SPMT12 002:The Market Potential and Demand for Product Re-use Introduction...

SPMT12_002:The Market Potential and Demand for Product Re-use

Introduction

SPMT12_002:The Market Potential and Demand for Product Re-use

Introduction

Project no: 1859

November 2012

Resource Futures

CREATE Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol BS1 6XN

Tel: 0117 930 4355

Fax: 0117 929 7283

www.resourcefutures.co.uk

Document details/quality control sheet

Report prepared for:

Collaborative Waste, Resources and Sustainable Consumption Evidence Programme, Defra

Project team:

Resource Futures: Billy Harris, Coralline Guillon, Sam Reeve.

BioIS: Clementine O‟Conor, Gina Anderson

BioRegional: Jonathan Essex, Jane Hersey

Advisors and support: Craig Anderson (Furniture Re-use Network), Nick Francis (Independent), Matt George (Oxfam), Emma Hallett (REalliance), Caroline Lee-Smith (Independent).

Checked by: Sam Reeve Operations Director [email protected] 07769 682 778

File name: SMPT_002_Introduction Version: 01 Status: confidential Date: November 2012

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to thank: Bill Addis (Buro Happold), Julian Allwood (Cambridge University), Ross Barry (LM Barry), David Beale (Warwickshire Re-use Forum), Ann Beavis (Premier Sustain), Alistair Bromhead (British Furniture Manufacturers‟ Association), Scott Butler (ERP), Howard Button (National Federation of Demolition Contractors), Sarah Burgess (Federation of Mater Builders), Peter Butt (Wood Recyclers Association), Willie Cade and Sarah Commes (PC Builders and Recyclers), Cristina Osoro Cangas (Charity Retail Association), Melanie Chilton (WRAP), Sarah Clayton (WRAP), Mark Collinson and Malcolm Waddell (WRAP), Daniel O‟Connor (WARPit), Tony Curran (University of Southampton), Corey Dehmey (R2 Solutions), Doyle Delph (Good360), Bill Dunster (ZedFactory), Sepp Eisenreigler (RUSZ, Austria), Adam Elman (Marks and Spencer), Sean Feeney (Environcom), Dr. Colin Fitzpatrick (University of Limerick), Cat Fletcher (Freegle), Jane Gardner (Carpet Recycling UK), Gary Griffiths (RDC), Emma Hallett (ReAlliance), Gilli Hobbs (BRE), Tony Hutchinson (RIDBA), Keith James (WRAP), Thornton Kay (Salvo), Alistair Kerr (Wood Panel Industry Federation), Charlie Law (BAM), Gillian Lipton (Monsoon Trust), Eric Long (Comet), Liz Marshall (Newlife Trading), Richard Mehmed (National Community Wood Recycling Project), Adrian Murphy (NISP), Maxine Narburgh (Bright Green), Sean Nicholson (Microsoft UK), Rebecca Owens (Recipro), Paul Ozanne (Salvation Army Trading Company), Alison Page (Bulky Matters), Sharon Parsons (B&Q), Adam Paul (Forest Recycling Project), Richard Peagram (HP), Andrew Pears (Kotuku), Ellen Petts (Cleanstream Carpets), Andrew Pitman (TRADA), Barbara Powell (Marriott Hotels International), Julian Price (Shropshire Housing Alliance), Stuart Proud (Surplus Match), Andy Reade, David Roman (British Heart Foundation), David Rose (Portal Power), Richard Ryll (Clear Environment), Mono Sanger (Bath Stone Reclamation), David Shorthouse (Floorex), Kate and Richard Snow (Oxford Wood Recycling), Kevin Sukhdeo (ReStore), James Thompson (Shropshire Council), Steve Tomlin, Mike Webster (TRAID), Alan Wheeler (Textile Recycling Association).

mailto:[email protected]

Market potential and demand for product re-use: Introduction

November 2012 4

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 Policy background ............................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Aims and objectives of the project .................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Project scope and definitions of re-use ............................................................................................ 6

1.4 Definition of re-use and preparation for re-use ................................................................................. 6

2. Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Orientation ........................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Strand 1: assessing technical potential for re-use ............................................................................ 8

2.3 Strand 2: assessing market demand and conditions ........................................................................ 9

2.3.1 The flow of materials in the economy................................................................................... 9

2.3.2 Baseline .............................................................................................................................. 11

2.3.3 Market supply ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.3.4 Market demand .................................................................................................................. 11

2.3.5 Barriers and opportunities .................................................................................................. 11

2.3.6 Measures to increase re-use .............................................................................................. 12

2.4 Strand 3: identifying innovation and best practice .......................................................................... 13

3. Orientation ........................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1.1 Secondary Products Considered ....................................................................................... 14

3.1.2 Paint ................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.3 Pallets and other industrial packaging ............................................................................... 15

3.1.4 Glass bottles and other glass container packaging ........................................................... 16

3.1.5 Bicycles .............................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.6 Children‟s items .................................................................................................................. 18

4. Structure of the report ......................................................................................................................... 19


November 2012 5

1. Introduction

This document and the associated product specific report modules (furniture, small WEEE, large WEEE, textiles and construction and demolition) present the results of a research project to assess the market potential and demand for re-use for a range of products in England. The research is drawn together in the conclusions module report where the view across all products is drawn together. In addition, there is some brief consideration of paint, bicycles, consumer packaging, pallets and drums and children‟s goods; these items are discussed in Section 3 below.

1.1 Policy background

There are a number of policy drivers behind the research, of which the most important is the Waste Framework Directive. The 2008 revision of the Waste Framework Directive produced a revised waste hierarchy, as shown below:

Table 1: The waste hierarchy

Prevention: Using less material in design and manufacture. Keeping products for longer; re-use. Using less hazardous materials

Preparing for re-use: Checking, cleaning, repairing, refurbishing, whole items or spare parts

Recycling: Turning waste into a new substance or product. Includes composting if it meets quality protocols

Other recovery: Includes anaerobic digestion, incineration with energy recovery, gasification and pyrolysis which produce energy (fuels, heat and power) and materials from waste; some backfilling

Disposal: Landfill and incineration without energy recovery Table from Defra: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/legislation/waste-hierarchy/

Direct re-use, where the item does not enter the waste stream is included in „prevention‟ and preparation for re-use applies to items that have entered the waste stream. This stage includes selecting items suitable for re-use.

Whereas previously the waste hierarchy was recommended as the foundation of waste policy, the revised Directive requires Member States to apply the hierarchy as an order of priorities when evaluating and implementing policy. The Directive also requires each Member State to establish a national waste prevention programme by 12 December 2013, and a commitment to this was affirmed in the Government‟s 2011 Waste Policy Review. Defra is currently undertaking a review of the waste hierarchy guidance.

The Waste Policy Review also emphasises the importance of moving away from a tonnage-based approach to waste, towards a system based on carbon impacts. This also acts to incentivise re-use, since re-use generally has a higher carbon value than recycling (since it reduces the need for reprocessing and manufacture of new products and their associated carbon impacts). However, the WRAP (2011) Benefits of Re-use case studies suggest that the relative environmental impacts of recycling and re-use depend on the product.

Re-use also has policy relevance beyond the environment, with the potential to produce economic and social benefits. Re-use generates economic activity, provides jobs, and when combined with high quality recycling can prove less expensive than disposal routes for local authorities. However, it should be noted that, while local residents, re-use organisations and potentially local authorities can benefit from re-use, research suggest that increasing re-use will generally impose a net cost, due to increased collection costs and lost revenue from companies manufacturing and selling new products; for more information see the WRAP Benefits of Re-use studies.

Re-use also provides wide social benefits, including providing a source of reasonably priced goods to the public, in particular, those claiming benefits or on low incomes. Re-use and refurbishment projects have a track record of providing training to disadvantaged people such as the long-term unemployed, young people and people with disabilities. The combination of social and environmental benefits also attracts volunteers, and complements the policy agenda of the Big Society.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/legislation/waste-hierarchy/


November 2012 6

1.2 Aims and objectives of the project

The overall aim of the project was to identify the potential for increasing re-use of a broad range of products across the spectrum of available service pathways (re-use organisations, charity shops, reclamation yards, online exchange etc). The principal objectives were:

Establish a baseline of current re-use. To establish what is currently being re-used in each of the major product streams selected for investigation, and the pathways through which this material is coming to market.

Identify the technical potential for re-use. Provide a figure for the upper level of what could be achieved if market conditions were favourable.

Assess market conditions for increasing current levels of re-use. Evaluate how favourable market conditions are for increasing the level of re-use from the baseline towards the upper limit of technical potential. Key issues to consider included:

o Supply factors – availability of items for re-use o Demand for products – consumer demand for items and current trends o Market barriers – technical problems, sector capacity, attitudinal barriers etc. o Emerging opportunities – changing policies, emerging technologies, online exchange

etc.

Assess potential interventions. Identify a range of measures and actions that might potentially help to increase re-use and provide an estimate (based on the factors above) of their likely impact.

Provide examples of best practice. Produce case studies on best practice to provide examples of activities that can help to increase levels of re-use for particular products. Assess the costs, impacts and potential to replicate the examples and provide additional evidence when considering the impacts of potential interventions.

Identify data gaps. Highlight the most important data gaps in order to inform the direction of future research. Unlike for waste disposal and recycling, which are governed by waste management legislation and have strict data gathering requirements, data for re-use are incomplete and widely scattered. Preparation for re-use is often not recorded separately from recycling, while direct re-use does not enter the waste stream at all.

1.3 Project scope and definitions of re-use

The scope of the project was to examine the potential for re-use in England, across a range of products identified during the orientation phase of the project. The products selected, as mentioned above, were large and small WEEE, furniture, textiles and construction and demolition materials. Food and automobiles were excluded from the project brief. Other products were excluded following the orientation phase – see section 3. Re-use and preparation for re-use were considered across all relevant major pathways, including re-use organisations, online exchange, informal giving, charity shops and reclamation yards. Market destinations for re-use focused mostly on the domestic (English) market, but were not limited to this, and included consideration of export markets.

The decision was made to use tonnes of material diverted as the primary reporting unit and then to estimate the carbon benefits of this material. The available data on end of life arisings and re-use levels are variable in quality, and often contradictory, meaning that reliable tonnage estimates are difficult to obtain. Adding carbon data to the reporting outputs (applying uncertain conversion figures to already uncertain tonnages) would have reduced the reliability and usefulness of the outputs. Where carbon offset values per tonne re-used are available, these have been presented as additional data.

1.4 Definition of re-use and preparation for re-use

According to the Waste Framework Directive, “‟re-use‟ means any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived.”

The distinction between re-use and recycling is relatively straightforward for most consumer goods, but less clear cut for some commercial and industrial or construction and demolition wastes. For example, soil (a material rather than a product) and recycled aggregate can both be recycled but are often claimed to be re-used (see the Construction and Demolition module for more details). For both consumer goods and construction and demolition wastes, the terminology is sometimes confused.


November 2012 7

It was also necessary to consider what constitutes the “first life” of an item, and whether an item could be re-used if it had not first been used. This is an issue, for example, in the case of construction site surplus that would normally be recycled or sent for disposal. In this report, re-use includes redeployment of surplus purchased stock, but excludes surplus manufacture – for example, reduced-price retail of end-of-line stock through discount book chains was not counted as re-use as it is defined as sale of a new product. The research has focussed on re-use of whole items and not component parts.

The project scope specifically excluded industrial clean operations, green product design and product service innovation. However, it has been necessary to touch briefly on product service models and remanufacture as these are existing models for securing the return to use of products.

The scope of the project includes both direct re-use and preparation for re-use. When discussing these topics together and “in general” the term “re-use” has been used to signify both, and it is made clear in the text where the terms are being used in their technical sense.

When considering the distinction, all items entering the waste stream have been defined under preparation for re-use. Under the terms of the Waste Framework Directive: “‟preparing for re-use‟ means checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or components of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without any other pre-processing.” Items that have become waste are highly unlikely to be re-used without at least the “checking” stage.

Conversely, items that have been donated specifically for re-use – and have therefore not become waste – are defined under re-use; this applies regardless of any checking, cleaning or repairing operations.

As such, preparation for re-use is not the same as refurbishment (bringing a used product back to an as-new condition) or repair and testing prior to re-use, which can take place regardless of whether or not an item has entered the waste stream.

2. Methodology

The project was divided into four parts:

Orientation

Strand 1 – assessing technical potential for re-use

Strand 2 – assessing market demand and conditions

Strand 3 – identifying innovation and best practice

It is noted that the nature of the project changed during the course of conducting the research in the light of the complementary Waste Prevention and Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACC) research being carried out concurrently with this project. It was agreed with Defra that this project would liaise with the MACC project to assist with populating aspects of the model with re-use tonnage data. This decision meant that the research focused on sourcing and verifying tonnage data around re-use that could be used in the MACC tool.

The following sections set out the methodology used for each of strand of the research. Refer to the conclusion module for further details on the challenges and barriers faced in conducting this research.

2.1 Orientation

The orientation part of the project comprised a review of literature and data. Sources used included existing reports, Environment Agency data and preliminary discussions with market actors. The principle aims of the orientation were to:

Establish a working estimate of baseline re-use levels for a range of products.

Scope the market barriers and opportunities affecting re-use of these products.

Establish a working estimate of re-use potential.

Select from the products examined a list of five primary products to be investigated in more


November 2012 8

detail in the main body of the research.

Produce a product segmentation, breaking down each of the primary product groups into subgroups (e.g. small domestic appliances within small WEEE) for more detailed analysis.

Identify additional literature and data to inform this investigation and identify suitable candidates for interview.

2.2 Strand 1: assessing technical potential for re-use

Strand 1, which aimed to assess the technical potential for re-use of the primary product groups, used mostly data gathered from a review of existing literature, supplemented by interviews with industry actors.

The research ran up against a number of barriers. There is a shortage of published data on product longevity of household goods, but more importantly this data is of limited relevance in determining potential for re-use. The traditional approach to assessing product lifetime is based on time to product failure, which is determined by the lifetime of the shortest-lived component

i. There is no implication that

the product cannot be repaired. In contrast, product lifetime in the construction sector is often determined by the life of the building, which is generally not due to limits on product longevity. The cut-off point at which an item becomes non-reusable is almost always determined by social and market factors. For example, attitudes as to what constitutes an acceptable product, the cost of repair, or the decision to replace a building with a new one, may mean re-use is no longer regarded as desirable. This does not mean there is a technical or technological inability to re-use the item.

While it might be possible to conduct an analysis of product survival and failure distribution, with failure defined using some other metric (e.g. time until a failure that would cost more to repair than the cost of a replacement item), such a theoretical study would be sensitive to changes in the cost of repair and would also have to quantify obsolescence and upgrade costs.

In the absence of published work of this kind, the decision was taken to base estimates of technical potential for re-use on the following data:

Current baseline data on re-use for items being used directly (i.e. not entering the waste stream).

End of life arisings in the waste stream for products being examined (available through waste arisings and analysis data, WEEE reporting outputs etc).

Estimates of the reusability of items in the waste stream (based on existing research and on interviews with actors in the re-use sector).

Trends in the change of product use, which changes the nature of waste arisings, and their

reusability in the future. To determine the proportion of items in the waste stream suitable for re-use, an estimate was made based on a handling methodology that maximises potential reusability. For example, WRAP‟s 2012 study of bulky waste composition showed that items from bulky waste collections tend to have a lower potential for re-use than items at HWRCs. This is due to handling and transit damage and damage caused by goods being left outside for several days prior to collection. Likewise, on-site segregation can enable re-use that is not possible once items have been thrown in a skip on a construction site. For the purposes of this study, potential reusability of bulky waste collection items not currently entering re-use has been calculated on the basis of HWRC reusability rates.

Interviews with those in the re-use sector generally supported the view that, for the product groups examined, re-use is only economically feasible if an item requires very simple refurbishment, unless the product has a very high commercial value. In addition, existing research

ii suggests that on-site

evaluation of re-use potential tends to overstate reusability. As such, the proportion of items in the waste stream suitable for re-use (except in the case of construction, where a different approach was used) was defined as items suitable for re-use in their current condition.

Our working definition of technical potential for re-use is what might reasonably be achieved under current conditions if services were run with an emphasis on re-use, without compromising cost-effectiveness.

The scope of Strand 1 also included investigating technical barriers to re-use. Technical barriers cover issues such as functionality, obsolescence and disassembly. Investigation was mainly through literature


November 2012 9

review and interviews. In almost all cases, the technical barriers to re-use were not absolute, but had the effect of increasing the costs of refurbishment and re-use or requiring a different approach to be taken. Technical issues therefore pose a market barrier to re-use.

2.3 Strand 2: assessing market demand and conditions

The output of Strand 1 represents a maximum level of what might be achieved. Strand 2, assessing market potential, investigates the current baseline level of re-use and the opportunities and barriers to closing the gap between this baseline and the technical potential.

Strand 2 comprised the following deliverables:

Estimation of the current baseline level of re-use for each primary product group, including an assessment of the various pathways to market

Evaluation of market supply and demand for product re-use including determining trends

Identification of market barriers and opportunities to increasing levels of re-use

Identification of a range of potential measures and interventions that might encourage increased re-use, with an estimate of their likely impact.

2.3.1 The flow of materials in the economy

Estimation of a baseline for re-use is not straightforward, since it exists relatively independently of, and cannot be derived from, broader material flows in the economy. While an analysis of material flows is outside the scope of this research, consideration of flows is relevant to understanding the benefits of re-use within the broader agenda of the circular economy, and has some methodological relevance in assessing re-use potential.

Traditional mass balance approaches provide limited insight into the level of re-use in the economy. However, the exercise can still prove worthwhile for sense-checking data on re-use statistics for clear overestimates or double counting. In addition, the material flow in an economy can provide an overview of the impact of re-use on raw material extraction and the quantity of waste sent to landfill.

The Sankey diagram (Figure 1) shows an abstract throughput model of the economy, neither growing

nor shrinking (future material demand = current material demand). The diagram assumes the initial

material demand of the economy comprises 100% raw material input but that over time, as the material

moves from left to right in the diagram, new raw materials are displaced by increasing levels of reusable

and recyclable material. The diagram assumes that everything entering the system must leave at some

point, including stockpiled materials. Under these assumptions it is clear that new raw material inputs

are equal to outputs (waste to landfill). Raw materials enter the system from “outside”, waste leaves the

system, and recycling and reusable goods feed back in.


November 2012 10

Figure 1: Material throughput Sankey diagram

In this abstract economy, we can say the following:

The amount of new goods (and by-products) produced is materially equal to the combined inputs from raw material and recycled material.

The amount of waste is equal to the amount of raw material entering the system over the long term.

When the rate of input of raw material equals the rate of waste production, the amount of materials stockpiled in the economy (items in use, storage etc) remains static.

Of course, economies do not work like this, since over time the size of the material stockpile has tended

to grow.

As re-use occurs within this stockpile its proportion is not directly related to the input of raw materials into the economy, the amount of recycling, the amount of new goods produced or the amount of waste produced. As such, the amount of re-use activity in an economy cannot be derived through a mass balance approach. Re-use has the effect of preventing material flowing out of the stockpile of socially useful goods, but this could either reduce the need for raw material inputs or lead to the stockpile increasing. This means that data on levels of re-use needs to be gathered empirically.

The above diagram also shows where information on product first lifetimes and technical lifetimes is useful. While evaluating re-use in terms of the tonnage that could be diverted to re-use each year tells us a great deal about the potential capacity of the sector, it does not tell us about the environmental impacts of re-use. The environmental benefits of re-use lie in product life extension. The extension of a product‟s life does not produce an intrinsic environmental benefit; rather the benefit lies in the displacement of new goods that are not purchased as a result of the need being met through re-use. Each item reused thus has a “displacement” value, equal to the proportion of a new purchase that its re-use prevents. This value can be influenced by:

The typical first-use and second-use lifetimes of an item. If an item has a typical first-use lifetime of 5 years and a typical second-use lifetime of only one, then reusing it will increase its life by 20%. As such, it cannot offset more than 20% of a new purchase.

Goods that are re-used may be displacing new goods, or they may be additional purchases.


November 2012 11

Initial findings from an unpublished 2012 WRAP report on the „displacement effect of re-use‟ suggest that the average offset value of all products in the British economy is 27%. In other words, 27% of second-hand purchases displaced what would otherwise have been a purchase of a new item.

Even if an offset value could be determined reliably, in some cases other environmental factors come into play. For example, if a re-used washing machine is less water and energy efficient than a new one, then the environmental benefit from extending its life might be reduced or eliminated by its extra water or energy use – though this is becoming less of an issue, as efficiency of electrical items has hit a plateau in recent years. Consideration of the environmental benefits of re-use is beyond the scope of this report. However, where available, data on product lifetimes has been included in the product specific reports.

2.3.2 Baseline

Some estimates of the baseline levels of re-use were produced using published data on product arisings and work on current levels of re-use across various market pathways. This was supplemented by further data from re-use organisations (for example the Furniture Re-use Network, the Charity Retail Association, the National Community Wood Recycling Project) and private sector organisations obtained through interviews. An estimate of the breakdown of products being re-used (e.g. different types of furniture within furniture re-use) is made when data was available.

2.3.3 Market supply

Supply issues include the amount of material potentially available for re-use (given in strand 1), issues affecting availability of items suitable for re-use (e.g. collection systems, methods of working, costs of refurbishment) and those impacting on the capacity of the relevant pathways to accept goods (e.g. cost of premises for re-use organisations). These factors interact with one another – for example, the unit-cost of collecting or refurbishing an item is partly determined by existing infrastructure and scale of operations, which in turn requires a suitable amount of material available for re-use to support it. Supply issues were identified through the literature review and through the interviews with market actors.

2.3.4 Market demand

Market demand reflects the extent to which customers are aware of and willing to buy a product, and the price they are willing to pay. In a functioning market, the demand for products is equal to the amount of product sold in that market.

In the context of this report, demand has been evaluated in terms of the subjective desirability of a re-used product to consumers (in relation to household goods in particular, using published work on consumer attitudes to re-use) and in terms of the level of demand experienced by sellers relative to supply. Goods that are desired by sellers because they are easy to sell and command a good price have a high demand, while goods that are hard to shift have a low demand. This evaluation does not refer to an absolute amount of material that can be sold, but to the potential to expand upon current levels of re-use – for example, the UK has a large and mature second-hand clothing sector, run primarily through charity shops, but this demand is being effectively met by the existing level of supply.

Market demand is not a fixed quantity but a function of perceived benefit to the consumer and price. Theoretically, market demand can accommodate any quantity of material, provided the price is low enough. The issue then becomes the price point at which it is possible to supply the product while continuing to break even. In a perfect market, the number of items sold is determined by the demand for items at this price. A detailed economic analysis of the supply of and demand for re-used products is, however, outside the scope of this research.

2.3.5 Barriers and opportunities

Barriers and opportunities affect both the supply or demand side of the market. Barriers have been defined as anything that has an inhibiting effect on supply or demand, and reduces the size of the market for re-use. Identifying specific barriers is useful because knowing what is holding re-use back provides an opportunity to intervene. Examples of barriers include:

negative public attitudes regarding the purchase of second-hand products.

a lack of capacity in the key re-use pathways.


November 2012 12

incentives elsewhere within the waste industry that discourage re-use.

technical issues regarding product disassembly and repair.

requirements around refurbishment and fitness for purpose of goods.

legislation that requires reusable items to be treated as waste.

Opportunities have been defined as current or projected developments that encourage the supply of or demand for re-used items. Opportunities include new and emerging markets, technological developments that increase the possibility of re-use or policy changes that incentivise re-use.

Barriers and opportunities have been identified through the literature review and through interviews with market actors. These have been presented in order of perceived priority, and note made of any pathways or specific products that are particularly affected.

Defra has convened a Re-use Forum with the support of WRAP which has three working groups:

Value of second hand goods

Re-use infrastructure (previously just storage)

Sharing experience

The aim is to make it easier for more re-use to occur and the primary objective of the working groups is to identify barriers and priorities for actions. It is suggested that this report is made available to members of the Re-use Forum, some of whom will already be aware of this research, to ensure it is taken into account when considering practical actions and how to overcome the barriers to re-use.

2.3.6 Measures to increase re-use

Following the literature review and interviews, a range of measures were identified that would be likely to have a positive impact on re-use. Key sources of ideas for measures to increase re-use included:

Measures mentioned in the literature reviewed

Suggestions from interviewees

Barriers and opportunities identified earlier in the research

Innovations identified in the research for the case studies

With the exception of construction, for each measure an estimate was made of the potential impact of the measure in terms of the number of tonnes of material entering re-use. For these estimates, findings from the interviews and literature were combined with examples taken from case studies (conducted both for this research and previously published work). These were used to derive assumptions (presented clearly in the text) that were used to calculate the potential impact of each measure. While the accuracy of these assumptions cannot be guaranteed, the reasoning behind them has been presented in order that the reader may scrutinise them and reach their own conclusions.

A similar approach has been taken in regard to estimating the likely costs of measures. A simple estimate of cost (in terms of low / medium / high) has been presented where possible; to assist in identifying the potential cost of the intervention. Where available, consideration has been made of cost data gathered during the course of the research, including case study data, interview responses and information from the literature review. The costs represent an estimate of different measures relative to the other measures considered. For the non-construction wastes, the estimated costs have been divided between:

Costs to the taxpayer (costs to government)

Costs to firms (for example, investment, operational and administrative costs)

Costs to consumers (though increased product prices)

Finally, carbon impacts of the measures are discussed briefly. As stated in the introduction, these carbon values are calculated from figures using a CO2 value per tonne of product re-used, which are derived from either published work or conversations with key project stakeholders, including WRAP.


November 2012 13

2.4 Strand 3: identifying innovation and best practice

Strand 3 of the work involved researching a series of case studies. The key objectives of these case studies was to identify innovation and current best practice, and to inform the assumptions used in estimating the impacts of the measures to promote re-use.

Factors used in selecting the case studies included:

Innovation – illustration of a new or improved way of doing things, that introduces new products to re-use or that target developing markets.

Barriers and opportunities –addressing a barrier or opportunity identified in strand 2.

Likely availability of data – before being selected, case-studies were assessed for the likelihood that they would provide reliable data on:

o The impact o The costs involved

Scalability –the potential to replicate initiatives or to generalise from the costs and impacts to assess the likely costs and impacts of similar projects.

3. Orientation

The orientation phase of the project was conducted as a literature review, with supplementary discussions with industry actors. The main aims of the orientation were to assess the re-use potential for a range of product types, select primary product groups for further investigation, identify additional research and potential interviewees and formulate a research plan for each primary product group.

The products investigated during the orientation phase were:

Furniture

Construction and demolition waste

Carpet and carpet tiles

Mattresses

Clothing

Large WEEE

Small WEEE

Bicycles

Paint

Children‟s items (clothing, prams, toys etc).

Products were investigated and assessed according to a number of criteria:

Current impact of re-use

Potential impact of re-use

Quality of available data

Realistic potential to intervene

Following assessment, the primary product groups selected for further investigation were: large WEEE, small WEEE, furniture, textiles (expanded to include mattresses and carpet and carpet tiles) and construction and demolition waste.

These primary product categories were chosen because there is already some existing level of re-use, which makes it possible to assess data on performance and future potential. Each product category also accounts for a significant quantity of material and was assessed at the orientation stage as having significant potential for increased re-use.

For each of these products groups, a product segmentation was developed in order to guide the research and to enable reporting at a suitable level of detail (for example, while the category of small WEEE is useful for some levels of analysis, it is important to be able to differentiate between a computer and a toaster). This segregation was not intended to provide a comprehensive breakdown of all the subcategories of each product grouping, but to guide the research and the appropriate level of abstraction for the reporting.


November 2012 14

Table 2: Product segmentation

Large WEEE Small WEEE Furniture Textiles Construction and

demolition

Large domestic appliances

IT and telecoms Household hard furniture

Clothing Construction waste

Refrigeration equipment

Consumer equipment

Household soft furniture

Shoes and accessories

Demolition waste

Display screen equipment

Office workstation furniture

Furnishings DIY and home maintenance waste

Small domestic appliances

Office storage furniture

Flooring

Mattresses

Details of the findings for each of the primary product groups can be found in the relevant product modules of this report.

3.1.1 Secondary Products Considered

A number of materials were considered for inclusion as primary products, but were not chosen, on the grounds that the orientation suggested that other product areas showed higher potential. Preliminary findings for each of these product areas, and the reasons for not including them as primary products, are discussed below.

Paint – low tonnage.

Pallets – existing and effective re-use.

Glass bottles – industry opposition and uncertain environmental benefits.

Bicycles – low tonnage.

Children‟s' items – lack of clear product boundaries.

3.1.2 Paint

The UK trade and DIY market for paint was 340 million litres in 2009 (British Coatings Federation, 2011), which equates to around 408,000 tonnes (based on a weight estimate from Community RePaint of 1.2kg per litre of paint).

A proportion of paint sold is not used; estimates of the amount of paint stored in the average household range from 6 to 17 cans

iii. Some of this will be used for occasional maintenance work, while some will

eventually be sent for disposal.

According to Waste Data Flow, 502 tonnes of paint was segregated at HWRCs in 2011 (though this figure seems low, and may be the result of under-reporting). The reusable fraction of this paint waste is not known. Municipal mixed waste arisings for paint (based on DEFRA‟s 2008 Review of municipal waste component analyses) are estimated below:

Table 3: Paint waste arisings

Waste stream Paint arising (tonnes per annum)

Household kerbside 34,000

Commercial kerbside 1,400

HWRC 28,000

Total 63,400

These figures seem rather high when compared with the estimated size of the UK market for new paint, but do seem concurrent with the commonly used estimate of 58 million litres of unused paint each year

iv.


November 2012 15

This latter figure is based on research on paint hoarded by householders, but if we assume that such paint is eventually disposed, and that hoarding and disposal are in approximate equilibrium, then the figure of 63,000 tonnes does make sense. There is no data for commercial and industrial or construction and demolition waste paint arisings – the surveys of commercial and industrial waste arisings record only “chemical wastes”, with no breakdown by waste type.

There are no definitive figures on the amount of paint being re-used. The 65 member organisations of the national Community RePaint network, which take donations of surplus paint from households, businesses and manufacturers, re-used 344,000 litres (approximately 413 tonnes) of paint in 2011. In addition, there is likely to be an unknown degree of informal passing on of paint for re-use, and deployment of surplus paint within the commercial and industrial or construction and demolition sectors. Building Research Establishment notes a potential opportunity for increasing paint re-use from construction waste

v.

Retailer donation and HWRC collections are major sources of paint for re-use. According to a European study of paint re-use

vi:

Paint collected through HWRCs ranged from 343 to 2,330 litres per annum and the quality was rated as “good”.

Paint collected from retailers ranged from 64 to 3,725 litres per annum, and was classified as “excellent”

Paint collected through other methods (e.g. drop off events) generated the lowest volumes (10-726 litres), and quality was classified as “excellent”.

Major barriers to paint re-use that were identified during the orientation phase included:

Lack of public awareness of re-use schemes.

Lack of information on how to properly store used paint in order to prolong its life and keep it in a usable state.

A tendency among consumers to stockpile old paint for future maintenance and touch-up work.

A lack of capacity in the paint re-use sector – many people do not live within the catchment area of a scheme.

Health and safety concerns over some paints and thinners.

Lack of buy in on the part of local authorities and HWRC operators.

A disparity between the types of paint being donated and what is in demand by consumers. For example, white and magnolia are typically in high demand, while there is a higher supply of coloured paint. In addition, schemes may receive lots of small donations of different colours, while donors are likely to be looking for a single colour; this is more of a problem for smaller schemes with fewer resources to store and consolidate paint.

Overall, paint accounts for a small proportion of the UK waste stream, and re-use was considered to have a lower tonnage potential than the primary products that were chosen. Nevertheless, from the initial work, initiatives that might help stimulate and encourage the re-use of paint include.

Work with and encourage paint manufacturers and retailers to divert surplus paint to re-use organisations such as the Community RePaint network. This could be done, for example, through voluntary agreements.

Public education to raise awareness of the opportunity to re-use surplus paint, to discourage excessive hoarding and encourage correct storage.

3.1.3 Pallets and other industrial packaging

Around 35 million wooden pallets were manufactured in the UK in 2010, with an additional 45 million pallets entering the market through re-use

vii. With an assumed average pallet weight of around 18kg,

this equates to 1.44 million tonnes of wooden pallets in circulation, of which 630,000 tonnes are newly produced. The Forestry Commission estimates that around 940,000m

3 of wood was used in new pallet

manufacture, at an approximate weight per m3 for wood of 670kg. This means 630,000 tonnes of wood were used in producing 35 million new pallets (18kg per pallet), while a further 50,000 tonnes were used for refurbishing the remaining 45 million (1.1kg per pallet).


November 2012 16

Wooden pallets are made to be repaired and re-used, and frequently are used 200 times or more before being sent for recycling

1. Many pallets are re-used within organisations, with empty pallets from a

delivery being shipped back for re-use using reverse logistics. Pallets can also be sold to salvage yards.

There are no technical obstacles to reusing wooden pallets; however, it is more difficult to re-use pallets of non-standard sizes, or that are painted or treated.

With 60% of the pallets in circulation on their second (or higher) life, it is clear that pallets are already achieving a high level of re-use. Cost is a major factor here, as new pallets are significantly more expensive than used. In this context, the decision was made to concentrate on products with a lower rate of re-use in order to maximise the potential for improvement.

The orientation phase also looked briefly at industrial plastic and steel drums. Around 12 million 25-litre plastic drums are used annually in the UK

viii. With an approximate average weight of 1.25kg per drum,

this equates to 15,000 tonnes of material, mostly HDPE. Approximately 15% of these drums (2,250kg) are re-used

2. This compares with steel drums, of which around 60% are reconditioned at end-of-life.

Steel drums have a significant re-use expectation, and are serviced by a worldwide, dedicated reconditioning industry through licensed agents. Drum makers provide for the collection of used containers and the supply of reconditioned packaging, making re-use simple and cost-effective

3.

This suggests that there may be potential to attempt to move the re-use rate for plastic drums towards that achieved for steel drums. Plastic drums are suitable for laundering using traditional reconditioning facilities, and are sturdy enough to serve as multi-trip packaging. Durability and robustness has enabled re-use systems for plastic drums to be established in the catering, chemical, photographic, water treatment and crop protection industries.

The most significant barrier to a nationwide takeback system for plastic drums is likely to be the cost to manufacturers of establishing a collection system. This could be addressed through guidance on managing takeback cost-effectively or re-use-focused producer responsibility legislation. If packaging is used for more than one product type, there will also be a need for safety and quality standards, to ensure that containers are suitably decontaminated prior to re-use.

3.1.4 Glass bottles and other glass container packaging

The UK collected 1.6 million tonnes of container glass for recycling in 2010. Of this material, 600,000 tonnes were used in the UK for remelt, 400,000 tonnes were recycled to aggregate and the remaining 600,000 tonnes were either exported or used for the production of glass fibre (figures from Letsrecycle 2012). With a glass recycling rate of 60.7%, this means that just less than 1 million tonnes were disposed of as residual waste.

Baseline levels of glass re-use in the UK are low. Between 1974 and 2006, the market share of refillable milk bottles fell from 94% to 9.7%. The only large-scale deposit and return system for bottle re-use is run by A.G. Barr in Scotland. The company sells around 24 million glass bottles of soft drink per year, mostly in Scotland, and the bottles carry a refundable deposit of 30p. The success of the Barr system has declined over the past 15 years, with the average trip rate for a bottle having fallen from 9-10 to 4-5 over this period

ix. On a smaller scale, Refresh UK sells around 3.5 million bottles of beer a year in

refillable glass bottles, but has also reported difficulties in collecting its bottles for re-use.

The key barriers to glass bottle re-use are:

Multi-trip packaging is generally heavier than lightweight single trip packaging. Each individual packaging unit is thus more resource intensive than the single trip equivalent.

The environmental benefits are highly sensitive to the collection and re-use rate achieved, and to the trip distance required. While re-use is likely to be more environmentally friendly than single use packaging if production is local and transport distances short, the opposite applies when long trips are required. WRAPs 2008 study Refillable glass beverage container systems

1 http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/small_business/business_operations/environmental_regulations

/product_design/10993.html

2 www.findlaw.co.uk/law/small_business/business_operations/environmental_regulations/product_design/10993.html

3 The Industrial packaging Association http://www.theipa.co.uk/steel-drums.htm

http://www.theipa.co.uk/steel-drums.htm


November 2012 17

in the UK suggests that re-use clearly out performs single trip packaging (with closed loop recycling) where capture rates are high and the transport distance is under 100km.

Centralisation of production infrastructure means that packaging typically has to cover a larger distance before it can be re-used.

The growth of import and export markets presents legislative and regulatory barriers. For example, the UK imports a great deal more wine than it produces, and no UK mechanism exists to encourage overseas producers to collect bottles for re-use. However, the growth of bulk importing in large containers, with bottling taking place closer to the point of sale, represents a viable re-use opportunity.

EU competition law prohibits a requirement to use multi-use packaging where this presents an advantage to local producers at the expense of other EU producers. Denmark was forced to rescind its ban on single-use packaging for this reason in 2002.

The cost of setting up a glass bottle return scheme would be high. This would require establishing collection infrastructure and redesign of packaging to withstand the rigours of re-use.

The packaging industry and large retailers are generally opposed to any requirement to introduce multi-trip packaging. Packaging is an important part of a company‟s brand, and there are concerns around packaging becoming dated, or small chips and scratches affecting a product‟s appearance. Any move to introduce a requirement to use multi-trip packaging would meet with political resistance from the packaging industry.

Overall, while the tonnages involved in considering glass packaging re-use are very high, the significant barriers to increasing re-use rates, combined with the unclear environmental impacts, were important factors that led to glass packaging being omitted as a primary product group. Given the tonnages involved, the question of packaging re-use deserves attention, but making an informed decision as to the environmental impacts would require a large-scale, definitive life-cycle assessment of a wide range of scenarios, that falls outside the remit of this study.

3.1.5 Bicycles

There is very little available data on the extent of bicycle re-use in the UK. The best available source of information is the London Re-use Network (2012) Pan-London Bicycle Re-use Network Development Plan.

The report estimates that around 560,000 bicycles are sold each year in the capital, and that 27,500 are discarded – equivalent to 5% of sales, or approximately 413 tonnes. The LRN believe this is a conservative estimate and assumes that 0.1% of total HWRC throughput is bicycles. This is equivalent of approximately 423 tonnes (or 30,000) for London from this one supply route. LRN estimates 90,000 or 16% of new bikes are reusable per year. This equates to approximately 1,260 tonnes. The report states that 99 tonnes of bicycles (around 7,000 units assuming an average weight of 14kg) were collected by the network for re-use or recycling in 2010, with a target to expand this by 442 tonnes by 2016/17. The biggest sources of donations to bicycle re-use organisations are the Metropolitan Police (who donate unclaimed confiscated bicycles) and the public either directly or via HWRCs.

The report includes a general breakdown of bicycles collected, stating that approximately 75% are re-used, 23% decommissioned and recycled and 2% disposed of as waste. The report also states that those which are not re-used are generally stripped for parts, and are thus at least partially re-used. Overall, it therefore seems likely that the vast majority of material collected (by weight) is re-used.

If we assume that the rate of end-of-life arisings nationally is the same as London, then the UK new bicycle market of 3.7 million units per annum would give rise to around 185,000 end-of-life bicycles each year – equivalent to 2,775 tonnes of material.

Assuming a similar baseline recovery and re-use rate nationally as for London (currently around 24%) would produce a UK re-use baseline of 666 tonnes per annum.

By approximately doubling the current level of re-use to around 50% would deliver an increase in re-use of approximately 48,000 bicycles, or 722 tonnes of product.

The assumptions and estimated potential for re-use of bicycles would be measured in the hundreds of tonnes rather than the thousands, and it was for this reason that bicycles were not adopted as one of the


November 2012 18

primary product groups. However potential initiatives that might help stimulate and encourage the re-use of bicycles includes:

Encouraging HWRCs to separate good bicycles and donate them to local re-use projects

Work with Police forces across the country to set up a system for re-use of confiscated bicycles.

3.1.6 Children’s items

Maternity products and products aimed at children, such as clothing and toys, tend to have a short first-use lifespan, as they are quickly outgrown. This rapid obsolescence for the original purchaser provides a potential opportunity for re-use.

Children‟s items, such as buggies, toys and cot frames are one of the most popular product areas in terms of re-use. Focus group research carried out as part of DEFRA‟s (2011) Public understanding of product lifetimes and durability suggested that children‟s goods (excluding clothing) were rated as the most acceptable items in terms of re-use from a potential buyer‟s perspective. Similarly, a DEFRA study of re-use activity via car boot sales

x suggested that toys and baby items were the most frequently

traded items, with 29% of buyers having bought toy or baby items at a car boot sale and these items account for 23% of the weight traded through car boot sales. Given an estimated car boot sale turnover of 60,000 tonnes per year, this equates to 14,000 tonnes of product re-used through this stream alone.

Online exchange is also a major pathway for trade in second hand children‟s items – a Netmums survey found that 38% of respondents sold their old baby items online (though we would not expect to be able to generalise that to the population as a whole) while 36% also donated items to family and friends. A search on Ebay.co.uk on a single day showed 576,901 used maternity items or items for children, with the most common categories of items being toys and games (343,797) and clothes, shoes and accessories (167,516).

The category of children‟s items was added very late to the orientation phase (after the primary product groups had been chosen) as a follow up to the DEFRA work on car boot sales, and confirms the conclusion of that study that this is an important area of re-use.

It was not included as a primary product group, due to time constraints and because progress had already been made on the strand 1 and stand 2 research for the primary product groups. There are also significant issues around establishing what to count within the category of children‟s items, and difficulties in establishing both a re-use baseline and estimate of current potential.


November 2012 19

4. Structure of the report

The reporting in the primary product areas (furniture, large and small WEEE, textiles and construction and demolition waste) is structured into independent modules. These modules are in turn addressed by a common conclusion and summary document, that attempts to draw together common themes and lessons learned across all the product areas. Finally, the case studies and interviews are presented in appendices. The report structure is illustrated below, in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Structure of the report

* Executive Summary is supplied as a PowerPoint presentation.

i Wilkins, D. (2002) “The bathtub curve and product failure behavior”, Hot Wire (issue 21) ii WRAP (2011) Realising the value of household WEEE.

iii See Kerrell, E. and Heaven, S. (1993) Attitudes to household hazardous waste: the waste wagon

survey results, and Heaven, S., Howe, I., Kerrell, E. and Mason, A. (1993) The Leeds Paint Exchange report iv Lloyd (2012) Opening a can of paint: identifying the factors that influence the success of third sector

paint re-use schemes in England, unpublished dissertation. v Environment Agency (2008) The Economic and Environmental Benefits of Resource Efficiency in

Construction. vi European Commission Directorate General Environment (2002) Study on household hazardous

waste (HHW) with a main emphasis on household hazardous chemicals (HHC) vii

Moore, N. (2011) Wood packaging study: quantification of the manufacture, recycling and re-use of wood packaging in the UK, 2010, Forestry Commission. viii

WRAP (2002) Investigation of Technical and Economic Viability of Recycling 25-litre Plastic Drums to Supply Process Chemistry to Metal Finishing Industries. ix WRAP (2008) Refillable glass beverage container systems in the UK

x DEFRA (2012) Estimating levels of re-use exchange activity via car boot sales

Module 1

Int ro

Method

Orientat ion

Appendix 1:

Case studies

Appendix 2:

Interviews

Sum m ary &

conclusion

Furniture Large WEEE Sm all WEEE Text ilesConst ruct ion

& dem olit ion

Exec

sum m ary

*

SPMT12 002:The Market Potential and Demand for Product Re-use Introduction...

Documents

Transcript of SPMT12 002:The Market Potential and Demand for Product Re-use Introduction...