ax

n-M, Uni

Legislation

uced inutsd hoto dardstionrts a

incorporated into the development of a model for policy makers and industry to help increase biomaterial

adests incluAccordole in fon thebe re

cally h

it is imperative that biomaterials are seen to be sustainable (Boer,2003; Golden et al., 2010).

In response to these concerns, sustainability assessments weredeveloped including e.g. the European Unions (EU) Renewable En-ergy Directive (RED) and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oils(RSPO) sustainability standard which target consumable biomate-rials (fuel and food) and focus on the impacts of sourcing,

this research is concerned. Compostable bio-waste such as foodand garden waste is part of the biomaterials landscape. Howeverthis has a relatively mature waste management strategy withinEuropean Union policy1 and it is the subject of signicant academicresearch even having academic journals devoted to it2. As such, com-postable bio-waste poses different challenges to other less regulatedbiomaterials, and is therefore not discussed in this paper.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01904 328 7 87.1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm.2 http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-biodeterioration-and-biodegra-

dation/.

Waste Management 33 (2013) 14991508

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

an

elsE-mail address: dwg501@york.ac.uk (D. Glew).ments for petrochemicals (OECD, 2001). However, questions soonsurfaced regarding their sustainability, with key concerns includ-ing emissions from land use change (LUC) in shifts towards bioma-terial production, as well as those linked to excessive fertilizer,pesticide and water use, and displacement of people and food (Til-man et al., 2009; Searchinger et al., 2010). These concerns are espe-cially important because despite on-going debate surrounding itsdenition, sustainability has momentum in industry as a businessprinciple, a marketing tool and a legislative requirement. As such,

ral bres, paper, and bioplastics and everything in between. Fuels,food and garden waste are outside the scope of the research.

1.1. Biomaterials

Combined, the biomaterials industry is vast, contributing aturnover of 2 trillion Euros to the EU economy per annum (Lieten,2010), so it is important to dene with which part of the industry1. Introduction

The biomaterial industry in its broucts derived from plants and animaland waxes, bio plastics and biofuels.biomaterials will play a prominent r(Vandermeulen et al., 2012). Basedhave fewer negative impacts and canrange of sources, they were histori0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.03.005waste recovery. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

sense includes all prod-ding natural bres, oilsing to industry surveys,uture global economiesassumption that they

plenished from a widerailed as ideal replace-

processing and transporting feedstock. Such schemes are neverthe-less inadequate in terms of capturing a complete picture of theimpacts of non-consumable biomaterials like bio-plastics and nat-ural bres, which also need to factor in the impacts of disposal.

The waste hierarchy sets out a pathway of options to reduce theimpact of waste. This study focuses on the recovery aspect of thewaste hierarchy to identify how waste recovery of biomaterialscould be made more widespread. The term biomaterials is usedin this research only to refer to plant based products such as natu-BiomaterialPolicy

of demand through choice editing, product purity could be championed though certication and thereshould be signicant investment and research into recovery technologies. These considerations wereAchieving sustainable biomaterials by m

David Glew a,, Lindsay C. Stringer b, Simon McQueeaCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DDb Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 8 October 2012Accepted 6 March 2013Available online 3 April 2013

Keywords:InterviewsExpert focus groupWaste

a b s t r a c t

The waste hierarchy of redproduct, yet it is not appliesustainable sourcing of inpwith experts to understanview ndings were useddevelop certication standExperts considered that acscenarios (2) and (3). Expe

Waste M

journal homepage: www.ll rights reserved., reuse, recycle, recover can be followed to improve the sustainability of aany meaningful way in the biomaterials industry which focuses more on

. This paper presents the results of industry interviews and a focus groupw waste recovery of biomaterials could become more widespread. Inter-evelop three scenarios: (1) do nothing; (2) develop legislation; and (3). These scenarios formed the basis for discussions at an expert focus group.was required, rejecting the rst scenario. No preference was apparent forgreed that there should be collaboration on collection logistics, promotionimising waste recovery

ason a

ted Kingdom

agement

evier .com/locate /wasman

managers to promote prevention,preparing for re-use, recycling and

1500 D. Glew et al. /Waste Management 33 (2013) 14991508Despite representing a relatively small proportion of the overallmarket, the overwhelming majority of research into biomaterialsfocusses on biofuels, partly because biofuels are becoming moremainstream but also because of the RED (Gallagher, 2008). The re-search presented here concerns only the lesser studied non-con-sumable biomaterial products.

Biomaterials have not been comprehensively studied within thesustainability literature. However, predictions by the NationalNon-Food Crops Centre (NNFCC, 2012) suggest that the UK bioma-terial market could triple over the period 20122015. A cavalcade

other recovery (no explicit referenceto biomaterials)Table 1Chronology of EU Waste Legislation.

Year EU legislation Summary

1994 Packaging and packagingwaste directive

Producer responsibility principlefounded, set out targets for reducingpackaging and to recover 80% ofpackaging (including incineration)

1999 Landll directive Regulations for what can be admittedto landll, restricting biodegradablewaste but permitting all otherbiomaterials

2000 Waste incineration directive Regulated the emissions caused by theincineration of waste to produceelectricity including biomaterials liketextiles, etc.

2003 End of life Vehicle Directive(ELV)

Fines for producers not achievingrecovery targets of up to 90%prompting companies to use moreeasily recoverable biomaterials

2006 Waste Electrical andElectronic EquipmentDirective (WEEE)

Similar to ELV resulting in incentivesfor design for disassembly

2008 Waste framework directive Claried responsibility forgovernments, waste producers andof research on non-consumable biomaterials may therefore be ex-pected, and so establishing a framework for designing interven-tions to promote their waste recovery, and therefore improvetheir sustainability, is both a timely and vital exercise.

1.2. Biomaterial waste recovery

Recovery is used in this paper to refer to disposal options thatavoid landll as per the waste hierarchy; reuse, recycling, inciner-ation with energy recovery, conversion into a liquid fuel like bio-ethanol and composting. Research suggests that whether abiomaterial is sent to landll or is recovered through any of thesemethods can inuence its life cycle impact on CO2 emissions up tothe same degree as other more conventionally studied issues suchas the amount of fertilizer used or LUC (Glew et al., 2012; Shenet al., 2010; Ross and Evans, 2003). Currently the UK recycles lessthan 32% of its textiles and plastics (including natural bres andbioplastics) yet it manages to recycle 42%, 44% and 75% respec-tively of glass, paper and steel packaging (European Commission,2009). Further recovery via incineration of municipal solid waste(including biomaterials) in the UK is only around 10% accordingto the Chartered Institute of Waste Management3, virtually no bio-materials are currently converted to ethanol since the technology isstill embryonic (Schmitt et al., 2012) and only food and gardeningwastes are commonly composted, all of which indicates there isroom for improvement in biomaterials recovery.

3 http://www.ciwm.co.uk/CIWM/InformationCentre/AtoZ/IPages/Incineration.aspx.Recovering waste products can improve supply chain securityand have cost savings (Lynes and Andrachuk, 2008; Sacramento-Rivero, 2012). The recovery of waste is therefore taken seriously,as can be seen in Table 1, which gives a summary of European Un-ion (EU) waste legislation that has been variously enshrined intoUK law. No specic legislation to tackle biomaterials has beendeveloped as of October 2012.

2. Research design and methods

This research uses a qualitative, mixed methods approach com-prising interviews with biomaterials industry representatives, andan expert focus group. Findings from interviews were used to con-struct three scenarios to promote the recovery of waste biomateri-als, which were then evaluated during the focus group. Each of themethods used is outlined in detail below, and complied with theEconomic and Social Research Councils (ESRC) Six Key Principles4

for research projects, ensuring an ethical approach appropriate tothe nature of the study.

2.1. Interview method

Opportunities and barriers to biomaterial recovery are difcultto explore with quantitative assessments and so qualitative,semi-structured interviews were used (Neuman, 2004), allowingquestions to be asked around pre-determined themes in a conver-sational manner (Gillham, 2005). The biomaterial industry in theUK was chosen as the focus of data collection because this is wherethe researchers were located, because waste legislation and sus-tainability assessments are relatively common, and because theUK comprises a range of representatives of this diverse market:from small independent companies to large multi-nationals. Prod-ucts made from biomaterials are as diverse as cotton T-shirts to carpanels, so it was important to collect the views of a wide range ofindustry stakeholders to cover this spectrum. The choice of the UKindustry provides a useful case study, although the different wasteproles of EU member states mean that specic results may differfrom country to country.

Non-probability sampling was employed, gathering the insightsof company representatives with specic insider knowledge (Flow-erdew and Martin, 2005). There were no existing networks of bio-material industry-research collaborations available, so leadingcompanies in the industry were contacted directly and from theseinitial contacts snowball sampling was then used, taking recommen-dations to widen the sample and avoid further cold calling (Neuman,2004). The sample size was dened when new interviews unearthedlittle novel information (Flowerdew and Martin, 2005).

Target industry groups were based on considerations in theWEEE and the ELV where producer responsibility is assumed,manufacturers must pay for waste recovery, and retailers mayfacilitate take back schemes (European Commission, 2003, 2000).Therefore, manufacturers and retailers were invited to take partin the research. Engaging with employees that have strategicunderstandings of companies has been shown to be important,so operational or sustainability managers were approached (Pagell,2004). Feedstock growers are inherently involved in the sustain-ability of biomaterials so growers were also invited to participate(Black et al., 2011; Gallagher, 2008). Attitudes of consumers areimportant as they play a role in product disposal. However, sincethis falls outside the remit of producer responsibility, collectingconsumer opinions was outside the scope of this study. The samplethus constituted a wide selection of stakeholders, so conclusionswith multi-stakeholder implications may be drawn. A summaryof the company proles is shown in Table 2.4 http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf.

meaning key words and common themes were used in categorisa-tion (Holsti, 1969; Flowerdew and Martin, 2005). Coded commentswere organised hierarchically using axial coding according to thebook title, chapter and sub heading analogy proposed by Gillham

gemInterviews took place in spring 2012. Preference was for face-to-face interviews or video or telephone interviews if it was notpossible to meet in person. Participation was encouraged by pro-viding a concept note via an email invitation, followed by tele-phone reminders. During the interviews notes were made andwritten up afterwards, in addition to an audio recording being ta-ken where permission was granted, in order to enable fact check-ing. The interview protocol was iteratively upgraded with eachinterview without altering the focus or content. For example, astandard introduction to the research was given to each intervie-wee after the rst interview revealed this would be helpful.Forty-one companies were contacted and fourteen agreed to aninterview, giving a response rate of 34%. Appendix A identiesthe role of each interviewee and their sector.

Literature on response rates applies mainly to probability sam-pling where rates range from 30% to 85% depending on the numberof reminders sent, respondent age and occupation, etc. (Hockinget al., 2006; Regula-Herzog and Rodgers, 1988). Data on non-prob-ability interview response rates similar to this research are notfound, since biases resulting from low response rates are less likelyto inuence non-random sampling. Non-respondents were notfrom any one group in particular and respondents came from eachof the main categories of retailers, manufacturers and growers, inaddition to there being representatives from large multinationaland smaller organisations. Despite this, there were a substantialnumber of non-respondents which could have resulted in some de-gree of selection bias.

Following the nal interview, a post analysis summary was sentto each interviewee and they were encouraged to identify anychanges needed to the record of their responses (Brenner et al.,

Table 2Interview sample demographic.

Company classication Description

Growers (n = 4) Small scale less than 1000 acres, both food andbiomaterial feedstock

Small manufacturers(n = 5)

Use raw feedstock or processed biomaterials, sell toUK consumers and industry, less than 500employees

Large manufacturers(n = 3)

Use raw feedstock or processed biomaterials, sell toUK and international consumers and industry,more than 500 employees, multinational supplychains

Large retailers (n = 2) Sell a range of processed biomaterials and non-biomaterial products in the UK, over 1000employees, multinational supply chains

D. Glew et al. /Waste Mana1985). All interviewees were content with their documented an-swers and no changes were suggested as a result.

2.2. Focus group method

Following analysis of the interviews (described in detail in Sec-tion 2.3) three scenarios were developed which were then pre-sented to an expert focus group. Scenario-based stakeholderengagement is a useful tool for qualitative analysis comparingpreferences between groups (De Lange et al., 2012; Morgan-Daviesand Waterhouse, 2010; Tompkins et al., 2008).

The focus group was held in summer 2012 and targeted UK ex-perts with experience in the biomaterial, waste and sustainabilitysectors. Focus group participants were identied by conductingan online review of research and government organisations activein the eld of biomaterial recovery. Following this, snowball sam-pling was employed to widen the pool of contacts. Experts had astrategic understanding of their organisation as characterised inTable 3.The focus group experts were introduced to the research via aconcept note and a two-page summary of the interview ndings.In total, nine experts attended (a response rate of 26%) which is auseful size for data collection in exploratory research (Billson,2006; Tang and Davis, 1995). The three scenarios: (1) do nothing;(2) develop legislation; and (3) develop certication, were dis-cussed over a period of 2.5 h. Despite differences of opinion be-tween the experts, consensus was reached on the views to berecorded. Following the focus group, a summary of the outputsfrom the session was sent to all attendees who were asked to pro-vide feedback. Detailed comments were received from one expert.A further nine experts unable to attend the day but who showed aninterest in the research were sent a copy of the output summaryfrom the focus group and were asked to comment via a telephoneinterview or by email. Two replies were received.

2.3. Data analysis

The use of coding to categorise comments from interviews andfocus groups forms the core of the analytical techniques used inthis research (Neuman, 2004). Codes were chosen because they re-ected the purpose of the research and were both etic and emic,

Table 3Focus group sample demographic.

Organisation type Experts role

Research facility for deriving high valuebiomaterials from plants and bio waste

Director

University department for sustainabilityresearch

Director

Consultant to government departments andCo-founder of a sustainability certicationscheme

Consultant

Government funded waste organisation Project managerConsultancy advising the UK government

departments specically DEFRA on wasteand textiles

Technical consultant

University environment department Teaching fellow inenvironmental economics

University department for industrial uses ofplants (biomaterials)

Research chair

Not for prot research institute promotingglobal sustainable development

Director

Not for prot research institute promotingglobal sustainable development

Senior research associate

ent 33 (2013) 14991508 1501(2005). Once the coding of the interview data had been done,descriptive quantications of the number of times particular codeswere raised could be undertaken. Beyond this, semiotic clusteringand a semiotic square was used so that related codes could be de-ned into to more distinct classications to identify mutuallyexclusive and duplicate codes, to align opinions with specic com-pany traits and allow the identication of the scenarios (Flower-dew and Martin, 2005).

To analyse the focus group data, experts discussions on the sce-narios were noted and their comments were similarly grouped intocodes to identify the underlying themes, the areas of consensusand the variation of opinions that existed regarding the scenarios.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Interviews

Fig. 1 presents a summary of the interview ndings accordingto the number of times a particular theme was mentioned. This

Fig. 1. Key themes emerging from interviews.

1502 D. Glew et al. /Waste Management 33 (2013) 14991508quantitative assessment is useful to introduce the issues that wereraised and to group them under broad headings e.g. uncertainty,markets, ethics and cost. It is important to note that thenumber of mentions is not an indication of ranked importanceand many contradictions were apparent. For example, govern-ment support was mentioned frequently in some form, thoughthose mentioning it differed in their opinion as to whether it wasnecessary or not.

Certain trends are apparent when attributing the frequency ofmentions to respondents stakeholder groups (Fig. 2). For example,those selling to the public had a greater preoccupation with green-wash and addressing holistic sustainability; they noted theFig. 2. Key themes in interviewsuncertainty of distinguishing good and bad biomaterials; and felttheir supply chains were difcult to inuence compared to thosewho only sold to other industries. Manufacturers often mentionedcosts,weremostvocalon rejecting theneed for government involve-ment and said theywouldonlyusebiomaterials because they serveda particular function, not because of their perceived sustainability.

There are clear differences in priorities for stakeholders andpicking out the interesting trends beyond these prosaic patternsrequires qualitative analysis. During the analysis of the interviewdata it became apparent that the interview responses could be use-fully presented under the following two headings: the need forintervention and possible interventions.according to company type.

gem3.1.1. The need for interventionAccording to the interviews, companies main concerns were

nancial sustainability, followed by issues including product qual-ity, risks and environmental footprints. After these common prior-ities there was some divergence, for example, concerns over stablesupply chains, social welfare, habitat destruction, climate changeand depleting resources were recorded mainly by companies withinternational operations. Only a few large retailers and small man-ufacturers considered waste recovery to be important and thesewere companies that had an economic or marketing interest init. A lack of priority for recovery was especially evident for compa-nies selling products that use energy, such as cars, houses or wash-ing powder, whose main life cycle impacts were the in-use energyconsumption of their products. It was common that life cycleassessments (LCAs) on individual products had not been per-formed, either because it was too expensive, because companiesdid not see the need to, or because it was too great a task, espe-cially for those who sold thousands of different products. Severallarger rms had performed holistic LCA of their entire companyoperations but the majority of respondents were condent, evenwithout having done product or company wide LCA, that disposalrepresented one of the smaller, if not the smallest, environmentalimpact of their operations. Despite this, several respondentsclaimed to be interested in disposal and almost all anticipated thatit would become more signicant to their business in the future.However, in the short-term at least, more pressing problems pushwaste disposal further down their agenda.

Recovering biomaterials can be protable, for example, where itprovides a free resource in the case of reconstructing natural brecarpet tiles. Generally it was suggested that recovery is rare be-cause of the low economic value of recycled biomaterials com-pared to synthetic alternatives. There were also concerns that thereprocessed biomaterials may not have sufcient quality. Forexample, a retailer investigating the sale of clothes made fromrecycled natural bres was concerned they are not always compar-atively comfortable, and was reluctant to offer a lower qualityproduct to consumers. This nding conrms that of Nicolli et al.(2012) who also established quality was a barrier to nding mar-kets for recycled products. Similarly, car manufacturers claimedthey were restricted in using recycled products in componentssuch as seat belts due to health and safety legislation. Intervieweesfelt that technological advancements may be needed to producecheaper, higher quality recovered biomaterials before they becomeprotable and desirable enough to be mainstream products.

Companies with many sites, large shop footprints, car parks andwho may already be providing recycling facilities for e.g. glass andplastic were particularly concerned that if biomaterial recoverywas forced upon them, they would have to take the brunt of thelogistical burdens for the rest of the industry. One such respondentstated we are not a waste management company and smallercompanies even conrmed that allowing larger companies to hosttheir take back schemes for them would be more practical thancollecting material on their own smaller premises. A fear of therisks and burdens means large retailers that could arguably benetthe most from recovering large quantities of waste biomaterials toput back into their supply chains, are put off, and are least likely toactually recover any material. Growers appeared most positiveabout taking back waste, suggesting they drop off raw materialsto factories and could simply bring back the waste biomaterial(presumably in composted form) to put it back on the land andcomplete the cycle. Fairness and responsibilities are important is-sues and how these are shared seems a common barrier that pre-vents biomaterial recovery rising up the agenda.

D. Glew et al. /Waste ManaProducer responsibility is embedded in waste legislation, yetconsumers inuence waste recovery too and this was reected ininterview comments ranging from consumer education is keythrough to the notion that any scheme will fail if it places addi-tional cost on penny pinching customers. Those accustomed tousing various sustainability labels felt that having many schemesrunning in parallel can be confusing for consumers, and they werenot keen on using more labels to promote recovery. The reluctanceto place responsibility or cost on consumers seems another reasonfor the lack of experience and growth in the recovery ofbiomaterials.

In summary, there are signicant barriers to generating interestin recovering biomaterials. These include competing priorities, un-known potential costs and benets, insufcient knowledge andtechnical capability, a lack of proven nationwide logistics, uncer-tainty over responsibilities for recovery and collection, and trepi-dation about consumer responses. These issues are difcult totackle with strict intervention and overall, suggested that do noth-ing was a realistic scenario to include in the focus groupdiscussion.

3.1.2. Possible interventionsAlthough do nothing may be a desirable scenario from the

perspective of some companies it has thus far not led to high ratesof biomaterial waste recovery. Intervention is used here to referto any form of legislation, investment, law or certication schemethat may stimulate waste recovery. Generally there was concernabout government intervention resulting in yet more red tapeespecially from farmers and small companies who had experiencesof burdensome requirements. A cautious overall agreement wasnevertheless put forward from larger companies and those accus-tomed to regulation, suggesting that intervention may be useful.According to an interviewee from the construction industry, inter-vention would make it easier to differentiate good from bad. Al-most all interviewees across the different stakeholder groupsagreed that before intervention on a mass scale is implemented(either from within the industry or from outside), there shouldbe a greater understanding of the risks, logistical requirementsand benets of recovering different biomaterials in different ways.

The interviews revealed that four companies were currently in-volved in voluntary recovery schemes driven by the desire to dothe right thing but also in some instances to take advantage of afree resource. These were: (1) a refurbishment schemes for mat-tresses though [they] only do the take back [scheme] on the top ofthe range models; (2) leasing schemes for carpet tiles; (3) removalof large bulky items when replacements are being delivered; andnally, (4) a voucher system to encourage consumers to returntheir clothes to a partner charity shop. These voluntary recoveryschemes are in various stages of maturity but all are relativelynew, small-scale and not necessarily suitable for all biomaterials.Although the positive impact of voluntary agreements is hintedat by the respondents it has not been conclusively shown in this re-search. However, this suggestion does align with others studiesthat have suggested they are particularly critical in spurring tech-nological advancement specically in the automotive sector(Nicolli et al., 2012).

It was generally agreed by those not partaking in a voluntaryscheme that they would require some form of support, such as sub-sidised costs of infrastructure for collecting, transporting and pro-cessing waste, or collective action on a nationwide collectionscheme in order to benet from of economies of scale to persuadethem to embark on a recovery scheme. Incentives have justicationin xing the market failure of technological externalities. Forexample manufacturers may not invest in making products easyto recover by other companies at another point in time despitethe net benet to society this may bring since they receive no re-

ent 33 (2013) 14991508 1503ward for this, incentives address this (Nemoto and Goto, 2004).Yet beyond the potential benets of recovered materials being freeresources there was no mention by either industry or expert

gem1504 D. Glew et al. /Waste Manastakeholders that vertical integration of biomaterial producing andrecovering companies would be benecial, which is the case insome other markets for example the electricity industry wheretechnological externalities have been observed.

Those companies already involved in a scheme enjoyed theiruniqueness and did not crave participation by their competitors,some referring to themselves as leaders and enjoying competi-tive advantage. Thus, although incentives exist to set up recoveryschemes, these are unlikely to be sufcient to stimulate recoveryon a national scale. As such, developing legislation of some kindrepresents a reasonable scenario to include in the focus groups.

Fear of innovation being stied by intervention was mentionedby several smaller companies. However, this may be a misconcep-tion of the hands-off approach, since innovation seemed to bemost advanced in the automotive industry where prototypes usingbiomaterials to increase recovery rates and reduce environmentalfootprints were more common. At the same time, this is a sectorin which waste recovery is heavily regulated (to combat the nega-tive external of sending used cars to landll), though research anddevelopment budgets are generally higher in the automobileindustry. The interviews seem to support the assertion that

Fig. 3. Development of intervention scent 33 (2013) 14991508certainty of legislation can stimulate innovation (Ofce of FairTrading, 2009), especially where there is momentum behind thetechnology (Luiten et al., 2006). In the case of the ELV directive,the metals recovered are valuable and so a protable recycling net-work collects, sorts and processes end of life vehicles. Biomaterialsmay not have similarly high market values and individuals fromthe automotive industry suggested that if other biomaterial pro-ducers were forced to recover their products along the lines ofthe ELV directive, they may end up out of pocket. Assisting recy-cling companies to extend their capabilities to process all sorts ofdisparate biomaterial products more cheaply may be helpful yetaccording to those interviewed one of the benets of recoveringbiomaterials is that they provide a cheap feedstock. This meansthat if they themselves do not directly benet from recoveringthe biomaterials, they may not be incentivised to design in recov-erability, preferring cheaper petrochemical alternatives.

There was concern from retailers that customers are alreadyfaced with multiple forms of labelling and that they may not beready for additional certication schemes around biomaterialwaste recovery, yet the need to segregate biomaterials from syn-thetics was identied to be a problem by companies from each

enarios from interview comments.

tion

or subecaprote btry

tions tonteereco

gement 33 (2013) 14991508 1505stakeholder group. For example, a company selling textiles arguedthere was a need for products to be designed with disassembly inmind, making it easier to break down bres to their constituentparts without contamination from synthetics before large-scalerecovery programs would be worthwhile. Linked to this are thebarriers of providing access to collection points and the complexityof self-sorting; challenges that were almost unanimously men-tioned. Recovering materials at a large scale is therefore less likelywhile biomaterials are complex, heterogeneous and difcult toseparate. A nal scenario for the focus group discussions maytherefore be developing certication, which may incentivisethe use of pure biomaterials which will simplify sorting and im-prove the efciency of technology.

Fig. 3 captures some of the main threads discussed in the inter-views. Overlapping circles reect related themes which are eachlocated in the legislation, certication or do nothing scenar-ios or some combination of all three.

In summary, biomaterial industry representatives presentedmixed views on the need for intervention. Currently, recovery isbeing held back because products are not pure, the technical chal-lenges and costs of mass recovery are thought to be too great, andthere is no guaranteed market for recovered biomaterials, so econ-omies of scale are being missed. Existing schemes are irregular andsmall scale, though they are indicative of the potential that exists.Despite opposition from some smaller manufacturers there isagreement across the other stakeholder groups that interventioncould play a useful role. The scenarios of do nothing, developlegislation and develop certication were developed from theTable 4Scenarios for discussion.

Expand or develop new legislation Voluntary certica

For The automotive industry is subject to wasteregulations which have greatly increased itsrecovery of materials as a result. The certaintythat legislation has brought has spurred on moreinnovation and could be successful in thebiomaterial industry too

There is a market fcannot be tappedCertication couldmarket and promobiomaterials indus

Against There is no ready-made recycling industry to dealwith logistical problems of collecting biomaterialsas there was for metal in cars

Additional certicaadding more labeland will not guaratake part in waste

Biomaterials are too diverse to have a one size tsall approach and legislation risks lumbering hugecosts onto an emerging market

D. Glew et al. /Waste Manainterviews and used in the focus group discussions.

3.2. Focus groups

The intervention scenarios taken from the interviews in Fig. 3were presented to the focus group as a starting point for discussionas shown in Table 4.

Coding of the focus group discussions revealed several over-arching principles which held consensus with all the experts. Thesewere: (i) that increasing the recovery of biomaterial waste will in-crease efciency and sustainability in the industry; (ii) that inter-vention was a reasonable next step to encourage morebiomaterials recovery; (iii) that interventions should target bioma-terials according to their product type not as an overall group (thusrecovering textiles in clothes should be approached differently torecovering textiles in furniture and so forth); and (iv) that holisticsustainability (not just recommending a particular end of life op-tion) should be promoted. There was also consensus on the generalapproach of tackling the easy wins rst, so that effort can be tar-geted to where it is most effective. Specic blueprints of schemeswere not explicitly suggested by the experts, though the followingsections discuss their comments on different intervention options.

3.2.1. Do nothingAllowing the market to act can be an effective means of change

yet the option of do nothing was discussed very little in the focusgroup, despite it being a starting scenario and a relatively well rep-resented stance within the interviews. This may be because of abias in the sample where only those who had an interest in inter-vention possibilities that encouraged more biomaterial wasterecovery chose to attend the focus group. In concurrence withthe majority of the interviewees, the experts generally regardedthat something needed to be done to stimulate more waste recov-ery and that the market alone was not able to bring about the nec-essary shift in increasing recovery rates.

3.2.2. LegislationThere were palpable concerns for the perverse consequences of

legislation, where good intentions can bring about unknown dam-age. Detailed discussions on the various legislative options that theexperts identied are summarised below.

Targets set for recycling and energy recovery have been success-ful in the ELV directive. However, given the differing waste collec-tion infrastructure, and that cars represent relatively valuableproducts compared to biomaterials, it was thought that recoverytargets and the possibility of nancial penalties would be unsuit-able for the biomaterial industry.

Incentives were discussed positively for their ability to reward

schemes Do nothing

stainable biomaterials thatuse of uncertainty.vide clarity, inform theest practice within the

Change should be allowed to grow organicallyfrom within the industry without being hinderedby external inuences

will confuse consumersalready crowded packagingcustomers will actuallyvery

The costs of setting up a recovery program formass biomaterial markets are prohibitive,collective burden sharing represents the highestpossibility of success and needs some marketintervention to make it happendesign for disassembly and purer products, especially importantwhen consumers self-sort the products. Specic proposals suchas tax relief or direct payments for 100% natural bre T-shirts forexample were not discussed, but the principle of incentives waspreferred to that of setting targets.

Bans and taxes were thought to be a hostile form of legislation,though it was mentioned that they have been implemented insome EU member states to penalise those not engaging in bioma-terial waste recovery. A case study in France was noted, where tex-tiles companies must either pay a levy on each product they maketo help cover the costs of recycling infrastructure, or they must di-rectly fund a recovery scheme with a waste management partnercompany. The results of this trial were not published at the timeof writing.5 A blanket ban on certain biomaterials being sent to land-ll was suggested in the focus group. However, it would be very dif-cult to differentiate between e.g. plastic and bioplastic bags, andthis may result in inequality where biomaterials are penalised morethan synthetic products.

5 http://www.ecotlc.fr/.

to comment on a post analysis summary, indicating they perhaps

1506 D. Glew et al. /Waste Managemwere not important.One problem that was discussed was that it could not be guaran-

teed that consumers would actually dispose of their certied bioma-terials appropriately. Certication was therefore suggested to belimited to issues such as purity not compostability, which has al-ready seen to cause signicant problems for the plastic bag industry.However, it was felt that certication could be effective if targetingthe percentage purity or recycled content of a product, and if it isused in conjunction with other legislation (such as government pro-curement) along with improving access to recovery facilities.

3.2.4. Other intervention: more researchBeyond these scenarios other interventions were proposed in

the focus group which can mostly be classied as calls for more re-search. Whether the source of funding should be from governmentor industry or a combination of both was not discussed. Thissive approach to legislation, while accommodating the freedom ofthe market to satisfy demand. It was also seen to assist economiesof scale and add a degree of certainty within the market. Having alist of approved products has the appeal of simplicity and is alreadyused by EU governments to ensure green procurement exempli-ed by the UK Governments Buying Standards that ensure energyefcient appliances are preferred in government departments(European Commission, 2011). It follows that given a governmentlead, it could be more likely that other organisations would followsuit and apply choice editing to their operations.

3.2.3. CerticationInitially, focus group discussions demonstrated limited support

for certication because it was felt that each biomaterial wouldneed its own scheme. Multiple certication schemes were thoughtto introduce excessive complexity for consumers. In addition bio-based certication seen in the USA6 that ensures a minimum per-centage of biomaterial content in products fails to give an indicationof potential contamination or the ease recovery or even the mostappropriate method of recovery. Support nevertheless grew for theidea as discussions progressed and ideas such as using existingschemes like the European Unions eco label certication schemewere discussed. This scheme was already in the consumer landscapeand provides an example of a single scheme that covered multipleproducts. This idea also appeased the requirement to be inclusiveof wider sustainability issues which consumers would instinctivelyexpect. Certication was also seen to work well with other comple-mentary forms of intervention, especially government procurement.The inherent complexity of sustainability was mentioned as a poten-tial problem for certication (especially when the purpose of certi-cation is usually to promote single issues). However, it wassuggested with little opposition that experts could set the standardsbehind the scenes and consumers would only need to see the logo.Problems nevertheless remain with this approach; problems thatwere not mentioned during the focus group. These include the dis-empowerment of consumers, who may not be aware why a producthas been certied. Also, situations may arise where products de-signed to be recovered easily may not achieve certication if they fallfoul of other sustainability obstacles, which could be a disincentivefor companies to play along. In addition to not being discussed inthe focus group, they were not raised when the experts were askedGovernment procurement was suggested as means to stimulatedemand for recovered biomaterial products. For example, all car-pets and uniforms made from natural bres could be required tobe pure, easily recoverable, or sourced from recovered textiles.This proposal was popular in that it provided a relatively unobtru-6 http://www.biopreferred.gov/.section describes the types of research that were suggested wouldbe needed prior to intervention.

Logistical knowledge and infrastructure was currently thought tobe inadequate to support wider recovery of biomaterials, and re-search to quantify the amounts of waste for different biomaterialswas perceived to be important. Companies do not currently knowif they would be inundated with waste if recovery schemes wereemployed, or if a lack of material would make investment in recov-ery infrastructure futile. This information could be used in con-junction with research on the relative impacts of different end oflife scenarios (recycle, energy recovery, producing fuel, etc.) tocompile a list of preferred disposal options for common types ofbiomaterials, as well as enabling cost benet analyses. It wasthought this would assist the compilation of a list of easy winswhich would provide simplicity and help focus effort efciently,being especially useful for government procurement.

A lack of technical knowledge was cited as an important chal-lenge, and improving recovery technologies and capacities wasthought to be vital in improving the quality and quantities ofrecovered biomaterials. An expert from the research sector hadexperience in running a demonstration plant to investigate newways of dealing with waste biomaterials with companies who of-ten were unaware of the possibilities. This participant also ex-plained that the research facilities in the UK were still onlyfunctioning at a demonstration scale and although demonstrationplants are widely used as a means of establishing proof of principletechniques and to improve collective knowledge, commercial com-panies were needed to invest to take infrastructure to the next use-ful scale. Once greater awareness and capability is established,costs are likely to fall, increasing the protability of recovering bio-materials and the quantities consumed. Experts in involved inexisting kerb side recycling nevertheless expressed concerns thateven advanced recycling facilities and technologies struggle se-verely with contamination issues, so they may not be able to copewith mixed biomaterials. This hints that technical solutions maynot be a panacea.

Public knowledge of the potential for recovering biomaterialswas perceived to be low. It was suggested that the majority of con-sumers would throw their old holey socks in the bin withoutthinking, instead of taking them to a collection bank for reuse orrecovery. It was suggested this was down to both limited availabil-ity of facilities but also a lack of understanding of the value ofwaste textiles as new fuels or new fabrics. An education campaignto widen this understanding was tentatively suggested but theunpreparedness of the waste and biomaterial industry to cope withlarge-scale collections meant that this idea was not thought to besuitable until the industry was better prepared.

In summary, several areas of consensus were identied regard-ing the design of a proposed intervention: it should be simple,product specic, have few burdens and be economically protable.Schemes that were discussed are not necessarily mutually exclu-sive and it may well be advantageous to employ a multi-prongedapproach to achieve maximum biomaterial waste recovery. Thepolicy scenario do nothing received very little consideration un-like the other two scenarios. Developing legislation was seen tohave many problems but it found some support where approacheswere less strict. The nal scenario develop certication also re-ceived positive comments and was thought to be a useful tool. Inaddition to evaluating the scenarios, this section has identied use-ful areas for future investigation. The following section outlines therecommendations that may be drawn from this research.

4. Recommendations

ent 33 (2013) 14991508Despite the array of different biomaterial products and compa-nies, and the diversity of comments and opinions collected, this

gemD. Glew et al. /Waste Manaresearch established a concrete foundation on which to encouragemore biomaterials recovery through intervention. This is describedin Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 describes the predicted outcomes; minimum, partial ormaximum biomaterial recovery of the intervention scenarios,based on the focus group consensus. The ideal outcome of max-imum recovery is shown to only be delivered by multiple interven-tions; promoting demand for pure biomaterials throughgovernment procurement or certication, increasing the supplyof quality recycled materials by developing technology or intro-ducing incentives and nally addressing logistical problemsthough industry agreements or legislation.

As can be seen, depending on the biomaterial, there may be nointervention required to achieve some amount of waste biomaterialrecovery, though this is unlikely to maximise waste recovery. Fig. 4also suggests that improving market conditions for recovered bio-materials may not in itself necessarily achieve the ideal outcome,since logistical and infrastructural issues can still be a barrier.

Strict legislation was less clear in its outcomes. There wasuncertainty over the legislation trialled in France and yet it wasan unpopular approach with both interview respondents and ex-perts who predicted it should be a tool of last resort. It is likely thatstrict legislation may achieve some increase in recovery rates butthat it is not the preferred route and so is shown to either produceminimum or partial recovery.

The model in Fig. 4 may be especially useful for companies orgovernments embarking on recovery schemes, as it identies stepsthat could be taken (i.e. to improve supply, demand and logistics).It also highlights that although certain biomaterials may not re-quire any form of intervention to promote recovery, in general,multiple unobtrusive interventions may be benecial, and collabo-ration, especially regarding the logistics of a nationwide collection

Fig. 4. Model for maximising bent 33 (2013) 14991508 1507scheme, may underpin attempts to maximise biomaterial wasterecovery in the industry as a whole.

5. Conclusions

This research has revealed that biomaterial recovery is not cur-rently seen to be an important issue, even though biomaterialwaste is highly likely to become more important in the future. Sig-nicant barriers to improving recovery rates have been identiedwhich are not being adequately addressed by industry, indicatingthat some form of intervention may be required. This researchhas produced a model for policy and decision makers concernedwith promoting biomaterial recovery. It suggests the policy sce-nario do nothing may not be appropriate for the entire industrydespite its support from the minority already undertaking volun-tary activities and that strong regulation such as taxation, nesand targets like those found in the WEEE and ELV directives mayhave limited and unpredictable success. This is due to the un-known potential market for recovered biomaterials, immaturityof technology and public attitudes, logistical difculties in collect-ing biomaterial waste and contamination with synthetics. This re-search suggests that a lighter touch multi-pronged approach toboost supply through increasing purity of products and the capac-ity of recovery technology and to stimulate demand through certi-cation or government procurement is perceived to offer aneffective way to encourage more biomaterial waste recovery. Inaddition this study has found that simply inuencing the marketconditions may not be enough. It is vital in the case of biomaterialsto organise and support recovery and collection infrastructuresince the diversity of biomaterial products and their particularchallenges make spontaneous solutions unlikely, even with alucrative market.

iomaterial waste recovery.

Acknowledgements

The research is funded by the White Rose Consortium of Uni-versities and the authors are indebted to those company represen-

plastics

materials9 Manufacturing

11 Executive Manufacturing

consumer

R

Bi r yk o h

Council.Black, M.J., Whittaker, C., Hosseini, S.A., Diaz-chavez, R J.,

n e gu e r 5,

Bo ll i irc n E 4.

Br r nQua Press, London.

de r , gs n

European Commission, 2009. In: Studies, I.F.P.T. (Ed.), Study on the Selection ofWaste Streams for End of Waste Assessment. Seville: Joint Research Centre.

European Commission, 2011. Buying green! Green public procurement in Europe, asummary. In: Environment (Ed.), European Commission.

1508 D. Glew et al. /Waste Management 33 (2013) 14991508plants as a bio-energy feedstock: applying the analytical hierarchy process.Journal of Environmental Management 99, 7683.

European Commission, 2000. Directive on the End of Life Vehicles. EuropeanCommission.

European Commission, 2003. Directive on Waste Electrical and ElectronicEquipment (WEEE), European Commission.Langstaklitative Research. Academice, W.J., Stafford, W.H.L., Foeholder preferences in thesyth, G.G., le Maitreelection of technologD.C., 2012. Incorporatinies for using invasive aliefunennetions for stakeholders. Busi, M., Brown, J., Canter, Dess Strategy and the., 1985. Interviewinnvironment 12, 25426g and Representation i12.er, J.D., 2003. Sustainability labe ing schemes: the log c of their claims and theind strial crops, processes and nd products. Indust ial Crops and Products 4

2011. Life cycle assessment a d sustainability mmic and Social Researc

., Woods, J., Murphy, R.thodologies for assessinllson,andJ.M. 2006. Conducting FocuComparability. WeD Wors Group Research Acing Paper 27. Econoss Cultures: Consistenceferencesproducts

specialist consumer14 Sustainability Retail Household andsocial responsibility

products13sustainabilitymanagerHead of corporate Retailconstruction

Household and12

materials engineerSenior ManufacturingAutomotiveAutomotive

Building and10Research anddevelopmentCSR manager ManufacturingChemicals andplastics7 Director Manufacturing Textiles8 Consultant Manufacturing Buildingtatives and experts that contributed to the interviews and focusgroup.

Appendix A. Interview respondent backgrounds

Interviewrespondent role

Classication Sector

1 Manager Grower Agriculture2 Manager Grower Agriculture3 Manager Grower Agriculture4 Manager Grower Agriculture/

buildingmaterials

5 Consultant Manufacturing Carpets andtextiles

6 Director Manufacturing Chemicals andFlowerdew, R., Martin, D., 2005. Methods in Human Geography: A Guide forStudents Doing a Research Project, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited.

Gallagher, E., 2008. The Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels.Renewable Fuels Agency 42, 21.

Gillham, B., 2005. Research Interviewing: The Range of Techniques. Open UniversityPress, Maidenhead.

Glew, D., Stringer, L.C., Acquaye, A.A., McQueen-Mason, S., 2012. How do end of lifescenarios inuence the environmental impact of product supply chains?Comparing biomaterial and petrochemical products. Journal of CleanerProduction 2930, 122131.

Golden, J.S., Dooley, K.J., Anderies, J.M., Thompson, B.H., Geref, G., Pratson, L., 2010.Sustainable product indexing: navigating the challenge of ecolabeling. Ecologyand Society 15.

Hocking, J.S., Lim, M.S.C., Read, T., Hellard, M., 2006. Postal surveys of physiciansgave superior response rates over telephone interviews in a randomized trial.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59, 521524.

Holsti, O.R., 1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.

Lieten, I., 2010. Turning challenges into opportunities. In: The Knowledge Based Bio-Economy Towards 2020, 2010 Square Conference Centre Brussels.

Luiten, E., van Lente, H., Blok, K., 2006. Slow technologies and governmentintervention: energy efciency in industrial process technologies.Technovation 26, 10291044.

Lynes, J.K., Andrachuk, M., 2008. Motivations for corporate social andenvironmental responsibility: a case study of Scandinavian Airlines. Journal ofInternational Management 14, 377390.

Morgan-Davies, C., Waterhouse, T., 2010. Future of the hills of Scotland:Stakeholders preferences for policy priorities. Land Use Policy 27, 387398.

Nemoto, J., Goto, M., 2004. Technological externalities and economies of verticalintegration in the electric utility industry. International Journal of IndustrialOrganization 22, 6781.

Neuman, L., 2004. Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches. Pearson Education Inc., Boston.

Nicolli, F., Johnstone, N., Sderholm, P., 2012. Resolving failures in recyclingmarkets: the role of technological innovation. Environmental Economics andPolicy Studies 14, 261288.

NNFCC, 2012. Market Review, Bio-based Products, April 2012. National Non FoodCrops Centre.

OECD, 2001. The Application of Biotechnology to Industrial Sustainability.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Ofce of Fair Trading, 2009. Government in markets: why competition matters aguide for policy makers. In: Copyright, C. (Ed.), Ofce of Fair Trading.

Pagell, M., 2004. Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration ofoperations, purchasing and logistics. Journal of Operations Management 22,459487.

Regula-Herzog, A., Rodgers, W.L., 1988. Age and response rates to interview samplesurveys. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 43, 200205.

Ross, S., Evans, D., 2003. The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 561571.

Sacramento-Rivero, J.C., 2012. A methodology for evaluating the sustainability ofbioreneries: framework and indicators. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening6, 3244.

Schmitt, E., Bura, R., Gustafson, R., Cooper, J., Vajzovic, A., 2012. Convertinglignocellulosic solid waste into ethanol for the State of Washington: aninvestigation of treatment technologies and environmental impacts.Bioresource Technology 104, 400409.

Searchinger, T.D., Hamburg, S.P., Melillo, J., Chameides, W., Havlik, P., Kammen,D.M., Likens, G.E., Obersteiner, M., Oppenheimer, M., Robertson, G.P.,Schlesinger, W.H., Tilman, G.D., Lubowski, R., 2010. Carbon calculations toconsider response. Science 327, 781-a.

Shen, L., Worrell, E., Patel, M.K., 2010. Open-loop recycling: a LCA case study of PETbottle-to-bre recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55, 3452.

Tang, K., Davis, A., 1995. Critical factors in the determination of focus group size.Family Practice 12, 474475.

Tilman, D., Socolow, R., Foley, J.A., Hill, J., Larson, E., Lynd, L., Pacala, S., Reilly, J.,Searchinger, T., Somerville, C., Williams, R., 2009. Benecial biofuels the food,energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325, 270271.

Tompkins, E.L., Few, R., Brown, K., 2008. Scenario-based stakeholder engagement:incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climatechange. Journal of Environmental Management 88, 15801592.

Vandermeulen, V., Van der Steen, M., Stevens, C.V., Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2012.Industry expectations regarding the transition toward a biobased economy.Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening 6, 453464.

Achieving sustainable biomaterials by maximising waste recovery1 Introduction1.1 Biomaterials1.2 Biomaterial waste recovery

2 Research design and methods2.1 Interview method2.2 Focus group method2.3 Data analysis

3 Results and discussion3.1 Interviews3.1.1 The need for intervention3.1.2 Possible interventions

3.2 Focus groups3.2.1 Do nothing3.2.2 Legislation3.2.3 Certification3.2.4 Other intervention: more research

4 Recommendations5 ConclusionsAcknowledgementsAppendix A Interview respondent backgroundsReferences