be financially viable. The trial aimed to recruit 45 businesses, however only 27 were recruited. An initial phase of attempting recruitment on non-managed estates (skips were only placed on two estates) was followed by recruitment of one managed estate, where the managing agent agreed to participate in the trial, enabling direct marketing of the service to all 35 SMEs on the estate. Only three satellite companies were signed up for the two skips on non-managed estates and these were quite lightly used (only 1 tonne of paper and card was collected over the trial before the skips were withdrawn). The skip on the managed estate (which was put in place towards the end of the trial period) was used sufficiently (by 24 companies) to suggest it would need fortnightly emptying, a frequency that would make its provision viable for the skip company. Around 1.7 tonnes was collected in this skip between June and August 2007. The key findings were as follows: Visiting businesses face-to-face was a very important part of the recruitment process. It is difficult to sell a service where the costs are not clear to the SME at the time of signing up (in this case,

when the shared cost of the skip would depend on the number of companies signing up). SMEs are more willing to participate if by so doing they can reduce their trade waste collection costs. Provision of a shared skip facility on managed sites is likely to be successful since, if the management

company wishes to recoup the skip’s cost, it can probably do so, either through a small addition to the service charge paid by each company (hence making it appear free) or through renegotiation of its trade waste arrangements and subsequent savings. A further useful aspect of managed sites is that the shared skip can be sited on ‘neutral’ ground rather than on a host site.

Provision of a shared skip facility was found not to be practicable on unmanaged sites. There were difficulties finding companies willing to host the skip: reasons included lack of available space; an unwillingness among businesses to allow other companies access to their site for health and safety and liability reasons; and difficulties in limiting access to authorised users and preventing misuse and contamination. Companies were also found to consider it inconvenient to have to take materials to a neighbour’s site (which might be some distance away).

If a skip is not located close to a business and easily accessible, many SMEs consider it too inconvenient or difficult to take their material to it.

Frequent reminders about the existence of the service and what can be dropped off can increase participation and reduce contamination.

The scheme will be financially sustainable only if a full skip can be collected frequently enough by the provider to justify its being there.

3.3 Bexley Council: Food waste Bexley Council provides recycling services for businesses and households in Bexley, including food waste collections (meat included) to households and schools. This trial expanded the existing domestic weekly food waste collection scheme to cover SMEs. The trial targeted all food waste producers including cafés, restaurants, pubs and shops and a few green waste producers such as florists. A flat yearly rate of £126 was charged (slightly less than regular trade waste charges) and included 50 liners, after which liners were charged for separately at 30p each. The trial also compared suitability of a range of biodegradable liners and bins for SMEs’ use. Material collected from the trial was taken to an animal by-products regulations (ABPR) approved site for composting. The council recruited 61 SMEs by the end of the trial in June exceeding the target of 60. A total of 25 tonnes of waste was collected from these businesses with around 163 kg per business collected per month. A further 14 SMES were recruited by September. Most of the businesses were existing trade waste customers. The key findings were as follows: Recruitment mailshots were useful as a ‘hook’ on which to hang a visit, but the visit was usually the crucial

part of the sign-up process. For food waste collections, face-to-face visits provide an opportunity to explain the practicalities of the service

directly with the customer. Provision of kitchen caddies (e.g. 50-litre, with liners) is an important way of encouraging use of the service.


Bio-bins (that allow some ventilation) or normal wheeled bins should be provided as the main collection bin for the service. In either case liners should be used in the kitchen caddy to reduce weight and mess in this and the main bin.

240-litre bins are suitable except for customers with difficult collection access (e.g. cobbled or inclined surface), in which case 140-litre bins ought to be provided and filled only partially to keep weight to an acceptable level.

Paper liners are unsuitable for very wet food waste, so ought to be restricted to florists etc. Cornstarch-based liners cost more than paper liners and are less porous but stronger.

A weekly collection will be suitable for many businesses but will exclude those with a very high level of production of food waste (e.g. businesses with several 1,100-litre bins for residual waste, collected several times per week).

For local authorities that already collect trade wastes from this type of business, composting of food wastes will help to ensure that landfill allowance trading scheme (LATS) targets are met and permit costs and potential fines avoided.

3.4 Bridgend CBC: Industrial estates and business parks Bridgend CBC worked in partnership with Greenwood Services Ltd (a recycling company), and Groundwork Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot, to deliver this trial at the Brackla/ Litchard Industrial Estate in Bridgend. Businesses on the estate were provided with external bins for commingled ‘milk-round’ collection of paper, card, plastic (hard plastics and soft film), glass bottles and cans. Material was collected weekly. The service was provided free of charge for the first three months, then a flat rate of £5 was charged for a weekly pick-up (irrespective of the number of bins collected). 28 of the 65 businesses on the estate were recruited and only one dropped out during the trial. Although the target number of businesses was 30, every business was contacted and a response received – non-participating businesses were either non-SMEs, recycling already, had insufficient waste or did not want to sign up to a recycling service. The project collected just under 11 tonnes of materials in total and the average quantity per business in June was 112kg. The key findings were as follows: A mailshot provides subsequent telesales calls with a starting point and added credibility, however, visits were

the most successful part of the recruitment approach. Not having a contract makes SMEs more willing to try a service as they know they can leave at any time. An initial free period encourages sign-up. However, it should be clearly communicated that this is for a

limited period only and not for so long that customers forget that a charge is due to be introduced. A simple pricing structure (e.g. fixed weekly fee regardless of size of bin or quantity collected) makes the

service easier to sell, however some SMEs’ may be unhappy at seeing others pay the same whilst putting out much more material.

A commingled collection of recyclables is popular with SMEs as it reduces effort for them. Provision of clear information and signage on the bins reduces contamination issues. Collecting cardboard and plastics (high volume and low weight) without the use of a compactor on the vehicle

greatly reduces the efficiency of the service.

The service was not considered financially sustainable with the small number of customers recruited, the type of vehicle used and the current costs of providing the service. However, changes to increase sustainability were proposed, and these included: utilising a vehicle with a compactor to reduce the number of times that the vehicle has to be emptied; expanding the service into a wider area (e.g. additional estates); and consideration of a different pricing system for the service, e.g. related to the number of bins lifted.

3.5 CESHI: Food waste CESHI (Centre for Environmental Studies in the Hospitality Industry) is part of Oxford Brookes University and specialises in partnership programmes to investigate key environmental issues. This trial’s aim was to recruit six hotels/conference centres and provide each with an ABPR-approved on-site in-vessel compost unit for processing of their kitchen waste, including meat waste. Following a period of maturation, material processed in the in-vessel unit can be used on-site as compost. CESHI partnered with Accelerated Compost, a supplier of the ‘Rocket’ in-vessel compost unit, The Hotel and Catering International Management Association (HCIMA) and the Environmental Information Exchange (EIE) for this trial. The trial was part-funded by London Development Agency and the South East of England Development Agency. The SMEs were required to sign a contract with Accelerated Compost Ltd to lease a machine for 6 months and at the end of the trial it was up to each site whether to return the Rocket or to negotiate with Accelerated Compost


to purchase the machine. Rental charge pricing was agreed so as to be lower than the charge for general waste disposal. Six hotels were signed up (although one was not an SME) and four used the machine successfully. Nearly 14 tonnes of material were composted following six months’ use of the unit at all operational sites. Key findings: The Rocket is only of use where: there is a dedicated member of staff prepared to supervise the running of the machine, and there is

management commitment to using the machine; there is space to locate the machine and store wood chip and compost; it is possible to build a shelter and provide electrical power for the Rocket; there is a free or low-cost supply of wood chip (e.g. from the hotel grounds); and the hotel is a large user of compost and hence can benefit from using the compost produced.

There are, therefore, difficulties in finding businesses with the space and sufficient need for compost to be able to host an in-vessel composter.

For appropriate sites that can be found, the Rocket is a suitable composter, and one that works effectively at diverting food waste (500kg per month or more is possible) with appropriate use and staff training.

The economic viability of Rocket use by suitable SMEs varies on a case-by-case basis. However, it certainly needs to be seen as a medium to long-term investment with a payback period of several years.

3.6 ECT Recycling: Food waste ECT is an experienced recycling provider for both household and commercial waste. The trial provided a weekly or twice-weekly (meat-included) food waste collection service to SMEs, predominantly pubs, cafés and restaurants, in Bristol and Bath. Half of the SMEs recruited through the trial were existing ECT customers (who already recycle glass) and the other half were new customers to ECT. Most participating SMEs received their collection free of charge for the first three months. Charges were £5 + VAT per lift of a 140-litre bin and £8 + VAT per lift for a 240-litre bin with small additional charges for bin liners. 90 businesses were recruited against an original target of 160 businesses. Of these 90, 41 dropped out (a 46% drop-out rate) when the charges were introduced, although not all for reasons of cost, some citing factors such as not enough food waste, inconvenience, delay in receiving bin liners and move of premises. The original plan was to operate on two collection days, collecting from 80 businesses per day. This was increased to three collection days, collecting from 30 businesses per day. The factors that caused this change were: distance to outlet for collected material, small payload of vehicle, large number of companies requiring twice-weekly collections, and large number of companies requiring multiple bins. In total almost 74 tonnes of food waste were collected, around 292kg per business in June. The key findings were as follows: Direct mail was not found to be effective (only 3 responses and no sign-ups). During the telesales few

companies recalled the mailings. The provision of kitchen caddies increased the service’s usability. 240-litre bins can be handled more safely if material is bagged. The most popular sizes for liners were 35-litre

and 60-litre. Clear signage for kitchens etc. should be used to clarify what material can be collected; it must be

remembered that staff turnover may be high and there may be non-English speakers. The use of unlockable bins in accessible areas can result in contamination by passers-by. The offer of a free period encouraged sign-up but there were high levels of drop-out when the free period

ended. The size of the collection vehicle must be appropriate. Customers requiring more bins or more collections

than anticipated greatly decreased efficiency. The level of costs due to external circumstances must be carefully anticipated (e.g. the cost arising from the

distance between the collection round and the composting facility, which in this case was in SE Wales). In this instance the toll on the Severn Bridge proved a significant additional cost.

Overall, the service was not financially sustainable, losing a significant amount each month. Possible changes to improve the situation would include: reduce distance from collection round to re-processing location; not having to pay toll charge to reach re-processing location; higher capacity vehicle to reduce tipping frequency; purchase vehicle rather than rent to reduce operating costs; doubling number of customers to provide a sustainable collection round; and


increase charges (which were already far higher than equivalent general waste costs) to better reflect the actual costs.

3.7 First Mile: Multi-material collection First Mile is a private waste management and recycling company operating in central London. The trial provided SMEs with a commingled multi-material collection service for cardboard, paper, plastic bottles, glass, steel and aluminium. Material was collected from the kerbside on a daily basis in a branded sack. First Mile tested the effectiveness of a range of SME recruitment processes, including web advertising. The trial was part-funded by the London Development Agency. The scheme had no contracts, operating on a ‘pay as you throw’ principle, with customers pre-purchasing sacks, tape (for card bundles) and internal recycling bins (made of cardboard) for the collection of their material. At 77p per sack the costs for the service were around 70% of local general waste costs. 230 businesses were recruited to the trial (exceeding the target of 200) with around 160 coming from telesales, the website and direct mail, the three most successful means of recruitment. A total of 113 tonnes of food waste was collected during the trial with around 200kg per business collected in June. The material was taken straight to a sorting facility and a gate fee paid. The key findings were as follows: The use of imaginative addressees (e.g. ‘The greenest person in the office’) for direct mailing can greatly

increase its effectiveness. A website can be a very useful recruitment resource if carefully used. The pre-paid ‘pay as you throw’ approach was effective and SMEs appreciated the simplicity of not having to

have a contract. Having upright cardboard office recycling bins and smaller desk containers available increased the service’s

usability. Offering a range of collection frequencies increased the service’s usability, particularly as city-centre SMEs are

likely to have very limited storage space. The financial viability of the scheme could be improved by recruiting more customers and by looking at the

types of material collected to see if it is possible to reduce the gate fee paid.

3.8 Groundwork Yorkshire & Humber: Industrial estates and business parks This trial was delivered by a consortium of Groundwork Yorkshire and the Humber and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) Waste Services, partnered with Aalto Ltd. The trial took place on the Langthwaite Industrial Estate in South Kirby, Yorkshire. A recycling site was established at a suitable location on the estate and receptacles (skips and cages) provided for paper, cardboard, glass, wood and plastic. SMEs paid a modest membership fee to use the site based on two factors, their size and the amount of waste they produced, and were responsible for transfer of their own waste to the site. The recycling site was staffed for two hours per day (10 am to 12 noon) by volunteers from Aalto, a local wood recycling group. The site originally intended to be the location of the recycling point could not be secured and there were logistical difficulties and delays in finding a replacement site. Despite this, 31 members were recruited over a 10-week period (from an original target of 33). In total, 14 tonnes of material was collected in just over two months, with 443 kg per recruited business collected in June. The key findings were as follows: Finding a suitable site for the shared collection point was difficult since this had to be reasonably central with

good access, of a reasonable size, possible to secure and at reasonable cost; Having the collection point supervised ensured correct material segregation and prevented inappropriate

access, however this had an associated cost and meant only limited opening hours were possible which greatly reduced the service’s usability.

Having no compaction facility for cardboard led to skips becoming full very quickly, increasing collection costs. Scheduling collections for the shared point could be difficult, particularly as some businesses could deposit

large loads unexpectedly, filling skips when it was not then possible to arrange an immediate collection.

The trial as operated was not found to be financially sustainable. The situation could have been improved by: having higher membership charges (although this may have deterred some businesses); attracting more members; segregating paper and cardboard to achieve a higher income from these; using a compactor/baler for cardboard; and finding alternative outlets for high quality wood collected.


3.9 The Laundry: multiple-occupancy buildings The Laundry, an established recycling service provider in London (part of Bioregional Development Group) worked with London Recycling to deliver a new recycling service in central and east London to address the specific needs of SMEs located in multiple-occupancy buildings. Individual SMEs purchased collection sacks for mixed office paper, card, cans and plastic bottles from The Laundry. This cost significantly less than the equivalent general waste cost in the area. A recycling service for IT equipment and CDs was also offered. Recyclables were then transferred to a shared container located in a communal area of the building for collection by London Recycling. The Laundry used a two-pronged approach to recruitment, targeting the SMEs individually, and approaching building or facilities managers to encourage them to sign up their whole building to the scheme. The trial was part-funded by the London Development Agency. By the end of the trial period The Laundry was working with 20 buildings (the original target being 18); of these there were 17 buildings where 50% or more of non-recyclers had been signed up giving a total of 102 new SMEs recruited. The project has continued, recruiting further buildings and businesses. Around 6.4 tonnes of recyclables were collected over the six month trial with just 33kg per participating business in June. The key findings were as follows: Making contact with building managers, landlords etc. can be a very slow process, often taking several days if

not weeks, particularly when they are located away from the building itself. This, however, is an essential part of the recruitment process. Once approval to market to the building has been gained, this simplifies the process as the individual SMEs do not each have to be recruited separately.

A website can be used effectively not just for recruitment but for keeping customers up to date on the service and promoting entertaining events, good-practice stories.

The community aspect of setting up a scheme for a whole building can establish a strong relationship between the service provider and the customers.

The purchasing of sacks, bundle stickers etc. is an effective money-in-advance mechanism for the service provider, and particularly appeals to smaller companies who are paying proportionately to the amount of material they put out (rather than with a fixed-rate service for example).

The lack of a contract appeals to SMEs and aids recruitment. Provision of lockable bins prevents contamination and inappropriate use by those who have not paid for the

service. Provision of a range of collection frequencies increases the service’s usability for SMEs (i.e. some want

weekly, some want more frequent collections) and can increase efficiency of collection for the provider (fitting in more than one building on a round).

3.10 LEEP Recycling: Industrial estates and business parks LEEP Recycling (part of Changeworks Ltd) is a social enterprise and operates a recycling service for businesses in Edinburgh and the Lothians. Through this trial, SMEs on business and industrial estates in Edinburgh, East Lothian and Mid Lothian were offered a regular back-door collection service for mixed paper and card (white sack), confidential paper (red sack) and plastic cups, plastic bottles, drink cartons, cans and printer and toner cartridges (clear sack). Collections were at a frequency to suit the business. Collection of fluorescent tubes and IT equipment could also be arranged. 46 businesses, against a target of 75, were recruited of which 22 were from one business park/centre. The project collected a very significant 64 tonnes of material and 334 kg per business in June. The key findings were as follows: Breakfast meetings were very unsuccessful. Despite mailshots and phone reminders and the offer of a free

breakfast, only three people attended two meetings although one business did sign-up as a result. Telesales recruitment worked best for office-based businesses with relatively simple waste streams; industrial-

type businesses with more complex waste streams benefitted from a visit before signing up. Signing up a whole business centre following a telesales call and face-to-face meeting with the facilities

manager was a great recruitment success. The provision of desk-high bins and A4-size desk trays increased the service’s usability. Offering larger customers 1,100-litre bins increased the service’s collection efficiency but meant that a bin-

uplift vehicle was required. Offering customers a choice of collection frequencies increased the service’s usability. Collection rounds can be carried out more quickly outside peak traffic time but access to collection areas must

be assured if outside office hours.


The trial suggested that a stand-alone service of this scale focused solely on industrial estates and business parks is unlikely to be profitable, but could contribute towards a sustainable operation as an integrated element of a broader recycling business. 3.11 LEEP Recycling: IT collection LEEP also offered SMEs in Edinburgh a collection service for redundant IT and electrical office equipment including monitors, keyboards, hard drives and fax machines. There was no minimum pick-up quantity for material to make it accessible to SMEs. Material was recycled at a SEPA-approved recycling facility operated by Restructa, and a certificated secure data destruction service for confidential data was also offered at an additional cost. Of a total 322 businesses that were recruited, 150 had collections during the trial, generally just once as a ‘clear out’. Only three businesses had repeat collections. A further 172 SMES were due to use the service later in the year. Items were charged at between £8 and £12 each plus a SEPA Consignment note charge for hazardous waste. Approximately 32 tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) was collected during the trial period. In June, 7,952 kg was collected from 32 pick-ups, hence 248 kg per business collected from; as most businesses served by the scheme did not have a collection in June, this equates to only 53 kg per business served overall. Key findings were as follows: Having no minimum uplift quantity made the service accessible for smaller SMEs with relatively little

equipment to collect. The ‘pay as you throw’ pricing system also benefitted smaller SMEs. Smaller, independent companies were more likely to use the service as some larger firms had centrally

managed IT collection arrangements in place. Few businesses took up the offer of secure hard drive destruction. There is no common frequency of collections due to the relatively long life of the materials collected. Return visits may be infrequent as once customers had arranged an uplift they often took the opportunity to

clear out all redundant equipment, much of which had been stored for some time. However, for businesses that did not immediately need the service, the provision of reminder stickers to place on IT equipment helped to increase the likelihood of future use of the service.

The trial ran at a monthly loss and hence was not sustainable under the trial arrangements. It should be noted that this trial took place whilst the WEEE producer responsibility arrangements were being finalised. While some businesses will still have to pay for WEEE collections, the majority should be able to obtain free collections of business-to-business WEEE on a one-for-one, like-for-like basis. This may reduce the demand for this type of service. 3.12 Mid Devon Community Recycling: Multi-material collection Mid Devon Community Recycling is a not-for-profit community company which provides recycling services to 32,000 homes under contract to Mid Devon District Council. The trial targeted SMEs in small towns and villages in mid Devon. A weekly service was provided for segregated collection of cardboard, office paper, mixed paper, glass, cans, plastic bottles, plastic film and confidential waste in branded sacks. Batteries, fluorescent tubes, mobile phones, IT and plastic cups could also be collected. Recruitment to the trial was very successful, with an experienced sales representative being involved in cold-calling site visits. 223 companies were recruited in all against a target of only 60. The service’s costs were lower than local general waste costs so as to make the service attractive. Around 86 tonnes of recyclables were collected and around 128 kg per business in June. The key findings were that: Cold-calling visits were much more effective than direct mailing or telesales, particularly because they were

carried out by an experienced face-to-face salesperson. Participation is likely to have been increased by the service being considerably lower than the cost for residual

waste locally. The 7.5-tonne vehicle filled too quickly and was not suitable for bulky materials such as cardboard and plastic. The purchased bags worked well for smaller SMEs but larger SMEs would have benefitted from provision of

bins, although this would have required a bin-uplift vehicle.

During the trial period the service lost money. However, the service proved popular with SMEs and continued after the end of the trial: a further 102 customers being recruited by October 2007. It was expected that over


the next 12 months a further 380 SMEs would be recruited. Greater financial sustainability could be achieved by, for example: increasing the cost by a further 20-30% (gradually, to avoid losing customers); catering for larger SMEs by utilising a lorry with a greater capacity and an automated handling system; and ensuring that the service is sold as one covering a variety of materials, emphasising that it is not available just

for one (e.g. paper recycling).

3.13 Urban Mines: Food waste Urban Mines is a consultancy specialising in waste and recycling projects. The organisation worked with two partners: TEG Environmental (a private sector composting operator), and FOCSA (a multi-national waste management company) to deliver the trial. The trial recruited food manufacturers, cafés, restaurants and other hospitality premises in Yorkshire and north-west England to a ‘milk round’-type collection, with material taken to TEG’s Animal By-Products Regulations (ABPR) approved in-vessel composting facility at Preston or Todmorden. The material collected included processed and unprocessed food waste including meat and fish. The trial was originally intended to target food manufacturers, processors and abattoirs, but there were difficulties with the composting facility not being able to take all waste types produced by these businesses. While some categories of food waste can be treated in such a plant, some cannot, requiring rendering. In addition the plant could not deal with bones as it did not have a bone-crusher. The focus therefore switched (a few months into the trial) to recruiting hospitality-sector companies. This proved more successful, although the service did not prove itself fully sustainable. Only 27 businesses fully participated in the trial (28 were recruited) against a target number of 50. Nearly 13 tonnes of waste was collected in total; however, this figure included a one-off collection of around 10 tonnes from a pet food manufacturer. Taking this figure out of the equation, a respectable 362 kg per business was collected in June. The key findings were as follows: The service was weakened by not being able to take the full range of food waste produced by abattoirs and

food-processing companies. These businesses are not willing or able to segregate their food wastes, e.g. some for rendering and some for composting.

A specialist waste vehicle that will not leak (as opposed to a 7.5 tonne haulage vehicle for example) is required for collection from abattoirs and food-processing companies.

The provision of bin liners (for hospitality SMEs) is necessary, but must be incorporated in the charging scheme for the service.

For the hospitality sector, a collection day of Monday is the most suitable as this tends to be a quiet day after a generally busy weekend.

As it stood at the end of the trial the service was not sustainable financially and the service was terminated. The following improvements could make the service sustainable: recruit at least 200+ companies to provide the basis for a commercially viable service; include some larger food manufacturers where possible; establish a collection route, with an appropriate vehicle, covering key areas around the Todmorden and

Preston facilities including the East Lancs corridor (e.g. Blackburn, Burnley), Hebden Bridge and the accessible parts of West Yorkshire (e.g. Halifax and Bradford areas); and

offer a combined service for collection of cardboard (for recycling rather than composting) alongside food waste (for example, in a split-body vehicle).

4.0 Description of comparative analysis For the sets of trials of similar type (e.g. food waste collections), comparisons between their experiences and data were carried out around the following issues: pricing; recruitment; customer size/type; materials collected; collection methods; and financial sustainability.

While the sample size in each case was small (in some cases just two trials working in different circumstances), and hence not statistically robust, it has been useful to identify where similar findings were made in different contexts and, conversely, where the circumstances changed the findings. The sections that follow give a brief description of what was examined in each case and the key conclusions drawn.


4.1 Multi-material collections This compared the multi-material collection services offered by: First Mile; and Mid-Devon Community Recycling (Mid Devon CR).

These services operated in very different environments: First Mile offered a daily mixed-material recycling service in central London, while Mid Devon CR offered a weekly recycling service in rural towns and villages. Both trials had simple pricing structures, and collected a similar range of material (including paper, card, glass, cans and plastic bottles). It was found that, although First Mile collected more per business overall, the weight per collection was considerably lower, as would be expected for very frequent collections for city centre customers with a lack of storage space. Both trials needed to recruit more customers (several hundred customers were thought to be required) to make the service profitable, but each also identified separate barriers, specific to that trial’s circumstances, that would increase sustainability. For example, First Mile were looking at ways to overcome the lack of revenue from materials collected while Mid Devon CR recognised that they could much better serve larger SMEs by having a larger collection vehicle, offering larger customers wheeled bins for segregated recyclables and expanding the range of materials collected, as well as increasing their charges to be more in line with those of local competitors. Mid Devon CR also indicated that they would focus on maximising the use of the service by SMEs already signed up. The key findings were as follows: A service can operate successfully without contracts or membership fees, particularly when there is a pre-purchasing element such as for the bags and tape to be used for recyclables. A simple pricing structure simplifies the recruitment process by being easy to understand and easy to

compare with general waste costs. Personal contact (through cold or warm visits) is very important in recruitment. Direct mail and telesales can

certainly be of use, but in the case of telesales in particular the level of success will depend on having experienced and trained staff.

The income from recycled materials is likely to be much smaller than the income derived from the collection charges.

Selling pre-paid bags and tape helps to improve cash flow when compared to charging in arrears, where there may also be difficulty in gaining payment quickly.

Very frequent collections for customers with a lack of storage space (e.g. those located in a city centre) will result in lower weights per collection, although not necessarily lower weights per customer over a particular time period.

Frequent collections are likely to result in customers using up their supply of bags and boxes more rapidly, therefore increasing collection revenue.

4.2 Food waste collections Comparisons were made between the food waste collection services of: Bexley; ECT; Urban Mines; and Moray Waste Busters (Moray WB) (from the first round of feasibility trials in 2005).

The CESHI trial (using the in-vessel composters located at six hotels) was not included in this analysis as it was a very different trial from the others in that it did not involve an external contractor collecting material from SMEs. All of the trials ran ‘milk round’-type collections for meat-included food waste. Moray had collected meat-excluded material during the earlier 2005 trials. Bexley was unusual in that it integrated trade waste collections into a domestic collection round. All ran a nominally weekly collection, although ECT did collect from some premises twice weekly. The hospitality sector provided the majority of customers. The average weight per collection per business (for June 2007) was 50kg for Bexley, 76kg for Urban Mines and 93kg for ECT. There was a clear correlation between the average size of customers (in terms of numbers of staff employed) and the quantity of waste collected per pick-up. The Bexley, ECT and Urban Mines trials all had simple, but quite different, pricing mechanisms. The Moray WB service was provided free and hence does not give a realistic indication of financial sustainability issues. The ECT


trial was provided free for three months to the first 80 customers, after which charges were applied (and almost half of the customers dropped out, although this was not solely attributable to the introduction of the charge). Urban Mines’ charges were extremely low with a small fixed charge for any number of bins of any size. None of the trials was found to be financially sustainable, essentially because their charges were too high and hence they could not retain customers or they were well below cost price. It is worth noting that Bexley Council was not looking to profit from the service but did want to help meet its Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme targets for biodegradable municipal waste. By doing so it would avoid consequential charges for permits and, potentially, Government fines. The key findings were as follows: A food waste collection service will need to focus on the hospitality sector rather than food

manufacturers/abattoirs unless all manufacturers’ food waste (including bones and Cat 1 and 2 ABPR materials) can be taken in compliance with ABPR.

As with other services, charges should compare favourably with general waste collection charges (or, in the case of food manufacturers, with rendering costs).

Direct mail and telesales are of use in recruitment, but personal visits are the most effective recruitment method. This was perhaps in-particular because food waste segregation can be somewhat more challenging in a commercial kitchen than general recycling in other businesses.

Financially, these services will do best when maximising the ratio between the collection revenue and the gate fee at the composting plant. When charging on a per-lift basis, ideally services should be aiming to collect less material more often. This is the opposite of some recycling collections where materials are sold directly to markets at a profit without paying a gate fee (i.e. pre-sorted rather than commingled materials).

Smaller bins (e.g. 140 litre) are preferable both from a financial perspective (see point above) and to keep bin weight manageable from a Health and Safety perspective.

More than one collection per week is likely to be needed (especially when using smaller bins) by most food waste producers. Having only one collection per week is likely to exclude businesses producing high levels of food waste and hence reduce potential revenues.

There is benefit in providing customers with a choice of bins; lockable bins can prevent contamination from unauthorised users. The provision of kitchen caddies facilitates the use of the service. Liners ought to be provided (and included in the charging mechanism) and are probably more usefully provided for kitchen caddies rather than for the larger bins. This is important to reduce mess and keep bin weights down to a manageable level.

Since the hospitality sector produces large amounts of cardboard as well as food waste, the collection of cardboard for recycling may be a useful addition to the service (although none of the trials tried this). A split body or multi-compartment vehicle would be required in this case.

4.3 Industrial estate and business park services: ‘milk round’ collections The services offered by the following trials were compared: Bridgend County Borough Council (Bridgend CBC); and LEEP Recycling

Both services offered a ‘milk-round’ collection, i.e. a set route on a set frequency. The Bridgend trial’s service was only offered to SMEs on one industrial estate, and provided a collection of commingled material, so that only one outdoor receptacle was required for each participating SME. The LEEP trial targeted fifteen estates, and provided different coloured collection sacks for different materials, and stickers for bundles of cardboard. For larger SMEs, collection bins were provided. After a free introductory period, Bridgend charged a flat weekly rate, whereas LEEP charged for the number of bags collected with variation by material. The Bridgend trial operated without contracts, while the LEEP trial operated with ‘non-binding contracts’ (agreements with little legal force). The key findings were as follows: The most successful method of recruitment was pre-arranged face-to-face visits, particularly for industrial

businesses with more diverse waste streams. These services can operate successfully without contracts although there are some risks associated with doing

so (for example the potential for legal action against the service provider). Flexibility of service e.g. in bin size or collection frequency, makes the service as appealing as possible. Internal collection containers, e.g. branded cardboard bins and desk trays for the office, may facilitate use of

the service. Bridgend found that the commingled collection arrangement was welcomed by SMEs, many of whom had had

concerns about the space that multiple collection containers would take up.


Sustainability will be increased by having enough participants/estates to make full use of a collection vehicle and driver.

For a commingled collection, there is likely to be financial benefit in having the pricing structure reflect the number of bins uplifted, rather than offering a flat-rate charge. As with food waste, the aim should be to maximise the number of lifts and reduce the material weight per lift as a gate fee will be charged for the sorting of commingled materials.

4.4 Industrial estate and business park services: shared facilities on a host site This compared two trials that aimed to provide a shared facility (i.e. a recycling skip) on a host site which could be accessed by a number of ‘satellite’ businesses and would provide the opportunity to recycle several different material streams: Axion Recycling (part of their trial); and Groundwork Yorkshire and Humber.

Both trials were found to have had quite serious difficulties finding a location for the shared recycling point/container. The Axion trial also struggled to recruit satellite businesses to use the facility. Groundwork’s pricing structure allowed potential participants to be informed of what the service would cost them. Axion’s pricing structure, revolving as it did around an overall cost being divided between participants (and therefore dependent on the final number of participants), meant that companies could not be informed of a definite price when considering sign-up. This was thought to hinder recruitment. Both trials, as operated, had difficulties indicating whether the service could be sustainable. It could at least be concluded that it is best to operate a scheme like this on managed estates, where a suitable location for the facility can be established that is not likely to be lost unexpectedly (as Axion experienced in one case on an unmanaged estate). The main findings were as follows: The ‘host and satellite’ approach to shared facilities is difficult to implement, particularly on unmanaged sites. To implement a shared facility successfully, it must be possible to secure a suitable site for a long enough

period to build up the use of the service. The site should ideally be owned or leased by the service provider, or provided by the management on a managed estate.

Recruitment is hindered by not being able to inform customers of the cost of the service at the time of recruitment. Charging needs to be simple and transparent.

Direct mail and telesales are useful, but face-to-face meetings are the most effective means of recruitment. Increasing the range of recyclable material collected increases the attractiveness of the service to participants

by making them more likely to reduce their trade waste collection costs. Shared skip facilities will need frequent monitoring to ensure that the skip is being collected and is not getting

over-full and that contamination is being avoided through correct use of the skips. Having to ‘man’ the skip for a few hours a day will increase costs prohibitively and restrict opening hours.

This is therefore an option that should be very carefully considered. A locked skip/gate can be used to restrict access to the skip.

To make this type of service financially sustainable, a significant number of users need to be found to make a weekly or fortnightly collection worthwhile for the recycling skip provider. The service should ideally be offered on several estates/business parks that are close together. Where a suitable shared facility location cannot be found, a regular site-to-site collection can be used to compliment the drop off service.

Appropriate waste management licensing (or a licence exemption) will need to be put in place for a scheme such as this. It will be necessary to discuss with the Environment Agency points such as the nature of the material being collected, arrangements for avoiding contamination or fly-tipping, and the provision of Waste Transfer Notes.

4.5 Industrial estate and business park services: shared facilities on managed sites The following trials offered recycling services to managed sites: Axion Recycling (part of their trial); and The Laundry.

The trials’ environments were very different but had similar issues. Axion’s service was to managed industrial estates and The Laundry’s to high-rise multi-tenanted managed buildings in a city centre. The two trials charged SMEs on a different basis. Axion’s eventual approach was for the estate management to pay for the service, bearing the cost of each skip uplift. There would be no direct charge to the SMEs themselves, although of course it would be possible for the management to pass the cost on to the SMEs through its service charges. The Laundry provided a pay-as-you-go service, with SMEs buying bags and stickers in


advance, so that the cost of the service was borne by them directly and no cost was incurred by the building landlord/manager. The key findings were as follows: A service to managed sites may be paid for by SMEs directly or by the estate or building management, with

any additional costs or cost savings potentially being passed to the SMEs as an element of the normal service charges.

It can be very time-consuming contacting building/estate management people, particularly if not located anywhere near the building/estate itself; however, once engaged it is possible to recruit a larger number of SMEs in ‘one hit’.

Some building/estate managers may be responsible for more than one building/estate, allowing increased opportunities for recruitment.

It is unlikely to be worth promoting the service to tenants in the building/estate until any required permission or agreement has been gained from the building/estate management.

Endorsement/promotion of the service (through building/estate management or through use of a recycling champion) makes the recruitment of SMEs easier. Efforts should be taken to get the landlord to publicise the service to new tenants.

An enquiry from one SME can be converted into multiple customers if it leads to a building/estate being signed up.

It greatly simplifies overheads to have a contract with the building/estate management than with several individual SMEs.

5.0 SME telephone survey 5.1 Introduction The telephone survey interviewed approximately 210 SMEs that had participated in the trial services and 240 non-participants (those who had been approached to participate in a trial but declined). Contacts were provided by the trial partners. An approximate quota of interviews was set for each trial, so that the smaller trials would not be under-represented. Within that, interviews were conducted using random sampling methods. For the participant SMEs the objectives were: to determine the reasons why SMEs got involved in the recycling services and how they heard about the

schemes; to explore any issues surrounding the implementation of the scheme within their businesses; to determine their perceptions of the impacts and benefits of the recycling schemes to their businesses; to measure satisfaction with the recycling services; to explore external reasons or drivers for participating in recycling schemes; and to get their views on the communication and marketing methods and materials used in the feasibility trials.

For non-participant SMEs the objectives were: to ascertain the reasons why they did not sign up to the service; to get their general views and perceptions of recycling at work; and to determine what would be needed to encourage their business to start recycling.

5.2 Key findings from the telephone survey The results from both trial participants and non-participants showed that there is a general willingness to recycle – for example, 45% of interviewed trial non-participants said they were currently recycling, and 57% said they could be encouraged to recycle (or recycle more). Further key points below are broken down by participant and non-participant responses. Where possible, some comparison is given with the findings from the survey following the previous round of recycling trials in 2006. 5.2.1 Participants Recruitment Face-to-face contact was the most cited means of recruitment (22% of participants).

Reasons for signing up 91% of respondents did not have any concerns about undertaking recycling (or more recycling). This was

somewhat higher than the 83% from the previous survey who felt that they did not have any concerns about undertaking (more) recycling.

The reasons most commonly given for participating were not financial, but were that this was a good opportunity to start recycling (32%) and that recycling helps the environment (22%).


Of those expressing concerns at doing (more) recycling, the commonest reason given was that additional costs would be incurred. Together with the observation that only 8% thought participation would save them money, there is a clear indication that many SMEs are not keen to pay more for their combined waste and recycling costs, but are very willing to displace existing waste costs into recycling costs.

Implementation Implementation of the recycling schemes was found to be straightforward, with 96% of respondents finding

their scheme very easy (65%) or quite easy (31%) to implement, a similar total to the 93% who found the scheme very easy or quite easy to implement following the first round of trials.

Satisfaction with the service provided There was very high satisfaction with the services provided, with 95% of participants being very satisfied

(67%) or fairly satisfied (27%). This corresponds with the high level of satisfaction found in the survey from the previous set of trials, when 97% of participants expressed satisfaction.

External reasons or drivers The provision of more information on recycling was the commonest suggestion respondents gave (29%) to a

question on what would motivate other companies like theirs to recycle; this was followed by financial incentives such as tax relief (18%).

5.2.2 Non-participants Current recycling status as a business 45% of non-participants said that their company was currently involved in a recycling scheme (a figure lower

than the 68% of non-participants in the previous survey who said they were already recycling). 57% said they could be encouraged as a business to recycle (or do more recycling).

Reasons for declining to participate 21% recalled having been invited to participate. This almost exactly corresponds with the findings from the

survey after the first round of trials, when 78% of non-participants said they did not remember having seen any marketing activity.

A postcard or leaflet was the most recalled approach (22% of those who recalled contact). Of those who recalled the invitation to participate, 12% gave ‘that we would incur additional costs’ as the

reason for deciding not to participate, and 10% that they ‘already belong to a recycling scheme’. However, 46% gave the generic ‘other’ as their non-participation reason.

Positive and negative views on recycling 56% of non-participant respondents could see a positive in his or her business undertaking recycling (or more

recycling).

6.0 Key conclusions From the individual trials, the comparative analysis and the telephone survey, key conclusions and recommendations have been drawn, to add to or expand upon conclusions from the first round of recycling feasibility trials. For information the final report from the first round of SME recycling feasibility trials can be downloaded from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sme_recycling . 6.1 General points – relevant to all SME recycling services Conclusion 1: Although waste and recycling is not a top priority amongst SMEs, there is generally a willingness among SMEs to recycle. Generally, there is a willingness among businesses to recycle and a recognition that it is a beneficial activity, possibly in cost terms but also in terms of the environment and to enable the SME to meet customer CSR and environmental expectations. Many of the non-participant SMEs that were approached to take part in the trials were already engaged in recycling, and even among others there was a recognition of possible benefits. The high reported level of satisfaction amongst participant SMES shows the general willingness to engage with a recycling service; subject to some conditions of cost, reasonable ease of use etc. which will be discussed further. Conclusion 2: While SMEs are willing to pay for a good quality and reliable recycling service, they are sensitive to the cost of the service. While there are evidently some exceptions, in general they are not prepared to pay any extra to recycle. This conclusion from the previous set of trials was again supported. It was generally found that SMEs did not expect to save much if any money from using a recycling service, but equally they did not want to incur



additional costs by participating in one. Charges for recycling therefore ought to be no greater than equivalent trade waste collections however, it is important for a service provider to understand the sector it is targeting. For example with food manufacturing businesses and abattoirs the cost comparator may be meat waste rendering rather than general waste costs. The wealth of a business, supply chain and consumer pressure may be significant factors that may lead to a willingness to pay a little more to recycle. Conclusion 3: A free or reduced-price introductory offer to a recycling service may aid recruitment but must be used and communicated carefully. Evidence suggests that a ‘special offer’ for a period is useful in tempting SMEs to sign up to a recycling service, and provides a good opportunity to demonstrate to recruits that a service meets their needs and is reliable. However, it ought to be communicated clearly to the SMEs at the outset that the special offer is for a limited period (e.g. one month) and what the charging system will be at the end of that period. Otherwise, there is the danger that a large percentage of participants will drop out on the introduction of charges. There is some evidence that this is less likely if the full charge is clearly no more than the cost of general waste collection. Consideration needs to be given in advance to whether the administrative cost of operating the special offer is sufficiently offset by the income from participants that would not have signed up without it. Conclusion 4: The perceived value for money of the recycling service offered is key. Simple and transparent pricing structures are more attractive than complex structures that can be hard for SMEs to interpret. These trials again demonstrated this conclusion from the previous set of trials. A simple pricing structure is easier to market and to sell (it takes up less space on leaflets and less time to explain by telephone or in a face-to-face meeting) and helps SMEs to understand what they are signing up to. This ties in to the point made above that most SMEs will want to compare the recycling service’s costs with their trade waste collection costs, and complex pricing mechanisms structures make it difficult for this to be done. Recruitment is also more difficult if costs cannot be indicated in advance; for example in the case of splitting the cost of a shared skip where this depends on the eventual number of SMEs signing up. Conclusion 5: Contracts with SMEs may not be required for all recycling services although an agreement of some sort is useful. It is possible to operate some recycling schemes without contracts with participants. Having no contract with SMEs makes it easier to ‘sign them up’ and simplifies administration for the service provider. SMEs know that they can leave the service at any time, and may therefore be more willing to try out the service. Where contracts are used, the notice period should be kept as short as possible (e.g. one month) for the same reason. In particular, operating without contracts may be viable for those schemes which have a ‘pay in advance’ element as this still gives some indication of SMEs’ continued involvement in the service through the number of pre-purchased bags. Where an agreement is required, a simpler and more informal agreement can be used that sets out the obligations of the SME, for example in relation to how they present waste and avoidance of contamination, and the service provider, for example in terms of collection frequency and day. In some cases contracts or other agreements may be required not with the SMEs themselves but with the management staff on industrial estates, business parks or office buildings; Conclusion 6: It is essential in recruitment to find the key decision-maker in an organisation, and in many cases this is likely to take repeated contact over some time. Finding the recycling champion or appropriate decision-maker within an SME is not necessarily straightforward. For example the SME may need permission from a head office elsewhere, or it may be the estate or building management that is being targeted. At the other end of the scale, very small SMEs may not have an office base (such as one-man bands in the construction industry) and this can present difficulties in terms of getting hold of them. Repeated attempts at contact and imaginative approaches are therefore often needed to ensure the right person is reached. Directing mail to ‘The greenest person in the office’, instead of to a named person was one successful approach and this also helped to overcome the problem of incorrect contact details on mailing lists. Another approach was to hold ‘bacon butty’ events at builders’ merchants to provide an opportunity to speak to smaller construction businesses face-to-face. Conclusion 7: Recruitment of customers needs to be achieved through a carefully planned strategy, using several stages, including marketing (for example mailshots) and direct sales (such as telephone activity and face-to-face contact). It is however important to have flexibility in the approach so that failing activities can be adapted or abandoned. The importance of having some form of marketing and sales plan was clear from these trials. For example, planning appropriate activities and the timing and order of these, such as sending out mailshots in sufficiently


small batches that timely follow-up by telephone or visit could be carried out. However, it was also clear that there is a need to adapt the strategy if very unsatisfactory results are being produced: for example, abandoning telephone sales where it is found that the targeted sector is not one that responds well to this, and trying an alternative approach. The right mix to be used will vary with a particular service’s circumstances and targeted audience, but almost universally it is found that face-to-face contact is very important and tends to be recalled by SMEs (although of course there is a high time and cost requirement associated with this). Face-to-face contact was found to be particularly useful for SMEs with more varied waste streams (such as the more industrial businesses) or food waste schemes as it gave a chance to offer more bespoke advice. Conclusion 8: Press releases can be useful in gaining publicity but must be timed carefully. The trials’ experiences of the usefulness of issuing press releases varied. However, it emerged that to maximise the usefulness of a press release it ought to be timed to coincide with other marketing activity being carried out and that including a ‘human interest’ story and photographs in the release will increase its chance of being picked up and used by the local media. For example, one trial’s ‘free bacon butty’ promotional event and another’s involving a dog delivering a promotional flyer to its owner received good media coverage and showed that PR can be fun and effective. Conclusion 9: Websites are an important resource in disseminating information and gaining publicity. Although not all trials made use of websites, there is evidence from some trials (and the SME telephone survey) that, once set up, these are a cheap resource and can be very effective, particularly if publicised on other materials such as direct mail. Through appropriate registration with search engines and use of online marketing, websites are helpful in recruiting SMEs that are proactively looking for a recycling service themselves. Websites will be particularly useful for office-based businesses where staff generally have ready access to a computer with internet connection and be in the habit of using this for accessing information. If they are kept up to date, web sites can provide a means of keeping SMEs informed about developments to the service (it will be useful to remind SMEs about the website’s existence in any other communications) and to provide feedback. For some schemes, particularly where a sense of community is being encouraged (perhaps on business parks or in multi-tenanted buildings) and/or SMEs are sharing bins, the use of a website or e-mails can be used to do such things as promote events, announce the ‘recycler of the week or feedback on the quarterly recycling figures. This is useful to keep SMEs engaged. Conclusion 10: Where possible multi-material collections should be offered to add weight and material value to each collection. Offering a comprehensive one-stop shop for recycling and hence better value for money can also be more attractive to SMEs. The previous trials’ conclusion that increasing the range of collected materials is likely to be of benefit (both to the SMEs and to the service provider) was borne out by these trials. For example, a collection from food manufacturers that cannot take all meat waste, or bones, or material from all categories of the Animal By-Products Regulations, will make the service much less attractive to the targeted sector. Food waste collections targeting the hospitality sector may benefit from also offering a cardboard recycling collection. Similarly, the successful IT trial ran alongside existing collections of other materials. Multi-material collections could in some cases quite readily offer the collection of small WEEE (e.g. toner cartridges and mobile phones). Rounds serving predominantly offices could include a higher-value confidential paper service if possible. It should be noted however that commingled multi-material collections will generally need to be sorted at a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) and hence will involve the payment of a gate fee. Conclusion 11: It is important to monitor and reduce contamination. Contamination ought to be monitored at the point of collection and at the MRF (if one is being used for commingled collections). The means by which contamination is reduced will depend on the circumstances of a particular scheme, but methods can include lockable bins (particularly where these are in communal areas and accessible by unauthorised users), colour-coded bags (for source-separated materials) and transparent liners (for food waste collections). Clear instructions, posters, directional signs etc. will all help reduce contamination. In busy environments where workers may not always speak English or where staff turnover may be high (e.g. the hospitality sector) posters ought to have clear images and little text. Conclusion 12: It is important to balance collection efficiencies with a frequency of collection that is appropriate and useful to targeted SMEs. A conclusion after the previous trials was that there is benefit to collection efficiencies by offering (for bag collections) a minimum quantity for collection or a pricing structure that encourages quantity (e.g. ‘£x for up to n bags’), so that SMEs store as much as possible before collection to maximise their value for money. It should be


noted however that mechanisms that encourage storage are only appropriate if SMEs have space for this. Otherwise they may feel discouraged from taking part if they feel their lack of storage space prevents them making best use of the service. For such SMEs (in particular city-centre office buildings and small retail outlets), frequent collection of small quantities is key to providing a useful service. This is further complicated by revenue issues surrounding the way charges are applied. This is discussed further below. Conclusion 13: The cost of all external factors must be taken into account in the assessment of the viability of a service. For commingled recyclables and food waste services, the gate fee at the sorting/treatment facility must be considered as this will have a very significant impact on profitability. Conversely, pre-sorted (by the business, on the kerbside or at a transfer station owned by the service operator) multi-materials should bring in an income. Other costs that need to be given careful consideration include road and bridge tolls. This is particularly important for schemes that need to make more journeys to tip material than anticipated may find such costs are higher than expected. On the positive side, it is worth noting that biodegradable waste (e.g. food and cardboard/paper) collections provided by local authorities will contribute to meeting LATS targets and hence avoiding the potential costs of buying LATS permits (England only) and avoiding potential Government fines. Conclusion 14: The provision of supplementary containers can help to increase the usability of a service. Providing customers with supplementary collection containers may facilitate and encourage the use of the service. For food waste collections kitchen caddies are extremely useful and are discussed further below. Elsewhere such containers may include desk-high collection bins or A4-sized desk trays for offices. However, it is important to check that these will actually be useful to businesses before procuring a large number. The minimum order for containers may be large and the service provider may have to store these while distributed (unless they are sent direct from the container supplier) and stand the cost of any unused items. Conclusion 15: The suitability of the vehicle used for collection of material must be considered carefully. Two of the conclusions from the previous trials related to the appropriateness of the vehicles used for collections, and these still stand. These points include the observation that the collection vehicle ought to be as large as possible to meet the customers’ needs in one collection round in a given area, within the constraints of the service provider’s finances, the containers being used, and the need to ensure that appropriate access can be achieved (side roads and back alleys etc.). Whether specialist or non-specialist vehicles are used will need to be considered with a view to the materials being collected. The user of a compactor refuse collection vehicle (RCV – available in various sizes) may increase efficiency by reducing the number of tips required. In considering the options relating to the purchase or hiring of a vehicle, the trials showed that vehicle utilisation must be carefully considered: the number of customers required to keep a vehicle (and crew) busy through the week will vary with the type of service but is likely to be several hundred. 6.2 Points relating to food waste services Conclusion 16: The pricing approach for food waste collection services must take into account the gate fee for composting and, depending on the material collected, the costs of rendering / incineration. Since the income for a food waste service will be made entirely through charging for the service (rather than partially through material sales), and the gate fee will be paid on a tonnage basis, regular collections of smaller or half-empty bins are preferable to less regular collections of larger/full bins. The cost of biodegradable liners (generally of benefit in the kitchen bin) should also be charged for (or covered by the lift charge). Most catering waste (other than that from international flights, ferry’s etc.) is not covered by the Animal By-Products Regulations and can go to landfill but will be treated as ABPR Category 3 waste (low risk) if it goes for composting or biogas production. Food manufacturing waste involving animal by-products is ABPR Category 3 material or in some cases Category 2 (high risk). What customers will see as value for money will therefore need to be considered against general waste costs in the case of most catering waste and other options for Cat 3 ABPR material, such as rendering/incineration, in the case of most food manufacturing wastes. Service providers should check carefully with the operators of the reprocessing facility (i.e. in vessel unit) exactly what material can be accepted and that the facility has sufficient capacity and licences to accept commercial food waste. Conclusion 17: For food waste collections, more than one pick-up per week is likely to be needed.


The average weights per collection in the trials ranged from 50kg to 93kg, in what were principally weekly collection services. However, offering only a weekly collection excludes those SMEs that produce high levels of food waste (those who perhaps use several large bins for residual waste and/or have several collections per week). Some producers of food waste may need three or four collections per week, especially when using 140-litre bins or bags as they won’t have room for storage. The smaller bins are preferable from a weight (manual handling) and revenue perspective as noted above. Conclusion 18: Both internal and external collection containers should be provided for food waste collection services. The provision of internal caddy bins, for use in a food preparation area, facilitates the use of a food waste collection service. These caddy bins are typically of volume 25 to 40 litres, weighing no more than 15kg when full (for safe manual handling). Bags should also be provided for the caddy bins, and ideally should be made from a bio-material such as PLA from a corn starch base (not as breathable as paper sacks but should not rupture) rather than a synthetic biodegradable material from oil. Ideally bio-polymer bags should be transparent or semi-transparent to allow collection crews to spot any gross contamination. Liners for external bins are an unnecessary additional expense. External bins provided ought to be 140-litre. The density of food waste means that 240-litre bins can be too heavy for manual handling and should only be used if containing tied bags and presented on smooth, accessible areas. Conclusion 19: For food waste services, the informational material distributed for display ought to use clear images and little text. Display materials distributed to customers, such as signage to be displayed in kitchens and food preparation areas to clarify what can be included in the food collection, must be as clear and as visual as possible. Hospitality sector businesses (the main target audience for this type of service) provide hectic working environments at peak times, may have a high proportion of non-English speakers and a high staff turnover, so new staff need to understand details of the collection as quickly and easily as possible. Kitchen staff, in particular head chefs, also need some buy-in to the scheme to maximise its use. Conclusion 20: Regular single-compartment RCV, split-body RCV or top-loader vehicles tend to be most appropriate for food waste collections. Food and other organic waste tends to be wet, bulky and heavy and hence smaller vehicles (such as vans and 7.5-tonners) tend to have too small a payload and need emptying very regularly. 12-tonne (gross weight) vehicles and above may be more appropriate (but note that these may limit access to certain premises). The compaction on an RCV would need to be reduced or turned off to avoid splitting bags, which would hinder handling at the composting or AD facility. Vehicles must be able to contain liquids (for example in a sump) and not spill these as they move. 6.3 Points relating to industrial estate and business park services Conclusion 21: Some recycling schemes will need to target building managers/landlords or estate managers/landlords, rather than initially targeting individual SMEs directly. This applies where agreement is needed from the building or facilities manager for e.g. the siting of collection bins in a communal area, or where the cost of waste management is borne by the management and covered through tenants’ service charges. It can be difficult selling a service to a management agency especially if it is not located anywhere near the targeted site (perhaps in another part of the country), removing the possibility of face-to-face contact and placing reliance on other means. This can slow the recruitment process. However, once a park or estate or building is recruited, and the recycling scheme’s presence on the site established, the recruitment of SMEs and the maintenance of participation ought to be easier; for example, new tenants to the site will be easier to recruit, particularly if the management include details of the service in welcome packs. Conclusion 22: Shared skip schemes may be viable on managed industrial estates and business parks, but are less likely to work on those that are not managed. Evidence suggests that shared skip facilities can be used for collecting recyclables on managed industrial estates or business parks, where the skip can be located on neutral space allocated by the estate management and where they will also organise collection and meet the costs. On non-managed estates, shared skip facilities are more difficult (although not impossible) to implement, particularly because of the difficulty of finding a host to take the skip and control access, emptying, and obtaining necessary licenses or exemptions. Some difficulties can be reduced by providing a ‘manned’ facility; however, there will be financial implications to this.


Conclusion 23: If shared skip schemes are to work, businesses must be communicated with clearly to ensure that all relevant staff know about the scheme, the location of the skip, what can be put in it and any access rules (e.g. when it is open, whether keys are needed) With any unmanned shared facility, colour-coding of skips according to the material type they can take is important. Recycle Now symbols can be used (see www.recyclenowpartners.org.uk) to tie in with home recycling bring site signage. Shared skip facilities will also need to be monitored regularly to ensure that the skip is being collected and is not getting over-full, and that the skips are being used correctly with limited contamination. For shared skip facilities on managed sites, where a service contract is in place with the estate management, it is advisable to include agreement around how contamination issues, vandalism etc. shall be dealt with. For example it may be necessary to agree who will bear the cost of landfilling waste where serous contamination occurs. Conclusion 24: Recycling schemes that save money for the management/landlord should ideally allow these savings to be passed on to tenants through a reduced service charge. If the recycling service is paid for by the estate management and represents a cost saving for them, then ideally this should be passed on to tenants to encourage recycling. If a recycling service is run for individual companies on an estate (and to be paid for by them), and waste management is included in the service charge paid by these companies, some liaison may also be required with the estate managers to discuss the possibility of reducing the waste service charge element to account for the recycling that is now being done. Conclusion 25: It may be possible to use larger vehicles such as RCVs on industrial estates, and in some cases business parks, as access to bin storage areas tends to be good. Industrial estates and to a lesser extent business parks generally have good access to yards and bin storage areas when compared to city centre locations. Consequently milk round collections to these sites can use larger dedicated waste vehicles (such as RCVs and top-loader vehicles) to pick up recycling bins (240-litre to 1,100-litre) from individual sites. That said, car parks and access roads can be crowded on some business parks and this should be considered. 6.4 Points relating to construction and demolition waste services Conclusion 26: Recycling services targeting source-segregated construction and demolition waste must be good value for money relative to sending mixed material to landfill As non-inert landfill charges increase (at £8 per annum) the disposal of mixed waste will become more expensive and therefore it should become more worthwhile for SMEs to separate materials for recycling. In particular separating out recyclables such as wood will help to keep other waste ‘inert’ (charged at the £2 rate of tax and generally also cheaper in terms of gate fee) and hence will help to reduce waste cost further Conclusion 27: Services should offer a variety of collection methods and pricing mechanisms to reflect the variable size of SME and construction, demolition and refurbishment project in this sector. Possible pricing mechanisms include: Charging for collection by skip. This may be appropriate for SMEs that are large enough to have space on

their site for skips to separate materials (e.g. an 8 yd3 skip for bricks and rubble charged at £80 to £90; as compared to a general mixed waste skip of the same size charged at £100).

Provision of bulk bags. For SMEs that do not have sufficient on-site space for skips, bulk bags may be provided, which can then be either collected from the SME or delivered by the SME (if it had appropriate transport) to the recycler. For example the provision of 1m3 bag for non-hazardous mixed waste, charged at £55 if collected, £45 if delivered and the provision of same bag for non-hazardous sorted waste, charged at £45 if collected, £35 if delivered.

Provision of a drop-off facility, e.g. at transfer station. Separated materials may be charged by weight, e.g. £10 per tonne of bricks and rubble, as compared to £55 per tonne of general mixed waste, where a weighbridge is available (as it will be at most if not all transfer stations). Having no minimum charge (e.g. for one tonne) is also helpful as the large number of small traders in this sector may be more inclined to separate and drop off relatively small quantities of waste (say 50kg to 100kg rather than tonnes).


http://www.recyclenowpartners.org.uk/

Appendix: Key data from trials

Table 1 Axion construction trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Construction, demolition and refurbishment Materials Segregated construction waste: timber, bricks &

rubble, soil, metal, glass, plastic & plasterboard Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited

Target: 45 Actual: 51

Type of charging Charges dependent on 1) Choice of collection option; 2) Material type; 3) Size of Skip; 4) Distance from waste carrier; and 5) Segregated or mixed waste.

Ratio of recycling cost to general waste cost for SME

88% (based on ADS costs for collection of skips)

% conversion (by all methods) of total approached

Direct Mail – 2% Cold Visits – 52% Bacon Butty Events – 8% Direct Enquiries & Specific Leads – 33%

Frequency of collection On Request – 66% Monthly – 2% Fortnightly – 8% Weekly – 2% 2-4 times/week – 12% Daily – 10%

Total quantity collected 6,001 tonnes (including 3,200 tonnes from one major site clearance)

Average kg per business (June only) 54,900 kg

Average kg per collection per business (June only)

3,390 kg

Cost of service to trial partner per month

£800 (Aggrecycle)

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne £17.78 (Aggrecycle) Net income to trial partner per business served per month

See Note 1

Note 1: The trial formed a part of the service provided by the project partners, who were unable to separate out the income generated from collections & materials, from their regular business.


Table 2 Axion IE&BP trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Industrial Estate Units Materials Paper, Cardboard, Plastic Film Waste Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited

Target: 45 Actual: 3 host businesses & 27 satellite businesses recruited (Non-Managed Estates: 2 hosts and 3 satellites; Managed Estates: 1 host and 24 satellites)

Type of charging Variable through the trial Ratio of recycling cost to general waste cost for SME

Estimated at 30%


Non-managed estates – Direct Mail + Telesales + Visit = 1.1% Managed estates – contact with the estate management only = 25%

Frequency of collection N/A – Skips collected when full. Total quantity collected 2,680 kg Average kg per business 89.33 kg Average kg per collection per business 29.78 kg Cost of service to trial partner per month

Unknown (See Note 1)

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne Unknown (See Note 1) Net income to trial partner per business served per month

Net income unavailable (See Note 2)

Note 1: No costs were available as the trial formed part of the partner’s usual business. Note 2: The company has long-term contracts with UK paper mills, and income related directly to the sale of

materials from the trial was therefore unavailable (although minimal).

Table 3 Bexley Council trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Food waste producers Materials Food waste Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited

Target: 60-75 Actual: 61

Type of charging £126 (excluding VAT) per year for bin provision (240-litre) and collection. This charge included 50 liners; after these, liners charged for separately, as ordered, at 30 p. each.


Estimate of 71%


13%

Frequency of collection Weekly Total quantity collected 25,000 kg (January to June) Average kg per business 163 kg (June only) Average kg per collection per business 50kg (estimate) Cost of service to trial partner per month Unknown – falls within council budget Cost of service to trial partner per tonne Unknown – falls within council budget Net income to trial partner per business served per month

£0 (no income – service supplied at cost)


Table 4 Bridgend CBC trial: key performance data Type of business targeted All SMEs on industrial estate Materials Paper, cardboard, glass bottles and jars, cans and

various plastics Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited

Target: 30 Actual: 28 recruited (1 drop-out)

Type of charging 3-month free trial followed by £5 fixed weekly service charge


25%


40%

Frequency of collection Weekly Total quantity collected 10,815 kg Average kg per business 111.5 kg Average kg per collection per business 27.9 kg Cost of service to trial partner per month

£2,000

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne £800 Net income to trial partner per business served per month

-£8

Table 5 CESHI trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Hospitality sector Materials Food waste Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited

Target: 6 Actual: 6 (however 1 is not an SME)

Type of charging Free Ratio of recycling cost to general waste cost for SME

N/A


19%

Frequency of collection N/A Total quantity collected 13,795 kg (for all 6 businesses, for 6 months’ use

of unit) Average kg per business 2,949 kg (from data to end of December 2007) Average kg per collection per business No collections Cost of service to trial partner per month

N/a (no ongoing cost to trial partner)

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne N/a (no ongoing cost to trial partner) Net income to trial partner per business served per month

No income


Table 6 ECT trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Commercial catering outlets (restaurants, pubs,

cafés, clubs, hotels) Materials Food waste Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited

Target: 160 (revised to 125 during the trial) Actual: 90

Type of charging Free for first 3 months (for first 80 customers), followed by charge of £5 + VAT per lift of a 140-litre bin and £8 + VAT per lift for a 240-litre bin. Also charged for liners – £2.50 for 25 x 30/35-litre liners, £5.00 for 20 x 60-litre liners.


360%


12%

Frequency of collection Weekly or twice weekly Total quantity collected 73,592 kg Average kg per business 292 kg (June only) Average kg per collection per business 93 kg (June only) Cost of service to trial partner per month

£7,233


-£40.94

Table 7 First Mile trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Retail, offices and SMEs in food-related activities Materials Paper, glass, card, plastic bottles, container glass,

aluminium and steel Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited


Type of charging Pre-paid service charged at 77p per sack (+ VAT) with no contract


67%


9.5%

Frequency of collection Daily – 56% 2-4 times/week – 25% Weekly – 19%

Total quantity collected 112,915 kg (January to June) Average kg per business 200 kg (June only) Average kg per collection per business 4.5 kg (June only) Cost of service to trial partner per month

£5,520


£3


Table 8 Groundwork trial: key performance data Type of business targeted SMEs located on Langthwaite Business Park Materials Cardboard & Paper, Wood, Plastics, Metal and

Glass Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited


Type of charging Membership fee charged. Amount charged was determined by number of employees and level of recyclable waste produced by the business.


Not known See Note 1


On-site visit (warm and cold) – 81% Phone call & site visit – 13% Phone call only – 6% Direct Mail only – 0%

Frequency of collection No collections carried out to businesses. Businesses dropped off their recyclable waste at a designated recycling point which was open Mon – Fri, 10am – 12 noon.

Total quantity collected 13,845kg (between 23rd April and 30th June 2007). Average kg per business 442.9 kg (June only, based on all businesses

recruited, not just those active in trial period). Average kg per collection per business 233.1 kg (June only, per drop-off) Cost of service to trial partner per month

£10,603 (based on Groundwork’s costs for June only)

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne £1,828 (based on Groundwork’s costs for the entire trial period)

Net income to trial partner per business served per month

-£342 (June only, based on 31 businesses and Groundwork’s costs).

Note 1:The business park is served by a variety of waste collection companies including Local Authority waste collection services. Businesses are charged on a per-lift basis for their general waste, so this cannot be equated or compared accurately to the charge for using the recycling point during the trial period.


Table 9 The Laundry trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Multi-occupancy buildings, primary offices Materials Mixed paper, cardboard, cans and plastic bottles Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited

Target: 18 buildings with 50% of non-recycling tenants recruited Actual: 20 buildings, 17 at 50% or over for non-recyclers

Type of charging Eurobin provided free of charge to building. Pay as you go pricing system of 95p per sack or sticker, plus delivery and VAT


83%


23% for buildings contacted. Within the buildings which signed up, 44% for SMEs.

Frequency of collection 2-4 times / week – 18% Weekly – 22% Fortnightly – 53% Monthly – 7%

Total quantity collected 6,380.5 kg (January to June) Average kg per business 33 kg (June only) Average kg per collection per business 11.8kg (June only) Cost of service to trial partner per month

£9,088 (based on running the service for a full year)

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne £3,574 (based on cost for 6 months of trial and total tonnage collected)


-£75 per SME (-£384 per building)


Table 10 LEEP IE&BP trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Businesses based on industrial estates and

business parks Materials Confidential and non-confidential paper,

cardboard, cans, plastic bottles, plastic cups, printer cartridges, mobile phones and chargers, drinks cartons and fluorescent lighting tubes.

Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited

Target: 75 Actual: 46 (See Note 1)

Type of charging ‘Pay as you go’ based on quantities for each uplift Ratio of recycling cost to general waste cost for SME

Not known


Mailshot: 1% Mailshot and follow-up call: 13% 9 SMEs were recruited through referral. (See Note 1)

Frequency of collection Twice weekly – 2% Weekly – 11% Fortnightly –66% Monthly – 17% On demand – 4% See Note 2.

Total quantity collected Total 64,022 kg Breakdown: Commingled recycling 7,920 kg Cardboard only, 38,032 kg Paper only 12,104 kg Paper & Cardboard 5,940 kg Other 23 kg Plastic cups 3 kg

Average kg per business 334.4 kg (for June)

Average kg per collection per business 174.4 kg (for June)

Cost of service to trial partner per month

Unavailable – see Note 3

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne Unavailable – see Note 3 Net income to trial partner per business served per month

Estimated to be £30 per SME per month.

Note 1: 22 businesses were signed up all together from one business centre (Castlebrae). Note 2: Note that these figures are for June. Throughout the trial the frequency of collection for each client changed as they adapted to the service. Note 3: LEEP were not able to provide this information, as the figures are embedded in their existing operations.


Table 11 LEEP IT trial: Key performance data Type of business targeted Accountants, legal profession, banking, insurance,

and finance, health services and social work, charities and NGOs, estate agents, advertising, design, and media

Materials IT equipment including monitors, PCs, printers, and fax machines


Target: 150 Actual: 322 (150 recruited and had collection; 172 recruited but not had collection in trial period, due to use service later in year)

Type of charging ‘Pay as you go’ based on quantities for each uplift Ratio of recycling cost to general waste cost for SME

Not known


Mailshot: less than 0.1% Mailshot and telesales: 9% Statistics are based on total of 150. 24 SMEs were recruited by ‘other’ means and as a result of press releases, which involved follow-up calls and 1 visit.

Frequency of collection All collections are done on an on-demand basis. Total quantity collected 31,954 kg Average kg per business 53.0 kg (for June only) Average kg per collection per business 248.5 kg (for June only) Cost of service to trial partner per month

Estimated to be in excess of £3,000

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne Estimated to be at least £94 Net income to trial partner per business served per month

-£36.50 over whole trial period (averaging -£6.10 per business per month)

Table 12 Mid Devon Community Recycling trial: key performance data Type of business targeted All types of SMEs, especially retail and hospitality Materials Corrugated cardboard, office paper, mixed paper,

newspapers and magazines, container glass, metal cans, plastic bottles, plastic film, confidential paper waste



Type of charging Customers pay to purchase branded bags Ratio of recycling cost to general waste cost for SME

50% (estimate)


21%

Frequency of collection Weekly Total quantity collected 86477.65 kg Average kg per business 128 kg (June only) Average kg per collection per business 37 kg (June only) Cost of service to trial partner per month

c. £3,000

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne c. £188 Net income to trial partner per business served per month

c. -£4



Table 13 Urban Mines trial: key performance data Type of business targeted Food manufacturers and restaurants/cafés

producing food waste Materials Food Waste Target for recruitment and actual numbers recruited


Type of charging £2.35 per lift (regardless of no. of bins) Ratio of recycling cost to general waste cost for SME

Approximately 28% to 39% of general waste. Approximately 68% of rendering costs.


Direct Mail – 0% Appointment – 26% Telesales – conversion to appointments as above Referral – 0% Cold calling – 33%

Frequency of collection Weekly collection every Saturday Total quantity collected 12,646 kg Average kg per business 362 kg (excluding the 10-tonne one-off collection

from a pet food manufacturer). Average kg per collection per business 76 kg Cost of service to trial partner per month

£1,192 (TEG Environmental) See Note 1

Cost of service to trial partner per tonne £332 See Note 2


£36 (not including all costs) See Note 3

Note 1: Based on a 6-month period (Jan – Jun) covering wages for staff attending meetings & site

visits. Note 2: Based on a total tonnage of 21.54 tonnes (including the 10 tonne one-off collection from a

pet food manufacturer – Phase 1). Note 3: Based on 27 businesses – Phase 2 (excluding the pet food manufacturer).

www.wrap.org.uk/sme

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhanh
View:	242 times
Download:	4 times

Executive Summary Evaluation of recycling feasibility ... Feasibility Trials.pdf · Evaluation of...

Documents