Today, Friday 19th June the Daily Mail has printed another two pages about wheeled bins. A further six arguments have been presented - these are all a little more tenuous that the last lot.
1) The recycling industry backs the Daily Mail campaign
2) Certain French and German individuals are making vast amounts of money from selling wheeled bins in the UK
3) Householders have to pay for their bins and this is a stealth tax
4) Southend on Sea has a 40% recycling rate but does not use wheeled bins
5) Wheeled bins and other containers mean that poor Ricky and Sarah Roffey can't use the alleyway at the side of their house
6) Burglars are using bins to break into peoples houses
So does the industry back the campaign? Well no. Phil Hurst of The Campaign for Real Recycling is quoted in The Mail as saying "We are not against wheelie bins". It can't really be much clearer than that.
As to the issue of price and who is profiteering, The Mail claims a wheeled bin is £46. Actually, they sell for less than half of this amount. Straight plc proudly makes its plastic wheeled bins in the UK - and they are the least profitable item in our range.
GDF Suez do not make bins, they service them. They also run many rounds where wheeled bins are not used. The fact that their CEO earns many millions for running this large multi-national corporation generating more than €80 billion has little to do with wheeled bins. Having a go at Sulo boss Mr Grenz for being successful is the politics of envy and nothing more. So what he has got a yacht?
Daily Mail CEO in 2008 was Charles Sinclair who earned nearly £2M for publishing what seems to be an ill informed rag, whilst Chairman The Viscount Rothmere earned £700,000 and has shares worth £313 million. I wonder if either of them has a yacht?
Householders were charged £60 in South Cambridgeshire - but it seems for two bins, not one as reported. It seems they had to call a number to pay for their bins which would then be delivered. I have no issue with people being charged, should bins be free? If they did not pay for the bins up front they would only be charged through the Council Tax. However, this does seem a very inefficient way of doing things. £60 is over the top - two bins should be deliverable for about £45.
Southend on Sea is doing well with its 40% recycling rate. Of course this can be achieved without wheeled bins as everyone in the industry knows. But talk to people on the streets about where they leave their black bags before collection day and you may well get a different story. Foxes can tear bags open - they can't be left outdoors. Also 77,800 bags will cost around £200,000 per year and is very wasteful. After 7 or 8 years of one bag per home a bin could be bought for the same money. The bin would last 10 years at least, so this offers better value. 2 bags per house per week and the figure halves.
I have some sympathy for Ricky and Sarah Roffey. But surely if Mr Roffey has the brains to father three children he must understand that people cannot pass through solid bins and if he wants to use the alleyway at the side of his house he should put them somewhere else. Incidentally, the food waste bin (unforgivably described as a slop bucket) is collected every week in Epsom & Ewell, only the wheeled bins are collected fortnightly. The food waste colletion means the fortnightly collection is perfectly adequate for anyone.
And finally the issue of burglary. Having a wheeled bin does not lead to any increased risk. If people are stupid enough to leave a window open then the burglar might climb on the bin to get through. Moral - shut the window. Better still, block the escape route with your wheeled bins, boxes, slop buckets, dustbins and plastic bags to prevent a quick getaway!
Friday 19 June 2009
Thursday 18 June 2009
The truth about wheelie bins
Having held a long conversation with a journalist from the Daily Mail yesterday, I felt that I should buy a copy. The headline Wheelie Bins: Join the Revolt was quite surreal.
Having read the paper I now know why it does not form part of my daily activities. Along with six and a half pages of ranting about wheeled bins, the edition from today Thursday 18th June includes information about how Gypsies jump the queue to see a GP and how many of the unemployed have now given up looking for work. This paper is a masterpiece. Talk about mutton dressed as lamb, this is The Sun dressed as The Daily Telegraph.
The Daily Mail is leading a high profile campaign which on first impressions appears to be against wheeled bins. The bins are described as “monstrous” and are described as “blighting our streets and gardens”.
On closer reading, the campaign appears confused. The coupon that readers are requested to cut out, fill in and post to the Chief Executive of their local council actually asks for people to be given a choice between a wheeled bin, a dustbin or a biodegradable plastic bag.
There are numerous arguments presented against the wheeled bin.
1) Councils are introducing these without local consultation on bin type or the collection methods employed
2) The bins are unsuitable for some properties yet councils ignore protests
3) More unwanted bins are coming in a bid to increase recycling, forced upon us by Europe
4) The bins are aesthetically poor
5) Bins are not the best way to collect recyclables – boxes are
6) Bins are not necessary but are being pushed through by overzealous councils on health and safety grounds.
7) Bins are fitted with chips which are “intrusive” and will allow new taxes to be charged
8) Wheeled bins are expensive
9) More collection space is needed for a fortnightly collection service
10) Recycling aims are misguided and do not need wheeled bins to encourage them.
11) Waste reduction is a better plan. Manufacturers and retailers should reduce packaging.
12) Other councils achieve high recycling rates without using wheeled bins at all.
My view is that the Daily Mail is being hugely irresponsible. Councils have a job to do and they are democratically elected to do this job. The Mail has generally taken an anti-recycling stance in the past, promoting commingling where all recyclable materials are collected together in a wheeled bin. This new attack appears to be a significant change of heart. Whether it will persuade its readers to follow a more environmentally positive lifestyle is unlikely.
I am well qualified to comment on this argument. The company I founded, Straight plc, does sell wheeled bins, but it is not a wheeled bin company. Wheeled bins are a small part of what we do and are an even smaller contributor to profits. We offer councils a wide choice of container solutions including kerbside boxes and dustbins. I would estimate that we have 10-15% of the UK market for domestic wheeled bins at present.
On the point of councils not consulting residents this will be a matter of geographical variation. However, councils have to hit recycling targets. It is true these targets came from Europe, but they should be viewed positively. We can’t continue to landfill waste as this is not sustainable, but councils should engage with their residents.
It is perfectly true that wheeled bins are not suitable for all properties. Councils already make provisions for flats and should be sensitive to areas where there is nowhere to store a bin. However, people will be equally annoyed if they have to travel further than the end of their drive to deposit their waste or recyclables. Will a dustbin really offer a better alternative? They may have a certain “retro” quality but they are not pretty either. And as for plastic bags they are unsightly and will be torn to pieces by foxes during the night.
Wheeled bins aesthetics are primarily driven by the performance standard the bins must adhere to. The EN840 standard dictates the basic design and sets out tests to ensure that the bins do not fall apart when they are tipped.
The Mail quotes art historian Sir Roy Strong asking if a designer has looked at a wheeled bin. Of course. All wheeled bins were designed by well qualified industrial designers. Sir Roy should know as well as anyone else that what one person likes another will not. Perhaps Sir Roy should buy one of those large stickers to cover his wheeled bin with – a Matisse would look particularly fitting.
So are wheeled bins the best way to collect waste and recyclables? The government agency WRAP has conducted research which points to kerbside boxes being the best way to collect recyclable waste. This low-tech system which I pioneered in the UK in the late 1980s is lower cost, results in lower emissions and produces cleaner material which sells for a higher price. But just as wheeled bins do not work everywhere, boxes also are not suited to every location. Wheeled bins certainly do have their place. In terms of collecting residual waste, they are probably the most efficient means but they do encourage people to waste more. For garden waste, they are not suitable. The most environmentally friendly method with garden waste is to compost it at home. If a collection service is offered it should be charged for.
The health and safety arguments have been belittled by The Mail referring to the issue as “Elf and safety”. However, heath and safety in the workplace (and this includes refuse rounds) is a serious matter. Workers are killed or injured every year collecting our waste. It is not so much about the kind of container used but is down to the identification of risk and the quality of management of a collection programme. The HSE has published guidelines which councils should follow. These do not state that a wheeled bin must be used.
Now to the issue of chips. This is an emotive issue with people feeling their civil liberties are being infringed if their bin is fitted with a chip, also known as an RFID tag. Worse still if they don’t know the chip is there. There are modern myths about these bin chips, such as they can see what is inside the bin – they are all false.
The chip is basically a way of numbering the bin. It is no different from having an address printed on the bin, it is just that an electronic reader can read it rather than a human being. Most people who object to chips would happily paint their house number on the bin. There is no difference. In terms of taxes coming in the future, this could happen long term but is not part of the Government’s strategy at the moment. I, for one, would rather pay for what little I throw away rather than being charged an average based on everyone else’s wasteful habits. A bin tax would be instead of part of the Council Tax, not as well as it.
Are wheeled bins expensive? Yes when compared to a kerbside box or a dustbin, no compared to the number of plastic bags that would be needed in their place. The cost of the container is only one part of the equation and a full end-to-end evaluation must be carried out if decisions are based on cost only. I believe carbon emissions should also be considered in the evaluation process.
The fortnightly collection argument appears to be a red herring. The Mail hates fortnightly collections, however, as it points out this method does save money. The Mail also hates public money being wasted – so which way to they want it? We should all strive for the most cost effective method of collection. Householders previously had one 240 litre bin emptied weekly. They then get two 240 litre bins emptied alternate weekly. The only problem is food in the residual waste bin. In my view all fortnightly collections should be accompanied by a weekly food waste collection. These are made in small caddies which are vermin resistant and easy to keep clean. Problem solved.
The photographs printed in The Mail are not entirely fair. Certainly those from Roundhay in Leeds (near where I live) are of the bins on collection day. The bins do not live on the street, they are returned within the property curtilege once tipped. Where there is nowhere for the bin to go, I have some sympathy, but there will be nowhere for a dustbin or a plastic bag either.
Finally a point about the choices The Daily Mail suggests we ask for. Several possibilities are overlooked. I would ask The Mail to consider kerbside boxes, to consider caddies for food waste, to consider inner caddies for an existing wheeled bin to prevent the need for another one. Underground banks are also a possibility – they are aesthetically pleasing and the waste is out of sight completely. However, these are also very expensive, noisy when emptied and tend to restrict the amount of waste each household can deposit. They are also communal so involve a short walk with the bag of waste. Losing the wheeled bin might open another can of worms.
As a society that generates waste we need to have the means of dealing with it – be it for recycling, composting or another disposal method. Each solution will involve compromise. Professionals in the industry – including those working in councils – have to make the right choices for us. We cannot have entire recycling programmes pulled just because Gerry Anderson does not like his wheeled bin.
Let us be clear about recycling. It is an essential part of our behavior and must be encouraged. Waste reduction must be encouraged too. Manufactures and retailers have made tremendous strides over the years to reduce packaging, not just driven by legislation but by an economic imperative too. But we need packaging, just as we need a method of recycling and disposing of our waste – ideally at the end of our driveways.
Having read the paper I now know why it does not form part of my daily activities. Along with six and a half pages of ranting about wheeled bins, the edition from today Thursday 18th June includes information about how Gypsies jump the queue to see a GP and how many of the unemployed have now given up looking for work. This paper is a masterpiece. Talk about mutton dressed as lamb, this is The Sun dressed as The Daily Telegraph.
The Daily Mail is leading a high profile campaign which on first impressions appears to be against wheeled bins. The bins are described as “monstrous” and are described as “blighting our streets and gardens”.
On closer reading, the campaign appears confused. The coupon that readers are requested to cut out, fill in and post to the Chief Executive of their local council actually asks for people to be given a choice between a wheeled bin, a dustbin or a biodegradable plastic bag.
There are numerous arguments presented against the wheeled bin.
1) Councils are introducing these without local consultation on bin type or the collection methods employed
2) The bins are unsuitable for some properties yet councils ignore protests
3) More unwanted bins are coming in a bid to increase recycling, forced upon us by Europe
4) The bins are aesthetically poor
5) Bins are not the best way to collect recyclables – boxes are
6) Bins are not necessary but are being pushed through by overzealous councils on health and safety grounds.
7) Bins are fitted with chips which are “intrusive” and will allow new taxes to be charged
8) Wheeled bins are expensive
9) More collection space is needed for a fortnightly collection service
10) Recycling aims are misguided and do not need wheeled bins to encourage them.
11) Waste reduction is a better plan. Manufacturers and retailers should reduce packaging.
12) Other councils achieve high recycling rates without using wheeled bins at all.
My view is that the Daily Mail is being hugely irresponsible. Councils have a job to do and they are democratically elected to do this job. The Mail has generally taken an anti-recycling stance in the past, promoting commingling where all recyclable materials are collected together in a wheeled bin. This new attack appears to be a significant change of heart. Whether it will persuade its readers to follow a more environmentally positive lifestyle is unlikely.
I am well qualified to comment on this argument. The company I founded, Straight plc, does sell wheeled bins, but it is not a wheeled bin company. Wheeled bins are a small part of what we do and are an even smaller contributor to profits. We offer councils a wide choice of container solutions including kerbside boxes and dustbins. I would estimate that we have 10-15% of the UK market for domestic wheeled bins at present.
On the point of councils not consulting residents this will be a matter of geographical variation. However, councils have to hit recycling targets. It is true these targets came from Europe, but they should be viewed positively. We can’t continue to landfill waste as this is not sustainable, but councils should engage with their residents.
It is perfectly true that wheeled bins are not suitable for all properties. Councils already make provisions for flats and should be sensitive to areas where there is nowhere to store a bin. However, people will be equally annoyed if they have to travel further than the end of their drive to deposit their waste or recyclables. Will a dustbin really offer a better alternative? They may have a certain “retro” quality but they are not pretty either. And as for plastic bags they are unsightly and will be torn to pieces by foxes during the night.
Wheeled bins aesthetics are primarily driven by the performance standard the bins must adhere to. The EN840 standard dictates the basic design and sets out tests to ensure that the bins do not fall apart when they are tipped.
The Mail quotes art historian Sir Roy Strong asking if a designer has looked at a wheeled bin. Of course. All wheeled bins were designed by well qualified industrial designers. Sir Roy should know as well as anyone else that what one person likes another will not. Perhaps Sir Roy should buy one of those large stickers to cover his wheeled bin with – a Matisse would look particularly fitting.
So are wheeled bins the best way to collect waste and recyclables? The government agency WRAP has conducted research which points to kerbside boxes being the best way to collect recyclable waste. This low-tech system which I pioneered in the UK in the late 1980s is lower cost, results in lower emissions and produces cleaner material which sells for a higher price. But just as wheeled bins do not work everywhere, boxes also are not suited to every location. Wheeled bins certainly do have their place. In terms of collecting residual waste, they are probably the most efficient means but they do encourage people to waste more. For garden waste, they are not suitable. The most environmentally friendly method with garden waste is to compost it at home. If a collection service is offered it should be charged for.
The health and safety arguments have been belittled by The Mail referring to the issue as “Elf and safety”. However, heath and safety in the workplace (and this includes refuse rounds) is a serious matter. Workers are killed or injured every year collecting our waste. It is not so much about the kind of container used but is down to the identification of risk and the quality of management of a collection programme. The HSE has published guidelines which councils should follow. These do not state that a wheeled bin must be used.
Now to the issue of chips. This is an emotive issue with people feeling their civil liberties are being infringed if their bin is fitted with a chip, also known as an RFID tag. Worse still if they don’t know the chip is there. There are modern myths about these bin chips, such as they can see what is inside the bin – they are all false.
The chip is basically a way of numbering the bin. It is no different from having an address printed on the bin, it is just that an electronic reader can read it rather than a human being. Most people who object to chips would happily paint their house number on the bin. There is no difference. In terms of taxes coming in the future, this could happen long term but is not part of the Government’s strategy at the moment. I, for one, would rather pay for what little I throw away rather than being charged an average based on everyone else’s wasteful habits. A bin tax would be instead of part of the Council Tax, not as well as it.
Are wheeled bins expensive? Yes when compared to a kerbside box or a dustbin, no compared to the number of plastic bags that would be needed in their place. The cost of the container is only one part of the equation and a full end-to-end evaluation must be carried out if decisions are based on cost only. I believe carbon emissions should also be considered in the evaluation process.
The fortnightly collection argument appears to be a red herring. The Mail hates fortnightly collections, however, as it points out this method does save money. The Mail also hates public money being wasted – so which way to they want it? We should all strive for the most cost effective method of collection. Householders previously had one 240 litre bin emptied weekly. They then get two 240 litre bins emptied alternate weekly. The only problem is food in the residual waste bin. In my view all fortnightly collections should be accompanied by a weekly food waste collection. These are made in small caddies which are vermin resistant and easy to keep clean. Problem solved.
The photographs printed in The Mail are not entirely fair. Certainly those from Roundhay in Leeds (near where I live) are of the bins on collection day. The bins do not live on the street, they are returned within the property curtilege once tipped. Where there is nowhere for the bin to go, I have some sympathy, but there will be nowhere for a dustbin or a plastic bag either.
Finally a point about the choices The Daily Mail suggests we ask for. Several possibilities are overlooked. I would ask The Mail to consider kerbside boxes, to consider caddies for food waste, to consider inner caddies for an existing wheeled bin to prevent the need for another one. Underground banks are also a possibility – they are aesthetically pleasing and the waste is out of sight completely. However, these are also very expensive, noisy when emptied and tend to restrict the amount of waste each household can deposit. They are also communal so involve a short walk with the bag of waste. Losing the wheeled bin might open another can of worms.
As a society that generates waste we need to have the means of dealing with it – be it for recycling, composting or another disposal method. Each solution will involve compromise. Professionals in the industry – including those working in councils – have to make the right choices for us. We cannot have entire recycling programmes pulled just because Gerry Anderson does not like his wheeled bin.
Let us be clear about recycling. It is an essential part of our behavior and must be encouraged. Waste reduction must be encouraged too. Manufactures and retailers have made tremendous strides over the years to reduce packaging, not just driven by legislation but by an economic imperative too. But we need packaging, just as we need a method of recycling and disposing of our waste – ideally at the end of our driveways.
Thursday 11 June 2009
What about Futuresouce?
So I can now report on my first day at Futuresource - the new exhibition at London's Excel which replaces the CIWM exhibition whch was previously in Paignton, Torbay.
I think I did 16 consequtive years at the Paignton show. What I hated about it was the fact that it took so long to get there and that once you were there very few decent restaurants meant little choice and the good ones were packed out.
It actually took me longer to get to Excel than it would have to get to Paignton - but in fairness this was due to the truck strike. My visitor from Antwerp got there faster than I was able to travel from Leeds. There seems to be little choice as to places to go in the immedaite vicinity. In fairness it is not a great venue.
The prospect of Futuresource as a waste / water / energy show has not happened. It seems to be waste and recycling only and it seems to be much the same as September's RWM show at the NEC, Birmingham.
One of the criticisms of the move from Torbay was the lack of networking opportunities, but this sees to be unfounded. The networking is happening - just not in the pub.
I was not sorry to see the Paignton show consigned to history. But what we have how, although much more professional, seems to be the same waste and recycling show happening twice a year, once at Excel and once at the NEC. Everyone is too scared to miss one or the other - so we will no doubt all renew for next time. I don't think the industry can really afford this.
I really wish the CIWM and EMAP could get their respective acts together and have one major showcase exhibition a year. This really would be better for everyone.
I think I did 16 consequtive years at the Paignton show. What I hated about it was the fact that it took so long to get there and that once you were there very few decent restaurants meant little choice and the good ones were packed out.
It actually took me longer to get to Excel than it would have to get to Paignton - but in fairness this was due to the truck strike. My visitor from Antwerp got there faster than I was able to travel from Leeds. There seems to be little choice as to places to go in the immedaite vicinity. In fairness it is not a great venue.
The prospect of Futuresource as a waste / water / energy show has not happened. It seems to be waste and recycling only and it seems to be much the same as September's RWM show at the NEC, Birmingham.
One of the criticisms of the move from Torbay was the lack of networking opportunities, but this sees to be unfounded. The networking is happening - just not in the pub.
I was not sorry to see the Paignton show consigned to history. But what we have how, although much more professional, seems to be the same waste and recycling show happening twice a year, once at Excel and once at the NEC. Everyone is too scared to miss one or the other - so we will no doubt all renew for next time. I don't think the industry can really afford this.
I really wish the CIWM and EMAP could get their respective acts together and have one major showcase exhibition a year. This really would be better for everyone.
Tuesday 9 June 2009
Choosing the right recycling collection system
The report with the above title published by the UK Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) today should now put a number of modern myths to bed about which way is best to collect material for recycling.
As pioneers of the kerbside box collection method in the UK we have been very close to the kerbside sort collection contractors for many years and we know the facts about what works in the best way. It is very refreshing to see WRAP taking such a bold position when interests in the commingled camp (collecting mixed up in a wheeled bin) might well be annoyed by these findings.
At the end of the day, facts are facts. There is a place for commingled collections and the WRAP report does point out that dual stream commingled collections are preferable to single stream. However the conclusion is that kerbside sorting is the best way forward for most councils.
First myth to be dispelled is that using kerbside boxes is dangerous. The 2006 report by the Health & Safety Laboratory which came to this conclusion was criticised by many in the industry including ourselves. Changes were made to the report - but not to the recommendations which were basically use a wheeled bin for everything. Risks are there with all collection or downstream systems, but in the case of kerbside sorting these can be managed or controlled.
Quality is the next issue that WRAP examined and found that not only could material sorted at the kerbside be recycled into products of a similar quality - closed loop recycling rather than open loop recycling - but that the reject rates of less than 1% compare favourably with the 2% to 15% from a MRF (Materials Recycling Facility).
Another myth is that kerbside collections cost more. Although the collection itself might cost more to run, when the full cost of the service is considered including a gate fee for the MRF (Materials Recycling Facility) the overall cost is lower. Our position is that kerbside sort also requires a much lower capital outlay with significantly cheaper containers (a box is typically less than 20% of the price of a wheeled bin) but lower cost vehicles too.
Finally the perception that the public are not capable of sorting, or not willing to sort, materials into different streams has been found to be incorrect with 87% of people surveyed saying they did not mind sorting materials out.
WRAP found that container size did limit the amount of recyclable material that could be collected. This can easily be solved with the issue of second or third boxes to each household
Whilst we are big fans of kerbside sort, we do support commingled collections where appropriate. Our unique Inner Caddy turns a single wheeled bin into a container for dual stream commingled collection, for example.
At Straight plc we applaud WRAP for commissioning this research and finally proving in an independent manner which are the best methods of collecting recyclable materials. We hope to see a bright future for kerbside sorting in the future as a result.
As pioneers of the kerbside box collection method in the UK we have been very close to the kerbside sort collection contractors for many years and we know the facts about what works in the best way. It is very refreshing to see WRAP taking such a bold position when interests in the commingled camp (collecting mixed up in a wheeled bin) might well be annoyed by these findings.
At the end of the day, facts are facts. There is a place for commingled collections and the WRAP report does point out that dual stream commingled collections are preferable to single stream. However the conclusion is that kerbside sorting is the best way forward for most councils.
First myth to be dispelled is that using kerbside boxes is dangerous. The 2006 report by the Health & Safety Laboratory which came to this conclusion was criticised by many in the industry including ourselves. Changes were made to the report - but not to the recommendations which were basically use a wheeled bin for everything. Risks are there with all collection or downstream systems, but in the case of kerbside sorting these can be managed or controlled.
Quality is the next issue that WRAP examined and found that not only could material sorted at the kerbside be recycled into products of a similar quality - closed loop recycling rather than open loop recycling - but that the reject rates of less than 1% compare favourably with the 2% to 15% from a MRF (Materials Recycling Facility).
Another myth is that kerbside collections cost more. Although the collection itself might cost more to run, when the full cost of the service is considered including a gate fee for the MRF (Materials Recycling Facility) the overall cost is lower. Our position is that kerbside sort also requires a much lower capital outlay with significantly cheaper containers (a box is typically less than 20% of the price of a wheeled bin) but lower cost vehicles too.
Finally the perception that the public are not capable of sorting, or not willing to sort, materials into different streams has been found to be incorrect with 87% of people surveyed saying they did not mind sorting materials out.
WRAP found that container size did limit the amount of recyclable material that could be collected. This can easily be solved with the issue of second or third boxes to each household
Whilst we are big fans of kerbside sort, we do support commingled collections where appropriate. Our unique Inner Caddy turns a single wheeled bin into a container for dual stream commingled collection, for example.
At Straight plc we applaud WRAP for commissioning this research and finally proving in an independent manner which are the best methods of collecting recyclable materials. We hope to see a bright future for kerbside sorting in the future as a result.
Sunday 7 June 2009
What makes a world leader?
One of my entrepreneurial mantras is to know your competition. I make it my business to glean every little bit of information I can about any competitor however big or small. So when we decided in 2007 to enter the steel wheeled bin market I made a point of learning whatever I could about Taylor who were (and are) the market leader in the steel 1100 litre wheeled bins.
What had made me raise an eyebrow is the new Taylor advertising campaign where they call themselves the world leader in waste containtment & recycling solutions. I was interested in what it took to be the world leader and so I took a look at their accounts.
Results have been published to 30th June 2008 showing turnover of £26,213,951. Of this £565,540 were sales to Europe - just over 2%, and £40,644 elsewhere in the world - just 0.2% of turnover. So how can a company that sells 97% of its output in the UK be the world leader?
Taylor claim to be the biggest manufacturer of metal wheeled bins in the world. This may well be true, but these are only one small part of the market for waste containment and recycling containers. The plastic wheeled bin market is bigger in the UK alone, let alone globally.
What had made me raise an eyebrow is the new Taylor advertising campaign where they call themselves the world leader in waste containtment & recycling solutions. I was interested in what it took to be the world leader and so I took a look at their accounts.
Results have been published to 30th June 2008 showing turnover of £26,213,951. Of this £565,540 were sales to Europe - just over 2%, and £40,644 elsewhere in the world - just 0.2% of turnover. So how can a company that sells 97% of its output in the UK be the world leader?
Taylor claim to be the biggest manufacturer of metal wheeled bins in the world. This may well be true, but these are only one small part of the market for waste containment and recycling containers. The plastic wheeled bin market is bigger in the UK alone, let alone globally.
Anyone scratching even slightly beneath the surface will see from Taylor's published accounts that there is virtually no activity outside of the UK. If their position in the UK market affords them the position of world leader in metal wheeled bins then this loses something in the spirit of what is actually conveyed through the language used.
But the world leader in waste containment and recycling solutions? That is a very different proposition and would appear - so far a I can see - not to be the case.
Friday 5 June 2009
The Welsh have got it right!
.jpg)
The Welsh Assembly Government commissioned some research back in 2008 from the Waste & Resources Acton Programme (WRAP) into which method of kerbside collection was best.
There are a number of different collection methods employed in Wales. Kerbside sort is where materials are collected and then sorted at the kerbside. A kerbside box as shown is generally used. The other method is comingled where materials are all collected together and then sorted our later on in a materials recycling facility (MRF). The comingling can be in one or two streams.
As a result of the research published as Recycling in Wales: Indicative Financial Costs kerbside sort comes out on top. This makes sense as the process of sorting at the kerbside will result in the highest quality of material, will require the lowest cost equipment to facilitate and as there is no downstream sorting will also offer the lowest carbon footprint.
As the pioneer of the kerbside box in the UK 16 years ago and having delivered more than 12 million such boxes to date it is encouraging to see such a sensible conclusion.
Let us hope that the Welsh can reach their 70% target ahead of time. The Monmouthshire village of St Arvans has already reached 80% - so it certainly can be done. The Welsh have certainly got it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)