Cranfield Research Insights #4 - What does the Circular Economy mean for the Waste Industry?

The first year of my PhD research will be spent studying and reading, pulling together what is already known before I venture into new territory. I’m going to capture my insights in a series of short pieces shared on LinkedIn. I admit mainly this is to help my own writing and comprehension, but maybe they are helpful to others interested in the Circular Economy? I hope so and would welcome your comments, feedback, further contacts and references. After four weeks working on waste and pollution, one key question is what the Circular Economy (a system in which waste ceases to exist) means for the Waste Industry?

“A Circular Economy (CE) is based on the principles of designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). It could replace today’s linear “Take-Make-Dispose” economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012). A key element of CE is Cradle to Cradle’s two cycles, biological and technical (McDonough and Braungart, 2002), redefined (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015) as “flows of renewable resources” and “stocks of finite resources” respectively. These definitions are based on the fate (not source), a biological material being safe to return to the biosphere, whereas a technical material would contaminate the biosphere and should remain in use cycles within the industrial system.

The CE concept has rapidly gained attention since the first Ellen MacArthur Foundation report was published (2012). With accelerating adoption by industry and government (Liakos et al., 2019), this is having a multi-dimensional effect on the waste industry - regulation / policy, citizen expectations / behaviour, economics, product design, waste collection, technology innovation, and the quantity and composition of waste itself.

In an idealised CE, waste does not exist at all. Achieving this implies working up from the bottom of the waste hierarchy, eliminating first uncollected waste, then landfill, and then recovering energy selectively, at each stage keeping more materials in cycles of re-use. So in principle that would mean for the waste industry:

-       More/better waste collection, facilitating effective recovery of materials and energy

-       Less, ultimately no, landfill, but with a long transition period in which current and historic landfills are mined for bioenergy and metals, in the process remediating the huge numbers of landfill sites - >500,000 in Europe alone (EURELCO, no date), most of them not applying modern controls (Rachel Salvidge, 2016)

-       Evolving role of energy recovery (see below)

-       Growing output of industrial raw materials. This shifts the industry from a “utility” providing a public service towards a “resource industry” – eg Veolia have rebranded themselves: “Resourcing the World”(Veolia, no date)Markets may not yet be developed or still favour the virgin materials – eg competing with virgin plastic during low oil prices.

-       Reduced waste throughput, driven by dematerialisation (virtual alternatives to products, or lightweight products), and by re-use and closed-loop systems where after-use products do not fall into a waste stream. However overall consumption may continue to increase, especially in developing countries. WRAP analysis (no date)shows UK waste falling from 329MT (2000) to 259MT (2010), noting some cyclical factors may be present.

Under Cradle to Cradle principles, all this should be a matter of design, of both waste infrastructure, and of the products whose use creates waste. Products designed without considering their after-use phase may contain contaminants, or mixed materials, in forms which hinder the waste industry’s circular transition. The legacy of past designs, and past waste, still predominates - the economy remains > 91% linear (Circle Economy, 2020). So the industry faces a long complex transition, operating simultaneously within new circular and legacy linear systems.

The industry faces several key challenges:

Effective plastics recycling: Plastic use has grown by x20 in the 50 years to 2014, and the largest segment is packaging (26% of plastic produced, a larger proportion of waste due to its short use life (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016)). While UK recycling rates may be around 45% (Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), 2018), analysing the whole global system (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016) concluded that just 2% of plastic packaging is recycled at the same quality. Most of the leakage into the environment is in developing countries (Jambeck et al., 2015), seldom able to implement effective collection or new technology. In Europe some recycling levels have plateaued (Smith and Bolton, 2018). Accurate waste segregation is vital for good quality recyclate. If this is to be achieved by citizens, few may fully utilise multiple bins; if achieved after collection, the waste is already more contaminated, and can the required infrastructure be implemented wherever the related products are being sold (globally), and keep pace with product innovation? This conundrum cannot be resolved by the waste industry alone, nor by incremental improvements to existing recycling systems. New collaboration is developing (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020) creating a global protocol for design of packaging and of waste systems, allowing recycling to take its place in a more effective system alongside re-use and composting.

Thermal treatment: Combustion technology has gained acceptance, overcoming (when correctly implemented) air pollution risks, and allowing waste to be diverted from landfill without the complexity of waste segregation and recycling. Producing electricity and heat, it has featured in cities with strong green credentials (Chaliki, Psomopoulos and Themelis, 2016). It can claim reduced CO2 emissions, if the alternative is landfill and/or the alternative energy source is fossil fuels. Yet combustion destroys the materials which arguably could be re-used, recycled, or recovered as biological nutrients. It remains controversial in some places, facing older concerns about air pollution, and newer ones about circularity. It may be considered better than landfill for today’s waste, yet not the long-term answer. If the CE is realised, the waste industry’s role in energy generation could have a transitional phase of combustion of mixed waste and landfill gas, moving to longer term production of bioenergy,  together with more specialised thermal treatment.

Regulatory Complexity and Effectiveness: The CE has been embodied in policy and regulation, particularly in Europe. Various approaches have been taken including economic incentives (eg rising landfill tax), targets (increasing recycling rates), bans on specific materials (eg polystyrene - (Crunden, 2020)) and products (eg single use shopping bags). These have had mixed success, and multiple approaches can be problematic for waste and producing industries, who typically operate at larger scale than local authorities and would prefer a harmonised approach.

All this represents the Waste Industry weighing up the following key considerations:

Environmental

·       Carbon footprint (netting CO2 and methane production, displaced fossil fuel use, embedded carbon saved by recycling materials, carbon footprint of operations)

·       Pollution - ground, water, and air

Social

·       Health consequences of pollution, and of contaminants in recycled materials

·       Job creation from additional operations

·       Community responses to waste operations

·       Citizen compliance with waste segregation

Economic

·       Costs driven by regulation (eg landfill tax)

·       Market prices for recycled materials

·       Extended producer responsibility schemes

·       Capital and operating costs of new assets and technology

References

Chaliki, P., Psomopoulos, C. S. and Themelis, N. J. (2016) “WTE plants installed in European cities: a review of success stories,” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., pp. 606–620. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-01-2015-0018.

Circle Economy (2020) Our World is Only 8.6% Circular, Circularity Gap Report Launch. Available at: https://www.circle-economy.com/news/our-world-is-now-only-8-6-circular (Accessed: November 19, 2020).

Crunden, E. A. (2020) New York bans expanded polystyrene foam products statewide, Wastedive.com. Available at: https://www.wastedive.com/news/new-york-cuomo-plastics-polystyrene-foam-ban-washington-coronavirus/575355/ (Accessed: December 1, 2020).

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) TOWARDS THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY - Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Growth within: a circular economy vision for a competitive europe, Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016) The New Plastics Economy Rethinking the Future of Plastics. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/The-New-Plastics-Economy-Rethinking-the-Future-of-Plastics.pdf (Accessed: November 19, 2020).

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) WHAT IS THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY?, WHAT IS THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY? Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/what-is-the-circular-economy (Accessed: November 30, 2020).

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2020) The (New Plastics Economy) Global Commitment Progress Report. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Global-Commitment-2020-Progress-Report.pdf (Accessed: November 19, 2020).

EURELCO (no date) DATA LAUNCHED ON THE LANDFILL SITUATION IN THE EU-28. Available at: https://eurelco.org/infographic/ (Accessed: December 3, 2020).

Jambeck, J. R. et al. (2015) “Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean,” Science, 347(6223), pp. 768–771. doi: 10.1126/science.1260352.

Liakos, N. et al. (2019) “Understanding circular economy awareness and practices in manufacturing firms,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(4), pp. 563–584. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-02-2019-0058.

McDonough, W. (William M. & P. and Braungart, M. (EPEA) (2002) Cradle to Cradle. North Point Press.

Rachel Salvidge (2016) Landfill: What lurks beneath, ENDS Report. Available at: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1533460/landfill-lurks-beneath (Accessed: December 3, 2020).

Smith, L. and Bolton, P. (2018) Household recycling in the UK, Number CBP. Available at: www.parliament.uk/commons-library|intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library|[email protected]|@commonslibrary.

Veolia (no date) Veolia - Resourcing the World, Veolia UK website. Available at: https://www.veolia.co.uk (Accessed: November 30, 2020).

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) (2018) PlasticFlow 2025 Plastic Packaging Flow Data Report. Available at: https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/PlasticFlow%202025%20Plastic%20Packaging%20Flow%20Data%20Report_0.pdf (Accessed: December 1, 2020).

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) (no date) “WRAP and the Circular Economy.” Available at: https://www.wrap.org.uk/about-us/about/material-flows-uk (Accessed: December 1, 2020).