- Email: [email protected]
Challenges in packaging waste management in the fast food industry
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
Challenges in packaging waste management in the fast food industry Teija Aarnio a , Anne H¨am¨al¨ainen b,∗ b
a Digita Oy, P.O. Box 135, FI-00521 Helsinki, Finland Department of Energy and Environmental Technology; Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland
Received 10 May 2007; received in revised form 3 August 2007; accepted 8 August 2007 Available online 18 September 2007
Abstract The recovery of solid waste is required by waste legislation, and also by the public. In some industries, however, waste is mostly disposed of in landfills despite of its high recoverability. Practical experiences show that the fast food industry is one example of these industries. A majority of the solid waste generated in the fast food industry is packaging waste, which is highly recoverable. The main research problem of this study was to find out the means of promoting the recovery of packaging waste generated in the fast food industry. Additionally, the goal of this article was to widen academic understanding on packaging waste management in the fast food industry, as the subject has not gained large academic interest previously. The study showed that the theoretical recovery rate of packaging waste in the fast food industry is high, 93% of the total annual amount, while the actual recovery rate is only 29% of the total annual amount. The total recovery potential of packaging waste is 64% of the total annual amount. The achievable recovery potential, 33% of the total annual amount, could be recovered, but is not mainly because of non-working waste management practices. The theoretical recovery potential of 31% of the total annual amount of packaging waste cannot be recovered by the existing solid waste infrastructure because of the obscure status of commercial waste, the improper operation of producer organisations, and the municipal autonomy. The research indicated that it is possible to reach the achievable recovery potential in the existing solid waste infrastructure through new waste management practices, which are designed and operated according to waste producers’ needs and demands. The theoretical recovery potential can be reached by increasing the consistency of the solid waste infrastructure through governmental action. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Packaging waste; Recovery rate; Recovery potential; Commercial waste; Fast food industry
1. Introduction During the past decades, the western world has experienced a rapid increase in both production and consumption. Growing consumption has further lead to
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 5 621 6359; fax: +358 5 621 6399. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. H¨am¨al¨ainen).
0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.08.002
increased amounts of solid wastes. The problem of growing waste amounts was first recognised in the beginning of the 1970s, but it was not until the 1990s that the international cooperation intensified. Since then, the waste problem has been tackled especially through waste legislation, which sets the targets and thus forms the basis of solid waste management. The European Union has been an active force pursuing sustainable development, launching the Community Environment Policy in 1972 and the EU Waste
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
Management Policy in 1975 (Johnson and Corcelle, 1997). Today, the main guidelines for solid waste infrastructure in the EU are defined in four directives (the Council Directive 75/442/EEC; Council Directive 91/156/EEC; Council Directive 96/61/EC; Council Directive 99/31/EC and the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 00/76/EC), all of which follow the Waste Hierarchy Principle. The Waste Hierarchy Principle prioritises waste reduction to waste recovery as material and energy, and has waste disposal in landfills as the lowest priority. The directives also categorise solid waste into household, commercial and industrial waste according to their disposal location. The main legislative tool in the EU concerning packaging waste is the Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. The Directive covers all packaging and packaging waste that a packager (producer/manufacturer) has placed on the market in the EU. The directive is based on the Extended Producer Responsibility principle, which shifts part, or all, of the waste management responsibility to the producer. Thus, the producer is required to accept the packaging waste back after use (Lindhqvist, 2000). The principle adds the external costs of environmental degradation to the costs of products and services and thus encourages the producers to take measures such as source reduction and redesign of products, product recyclability, packaging, weight (Fullerton and Wu, 1998; Choe and Fraser, 1999; Calcott and Walls, 2000), material content (Eichner and Pethig, 2001) and product durability (Runkel, 2003; Schaik van and Reuter, 2004) to reduce the amount of waste. The Council Directive 94/62/EC also sets numeric targets for the recovery rates of different packaging materials. The targets are to be revised every 5 years. According to the present packaging waste recovery scheme, a share of 60% of total packaging waste should be recovered by the end of 2008. The member states are to implement the directives in their own waste policies, and they can also set the targets higher. Due to the increased waste management legislation, more and more waste is being recovered instead of being disposed of in landfills. However, in some industries the recovery rates of solid waste could be much higher than they are today. Practical experiences show that the fast food industry is an example of a waste producer that disposes most of its solid waste of in landfills. A majority of the solid waste produced in the fast food industry is packaging waste, the theoretical recovery potential of which is very high. There are, however, several factors that hinder efficient packaging waste management in the
613
fast food industry. The factors are revealed and discussed in this article. Packaging waste management in the fast food industry has not gained previous academic interest on a large scale. The only relevant previous study is that of Mason et al. (2004), which focuses on waste generation in one Australian cafeteria selling fast food type products during a 5-week period. Thus, the goal of this article is to widen the academic understanding on the subject and also to reveal practical means of promoting waste management in the fast food industry. The article is based on Aarnio’s (2006) dissertation. The article begins by presenting the waste generation system in the fast food industry and continues by introducing the research question and the methodology. The article ends by first revealing the results of the study, and then introducing conclusions and possible solutions to the present situation. 2. Fast food industry and packaging waste generation The fast food industry offers its customers food products that are easily and time-efficiently attainable because of efficient production technologies. Usually fast food outlets are franchised chains having the same food products, such as hamburgers, pizzas, chicken, or sandwiches, on the menu. A part of the products is sold as take-away, meaning that the products are bought at the outlets but consumed elsewhere, generally at households. Easy and quick fast food products have become more and more popular in the busy modern lifestyle, and consequently, the waste amount created in the fast food industry has increased. The fast food industry is generally positioned in the restaurant sector, because it resembles the restaurant sec-
Fig. 1. Packaging waste generation in the restaurant sector.
614
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
Fig. 2. Packaging waste generation in the food industry.
tor from the selling and consumption point of view. However, the production techniques resemble the food industry by offering a limited number of menu items that are produced from a limited number of raw materials with assembly line techniques and packaged in highly standardised single use sales packaging. As a result, the fast food industry has an unclear status, which has led to difficulties concerning waste management and recovery. Figs. 1–3 illustrate waste generation mechanisms in the restaurant sector, in the food industry and in the fast food industry. Fig. 1 displays the packaging waste generation mechanism in restaurants. In the restaurant sector, packaging waste is mostly generated by transport packaging, such as corrugated cardboard boxes. The waste is handled as commercial or industrial waste in accordance with the location of the waste producer. Packaging waste generation in the food industry is shown in Fig. 2. The food industry packs its products to
be sold in retail. Transport packaging of sales packaging is handled as industrial waste at the food production site. The transport packaging of food products ends up in retail, where it is handled as industrial or commercial waste depending on the location and size of the store. The sales packaging of food products ends up in households, where it is collected as household waste. Fig. 3 presents packaging waste flows in the fast food industry. Kitchen areas produce transport packaging of food raw materials and of sales packaging of food products. A small proportion of sold products is food products manufactured in the food industry, which also creates transport packaging. A majority of sales packaging of food products comes from the dining areas of outlets, and less than a third of sales packaging is consumed outside the outlets, ending up in household waste. As Fig. 3 shows, the operation in the fast food industry generates four packaging waste streams. One of the streams is generated in households and three of them at
Fig. 3. Packaging waste generation in the fast food industry.
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
615
packaging waste generated in the fast food industry. The research problem was approached through the following three sub-problems: 1. What is the theoretical recovery rate of packaging waste generated in the case company presently? 2. What is the actual recovery rate of packaging waste generated in the case company presently? 3. What is the recovery potential of packaging waste generated in the case company presently?
Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of the current status of commercial waste.
outlets. In principle, the packaging of sales packaging should be treated as industrial waste, the packaging of food products and food raw materials as commercial or industrial waste, and the sales packaging of food products as household waste. However, the amounts of each waste stream at the outlets are too low for three separate waste management practices. As a consequence, the three waste streams are typically treated together as commercial waste. The status of commercial waste in the present system is unclear (Fig. 4), which makes waste management in the fast food industry even more complicated. As Fig. 4 represents, commercial waste can be treated as industrial waste or municipal solid waste. If the waste is collected by a separate private collector, it is industrial waste and subject to industrial solid waste legislation. If the waste is collected together with municipal waste, it is subject to municipal waste legislation. The main consequences of this collector-dependent classification are financial; the national landfill tax is only collected if the waste is subject to municipal waste legislation and disposed of in public landfills. The tax, thus, does not concern industrial waste disposed of in industrial landfills. Because of the legislative loophole, it is possible for a waste producer to avoid the economic waste policy instrument of landfill tax. It is not surprising that packaging waste producers tend to prefer the collection of mixed waste by private collectors. 3. Methodology The research was conducted through a literature review combined with a case study. McDonald’s Oy operating in Finland was chosen to be the case company. The main research problem of the study was to find out the means of promoting the recovery of the
The theoretical recovery rate illustrates how much (in percentages) of the total annual amount of packaging waste can be recovered as material or as energy by the existing solid waste infrastructure. The theoretical recovery rate is 100% if all packaging waste can be recovered. The actual recovery rate of packaging waste illustrates how much (in percentages) of the total annual amount of packaging waste is actually recovered by the existing solid waste infrastructure. The recovery potential illustrates how much (in percentages) of the packaging waste could be recovered in the total amount of packaging waste. The recovery potential is the difference between the theoretical and actual recovery rates, and the sum of achievable and theoretical recovery potentials. The achievable recovery potential is the share (in percentages) of the amount of packaging waste recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure, but not recovered, in the total annual amount of packaging waste. The theoretical recovery potential is the share (in percentages) of the amount of packaging waste non-recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure in the total annual amount of packaging waste. The data collected for the research is mainly from the year 2002, when the case company owned 87 outlets in 37 municipalities. The data was collected from several different sources, including the case company itself, distribution centre and manufacturers of sales packaging, food, and food raw materials. The focus of the study is on the recovery of packaging waste in the fast food industry, with secondary focus on packaging waste reduction and reuse. The research is limited to the sales packaging and the primary and secondary packaging of food, food raw materials and sales packaging, as their usage is directly related to the amount of sold products and sales and they are used at all outlets. Thus, packaging of goods such as detergents, toys and utensils are excluded because their usage is not directly correlated to sales. Tertiary packaging, in other words wooden pallets, and secondary packaging of buns and dairy products, in other words plastic trays, are also excluded because the distribution centre,
616
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
the bakery and the dairy factory are responsible for their disposal. Geographically, the research is restricted to the EU because the principles of integrated solid waste management show wide global variation that is dependent on factors such as lifestyle and demography, and because Finland is an EU member state. The mathematical calculations (in tonnes) performed to solve the research problem are presented in Fig. 5 and described below in a more detailed way. The calculations of recovery potentials and rates are based on the following assumptions: 1. Each packaging is 100% sorted. 2. Each packaging is disposed of in the municipality where the outlet is located. 3. ‘Sales packaging disposed of outside the outlets’ is disposed of as household waste. 4. ‘Sales packaging disposed of in the dining area’ and ‘primary and secondary packaging disposed of in the kitchen area’ are disposed of as commercial waste. 5. There is no loss during the collection and recovery. The total amount of packaging waste (mTOT ) was calculated as a sum of the unit weight of each packaging (in g/unit) multiplied by the number of distributed units (in units). To calculate the amount of recoverable packag-
ing waste (m1 ), information on packaging materials and disposal conditions was used. For determining the actual recovery rate, the existing solid waste infrastructure in the 37 case municipalities and the sorting practices in the outlets were analysed. The analysis on the existing solid waste infrastructure in the 37 case municipalities was also used to calculate the amount of packaging waste recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure (m4 ). The sorting at the outlets was defined by dividing the total amount of packaging waste to individual outlets in relation to the outlet’s sales. After calculating the recovery potentials and rates, the general means of promoting waste recovery in the fast food industry were studied. This was accomplished by a variety of methods, which are presented in Table 1 and explained below. The means to reach the achievable recovery potential were studied both experimentally and analytically. Sorting instructions were developed to affect the waste producers’ behaviour, which has a strong influence on the achievable recovery potential. Developing sorting instructions was based on an analysis of the terminology and colour coding of waste components in the 37 municipalities where the outlets of the case company are located. A sorting station for the customers’ use was also developed in three successive phases at one outlet.
Fig. 5. Mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical and the actual recovery rates, and the total, the achievable and the theoretical recovery potentials.
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621 Table 1 The methodology in studying the means to promote waste recovery Studying the means of reaching the achievable recovery potential 1: Development of sorting instructions Analysis of the terminology and colour coding of waste components in the case municipalities 2: Development of a sorting station at outlet 1 Phase 1: Calculation of the purity index of the sorted waste components Indicative qualitative customer survey Phase 2: Calculation of the purity index of the sorted waste components Indicative customer observation Phase 3: Calculation of the purity index of the sorted waste components Indicative qualitative customer survey 3: Development of waste management practices at outlets 1 and 2 Calculation of disposal parameters at outlets 1 and 2 Studying the means of reaching the theoretical recovery potential 1: Evaluation of the existing solid waste infrastructure Calculation of solid waste infrastructure -related parameters in the case municipalities Evaluating the influence of packaging materials on the theoretical recovery rate 1: Estimate of packaging material harmonisation
Calculation of purity indexes of the sorted waste components and indicative customer surveys and observation were used to manage the development. Waste management practices were developed at outlets 1 and 2, and to enable that, disposal parameters for the sorted waste components were defined. The theoretical recovery potential is highly influenced by the existing solid waste infrastructure. Thus, the means to reach the theoretical recovery potential were studied by calculating and analysing the parameters related to solid waste infrastructure in the case municipalities. The influence of packaging material choices on the theoretical recovery rate was estimated by packaging material harmonisation. Finally, the findings of the case study were combined with a literature review to find the general means of promoting the recovery of packaging waste generated in the fast food industry. 4. Packaging waste recovery in the fast food industry The research pointed out that the case company is not achieving its theoretical potential in solid waste management. In 2002, the case company’s total annual amount of packaging waste (mTOT ) was 1937 tonnes, of which 477 tonnes (25%) was produced outside outlets,
617
755 tonnes (39%) in dining areas and 704 tonnes (36%) in kitchen areas. The packaging waste consisted of wood based materials (paperboard, liquid board, cardboard, paper and wood), plastics and composites. The packaging waste was usually collected from the outlets as commercial waste. Only 564 tonnes of the packaging waste of the case company was recovered in 2002, thus leaving the actual recovery rate at as low as 29%. The recycled amount consisted of corrugated cardboard boxes, which were recycled as fibre. In total, 1795 tonnes (93%) of the packaging waste could have been recovered. A majority of the packaging (70%) could have been used as recycled fibre. Nineteen percent of the packaging could have been treated biologically and 11% of the packaging was plastics, which could have been taken to energy recovery. The annual amount of packaging waste recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure but not recovered was 647 tonnes, resulting in an achievable recovery potential of 33%. The annual amount of packaging waste non-recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure was 583 tonnes, resulting in a theoretical recovery potential of 31%. Thus, according to the calculations, the total recovery potential was 64% (1230 tonnes). The results of the research are in line with a study by Mason et al. (2004), which explored waste generation in a cafeteria located on an Australian university campus. The study reported a recycling rate of 88% for the kitchen and the dining area. Some assumptions and simplifications had to be made when calculating the actual recovery rate. Moderate credibility of the actual recovery rate results in moderate credibility of also the total, the achievable, and the theoretical recovery potential. The determination of the theoretical recovery rate, however, is credible because the calculations are based on data given by all manufacturers of sales packaging, food and food raw materials and the distribution centre and because all used sales packaging, food, and food raw materials are included. 5. Promoting waste recovery in the fast food industry As discussed before, the means for promoting the packaging waste recovery in the fast food industry were studied by several different methods. The methods have already been presented in Table 1. Developing sorting instructions would increase customers’ knowledge and thus influence their sorting behaviour. However, an analysis on the local waste regulations of the 37 case municipalities showed that the terminology and colour coding of waste components var-
618
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
ied within the municipalities. Biodegradable, mixed and combustible waste had the widest variance in terminology. The term ‘dry waste’, on the other hand, referred to different waste types depending on the municipality. In colour coding grey, brown and blue colours showed the widest variance, referring to nearly 10 different waste components. As a result, the variation in local waste regulations was too wide for giving nationally consistent sorting instructions for sales packaging waste generated outside the outlets. Sorting stations for the customers’ use would increase the amount of sales packaging recovery at the outlets and thus help in reaching the achievable recovery potential. The sorting station at outlet 1 consisted of two 70 l dustbins for recyclable (fibre) waste and biodegradable waste, and one 7 l dustbin for drink left-overs and ice cubes. The sorting station was developed in three phases that took 18 months. In each phase, the contamination levels were analysed by calculating the purity indexes of the sorted waste components. The purity indexes were calculated by dividing the amount (in g) of correctly sorted packaging waste by the total amount (in g) of packaging waste. The higher the purity index was, the lower the contamination level, and the better the waste component was recovery qualified. The sorting equipment, instructions, etc. were further improved between the phases based on customer surveys and observation. Respondents for the surveys and observation were randomly chosen without a quota on gender, age, visiting frequency, and time of the visit. The customer sample size was 91 at phase 1, 104 at phase 2 and 100 at phase 3. The customer survey consisted of a questionnaire with three questions: ‘How to ease sorting?’, ‘How to speed sorting?’ and ‘How to improve the sorting instructions?’ The respondents wrote their answers on the questionnaire. The answers were then analysed and utilised to improve sorting instructions and sorting station ergonomics. At phase 2 the survey was replaced by indicative customer observation to analyse customer behaviour at the sorting station. After phase 3, the sorting station was introduced to three additional outlets. Table 2 represents the development of purity indexes at outlet 1. The increasing purity indexes indicated that Table 2 Development of purity indexes at outlet 1
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Paperboard and plastic
Biowaste and paper
0.61 0.71 0.72
0.91 0.95 0.95
it is possible to reach the achievable recovery potential in the existing solid waste infrastructure. Waste management practices in the kitchen areas were developed at outlets 1 and 2. Introduction of packaging waste sorting at the outlets generated a need for the collection of a fourth waste component, ‘paperboard and plastic waste’, in addition to cardboard waste, biodegradable waste and mixed waste. It also generated a need for more biodegradable waste containers, and a need of less mixed waste containers in the outlets’ waste room. To enable the development of waste management practices, disposal parameters (weekly capacities, weekly disposal costs, specific costs of each waste component and specific unit weights) for the outlets 1 and 2 were calculated. The experiment resulted in a drastic increase in disposal costs at outlet 2, where the weekly capacity (m3 /week) increased by 229% and thus the weekly disposal costs (D /week) increased by 161%. The huge increase at outlet 2 was caused by new collection containers for mixed waste and paperboard and plastic waste, as the new containers did not have mechanical compaction to flatten the waste. At outlet 1, the weekly capacity increased by 20%, but the weekly disposal costs still decreased by 1%. In theory, the sorting of packaging waste causes savings in disposal costs. As the research indicated, however, in practice the costs may even increase because of non-working waste management practices. Outlet 1 was the only test outlet where the sorting experiment resulted in improvements. At outlets 3 and 4 the efforts in sorting brought no financial benefit because the outlets were located in a shopping mall and their disposal costs were integrated in the rents. The existing solid waste infrastructure in the 37 case municipalities was evaluated by analysing the components of the infrastructure. Variance in waste treatment charges, unit prices and experimental specific unit weights in the case municipalities were analysed by calculating the average and standard deviation and defining the minimum and maximum values. The analysis illustrated considerable variation in local solid waste infrastructures in the case municipalities. For example the actual treatment charge of mixed waste in the case municipalities varied between 39.36 and 127.10 D /tonne, the average being 56.79 D /tonne. The actual treatment charge of biodegradable waste varied between 10.09 and 88.80 D /tonne with the average of 36.11 D /tonne. Also the actual unit price of mixed waste showed variance, the degree of which was dependent on the container volume and contract type. The present national legislation has given Finnish municipalities a strong autonomy that has resulted in
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
dispersed municipal or regional solid waste infrastructures with high variation among them. The variation leads to different kinds of waste management practices depending on the municipality, thus making it difficult to organise an efficient, nationwide solid waste management infrastructure. Mostly because of this variation, the theoretical recovery potential could not be reached in the existing solid waste infrastructure within the research. This was also revealed by the experiments at outlets 1 and 2. Packaging material harmonisation simplifies waste sorting and decreases the amount of packaging waste. About half of the packaging used in the case company was affected by the packaging material harmonisation mainly by replacement, that is packaging materials were replaced with other ones that were considered easier to recover. For example sales packaging manufactured from paperboard was mainly replaced with paper alternatives in order to decrease the amount of bulky sales packaging waste. The replacements were made by using products already at the market, thus the packaging waste harmonisation did not require new innovation. The harmonisation was not tested empirically and it did not affect the company’s operation. The total number of packaging material items was reduced by 17 items from 91 to 74 items. The packaging material harmonisation decreased the annual amount of packaging waste by 16% from 1937 to 1620 tonnes. The amount of recoverable packaging material decreased by 17% from 1795 to 1485 tonnes. The theoretical recovery rate slightly decreased from 93 to 92%, the decrease being most significant in combustible waste (a decrease of 72%). Harmonisation also had a significant influence on the prime costs of food raw materials and sales packaging; the annual savings were estimated to be about 48% of the total prime costs. In summary, the packaging material harmonisation provides significant potential for the case company both by weight and by value. 6. Discussion and conclusions The main research problem of this study was to find out the means of promoting the recovery of packaging waste generated in the fast food industry. Practical experiences had shown that much of the packaging waste produced in the fast food industry is disposed of in landfills, despite its high recoverability. The research was conducted through a multidisciplinary method, which combined a literature review and a case study. The results of the study verified what had been expected; packaging waste in the fast food industry is highly recoverable, but the recovery rate is still low. This
619
is mainly due to current nonworking waste management practices and inconsistent waste management infrastructures. The research indicated that the packaging waste recovery in the fast food industry demands cooperation between several parties. The parties include the waste management sector, public authorities and the producer organisations. The waste management sector has the most significant role. Thirty four percent of packaging waste could have been recycled within the present system, but due to deficient waste management practices it was taken to landfills. According to the research, waste management companies simply were not able to offer suitable waste management solutions for the outlets. Their selection of services was very limited, and the available waste collection and treatment equipment was not suitable for the fast food industry. For example, there were no reasonable compactors which would be suitable for flattening light sales packaging and could be placed at the outlets’ dining areas. The non-working collection practices include the non-transparency of unit pricing. The common unit-pricing principle hinders commercial waste producers from influencing the unit price even though the specific weights differ significantly from the common ones, as is the case in the fast food industry. As a consequence, the research succeeded in creating workable waste management practices at only one of the four test outlets. The waste management sector can support the packaging waste recovery in the fast food industry by creating practices that fit the waste producers’ needs. The focus should be turned to innovative solutions based on waste producers’ requirements instead of logistically easy collection and invoicing practices. Public authorities have a central role in developing the present waste management systems. The role of municipalities should be restricted to prevent excess variation in waste management practices and infrastructures. Nationwide practices, such as uniform names for different waste types and uniform colours for waste containers, would enable marking packages with colour codes and giving national instructions for waste sorting. This would support waste sorting, make the learning of new practices quicker, and make the production of waste containers simpler. Public authorities should also fortify the influence of economic waste policy instruments. The present economic waste policy instruments do not have a steering effect on producers which produce only small amounts of waste yearly. The research revealed that in the case company the average landfill tax was only 240 D per outlet. The amount is insignificant compared to, e.g., the poten-
620
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
tial savings of more than 12,000 D per outlet that could be achieved by harmonising packaging and packaging materials. Public authorities should give commercial waste a clear definition to improve its status. Commercial waste should be separated from household waste, which would result in household, commercial and industrial wastes forming harmonic unities and equalling the term municipal waste to the term household waste. Separating commercial waste from household waste would allow creating commercial waste management practices resembling industrial waste management, aimed at waste producers operating in business. It is also very important to create national and international practices to recognise those waste producers whose waste production mechanisms deviate from the typical system and to decide when these waste amounts are large enough to be considered in waste management practices. The producer organisations should create a system, through which they can find the most suitable waste management solution for each waste producer. The system could be financed through higher recycling fees. According to this research, today the average recycling fee per outlet is only 150 D , which does not have the steering effect that it is supposed to have. The fast food industry itself can advance recoverability by harmonising packaging materials, which simplifies sorting and reduces the total waste amount. The research showed that the case company has a significant potential both by weight and by value for packaging material harmonisation. The packaging industry can also promote the exploitation of this potential by selling a service in addition to the packaging.
In other words, the packaging industry could provide decision-supporting tools such as customer surveys and pilot marketing of alternative packaging, enabling itself to proactively sell solutions that are not asked for by the customer. The packaging industry should also offer packaging made from alternative materials and with improved functionality. Getting the fast food sector organised and making its status more clear would also be very important. Today the industry does not have a national or international parent organisation. The parent organisation, however, would help the development of waste management systems that are suitable for the fast food industry. Getting the sector organised is important, as for example in Finland the two largest companies in the fast food industry produce at least 1% of the total packaging waste in Finland. In general, the recovery of packaging waste can be promoted by changing the focus of waste management from the interests of high-volume waste operators, such as collectors and municipalities, to operationally easy waste producer oriented practices that are available for all waste producers regardless of the generated volumes. On the basis of the study, the optimal solution for the packaging waste management for the case company is presented in Fig. 6. The solution presented in Fig. 6 would combine every preference of the Waste Hierarchy. The solution would result in the avoidance of 315 tonnes of packaging waste, the recycling of 554 tonnes of fibre and PE plastic waste, and the recovery of 932 tonnes of combustible waste. The amount of packaging waste disposed of in landfills would be only 136 tonnes in comparison to the amount of 1373 tonnes that was disposed of in landfills in 2002. The solution requires, however, that the consistency of
Fig. 6. Optimal solution for the packaging waste generated in the fast food industry.
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
the solid waste infrastructure has been increased by the means discussed above. The results of this study are applicable especially to the fast food industry that resembles the case company and whose packaging waste is managed by the solid waste infrastructure resembling that of Finland. The applicability of the results is influenced by the countrydependent waste producer behaviour, especially at the point of disposing of used packaging. The study has presented packaging waste management in the fast food industry in the conditions that existed in 2002. It is probable that in the future increasing amounts of packaging waste end up in energy recovery. This is especially due to the implementation of the Directive 00/76/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. Before this research, the academic world had not shown any large interest on solid waste management in the fast food industry. However, the study revealed that the fast food industry offers a number of interesting research topics. For example, the general legislative status of commercial waste, the operative status of medium and small volume commercial waste producers, and the allocation of the fast food industry are topics that should be studied further. References Aarnio T. Challenges in packaging waste management: a case study in the fast food industry. Lappeenranta, Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology; 2006. Calcott P, Walls M. Can downstream waste disposal policies encourage upstream ‘Design for Environment’? Am Econ Rev 2000;90:233–7.
621
Choe C, Fraser I. An economic analysis of household waste management. J Environ Econ Manage 1999;38:234–46. Council Directive 1975. 75/442/EEC. Council Directive of July 15, 1975 on waste. OJ L 194, July 25, 1975. Council Directive 1991. 91/156/EEC. Council Directive of March 18, 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste. OJ L 078, March 26, 1991. Council Directive 1994. 94/62/EC. Council Directive of December 20, 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. OJ L 365, December 31, 1994. Council Directive 1996. 96/61/EC. Council Directive of September 24, 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. OJ L 257, October 10, 1996. Council Directive 1999. 99/31/EC. Council Directive of April 26, 1999 on the landfill of waste. OJ L 182, July 16, 1999. Directive 2000. 00/76/EC. Directive of the European Parliament and the Council of December 4, 2000 on the incineration of waste. OJ L 332, December 28, 2000. Eichner T, Pethig R. Product design and efficient management of recycling and waste treatment. J Environ Econ Manage 2001;41:109–34. Fullerton D, Wu W. Policies for green design. J Environ Econ Manage 1998;29:78–91. Johnson SP, Corcelle G. The environmental policy of the European Communities. 2nd ed. London, UK: Kluwer Law International; 1997. Lindhqvist T. Extended producer responsibility in cleaner production: policy principle to promote environmental improvements of product systems. Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Faculty of Technology; 2000. Mason IG, Oberender A, Brooking AK. Source separation and potential reuse of resource residuals at a university campus. Res Conserv Recycl 2004;40:155–72. Runkel M. Product durability and extended producer responsibility in solid waste management. Environ Res Econ 2003;24: 161–82. Schaik van A, Reuter MA. The time-varying factors influencing the recycling rate of products. Res Conserv Recycl 2004;40: 301–28.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
Challenges in packaging waste management in the fast food industry Teija Aarnio a , Anne H¨am¨al¨ainen b,∗ b
a Digita Oy, P.O. Box 135, FI-00521 Helsinki, Finland Department of Energy and Environmental Technology; Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland
Received 10 May 2007; received in revised form 3 August 2007; accepted 8 August 2007 Available online 18 September 2007
Abstract The recovery of solid waste is required by waste legislation, and also by the public. In some industries, however, waste is mostly disposed of in landfills despite of its high recoverability. Practical experiences show that the fast food industry is one example of these industries. A majority of the solid waste generated in the fast food industry is packaging waste, which is highly recoverable. The main research problem of this study was to find out the means of promoting the recovery of packaging waste generated in the fast food industry. Additionally, the goal of this article was to widen academic understanding on packaging waste management in the fast food industry, as the subject has not gained large academic interest previously. The study showed that the theoretical recovery rate of packaging waste in the fast food industry is high, 93% of the total annual amount, while the actual recovery rate is only 29% of the total annual amount. The total recovery potential of packaging waste is 64% of the total annual amount. The achievable recovery potential, 33% of the total annual amount, could be recovered, but is not mainly because of non-working waste management practices. The theoretical recovery potential of 31% of the total annual amount of packaging waste cannot be recovered by the existing solid waste infrastructure because of the obscure status of commercial waste, the improper operation of producer organisations, and the municipal autonomy. The research indicated that it is possible to reach the achievable recovery potential in the existing solid waste infrastructure through new waste management practices, which are designed and operated according to waste producers’ needs and demands. The theoretical recovery potential can be reached by increasing the consistency of the solid waste infrastructure through governmental action. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Packaging waste; Recovery rate; Recovery potential; Commercial waste; Fast food industry
1. Introduction During the past decades, the western world has experienced a rapid increase in both production and consumption. Growing consumption has further lead to
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 5 621 6359; fax: +358 5 621 6399. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. H¨am¨al¨ainen).
0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.08.002
increased amounts of solid wastes. The problem of growing waste amounts was first recognised in the beginning of the 1970s, but it was not until the 1990s that the international cooperation intensified. Since then, the waste problem has been tackled especially through waste legislation, which sets the targets and thus forms the basis of solid waste management. The European Union has been an active force pursuing sustainable development, launching the Community Environment Policy in 1972 and the EU Waste
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
Management Policy in 1975 (Johnson and Corcelle, 1997). Today, the main guidelines for solid waste infrastructure in the EU are defined in four directives (the Council Directive 75/442/EEC; Council Directive 91/156/EEC; Council Directive 96/61/EC; Council Directive 99/31/EC and the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 00/76/EC), all of which follow the Waste Hierarchy Principle. The Waste Hierarchy Principle prioritises waste reduction to waste recovery as material and energy, and has waste disposal in landfills as the lowest priority. The directives also categorise solid waste into household, commercial and industrial waste according to their disposal location. The main legislative tool in the EU concerning packaging waste is the Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. The Directive covers all packaging and packaging waste that a packager (producer/manufacturer) has placed on the market in the EU. The directive is based on the Extended Producer Responsibility principle, which shifts part, or all, of the waste management responsibility to the producer. Thus, the producer is required to accept the packaging waste back after use (Lindhqvist, 2000). The principle adds the external costs of environmental degradation to the costs of products and services and thus encourages the producers to take measures such as source reduction and redesign of products, product recyclability, packaging, weight (Fullerton and Wu, 1998; Choe and Fraser, 1999; Calcott and Walls, 2000), material content (Eichner and Pethig, 2001) and product durability (Runkel, 2003; Schaik van and Reuter, 2004) to reduce the amount of waste. The Council Directive 94/62/EC also sets numeric targets for the recovery rates of different packaging materials. The targets are to be revised every 5 years. According to the present packaging waste recovery scheme, a share of 60% of total packaging waste should be recovered by the end of 2008. The member states are to implement the directives in their own waste policies, and they can also set the targets higher. Due to the increased waste management legislation, more and more waste is being recovered instead of being disposed of in landfills. However, in some industries the recovery rates of solid waste could be much higher than they are today. Practical experiences show that the fast food industry is an example of a waste producer that disposes most of its solid waste of in landfills. A majority of the solid waste produced in the fast food industry is packaging waste, the theoretical recovery potential of which is very high. There are, however, several factors that hinder efficient packaging waste management in the
613
fast food industry. The factors are revealed and discussed in this article. Packaging waste management in the fast food industry has not gained previous academic interest on a large scale. The only relevant previous study is that of Mason et al. (2004), which focuses on waste generation in one Australian cafeteria selling fast food type products during a 5-week period. Thus, the goal of this article is to widen the academic understanding on the subject and also to reveal practical means of promoting waste management in the fast food industry. The article is based on Aarnio’s (2006) dissertation. The article begins by presenting the waste generation system in the fast food industry and continues by introducing the research question and the methodology. The article ends by first revealing the results of the study, and then introducing conclusions and possible solutions to the present situation. 2. Fast food industry and packaging waste generation The fast food industry offers its customers food products that are easily and time-efficiently attainable because of efficient production technologies. Usually fast food outlets are franchised chains having the same food products, such as hamburgers, pizzas, chicken, or sandwiches, on the menu. A part of the products is sold as take-away, meaning that the products are bought at the outlets but consumed elsewhere, generally at households. Easy and quick fast food products have become more and more popular in the busy modern lifestyle, and consequently, the waste amount created in the fast food industry has increased. The fast food industry is generally positioned in the restaurant sector, because it resembles the restaurant sec-
Fig. 1. Packaging waste generation in the restaurant sector.
614
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
Fig. 2. Packaging waste generation in the food industry.
tor from the selling and consumption point of view. However, the production techniques resemble the food industry by offering a limited number of menu items that are produced from a limited number of raw materials with assembly line techniques and packaged in highly standardised single use sales packaging. As a result, the fast food industry has an unclear status, which has led to difficulties concerning waste management and recovery. Figs. 1–3 illustrate waste generation mechanisms in the restaurant sector, in the food industry and in the fast food industry. Fig. 1 displays the packaging waste generation mechanism in restaurants. In the restaurant sector, packaging waste is mostly generated by transport packaging, such as corrugated cardboard boxes. The waste is handled as commercial or industrial waste in accordance with the location of the waste producer. Packaging waste generation in the food industry is shown in Fig. 2. The food industry packs its products to
be sold in retail. Transport packaging of sales packaging is handled as industrial waste at the food production site. The transport packaging of food products ends up in retail, where it is handled as industrial or commercial waste depending on the location and size of the store. The sales packaging of food products ends up in households, where it is collected as household waste. Fig. 3 presents packaging waste flows in the fast food industry. Kitchen areas produce transport packaging of food raw materials and of sales packaging of food products. A small proportion of sold products is food products manufactured in the food industry, which also creates transport packaging. A majority of sales packaging of food products comes from the dining areas of outlets, and less than a third of sales packaging is consumed outside the outlets, ending up in household waste. As Fig. 3 shows, the operation in the fast food industry generates four packaging waste streams. One of the streams is generated in households and three of them at
Fig. 3. Packaging waste generation in the fast food industry.
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
615
packaging waste generated in the fast food industry. The research problem was approached through the following three sub-problems: 1. What is the theoretical recovery rate of packaging waste generated in the case company presently? 2. What is the actual recovery rate of packaging waste generated in the case company presently? 3. What is the recovery potential of packaging waste generated in the case company presently?
Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of the current status of commercial waste.
outlets. In principle, the packaging of sales packaging should be treated as industrial waste, the packaging of food products and food raw materials as commercial or industrial waste, and the sales packaging of food products as household waste. However, the amounts of each waste stream at the outlets are too low for three separate waste management practices. As a consequence, the three waste streams are typically treated together as commercial waste. The status of commercial waste in the present system is unclear (Fig. 4), which makes waste management in the fast food industry even more complicated. As Fig. 4 represents, commercial waste can be treated as industrial waste or municipal solid waste. If the waste is collected by a separate private collector, it is industrial waste and subject to industrial solid waste legislation. If the waste is collected together with municipal waste, it is subject to municipal waste legislation. The main consequences of this collector-dependent classification are financial; the national landfill tax is only collected if the waste is subject to municipal waste legislation and disposed of in public landfills. The tax, thus, does not concern industrial waste disposed of in industrial landfills. Because of the legislative loophole, it is possible for a waste producer to avoid the economic waste policy instrument of landfill tax. It is not surprising that packaging waste producers tend to prefer the collection of mixed waste by private collectors. 3. Methodology The research was conducted through a literature review combined with a case study. McDonald’s Oy operating in Finland was chosen to be the case company. The main research problem of the study was to find out the means of promoting the recovery of the
The theoretical recovery rate illustrates how much (in percentages) of the total annual amount of packaging waste can be recovered as material or as energy by the existing solid waste infrastructure. The theoretical recovery rate is 100% if all packaging waste can be recovered. The actual recovery rate of packaging waste illustrates how much (in percentages) of the total annual amount of packaging waste is actually recovered by the existing solid waste infrastructure. The recovery potential illustrates how much (in percentages) of the packaging waste could be recovered in the total amount of packaging waste. The recovery potential is the difference between the theoretical and actual recovery rates, and the sum of achievable and theoretical recovery potentials. The achievable recovery potential is the share (in percentages) of the amount of packaging waste recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure, but not recovered, in the total annual amount of packaging waste. The theoretical recovery potential is the share (in percentages) of the amount of packaging waste non-recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure in the total annual amount of packaging waste. The data collected for the research is mainly from the year 2002, when the case company owned 87 outlets in 37 municipalities. The data was collected from several different sources, including the case company itself, distribution centre and manufacturers of sales packaging, food, and food raw materials. The focus of the study is on the recovery of packaging waste in the fast food industry, with secondary focus on packaging waste reduction and reuse. The research is limited to the sales packaging and the primary and secondary packaging of food, food raw materials and sales packaging, as their usage is directly related to the amount of sold products and sales and they are used at all outlets. Thus, packaging of goods such as detergents, toys and utensils are excluded because their usage is not directly correlated to sales. Tertiary packaging, in other words wooden pallets, and secondary packaging of buns and dairy products, in other words plastic trays, are also excluded because the distribution centre,
616
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
the bakery and the dairy factory are responsible for their disposal. Geographically, the research is restricted to the EU because the principles of integrated solid waste management show wide global variation that is dependent on factors such as lifestyle and demography, and because Finland is an EU member state. The mathematical calculations (in tonnes) performed to solve the research problem are presented in Fig. 5 and described below in a more detailed way. The calculations of recovery potentials and rates are based on the following assumptions: 1. Each packaging is 100% sorted. 2. Each packaging is disposed of in the municipality where the outlet is located. 3. ‘Sales packaging disposed of outside the outlets’ is disposed of as household waste. 4. ‘Sales packaging disposed of in the dining area’ and ‘primary and secondary packaging disposed of in the kitchen area’ are disposed of as commercial waste. 5. There is no loss during the collection and recovery. The total amount of packaging waste (mTOT ) was calculated as a sum of the unit weight of each packaging (in g/unit) multiplied by the number of distributed units (in units). To calculate the amount of recoverable packag-
ing waste (m1 ), information on packaging materials and disposal conditions was used. For determining the actual recovery rate, the existing solid waste infrastructure in the 37 case municipalities and the sorting practices in the outlets were analysed. The analysis on the existing solid waste infrastructure in the 37 case municipalities was also used to calculate the amount of packaging waste recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure (m4 ). The sorting at the outlets was defined by dividing the total amount of packaging waste to individual outlets in relation to the outlet’s sales. After calculating the recovery potentials and rates, the general means of promoting waste recovery in the fast food industry were studied. This was accomplished by a variety of methods, which are presented in Table 1 and explained below. The means to reach the achievable recovery potential were studied both experimentally and analytically. Sorting instructions were developed to affect the waste producers’ behaviour, which has a strong influence on the achievable recovery potential. Developing sorting instructions was based on an analysis of the terminology and colour coding of waste components in the 37 municipalities where the outlets of the case company are located. A sorting station for the customers’ use was also developed in three successive phases at one outlet.
Fig. 5. Mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical and the actual recovery rates, and the total, the achievable and the theoretical recovery potentials.
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621 Table 1 The methodology in studying the means to promote waste recovery Studying the means of reaching the achievable recovery potential 1: Development of sorting instructions Analysis of the terminology and colour coding of waste components in the case municipalities 2: Development of a sorting station at outlet 1 Phase 1: Calculation of the purity index of the sorted waste components Indicative qualitative customer survey Phase 2: Calculation of the purity index of the sorted waste components Indicative customer observation Phase 3: Calculation of the purity index of the sorted waste components Indicative qualitative customer survey 3: Development of waste management practices at outlets 1 and 2 Calculation of disposal parameters at outlets 1 and 2 Studying the means of reaching the theoretical recovery potential 1: Evaluation of the existing solid waste infrastructure Calculation of solid waste infrastructure -related parameters in the case municipalities Evaluating the influence of packaging materials on the theoretical recovery rate 1: Estimate of packaging material harmonisation
Calculation of purity indexes of the sorted waste components and indicative customer surveys and observation were used to manage the development. Waste management practices were developed at outlets 1 and 2, and to enable that, disposal parameters for the sorted waste components were defined. The theoretical recovery potential is highly influenced by the existing solid waste infrastructure. Thus, the means to reach the theoretical recovery potential were studied by calculating and analysing the parameters related to solid waste infrastructure in the case municipalities. The influence of packaging material choices on the theoretical recovery rate was estimated by packaging material harmonisation. Finally, the findings of the case study were combined with a literature review to find the general means of promoting the recovery of packaging waste generated in the fast food industry. 4. Packaging waste recovery in the fast food industry The research pointed out that the case company is not achieving its theoretical potential in solid waste management. In 2002, the case company’s total annual amount of packaging waste (mTOT ) was 1937 tonnes, of which 477 tonnes (25%) was produced outside outlets,
617
755 tonnes (39%) in dining areas and 704 tonnes (36%) in kitchen areas. The packaging waste consisted of wood based materials (paperboard, liquid board, cardboard, paper and wood), plastics and composites. The packaging waste was usually collected from the outlets as commercial waste. Only 564 tonnes of the packaging waste of the case company was recovered in 2002, thus leaving the actual recovery rate at as low as 29%. The recycled amount consisted of corrugated cardboard boxes, which were recycled as fibre. In total, 1795 tonnes (93%) of the packaging waste could have been recovered. A majority of the packaging (70%) could have been used as recycled fibre. Nineteen percent of the packaging could have been treated biologically and 11% of the packaging was plastics, which could have been taken to energy recovery. The annual amount of packaging waste recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure but not recovered was 647 tonnes, resulting in an achievable recovery potential of 33%. The annual amount of packaging waste non-recoverable by the existing solid waste infrastructure was 583 tonnes, resulting in a theoretical recovery potential of 31%. Thus, according to the calculations, the total recovery potential was 64% (1230 tonnes). The results of the research are in line with a study by Mason et al. (2004), which explored waste generation in a cafeteria located on an Australian university campus. The study reported a recycling rate of 88% for the kitchen and the dining area. Some assumptions and simplifications had to be made when calculating the actual recovery rate. Moderate credibility of the actual recovery rate results in moderate credibility of also the total, the achievable, and the theoretical recovery potential. The determination of the theoretical recovery rate, however, is credible because the calculations are based on data given by all manufacturers of sales packaging, food and food raw materials and the distribution centre and because all used sales packaging, food, and food raw materials are included. 5. Promoting waste recovery in the fast food industry As discussed before, the means for promoting the packaging waste recovery in the fast food industry were studied by several different methods. The methods have already been presented in Table 1. Developing sorting instructions would increase customers’ knowledge and thus influence their sorting behaviour. However, an analysis on the local waste regulations of the 37 case municipalities showed that the terminology and colour coding of waste components var-
618
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
ied within the municipalities. Biodegradable, mixed and combustible waste had the widest variance in terminology. The term ‘dry waste’, on the other hand, referred to different waste types depending on the municipality. In colour coding grey, brown and blue colours showed the widest variance, referring to nearly 10 different waste components. As a result, the variation in local waste regulations was too wide for giving nationally consistent sorting instructions for sales packaging waste generated outside the outlets. Sorting stations for the customers’ use would increase the amount of sales packaging recovery at the outlets and thus help in reaching the achievable recovery potential. The sorting station at outlet 1 consisted of two 70 l dustbins for recyclable (fibre) waste and biodegradable waste, and one 7 l dustbin for drink left-overs and ice cubes. The sorting station was developed in three phases that took 18 months. In each phase, the contamination levels were analysed by calculating the purity indexes of the sorted waste components. The purity indexes were calculated by dividing the amount (in g) of correctly sorted packaging waste by the total amount (in g) of packaging waste. The higher the purity index was, the lower the contamination level, and the better the waste component was recovery qualified. The sorting equipment, instructions, etc. were further improved between the phases based on customer surveys and observation. Respondents for the surveys and observation were randomly chosen without a quota on gender, age, visiting frequency, and time of the visit. The customer sample size was 91 at phase 1, 104 at phase 2 and 100 at phase 3. The customer survey consisted of a questionnaire with three questions: ‘How to ease sorting?’, ‘How to speed sorting?’ and ‘How to improve the sorting instructions?’ The respondents wrote their answers on the questionnaire. The answers were then analysed and utilised to improve sorting instructions and sorting station ergonomics. At phase 2 the survey was replaced by indicative customer observation to analyse customer behaviour at the sorting station. After phase 3, the sorting station was introduced to three additional outlets. Table 2 represents the development of purity indexes at outlet 1. The increasing purity indexes indicated that Table 2 Development of purity indexes at outlet 1
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Paperboard and plastic
Biowaste and paper
0.61 0.71 0.72
0.91 0.95 0.95
it is possible to reach the achievable recovery potential in the existing solid waste infrastructure. Waste management practices in the kitchen areas were developed at outlets 1 and 2. Introduction of packaging waste sorting at the outlets generated a need for the collection of a fourth waste component, ‘paperboard and plastic waste’, in addition to cardboard waste, biodegradable waste and mixed waste. It also generated a need for more biodegradable waste containers, and a need of less mixed waste containers in the outlets’ waste room. To enable the development of waste management practices, disposal parameters (weekly capacities, weekly disposal costs, specific costs of each waste component and specific unit weights) for the outlets 1 and 2 were calculated. The experiment resulted in a drastic increase in disposal costs at outlet 2, where the weekly capacity (m3 /week) increased by 229% and thus the weekly disposal costs (D /week) increased by 161%. The huge increase at outlet 2 was caused by new collection containers for mixed waste and paperboard and plastic waste, as the new containers did not have mechanical compaction to flatten the waste. At outlet 1, the weekly capacity increased by 20%, but the weekly disposal costs still decreased by 1%. In theory, the sorting of packaging waste causes savings in disposal costs. As the research indicated, however, in practice the costs may even increase because of non-working waste management practices. Outlet 1 was the only test outlet where the sorting experiment resulted in improvements. At outlets 3 and 4 the efforts in sorting brought no financial benefit because the outlets were located in a shopping mall and their disposal costs were integrated in the rents. The existing solid waste infrastructure in the 37 case municipalities was evaluated by analysing the components of the infrastructure. Variance in waste treatment charges, unit prices and experimental specific unit weights in the case municipalities were analysed by calculating the average and standard deviation and defining the minimum and maximum values. The analysis illustrated considerable variation in local solid waste infrastructures in the case municipalities. For example the actual treatment charge of mixed waste in the case municipalities varied between 39.36 and 127.10 D /tonne, the average being 56.79 D /tonne. The actual treatment charge of biodegradable waste varied between 10.09 and 88.80 D /tonne with the average of 36.11 D /tonne. Also the actual unit price of mixed waste showed variance, the degree of which was dependent on the container volume and contract type. The present national legislation has given Finnish municipalities a strong autonomy that has resulted in
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
dispersed municipal or regional solid waste infrastructures with high variation among them. The variation leads to different kinds of waste management practices depending on the municipality, thus making it difficult to organise an efficient, nationwide solid waste management infrastructure. Mostly because of this variation, the theoretical recovery potential could not be reached in the existing solid waste infrastructure within the research. This was also revealed by the experiments at outlets 1 and 2. Packaging material harmonisation simplifies waste sorting and decreases the amount of packaging waste. About half of the packaging used in the case company was affected by the packaging material harmonisation mainly by replacement, that is packaging materials were replaced with other ones that were considered easier to recover. For example sales packaging manufactured from paperboard was mainly replaced with paper alternatives in order to decrease the amount of bulky sales packaging waste. The replacements were made by using products already at the market, thus the packaging waste harmonisation did not require new innovation. The harmonisation was not tested empirically and it did not affect the company’s operation. The total number of packaging material items was reduced by 17 items from 91 to 74 items. The packaging material harmonisation decreased the annual amount of packaging waste by 16% from 1937 to 1620 tonnes. The amount of recoverable packaging material decreased by 17% from 1795 to 1485 tonnes. The theoretical recovery rate slightly decreased from 93 to 92%, the decrease being most significant in combustible waste (a decrease of 72%). Harmonisation also had a significant influence on the prime costs of food raw materials and sales packaging; the annual savings were estimated to be about 48% of the total prime costs. In summary, the packaging material harmonisation provides significant potential for the case company both by weight and by value. 6. Discussion and conclusions The main research problem of this study was to find out the means of promoting the recovery of packaging waste generated in the fast food industry. Practical experiences had shown that much of the packaging waste produced in the fast food industry is disposed of in landfills, despite its high recoverability. The research was conducted through a multidisciplinary method, which combined a literature review and a case study. The results of the study verified what had been expected; packaging waste in the fast food industry is highly recoverable, but the recovery rate is still low. This
619
is mainly due to current nonworking waste management practices and inconsistent waste management infrastructures. The research indicated that the packaging waste recovery in the fast food industry demands cooperation between several parties. The parties include the waste management sector, public authorities and the producer organisations. The waste management sector has the most significant role. Thirty four percent of packaging waste could have been recycled within the present system, but due to deficient waste management practices it was taken to landfills. According to the research, waste management companies simply were not able to offer suitable waste management solutions for the outlets. Their selection of services was very limited, and the available waste collection and treatment equipment was not suitable for the fast food industry. For example, there were no reasonable compactors which would be suitable for flattening light sales packaging and could be placed at the outlets’ dining areas. The non-working collection practices include the non-transparency of unit pricing. The common unit-pricing principle hinders commercial waste producers from influencing the unit price even though the specific weights differ significantly from the common ones, as is the case in the fast food industry. As a consequence, the research succeeded in creating workable waste management practices at only one of the four test outlets. The waste management sector can support the packaging waste recovery in the fast food industry by creating practices that fit the waste producers’ needs. The focus should be turned to innovative solutions based on waste producers’ requirements instead of logistically easy collection and invoicing practices. Public authorities have a central role in developing the present waste management systems. The role of municipalities should be restricted to prevent excess variation in waste management practices and infrastructures. Nationwide practices, such as uniform names for different waste types and uniform colours for waste containers, would enable marking packages with colour codes and giving national instructions for waste sorting. This would support waste sorting, make the learning of new practices quicker, and make the production of waste containers simpler. Public authorities should also fortify the influence of economic waste policy instruments. The present economic waste policy instruments do not have a steering effect on producers which produce only small amounts of waste yearly. The research revealed that in the case company the average landfill tax was only 240 D per outlet. The amount is insignificant compared to, e.g., the poten-
620
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
tial savings of more than 12,000 D per outlet that could be achieved by harmonising packaging and packaging materials. Public authorities should give commercial waste a clear definition to improve its status. Commercial waste should be separated from household waste, which would result in household, commercial and industrial wastes forming harmonic unities and equalling the term municipal waste to the term household waste. Separating commercial waste from household waste would allow creating commercial waste management practices resembling industrial waste management, aimed at waste producers operating in business. It is also very important to create national and international practices to recognise those waste producers whose waste production mechanisms deviate from the typical system and to decide when these waste amounts are large enough to be considered in waste management practices. The producer organisations should create a system, through which they can find the most suitable waste management solution for each waste producer. The system could be financed through higher recycling fees. According to this research, today the average recycling fee per outlet is only 150 D , which does not have the steering effect that it is supposed to have. The fast food industry itself can advance recoverability by harmonising packaging materials, which simplifies sorting and reduces the total waste amount. The research showed that the case company has a significant potential both by weight and by value for packaging material harmonisation. The packaging industry can also promote the exploitation of this potential by selling a service in addition to the packaging.
In other words, the packaging industry could provide decision-supporting tools such as customer surveys and pilot marketing of alternative packaging, enabling itself to proactively sell solutions that are not asked for by the customer. The packaging industry should also offer packaging made from alternative materials and with improved functionality. Getting the fast food sector organised and making its status more clear would also be very important. Today the industry does not have a national or international parent organisation. The parent organisation, however, would help the development of waste management systems that are suitable for the fast food industry. Getting the sector organised is important, as for example in Finland the two largest companies in the fast food industry produce at least 1% of the total packaging waste in Finland. In general, the recovery of packaging waste can be promoted by changing the focus of waste management from the interests of high-volume waste operators, such as collectors and municipalities, to operationally easy waste producer oriented practices that are available for all waste producers regardless of the generated volumes. On the basis of the study, the optimal solution for the packaging waste management for the case company is presented in Fig. 6. The solution presented in Fig. 6 would combine every preference of the Waste Hierarchy. The solution would result in the avoidance of 315 tonnes of packaging waste, the recycling of 554 tonnes of fibre and PE plastic waste, and the recovery of 932 tonnes of combustible waste. The amount of packaging waste disposed of in landfills would be only 136 tonnes in comparison to the amount of 1373 tonnes that was disposed of in landfills in 2002. The solution requires, however, that the consistency of
Fig. 6. Optimal solution for the packaging waste generated in the fast food industry.
T. Aarnio, A. H¨am¨al¨ainen / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 612–621
the solid waste infrastructure has been increased by the means discussed above. The results of this study are applicable especially to the fast food industry that resembles the case company and whose packaging waste is managed by the solid waste infrastructure resembling that of Finland. The applicability of the results is influenced by the countrydependent waste producer behaviour, especially at the point of disposing of used packaging. The study has presented packaging waste management in the fast food industry in the conditions that existed in 2002. It is probable that in the future increasing amounts of packaging waste end up in energy recovery. This is especially due to the implementation of the Directive 00/76/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. Before this research, the academic world had not shown any large interest on solid waste management in the fast food industry. However, the study revealed that the fast food industry offers a number of interesting research topics. For example, the general legislative status of commercial waste, the operative status of medium and small volume commercial waste producers, and the allocation of the fast food industry are topics that should be studied further. References Aarnio T. Challenges in packaging waste management: a case study in the fast food industry. Lappeenranta, Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology; 2006. Calcott P, Walls M. Can downstream waste disposal policies encourage upstream ‘Design for Environment’? Am Econ Rev 2000;90:233–7.
621
Choe C, Fraser I. An economic analysis of household waste management. J Environ Econ Manage 1999;38:234–46. Council Directive 1975. 75/442/EEC. Council Directive of July 15, 1975 on waste. OJ L 194, July 25, 1975. Council Directive 1991. 91/156/EEC. Council Directive of March 18, 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste. OJ L 078, March 26, 1991. Council Directive 1994. 94/62/EC. Council Directive of December 20, 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. OJ L 365, December 31, 1994. Council Directive 1996. 96/61/EC. Council Directive of September 24, 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. OJ L 257, October 10, 1996. Council Directive 1999. 99/31/EC. Council Directive of April 26, 1999 on the landfill of waste. OJ L 182, July 16, 1999. Directive 2000. 00/76/EC. Directive of the European Parliament and the Council of December 4, 2000 on the incineration of waste. OJ L 332, December 28, 2000. Eichner T, Pethig R. Product design and efficient management of recycling and waste treatment. J Environ Econ Manage 2001;41:109–34. Fullerton D, Wu W. Policies for green design. J Environ Econ Manage 1998;29:78–91. Johnson SP, Corcelle G. The environmental policy of the European Communities. 2nd ed. London, UK: Kluwer Law International; 1997. Lindhqvist T. Extended producer responsibility in cleaner production: policy principle to promote environmental improvements of product systems. Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Faculty of Technology; 2000. Mason IG, Oberender A, Brooking AK. Source separation and potential reuse of resource residuals at a university campus. Res Conserv Recycl 2004;40:155–72. Runkel M. Product durability and extended producer responsibility in solid waste management. Environ Res Econ 2003;24: 161–82. Schaik van A, Reuter MA. The time-varying factors influencing the recycling rate of products. Res Conserv Recycl 2004;40: 301–28.