final report the composition of waste disposed of by the ... · pdf filethe composition of...

Final report

The Composition of Waste Disposed

of by the UK Hospitality Industry

A research study to develop a method for estimating the composition of mixed waste disposed of by pubs, restaurants, hotels and quick service restaurants. The report presents indicative estimates of the composition of mixed waste sent for disposal for each UK nation.

Project code: RES093-001 ISBN: 1-84405-452-7

Research date: January 2009 to July 2010 Date: July 2011

WRAP’s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk

Contributors to the main report

Phil Williams, Barbara Leach, Katie Christensen (WRAP) | Gary Armstrong, Darren Perrin (SKM Enviros) | Rebecca

Hawkins (CESHI Oxford Brookes University)| Andrew Lane (RLP) | Glyn Jones (ADAS) | Peter Scholes (Urban

Mines)

Peer review

Robin Curry (SRI)

Front cover photography: Hotel kitchen from istockphoto.com

WRAP believes the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements

are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost

information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).

The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to

ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being

inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain

whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by

WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the

material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must

not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its

website: www.wrap.org.uk

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 3

Acknowledgements

WRAP is grateful to everyone who contributed to the report, in particular:

the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Scottish Government, the Welsh

Assembly Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly, all of which

jointly funded the research;

the consortium comprising SKM Enviros, the Centre for Environmental Studies in the Hospitality Industry

(CESHI) at Oxford Brookes University, the University of Reading Statistical Services Centre, RLP and NTouch

for conducting the literature review, designing and administering the survey, carrying out the waste audits

and compositional analysis, and preparing the first few drafts of the report on which this final version is

heavily based;

ADAS and Urban Mines for calculating national estimates of waste arisings;

Robin Curry at SRI for carrying out the peer review;

all the members of the project steering group within WRAP and the funding bodies, but particularly Alan Bell

(now retired) of the Environment Agency and David Lee of Defra for commenting on sampling and statistical

matters; and

all the anonymous hospitality premises that spared staff time to take part in the study.


Executive summary

Background, aims and objectives

For many years it has been known that the UK hospitality sector is a significant producer of waste and that much

of this waste could be recycled or recovered.1 However, because hospitality businesses tend to dispose of their

waste in a mixed form in general waste containers, not much is known about the make-up of that waste.

Knowing what the waste consists of is essential if the hospitality industry is to save money and reduce its carbon

footprint by becoming more resource-efficient. It is this knowledge gap that the research summarised in this

report seeks to address.

Although analysing the composition of waste is a commonplace activity for household waste, few previous

studies have sought to look at business waste in this way. There are significant logistical challenges as well as

confidentiality and health and safety issues to overcome, and major difficulties in ensuring that the research can

draw reliable conclusions. The research therefore had two key objectives:

1. to develop and test methods for quantifying mixed waste sent for disposal by businesses, using the UK

hospitality sector as a test bed; and

2. to provide estimates of the amount of each type of waste found in the mixed waste that would normally go

to landfill.

Scope and definition

The hospitality sector is commonly split into two subsectors:

the profit sector: businesses where providing catering and/or accommodation services is the primary

purpose of the business and where the aim is to maximise profit (e.g. hotels, guesthouses, bed & breakfast

establishments, youth hostels, restaurants, QSRs and pubs); and

the cost sector: businesses where providing hospitality services is not the main function of the organisation

and where the aim is not to maximise profit (e.g. catering and accommodation services within the premises

of schools, hospitals, prisons, military facilities etc.).

This work focuses on the profit sector and for the purposes of this research, is defined as follows:

includes hotels, restaurants, pubs and quick service restaurants (QSRs);

excludes the leisure sector, including self-catering businesses;

excludes the cost sector; and

excludes businesses that do not pay for their waste to be removed on the grounds that they will produce

only very small amounts.

Methods

The research, which was conducted in 2009 and 2010, consisted of:

a literature review to gather information to help in the development of a sampling strategy;

a collation of waste data from 60 large hospitality chains;

a telephone survey of 1660 individual business sites; and

1 For example, a 2004 Scottish survey showed that the ‘hotels and restaurants’ sector produced 14% of all business and

public sector waste in Scotland, the second most significant sector after ‘wholesale and retail’ (http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste_data/commercial__industrial_waste/business_waste_surveys.aspx). Defra’s 2004 survey found that in England the sector contributed more than 5% of business waste arisings and 11% of commercial waste arisings.


a site audit of 138 businesses across the UK, together with removal and compositional analysis of their mixed

waste (mainly waste for disposal but also some waste for recycling where two or more materials were

collected co-mingled).

In total, 12 tonnes of mixed waste was collected from the selected hospitality businesses and sorted into 37

categories of material. The findings from the compositional analysis of this mixed waste were then used

alongside Defra’s 2010 survey of industrial and commercial waste, the Environment Agency’s 2002/03 industrial

and commercial waste dataset and Office of National Statistics (ONS) business population data for 2009 to

estimate the quantity and composition of mixed waste in the UK.

The figures presented in this report should be regarded as indicative of the waste being sent to disposal by pubs,

hotels, restaurants and quick service restaurants in the UK. The sample size is quite small and there are errors

associated with both the Defra survey data used to derive quantities and the compositional data used to estimate

the material make-up of the waste. Also, seasonal differences in waste composition could not be taken into

account in this study.

The amount of waste produced, recycled and disposed

It is estimated that in 2009 UK hotels, pubs, restaurants and QSRs produced just over 3.4 million tonnes of

waste; of this, 1.6 million tonnes (47%) was recycled, reused or composted and nearly 1.5 (43%) million tonnes

was mixed waste that went for disposal, mainly to landfill. The remaining 10% consisted of relatively rare waste

types and disposal/treatment routes. This is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 The waste produced, recycled and disposed by the UK hospitality industry in 2009 by sub-sector and nation (rounded to the nearest 1,000 tonnes)

Nation Subsector Total waste

Mixed (residual) waste

destined for disposal

Waste destined for recycling/reuse

Non-mixed waste or mixed waste

managed in other ways

England

Hotels 370,000 131,000 231,000 9,000

Pubs 1,376,000 552,000 643,000 182,000

QSRs 202,000 88,000 110,000 3,000

Restaurants 894,000 457,000 350,000 88,000

Subtotal 2,842,000 1,228,000 1,334,000 282,000

Wales

Hotels 27,000 10,000 17,000 1,000

Pubs 89,000 35,000 41,000 12,000

QSRs 11,000 5,000 6,000 0

Restaurants 41,000 21,000 16,000 4,000

Subtotal 168,000 71,000 80,000 17,000

Scotland

Hotels 76,000 27,000 47,000 2,000

Pubs 112,000 45,000 52,000 15,000

QSRs 23,000 10,000 12,000 0

Restaurants 97,000 49,000 38,000 9,000

Subtotal 308,000 131,000 149,000 26,000

Northern Ireland

Hotels 12,000 4,000 8,000 0

Pubs 34,000 14,000 16,000 5,000

QSRs 11,000 5,000 6,000 0

Restaurants 40,000 20,000 16,000 4,000

Subtotal 97,000 43,000 46,000 9,000

UK

Hotels 485,000 171,000 303,000 11,000

Pubs 1,610,000 646,000 752,000 213,000

QSRs 246,000 108,000 135,000 4,000

Restaurants 1,072,000 548,000 419,000 105,000

UK Total 3,415,000 1,473,000 1,609,000 334,000


Characteristics of the waste sent for disposal

Of the almost 1.5 million tonnes of waste that was sent for disposal:

businesses in England disposed of just over 1.2 million tonnes;

businesses in Scotland disposed of just under 133,000 tonnes;

businesses in Wales disposed of just over 72,000 tonnes; and

businesses in Northern Ireland disposed of just over 42,000 tonnes.

The waste disposed of, mainly to landfill, represents an opportunity for reuse, recycling and recovery; 78% of it

was made up of four potentially recyclable materials:

food (600,000 tonnes or 41%);

glass (213,000 tonnes or 14%);

paper (196,000 tonnes or 13%); and

card (134,000 tonnes or 9%).

Waste management practices

Management of waste destined for disposal is very traditional, with most companies relying on four-wheeled bins

to contain mixed waste for disposal. The use of council-provided services such as bottle banks in pub car parks is

relatively common; it may be that many of these council-run services are used without permission or payment,

and possibly illegally if the Duty of Care is not complied with. On-site waste treatment such as the use of

compactors and composting is relatively rare.

Recycling is widespread but not universal: overall, 76% of businesses claim to recycle at least one material. Glass

and card are the most commonly recycled materials. By contrast, only 26% of businesses recycle plastics and

just 21% recycle metals. Food waste recycling is rare while recycling of cooking oil is widespread. Many

businesses would like to recycle, or recycle more, but cited a lack of recycling services and space as the main

barriers. This study does not focus on the waste already going for recycling but looks at the opportunities for

increased recycling presented by the waste that still goes for disposal.

Opportunities for waste prevention

Waste prevention involves not producing waste in the first place. This research has identified that the hospitality

sector has a major opportunity to reduce the amount of food waste it produces. Two-thirds of the food that was

thrown away could have been eaten if it had been better portioned, managed, stored and/or prepared, with the

remaining one-third consisting of items that are ‘unavoidable waste’ as they are not usually consumed (e.g.

banana skins, vegetable peelings). This study estimates that the UK hospitality sector (profit only) threw away

400,000 tonnes of avoidable food waste in 2009.

The costs associated with avoidable food waste are estimated to be in the order of £722 million2 which includes

food costs, haulage and disposal to landfill. Although the prevention of food waste offers the sector a significant

opportunity to reduce waste and cut costs, doing so in practice may be challenging because of the need to

ensure that customers feel they are getting value for money. WRAP will continue its work with the sector to look

at ways in which food and packaging waste can be reduced without damaging customer perceptions.

There are also opportunities to reduce packaging waste, but this is generally not within the control of any one

hospitality business but needs to be tackled across the industry as a whole, through the whole supply chain.

2 The costs figures used to estimate potential savings are taken from work conducted in 2007 and 2009. These factors are

likely to be updated as new evidence emerges.


Opportunities for waste recycling and recovery

The hospitality sector has made good progress in recycling, with the sector overall recycling 47% of the waste

produced in 2009, our analysis suggests that over 70% of the waste that went to landfill could have been

recycled using existing markets. This increases to 80% if emerging markets for materials that are currently

difficult to recycle (e.g. mixed plastics, liquid cartons) are included. Although this study did not investigate the

composition of recycled waste, the questionnaire survey found that glass and card were widely recycled and that

paper, plastics and metals were recycled to some extent (see Figure 12, page 56).

Food waste presents a particular opportunity. Because not all food waste can be avoided, improvements could

focus on diverting waste away from landfill into less environmentally damaging treatment processes. Currently,

200,000 tonnes of food waste is unavoidable and disposed of without any original packaging. This waste could

be captured in a separate recycling collection and sent for anaerobic digestion (AD) where energy can be

recovered from it.

If the recyclable waste generated by the hospitality industry was diverted to recycling it is estimated that savings

of 0.95 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions could be made.

This research estimates that UK hospitality businesses pay around £1.02 billion a year to buy all the food that is

wasted. If all this waste was diverted from landfill – where most currently goes – to AD, businesses could

potentially save £6.6 million a year because AD is typically a cheaper option than landfill ( currently around £11

cheaper per tonne; the potential savings from diverting unavoidable food waste are in the region of £2 million a

year). As AD facilities and associated collections of food waste from businesses become more widespread in the

UK, more and more hospitality businesses should be able to take advantage of these economic savings. If

avoidable food waste was prevented and unavoidable food waste diverted to AD, the potential savings to the

hospitality industry are in the region of £724 million a year.

Methodological lessons

The research has demonstrated that a compositional analysis of business waste is possible, albeit challenging

and relatively expensive. The methodological lessons described below should prove valuable for future studies of

the composition of business waste.

We attempted to reduce the costs of the research by making use of information held by companies rather

than surveying and sampling waste. However, despite contacting many large chains, few of these responded

to requests and, in the event, none of the corporate records received could be used owing to the different

methods of recording waste data. A significant investment of time and effort is required to work with large

corporations to obtain and standardise waste data in order to make it useful. By contrast, Defra’s large-scale

study of industry and commerce in England found that many head offices of large corporations could provide

useful information; 28% of the data points in the hotels and catering sector in Defra’s survey came from

corporate records. The explanation for this could lie in differences in the type of information being requested,

and the timescales within which it had to be provided.

The research substantiated our expectations that engaging businesses to participate in waste audits would be

difficult. Overall, 18% of businesses who completed the telephone survey agreed to a site audit and to have

their waste taken away for analysis. Participation could be improved in future studies by being more explicit

about the process for the site audit and compositional analysis; at the time recruitment was carried out for

this research, the methods had not been finalised and this uncertainty may have deterred some businesses.

Ensuring that waste audits were scheduled to maximise the quantity and types of waste collected also proved

difficult. This might be addressed by contacting waste contractors directly when scheduling the audit rather

than relying on information provided by the business. A longitudinal study to calibrate variations in waste

generation over time would also be useful but would be expensive.


The logistics of collecting and sorting waste proved challenging. Sorting waste on businesses’ premises was

ruled out at an early stage due to concerns about customer perceptions, health and safety and lack of space.

Sites where waste could be sorted were difficult to find and, as a result, travel times between business

premises and sorting sites were longer than anticipated. Future studies should build in plenty of time to

secure suitable sorting sites close to the areas where waste is likely to be collected.

Applying the well-developed waste composition analysis methods used for household waste to business waste

was relatively unproblematic.

Established volume-to-weight conversion factors were found to overestimate the density of waste as

measured at the point of collection. This work has generated new estimates for the density of waste

materials found in small containers (i.e. 1.1m3 and under) and has supported the notion that the density of a

given material will vary according to the container used to hold the waste.

The timescale for this research was very limited for funding-related reasons. Future studies should allocate

several months simply to plan the work and secure suitable sorting sites.

An important note

The exploratory nature and intrinsic complexity of this research resulted in relatively small sample sizes. The

information in this report should therefore be regarded as indicative of the quantities of waste produced by

elements of the hospitality sector. Although levels of confidence are expressed for the compositional results in

Annex B, further work is needed to generate confidence intervals around the tonnage data; this will be part of a

future project.


Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 9

1.1.1 The hospitality sector ............................................................................................... 9 1.1.2 The waste and resources agenda .............................................................................. 9

1.2 Aims and objectives .............................................................................................................. 10 1.3 What is classified as a ‘hospitality’ business in this research? .................................................... 11 1.4 Report structure ................................................................................................................... 12

2.0 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Literature review ................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Corporate survey .................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Telephone survey ................................................................................................................. 15

2.4.1 Drawing up the sampling framework ....................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Telephone survey sample sizes ............................................................................... 17 2.4.3 Development of the telephone questionnaire ........................................................... 18 2.4.4 Telephone survey bias ........................................................................................... 19 2.4.5 Telephone survey completion rates ......................................................................... 19

2.5 Waste audit methodology ...................................................................................................... 21 2.5.1 Waste audit sampling framework ............................................................................ 21 2.5.2 Securing sufficient samples and potential bias .......................................................... 22 2.5.3 The on-site waste audit process .............................................................................. 23 2.5.4 Off-site sorting and analysis of waste ...................................................................... 26 2.5.5 Final sampling for waste audits ............................................................................... 28

2.6 Calculating the composition of mixed waste ............................................................................ 29 2.6.1 Estimating the total quantity of mixed waste each year ............................................. 30 2.6.2 Calculating the overall composition of mixed waste for each subsector ....................... 31

2.7 Generating UK estimates of mixed waste quantity and composition ........................................... 31 2.7.1 The total amount of mixed waste – the choice of the Defra dataset ........................... 32 2.7.2 The total number of hospitality businesses – the ONS data........................................ 34 2.7.3 Assessing the suitability and compatibility of the different datasets ............................ 35 2.7.4 The average amount of mixed waste per company ................................................... 35 2.7.5 Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates of total waste .................................... 37 2.7.6 Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates of total mixed waste

and its composition ................................................................................................ 37 2.8 Calculating carbon benefits of preventing, recycling and recovering waste ................................. 38

2.8.1 Carbon savings from food waste recovery ................................................................ 38 2.8.2 Carbon savings from food waste prevention ............................................................. 38 2.8.3 Carbon savings from preventing and recycling key waste streams .............................. 39

2.9 Calculating cost savings from preventing and recovering food waste ......................................... 39 2.9.1 Potential cost savings from reduced food purchasing ................................................ 39 2.9.2 Potential cost savings from reduced food waste disposal ........................................... 40 2.9.3 Total potential cost savings from preventing food waste ........................................... 40 2.9.4 Total potential cost savings from diverting waste away from landfill to AD .................. 40

2.10 The remainder of the report ................................................................................................... 41

3.0 The waste disposed of by the UK hospitality industry ............................................................. 42 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 42 3.2 Recap on methods ................................................................................................................ 42 3.3 Recap on sources of error ...................................................................................................... 42 3.4 Summary waste estimates for the UK hospitality profit sector ................................................... 43 3.5 The composition of mixed (residual) waste produced by the UK hospitality industry .................... 44 3.6 The opportunities for increased recycling of mixed waste ......................................................... 50 3.7 Opportunities for carbon savings ............................................................................................ 51


3.8 Opportunities for financial savings .......................................................................................... 52 3.9 Business waste ‘benchmarks’ ................................................................................................. 52

4.0 Waste management practices of the hospitality sector ........................................................... 53 4.1 Waste collection .................................................................................................................... 53 4.2 How mixed waste is kept on-site ............................................................................................ 53 4.3 On-site waste treatment technologies ..................................................................................... 54 4.4 Extent of recycling ................................................................................................................ 55 4.5 Materials recycled ................................................................................................................. 55 4.6 Recycling services used ......................................................................................................... 56 4.7 Barriers to recycling amongst non-recyclers ............................................................................. 57 4.8 Waste minimisation policies ................................................................................................... 58

5.0 Implications of the study for future research into industrial and commercial waste ............. 59 5.1 Is a composition-led approach practicable? ............................................................................. 59

5.1.1 Location of the sampled businesses......................................................................... 59 5.1.2 Encouraging businesses to participate ..................................................................... 59 5.1.3 Getting the timing right .......................................................................................... 60

5.2 Is a composition-led approach affordable? .............................................................................. 60 5.2.1 The need for expertise ........................................................................................... 60 5.2.2 The size of the sample needed for the telephone survey ........................................... 61 5.2.3 The logistics of collecting and sorting waste ............................................................. 61

5.3 Is self-reported information on quantities of waste from telephone surveys an adequate

proxy for an on-site audit? ..................................................................................................... 61 5.4 Is useful data available from large corporate companies? ......................................................... 62 5.5 How reliable are existing bulk density factors? ......................................................................... 62 5.6 How reliable is the approach to scaling up the results? ............................................................. 63

6.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 65 6.1 Significant quantities of waste are produced by pubs, hotels, QSRs and restaurants – there is

considerable scope for waste prevention and increased recycling and recovery ........................... 65 6.2 Most waste goes for disposal – there is considerable scope for increased recycling ..................... 65 6.3 On-site waste management is still very traditional – there is considerable scope for the

introduction of new services ................................................................................................... 66 6.4 The overall approach taken by this study has proved to be effective .......................................... 66 6.5 The telephone survey provided useful information but is not on its own an adequate

technique for quantifying the composition of waste .................................................................. 67 6.6 The logistics of collecting waste from the sites proved challenging ............................................ 67 6.7 Opportunities for hospitality businesses .................................................................................. 68

Appendix A – The composition of mixed waste in the UK nations ................................................................... 69 Appendix B – The composition of mixed waste from waste audits .................................................................. 74 Appendix C – Example of waste audit map................................................................................................... 80 Appendix D – Corporate waste survey ......................................................................................................... 81 Appendix E – Bulk density data ................................................................................................................... 85 Appendix F – Telephone survey questionnaire .............................................................................................. 87 Appendix G – Recycling market assumptions ................................................................................................ 95 Appendix H – Average estimated meal weight .............................................................................................. 96 Appendix I – Literature review and bibliography ........................................................................................... 97 Appendix J – Peer review by SRI Research and WRAP’s comments on the points made ................................. 119


1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 The hospitality sector

Latest figures indicate that the hospitality sector employs around 2.4 million people across the UK.3 The sector

comprises a diverse range of business activities including hotels, pubs, restaurants, catering services, holiday

parks and caravan/camping sites. Major five-star hotels and corporate catering and facilities management

companies are included alongside modest bed and breakfast establishments and seasonal cafés.4 Statistics on

the size and composition of the sector are available from a number of sources; a report prepared by Horizons for

Success gives the following figures in its latest research in terms of number of outlets.5

Table 2 Profile of the hospitality sector in the UK in 2010

Subsector Parameter Number of

outlets % of sector

% of sector eligible for

inclusion in this research

Profit

Hotels 45,840 17.7 17.7

Restaurants 27,738 10.7 10.7

Quick Service 31,368 12.1 12.1

Pubs 45,863 17.7 17.7

Leisure 19,551 7.5 Not included

Cost

Staff catering 19,259 7.4 Not included

Healthcare 31,928 12.3 Not included

Education 34,428 13.3 Not included

Services 3,078 1.2 Not included

Total 259,053 100.0 58.2

The sector is characterised by:

a large number of very small businesses (around 22% of the businesses are run by the proprietor and have

no employees, and 99% are classified as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

an operating model that dictates a large number of relatively small premises, even within large commercial

groups;

businesses that are operated as a lifestyle option (e.g. as a way of financing retirement to the coast) rather

than a profit-driven business;6 and

a very young workforce with high levels of staff turnover.7

1.1.2 The waste and resources agenda

Food and packaging waste continues to be a priority area for the European Union (EU), the UK and the devolved

governments. The hospitality sector is likely to be a significant producer of this type of waste. However, there is

very little information available at a UK level on the amounts of different types of waste generated and the

3 Oxford Economics (2010) Economic contribution of UK hospitality industry

www.baha-uk.org/OxfordEconomics.pdf 4 British Hospitality Association 2008 5 Horizons (2011) UK Foodservice Industry in 2010 (updated March 2011)

http://www.horizonsforsuccess.com/files/UK%20Foodservice%20Industry%202010.pdf 6 Morrison, A., Andrew, R., Baum, T. (2001) ‘The lifestyle economics of small tourism businesses’ Journal of Travel & Tourism

Research 1 no. 1-2. 7 People 1st (2006) The workforce hokey cokey – who's in, and who's out?

http://www.people1st.co.uk/default.asp?sID=1139851177627&nStart=10

http://www.baha-uk.org/OxfordEconomics.pdf

http://www.horizonsforsuccess.com/files/UK%20Foodservice%20Industry%202010.pdf


opportunities for further recovery and recycling. Although relatively recent studies have been carried out in each

of the four UK nations on waste generation overall, detailed information is lacking on the composition of the

mixed waste streams that go for disposal, streams that are significant for most sectors of the economy including

the hospitality sector. This presents a significant knowledge gap to both WRAP and its stakeholders which this

research has sought to address.

UK governments have come under increasing pressure to improve their knowledge of the industrial and

commercial waste stream.8 As well as aiming to generate new information on the waste generated by the

hospitality sector, one of the key objectives of this project was therefore to develop a workable method for

gathering more detailed information on mixed waste composition in businesses more generally. Although

analysing the composition of mixed waste is common practice for the household waste stream, no studies that

we are aware of have attempted to do so systematically across a whole sector of the economy. We

acknowledged from the outset that this would be a costly and difficult project – logistically, statistically and

operationally. It was expected that the lessons learnt from the project would feed into the commissioning

process for future industrial and commercial waste surveys.

Although systematic UK-level data on the quantity and composition of hospitality waste is lacking, a number of individual studies have previously been conducted into the waste production characteristics of the sector. These have found that:

the sector produces a relatively large quantity of waste that is broadly similar to domestic waste;9

waste from the sector is relatively heavy and heavier than comparable waste from other service sector

sites;10

the sector produces a considerable quantity of glass waste and a high percentage of this is not recycled;11

the sector produces a large quantity of food waste, much of which is not recycled/composted;12

recycling rates within the sector are relatively low, with a high percentage of businesses utilising facilities that

are supposed to be restricted to households;11 and

there is considerable awareness within the sector that good environmental practices reduce operating costs.

A survey by NetRegs13 indicated that 72% of hotel and restaurant SMEs considered this to be the case. Many

corporate businesses within the sector also make specific commitments to waste reduction.14 There are,

however, a number of barriers to effective engagement in waste minimisation or waste recycling especially

for the proprietor-run businesses and SMEs. These barriers include limited staff resources, lack of access to

commercial recycling services and lack of storage space.15,16,17

1.2 Aims and objectives

The aim of the research was to produce reliable estimates of the amounts and types of waste generated by the

UK hospitality sector through the development of a method that would enable the composition of mixed waste to

be quantified. Specific project objectives were to:

8 The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Seventh Report on Waste Reduction (2008) recommended that

“…the Government arrange for comprehensive surveys to collect data on the various waste streams in the UK thus enabling the formation of an overall strategic direction and policies”.

9 Todd, M. and Hawkins, R. (2001) Waste counts: a handbook for accommodation operators CESHI, Oxford Brookes University: Oxford

10 Thomas, C., Dacombe, P., Maycox, A., Banks, C., Khan, T., and Slater, R. (2007) Identification of key resource streams in commercial and industrial waste from small businesses in the food sector The Open University: Milton Keynes (Integrated Waste Systems Research Group)

11 Hawkins, R., Carlton Smith, J. and Todd, M. (2004a) Recycling urban glass. WRAP: Banbury Hawkins, R., Carlton Smith, J. and Todd, M. (2004b) Glass goes green WRAP: Banbury

12 Oakdene Hollins (2008) Hospitality sector glass collection WRAP: Banbury 13 NetRegs (2007) SME environment 2007 – UK summary www.environment-agency.gov.uk 14 E.g. The Hilton’s commitment www.hiltonworldwide.com/aboutus/sustainability.htm 15 WRAP (2007) Glass collected from licensed premises: determination of how much glass is collected for recycling from

licensed premises WRAP: Banbury 16 Oakdene Hollins (2008) Hospitality sector glass collection WRAP: Banbury 17 Bohdanowicz, P. and Martinac, I. (2003) Attitudes towards sustainability in chain hotels – results of a European survey

www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB5834.pdf


estimate the amount of different types of waste being produced by the sector, with particular emphasis on

the composition of the waste currently sent for disposal;

draw conclusions about the reasons for the waste being produced, the extent to which it is avoidable or, if it

is unavoidable, the extent to which it could be managed in a more resource-efficient manner; and

draw conclusions about how successful the research method was, how it might be improved and how it could

be applied to other industrial and commercial sectors.

During the initial project inception and scoping meetings, the scope of the project was refined to:

focus on the four main subsectors that comprise the ‘profit’ element of the hospitality sector, i.e. hotels,

pubs, restaurants and quick service restaurants (QSRs) (58% of hospitality outlets as Table 2 above shows);

focus on mixed waste going for disposal rather than waste that is already collected for recycling;

assess the extent to which waste that is avoidable could be managed in a more resource-efficient manner;

and

contribute to the development of an evidence base for resource efficiency decision-making in the hospitality

sector.

Throughout the project, there was a tension between its exploratory aspects and the need to produce robust

estimates in a cost-effective manner.

1.3 What is classified as a ‘hospitality’ business in this research?

The hospitality sector is generally considered to consist of two discrete elements:

the profit sector: businesses where providing catering and/or accommodation services is the primary

purpose of the business and where the aim is to maximise profit (e.g. hotels, guesthouses, bed & breakfast

establishments, youth hostels, restaurants, QSRs and pubs); and

the cost sector: businesses where providing hospitality services is not the main function of the organisation

and where the aim is not to maximise profit (e.g. catering and accommodation services within the premises

of schools, hospitals, prisons, military facilities etc.).

It was agreed during the early stages of the project that it would be beneficial to focus the study on the profit

sector. This was because:

profit-sector hospitality businesses are legally responsible for their own disposal arrangements, whereas

businesses in the cost sector often dispose of their waste alongside that generated by the organisation they

are operating within, making identification and analysis of hospitality-specific waste a more complex piece of

research; and

profit-sector hospitality businesses are likely to have greater control over the range of products they buy,

which means any recommendations relating to smarter purchasing would be more straightforward for the

profit sector to implement.

Following an initial literature review, the scope of businesses included in the study was further refined to include

only those that pay for their waste to be collected and to exclude those that use household waste collection

systems. Evidence from other studies has suggested that a significant proportion of hospitality businesses use

household waste collection systems for some of their waste, especially for recycling. Rural businesses are also

more likely to make use of household collection systems.18 These businesses were excluded because they were

likely to be very small businesses and including them in the research would not be consistent with ensuring value

for money. This resulted in 4% of the 150,809 businesses included in table 2 as being in scope being

subsequently removed from scope; this is show in Figure 1 below.

18 Hawkins, R., Carlton Smith, J. and Todd, M. (2004a) Recycling urban glass WRAP: Banbury

Hawkins, R., Carlton Smith, J. and Todd, M. (2004b) Glass goes green WRAP: Banbury BREW Centre for Local Authorities (2008) Highlights of local authority trade waste and recycling reports 2007/08 BREW Centre: Oxford www.environmentcentre.com/documents/LAtradewastereportssummary07-08.pdf


Businesses for which self-catering was the primary form of hospitality service (e.g. caravan/camping sites, self-

catering cottages) were also excluded from this study. This was because policy approaches for this type of

business would be very different than for others in the sector, focusing much more on influencing the behaviour

of the guests than on anything directly within the control of the business.

The scope of the study and the results presented in this report are, therefore, based on a subset of the four

main subsectors in the profit sector of the hospitality industry (i.e. hotels, restaurants, pubs and QSRs),

excluding the leisure sector and those establishments that do not pay for their waste to be removed. This is

shown in figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Proportion of the hospitality industry establishments covered by the research

1.4 Report structure

Chapter 2 focuses on the study’s methodology. It describes how a review of existing literature and a corporate

business survey were used to refine the scope and methodology of the project. The chapter then sets out the

methods employed to gather waste composition data and to derive UK estimates of the quantity and composition

of mixed waste.

Chapter 3 presents results, with estimates of the quantity and composition of mixed waste, opportunities for

increased recycling and business waste benchmarks.

Chapter 4 summarises the findings from the telephone survey, focusing on self-reported waste management

practices of surveyed businesses.

Chapter 5 considers some key methodological questions related to this research and sets out exactly what this

project has learned.

Chapter 6 draws together the key findings of this project and discusses the key issues and opportunities

highlighted by its findings.

There are a number of appendices which provide a greater level of detail on the methodology employed (e.g. the

literature review, the corporate waste survey, the waste audit sampling framework and the questionnaire used

during the telephone survey). The appendices also provide data from the compositional analysis of mixed waste

undertaken at the time of the waste audits and estimates for the composition of mixed waste in the UK’s

constituent nations.


2.0 Methodology

2.1 Overview

This section of the report details the methodology used in the project, which comprised eight stages undertaken

during 2009 and 2010.

1) A literature review to assess the available information on waste production, waste composition and waste

management practices within the hospitality sector. This identified a number of gaps that could be

addressed by this project and so was used to refine the project’s scope and the methodology used for data

gathering. See Section 2.2.

2) Sampling of businesses for a telephone survey, involving quantifying the range of hospitality

businesses within the UK, subdividing these businesses into meaningful categories for sampling purposes

and developing a statistically valid sampling framework. See Section 2.4.

3) A telephone survey, involving approaching businesses across the UK that matched the sampling criteria

and asking them to participate in a survey about their waste, plus recruitment of those surveyed for a

subsequent audit of their waste. Telephone surveys were also used to gather data on attitudes to waste

management and recycling, as well as on current waste management practices and the types of materials

recycled. See Section 2.4.

4) Sampling of businesses for the waste audits, involving pragmatic compromises between maximising

the sample size and the financial and logistical constraints of the project. See Section 2.5.1-2 and Section

2.5.5.

5) On-site waste audits, including an interview with the site manager, a visual inspection of the waste and

containers, and the collection of presented waste. See Section 2.5.3.

6) Waste composition analysis, including sorting of waste into 37 material categories, with emphasis

placed on the composition of mixed waste. See Section 2.5.4 and Section 2.6.

7) Production of UK and national waste estimates, involving the different sets of data being reviewed

and combined and then estimates being generated for the quantity and composition of mixed waste in the

UK hospitality sector. See Section 2.7.

In addition a corporate business survey was carried out to capture data from centrally run businesses with a

large number of premises/outlets (e.g. restaurant and pub chains); this is referred to in the remainder of the

report as ‘corporate data’. The purpose of the survey was to gather data from head offices rather than approach

many individual premises which were in any case unlikely to hold the data because arrangements were made by

head office on their behalf. However, this did not obtain any useful information; see Section 2.3.

The remainder of this chapter sets out in more detail the methods associated with each of these stages.

2.2 Literature review

The first stage of the project was a literature review to identify gaps and limitations in current knowledge that

could be addressed by this research. The literature review also helped to inform the methodologies used at later

stages of the project. The review included 136 items found in the public domain. Of these, only a handful of

studies provided detailed information on the composition of waste from the hospitality sector collated from

samples of 10 businesses or more.

The key themes arising from the literature research were as follows:

most of the literature concentrates on providing advice for hospitality businesses that are usually focused on

complying with regulations and/or minimising waste disposal costs;


many of the surveys that have been undertaken:

o have only achieved acceptable response rates using telephone calls or personal visits to persuade

staff to complete questionnaires;19

o do not provide reliable data about quantities of waste or its cost to the business, most relying on

estimating waste by asking businesses to assess the number of bins and how full they are:

Oakdene Hollins20 suggests such estimates may overstate the volume of waste generated as a

result of errors associated with converting reported volumes into weights; and

WRAP21 suggests that estimates of the weight of glass available for recycling from licensed

premises are likely to be overstated because respondents to self-completion surveys tend to

overestimate the amount of glass they produce;

o focus on the activities of the profit sector partly because of the difficulties of analysing waste from

the cost sector where the catering organisation has little control over the final waste disposal options

– see Huhtamaki 200722; and

o do not provide detailed attitudinal data about wastes;

much of what has been written focuses on:

o glass specifically;

o food waste and the impact of specific technologies;23

o the licensed retail trade or hotels, with almost no data available for catering outlets;21

o the economics of changing waste collection procedures, with a focus on waste collection

organisations rather than hospitality businesses; and

o businesses that have direct influence over their own waste management rather than those for whom

waste is managed by a third party;24

there is very limited information available on:

o difficult-to-manage wastes (especially hazardous wastes) from the sector, with the exception of fats,

oils and greases;

o wastes that are recycled or disposed of in ways other than a regularly collected bin, e.g. packaging

returned to manufacturers or waste disposed of via a macerator;

o relevant decision-making points in businesses, e.g. many head office businesses have waste

recycling as a key priority, but few are able to actively enforce this throughout all units. There is

very little data that identifies why some units under the management of the same head office

implement waste management programmes and others do not; and

o different approaches to waste within the sector mapped onto different types of recycling service

provision and different levels of fee-charging;

most of the compositional data available for the sector:

o is developed from very small sample sizes;25 26

o has been gathered using varying audit methodologies, e.g. auditing all waste or a sample of

waste;27 28

o has rarely been correlated against key business performance criteria (e.g. occupancy for hotels,

number of meals served for restaurants etc.), with the exception of the reports generated for

benchmarking purposes by hospitality businesses; and

most of the data presented across the sector as a whole:

o is based on very small samples, sometimes grossed up to represent the sector, using different

methodologies;

19 CESHI (2007) Glass collection from licensed retail sector WRAP: Banbury 20 Oakdene Hollins (2008) Mapping waste in the food industry Defra and the Food and Drink Federation: London 21 WRAP (2007) Glass collected from licensed premises: determination of how much glass is collected for recycling from

licensed premises WRAP: Banbury 22 Unpublished research undertaken by CESHI 23 Environmental Protection Division (2005) Wales public sector sustainable waste management guidance manual

www.wales.gov.uk [Accessed 24/01/09] 24 Envirowise case studies www.rocksiderecycling.co.uk/case_studies.asp

http://online.businesslink.gov.uk/Horizontal_Services_files/Envirowise_Strattons_case_study.pdf 25 CESHI (2004) What’s worth £9m and gets chucked in a large hole in the ground? CFES, Oxford Brookes University: Oxford 26 Caterer & Hotelkeeper (2007) Green Month special edition 3 October 2007 Surrey, RBI Publishing. 27 Environment Agency (2000) Commercial and industrial waste production survey 1998/9 (unpublished) 28 SLR Consulting (2007) Determination of the biodegradability of mixed industrial and commercial waste landfilled in Wales

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/biodegwals_1913611.pdf

http://www.rocksiderecycling.co.uk/case_studies.asp

http://online.businesslink.gov.uk/Horizontal_Services_files/Envirowise_Strattons_case_study.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/biodegwals_1913611.pdf


o uses methodologies that gross up making no allowance for seasonal fluctuations/volume of trade;

and

o is not representative of the range of different models of working that are implemented across the

sector (e.g. tenanted, managed, facilities management contract etc.).

These findings suggested that it was beneficial to collect data via both a telephone survey and site waste audits.

A telephone survey would ask businesses to report on their own waste production, management and policy,

whilst the site waste audits would actively quantify waste production and composition at individual business

premises.

Appendix I contains more information about the literature review.

2.3 Corporate survey

A small number of corporate brands dominate the hospitality sector. In many of these organisations, the head

office makes arrangements for waste collection on behalf of individual sites. The aim of this part of the project

was to capture waste management data from head offices, rather than approaching individual premises.

During project inception, it was hoped that corporate businesses (i.e. those with over 100 outlets) would provide

a mass of useful data that could be incorporated into the project. However, the different methods of recording

and storing data meant that the outputs from this part of the work could not be directly compared to the

datasets generated from other parts of the project.

The methodological lesson learnt from the corporate survey was that gathering data from large corporate

businesses is not a quick route to obtaining a large amount of analysable data. It would appear that a number of

corporate businesses do not collect waste data at all. When data is collected, a significant amount of time is

needed to work with the corporate sector not only to obtain data but also to standardise the data before any

analysis can be conducted. A fuller description of the corporate survey’s methodology and findings is presented

in Appendix D.

2.4 Telephone survey

The telephone survey stage of the project consisted of four principal activities:

drawing up the sampling framework, i.e. deciding which criteria are important when selecting businesses to

sample;

deciding how many businesses to include in the sample for the survey;

selecting the individual businesses to be included; and

carrying out the survey to obtain a representative sample of businesses.

2.4.1 Drawing up the sampling framework

The sampling framework sets the parameters within which decisions are made on individual companies to

survey. The nature of the sampling framework is normally dictated by the kind of information that is to be

produced. In this case, one of the key sampling criteria was dictated in advance – at least some samples had to

be in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland because (a) information was required by nation and

(b) all four nations had funded the work. In early project meetings, it was also agreed that information would be

required for each of the four subsectors – hotels, restaurants, pubs and QSRs – so this became a parameter

within the sampling framework too.

A key requirement was therefore up-to-date population counts for hotels, restaurants, pubs and QSRs across

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The hospitality industry has a number of specialist data

providers and each of the datasets available has subtle differences. The database selected for the telephone

survey and waste audit parts of the project was Caterlyst (www.caterlyst.co.uk), for the following reasons:


it is the only industry-specific database that has been developed to cover the total population of all hospitality

service providers. The other industry databases that are available have been created to drive the circulations

of specific trade magazines and are therefore skewed by subsector and size;

it is used as a sales database by a number of leading food and equipment suppliers to the industry and the

header records are therefore being checked, validated and updated on a regular basis;

it contains approximately 325,000 records and could provide information on the four subsectors selected for

inclusion within this project;

the header records contain company name, address, telephone number and subsector data. In certain

subsectors it is also possible to append additional data to the record. i.e. number of bedrooms for a hotel.

and this data can help to inform data analysis; and

the subsectors can be related back to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes if required, so that data

can be sense-checked against other national surveys.

A general count of businesses within the four subsectors was obtained from Caterlyst on 20 January 2009 to

specify the actual size of the total population. This was then refined on 5 February 2009 to ascertain the

numbers of outlets within each subsector and to exclude head offices, duplicate records, businesses that fell

outside of the sampling framework, and regional offices of groups. This resulted in 138,773 individual sites from

across the UK being included in the scope of the work.

One further parameter for the sampling framework was dictated by the logistics of the subsequent waste

auditing exercise – a reasonable proportion of the selected businesses had to be within a 50-mile radius of the

sites where the waste was to be sorted (Belfast, Glasgow, London, Cardiff, Wrexham, Ormskirk and Barnsley).

This was in order to maximise the number of businesses that could be included within the fixed cost of the work.

One possible source of error was that these locations missed some of the very seasonal parts of the UK, e.g. the

Devon and Cornwall coast, so the study may have over-sampled businesses that operate all year or most of the

year.

Provision was made to supplement the sample with an additional 960 surveys, targeted to geographical areas

within which the site waste audits were to be conducted. This would ensure that the telephone survey provided a

sufficient number of businesses that could be searched to participate in the site waste audit within a reasonable

driving distance (50 miles) of the waste sorting depots. Figure 2 shows the location of the waste sorting sites

and the business recruitment areas.


Figure 2 UK survey area showing the six waste sorting depots (Belfast, Glasgow, London, Cardiff, Wrexham, Ormskirk and Barnsley) and business recruitment areas (50-mile radii)

The final parameters for the telephone sampling framework were therefore:

1. nation (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland);

2. subsector (hotels, restaurants, pubs, QSRs); and

3. within or outside a 50-mile radius of a sort site.

2.4.2 Telephone survey sample sizes

For the telephone survey, it was agreed that the project team would attempt to obtain completed questionnaires

from at least 1% of all hospitality businesses. A further requirement was that a 20% response rate should be

achieved by the telephone survey. The desired completion rate, therefore, required at least 5% of all hospitality

business contacts to be called to deliver the required number of completed telephone survey questionnaires

(6938 calls based on the Caterlyst contact database of 138,773).

The sample was divided:

equally across the subsectors (hotels, pubs, QSRs and restaurants);

in direct proportion to the number of businesses in each country; and

on a geographically random basis for most of the samples but with 240 of the sampled businesses

(distributed equally across each subsector) being within a 50-mile radius of potential waste sorting depots to

ensure there were enough within the catchment area of each site to be used for sorting waste samples.

Table 3 summarises the sample framework. Businesses that fitted each of the cells in the sampling framework

were then selected at random.


Table 3 Sample framework for the telephone survey

Subsector Parameter

En

gla

nd

No

rth

ern

Irela

nd

Sco

tla

nd

Wa

les

Gra

nd

tota

l

Hotels

% of all UK businesses belonging to this

subsector 77.4 1.07 14.23 7.3 100

Number of telephone calls allocated at random 1264 18 233 119 1634

Number of telephone calls allocated to businesses within 50 miles of sorting depots

60 60 60 60 240

Pubs

% of all UK businesses belonging to this subsector

84.3 2.06 7.11 6.53 100


Number of telephone calls allocated to

businesses within 50 miles of sorting depots 60 60 60 60 240

QSRs

% of all UK businesses belonging to this

subsector 84.25 2.21 8.42 5.12 100


Number of telephone calls allocated to businesses within 50 miles of sorting depots

60 60 60 60 240

Restaurants

% of all UK businesses belonging to this subsector

85.96 1.92 7.91 4.21 100


Number of telephone calls allocated to

businesses within 50 miles of sorting depots 60 60 60 60 240

2.4.3 Development of the telephone questionnaire

The questionnaire for the telephone survey was informed by the literature review and previous benchmarking

studies within the literature, such as that undertaken by the International Hotels Environment Initiative29 (now

the International Tourism Partnership). In developing the first draft, the questionnaire was intended to be used

only to collate the following data:

the contact details for each organisation;

the subsector of the industry the business is drawn from;

operating periods for the business;

current waste disposal policies/technologies/practices;

the size (e.g. number of rooms, meals served per day) and characteristics of the business; and

the corporate affiliations of the business: a ‘snowball technique’ was proposed in which businesses that are a

part of a corporate group or management company would be contacted to request data for the whole group.

It was agreed that the questionnaire would also be used to collect data on the approximate amounts of waste

produced (residual and recycling), potential drivers/barriers that influence the amount of waste produced, and

attitudes towards waste management. An initial draft of the questionnaire was piloted to test ease of use and

response rates. Further redrafts were then piloted, which improved response and completion rates. A copy of the

final questionnaire is presented in Appendix F.

The information in the questionnaire on container numbers, types, size and collection frequency was used to

estimate the approximate scale of the business’s waste production. This exercise was principally used as an input

to the sampling framework for the waste audits and not for generating estimates of waste for reporting. To this

end, the questionnaire survey used a simple container classification of:

29 International Hotels Environmental Initiative (1993) Environmental management for hotels: the industry guide to good

practice Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford


two-wheeled bins;

four-wheeled bins;

sacks;

skips with compaction;

skips without compaction; and

other.

Assumptions about the typical size of each container were then applied to derive an estimate of waste

generation. In reality, of course, there are a range of different container capacities even within the same

container type. However, the sites audits confirmed that the majority of containers on-site were the typical size

(80l for a sack, 240l for a two-wheeled bin and 1100 litres for a four-wheeled bin), although skips varied more

widely. This suggests that the approach taken in this study was correct – that telephone surveys alone would

result in lower confidence in estimates, but that these generic descriptions (which are easy for businesses to

recognise) are generally standard enough to be used as a proxy for waste generation.

2.4.4 Telephone survey bias

As with all surveys, the results will only be representative of the whole sector if non-response bias is low or

preferably non-existent. Non-response bias is introduced if the respondents are different in some way to the non-

respondents, e.g. if they recycle more or if they produce more waste. For the purposes of this research, we have

assumed that non-response bias is insignificant, but in reality we have no evidence to either support this or

refute it. It is likely that if there is any non-response bias, it is due to under-sampling larger waste producers

because the questionnaire is longer for businesses which produce more waste, leading to higher levels of non-

completion in larger businesses.

As with all telephone surveys, there may also be a degree of response bias. It is quite common for survey

respondents to overstate behaviours that are seen to be ‘good’ (e.g. recycling) and understate behaviours that

are seen to be ‘bad’ (e.g. pouring cooking oil down the drain). In this research we ensured that the interviewer

minimised this risk through their introduction to the survey, and we have compensated for this in part through

the site audit process, but we accept this bias may still be present.

2.4.5 Telephone survey completion rates

A questionnaire was considered to be complete once a respondent had confirmed that they currently pay for the

removal of their general waste. A total of 1659 questionnaires were recorded as fully completed. Businesses that

do not pay for their own waste to be disposed of were excluded from the study because it was felt that they

would produce such little waste that the effort to collect it would be disproportionate; 122 businesses exited the

survey for this reason. Thus a total of 1659 businesses paid for their waste to be disposed of either directly

(1587) or via their head office (72), were taken through the survey questions and had their responses included in

the final data.


Table 4 Call outcomes for the telephone survey of 9281 businesses

Responses

Ho

tels

Pu

bs

QS

Rs

Resta

ura

nts

To

tals

%

Calls made 1,924 1,947 1,747 3,663 9,281 100

Completed responses (businesses paying for waste

disposal) 352 481 312 514 1,659 18

Completed responses (businesses not paying/don’t know

whether paying for waste disposal) 71 28 11 12 122 1

Refused to answer 408 316 435 694 1,853 20

No reply 376 411 501 1,415 2,703 29

Call back required 482 221 185 407 1,295 14

Number not recognised 152 312 148 376 988 11

Business has moved 16 18 21 32 87 1

Unsound – other 67 160 134 213 574 6

The completion rate for the survey was 18%, which is approximately what would be expected for a survey of this

kind. Response rates were better in the pub sector (25%) and lower in the restaurant sector (14%). This is likely

to relate partly to reclassification of businesses from restaurants to pubs during the quality assurance process.30

The distribution of the responses across the nations of the UK is shown in Table 3. The responses achieved

largely reflected the population of businesses in each of the four subsectors and UK countries.

Statistical advice was sought from the Statistical Services Centre (SSC) at Reading University regarding the

number of completed questionnaires required per sector and country. It was considered that the achieved

responses were sufficiently close to the targets set in the sampling framework and that no further telephone

questionnaires were required.

Table 5 Coverage of survey responses by nation and subsector

Subsector England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland

Total

Hotels

Sample* 256 61 32 3 352

Population** 18,506 3,700 1,667 503 24,376

% coverage 1.6 1.6 1.9 0.6 1.4

Pubs

Sample 399 37 36 9 481

Population 35,432 3,037 2,529 1,313 42,311

% coverage 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.1

QSRs

Sample 251 30 23 8 312

Population 38,476 3,906 2,229 1,344 45,955

% coverage 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.7

Restaurants

Sample 430 47 23 14 514

Population 22,278 2,151 1,078 624 26,131

% coverage 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.0

Total

Sample 1336 175 114 34 1,659

Population 114,692 12,794 7,503 3,784 138,773

% coverage 1.2 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.2

* Completed questionnaires ** From the Caterlyst database

30 A number of pub businesses had stated that they were restaurants in response to the questionnaire survey. However,

further investigation demonstrated that they were pubs with a substantial catering function, i.e. they provided a drinks-only service as well as food.


2.5 Waste audit methodology

The waste audit stage of the project consisted of the following activities:

development of a sampling framework based on the telephone survey;

the on-site audit which included an interview, visual inspection and collection of waste; and

off-site sorting and analysis of waste.

2.5.1 Waste audit sampling framework

The telephone questionnaire was used as a basis from which to select the businesses to participate in the on-site

waste audits. Rather than selecting businesses at random, a waste audit sampling framework was developed in

an attempt to align the sampled businesses as closely as possible with the structure of the UK population of

hospitality businesses.

Categories of waste production were developed for each subsector by analysing the results of the telephone

survey to calculate the estimated amounts of waste produced (low, medium or high). This was achieved by

taking the respondent’s answers to how many containers they have on-site, multiplying by the size of the

container and by how many times it is collected, and assuming it is always 100% full when collected. CESHI’s

expert knowledge was then applied to assess what range of amounts could be described as ‘low’, ‘medium’ and

‘high’, as shown in Table 4 below.

Table 6 Businesses falling into each category of waste production

Waste

production category

Hotels Restaurants Pubs QSRs

Likely range based on expert knowledge

(litres per week)

Low ≤1,100 ≤1,200 ≤960 ≤920

Medium >1,100 and ≤6,600 >1,200 and ≤12,000 >960 and ≤3,600 >920 and ≤6,000

High >6,600 >12,000 >3,600 >6,000

Number of observations from

survey falling within each category

Low 54 164 28 42

Medium 204 379 269 208

High 66 64 61 53

Overall 324 607 358 303

Relationships between estimates of waste production and a series of business characteristics were analysed by

the project team. Following this analysis, the variables considered to be the best indicators of waste production

were identified as:

1. number of rooms (for hotels);

2. whether part of a group (for hotels, restaurants and QSRs);

3. whether managed or not (for pubs);

4. number of meals served per day (for hotels and pubs);

5. volume of business (for restaurants and QSRs);

6. whether takeaway or eat-in (for QSRs); and

7. whether the business recycles (for restaurants).

The total number of waste audits was dictated by resource constraints and based on some assumptions about

how long it would take to audit the sites, how much waste would be expected and how long it would take to

collect and sort it. At the outset of the research, approximately 90 audits were envisaged. Later, the Yorkshire

and Humber Assembly and the Welsh and Scottish governments provided additional funding that helped increase

the number of audits across the UK; approximately 40 additional sampling points were added as a result. Table 7

shows the final waste audit sampling framework.

In some cases, there are quite small samples (at an extreme, for example, only one audit was conducted for

high waste-producing pubs); in these cases we have had to assume that the sampled companies represent


others in the same category but that assumption is obviously problematic hence we have suggested that the

data from the study is regarded only as indicative. As set out above, the final number of audits achieved was

limited by the available resources, timescales and the information gathered during the waste audits, which was

not always adequate to include in the final data. This was despite using a recruitment and scheduling process

that aimed to maximise the number of audits achieved and is a key lesson learnt from the project.

Table 7 The sampling framework for the on-site waste audits carried out across the UK during 2009 (subtotals may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

Subsector Waste production factor Estimated level of

waste

Number identified

in the survey

Estimated population

distribution

Number of waste

audits

Sample

distribution

Hotels

0-10 rooms Low 119 37% 12 34%

11-50 rooms Medium 135 42% 14 40%

>50 rooms High 65 20% 9 26%

Subtotal 319 100% 35 100%

Pubs

Not managed & ≤50 meals/day Low 88 46% 16 55%

Managed & ≤50 meals/day Low/medium 26 14% 4 14%

Not managed & >50 meals/day Medium 46 24% 8 28%

Managed & >50 meals/day High 30 16% 1 3%

Subtotal 190 100% 29 100%

QSR

Either takeaway OR not part of a group Low 184 70% 10 31%

Not takeaway AND part of a group High 78 30% 22 69%

Subtotal 262 100% 32 100%

Restaurants

Not part of a group Low 300 52% 26 62%

Belong to a group & recycle Medium 184 32% 12 29%

Belong to a group & don’t recycle High 89 16% 4 9%

Subtotal 573 100% 42 100%

Total 1,344 138

2.5.2 Securing sufficient samples and potential bias

An essential part of the waste audit scheduling process was obtaining informed consent. During the initial

telephone survey, 298 respondents had confirmed they would be willing to participate in a waste audit. Of these,

60 fell within the relevant postcode areas (i.e. within a 50-mile radius of a waste sorting depot) but seven of

them had not provided sufficient data to enable the audit to take place. That meant more businesses had to be

recruited. However, it was critical to keep the sample as random as possible and not specifically target particular

types of business. To overcome this challenge, a second round of telephone interviews was carried out, targeting

all businesses that had completed the questionnaire but initially declined to participate in the audits, asking them

to reconsider. This approach proved successful and further businesses were recruited. The failure of the initial

approach is believed to have been due in part to the fact that the audit methodology was still under

development, so telephone interviewers were unable to reassure companies effectively about potential disruption

and confidentiality concerns.

It is recognised that sampling businesses from the subset of telephone survey respondents that agreed to

participate in waste audits may have led to a degree of bias. For example, those with a greater interest in waste

management and/or participation in recycling may be more inclined to take part in waste audits. This is a

common methodological challenge in this type of study. This was unavoidable in order to avoid bringing the

project partners into disrepute; informed consent to have their waste removed for analysis was obtained from

every businesses.

Because the location of the businesses had to be within reasonable driving distance of the sorting sites, and the

sorting sites were all in urban areas, there were initial concerns that sampling just from a city centre location


may bias the data collected. To test whether these concerns were justified, Geographic Information System

(GIS) mapping was carried out that suggested a diverse range of urban and rural businesses could be captured.

A detailed example of such a map is provided in Appendix C. Although the intention was to select businesses

within a 50-mile radius of a waste sorting depot, in some cases there was insufficient representation of the

required business subsectors within this radius and some samples had to be taken from a wider radius. For

example, in Cardiff, samples were collected from Gloucestershire, the South Midlands and South West Wales in

addition to Cardiff itself. Therefore samples were taken from a wide geographical spread of businesses across

the UK from both urban and rural locations.

2.5.3 The on-site waste audit process31

The on-site audits commenced in March 2009 and consisted of three distinct elements:

a pre-arranged interview with the site manager about waste production;

a visual inspection of the waste and on-site containers; and

collection of the waste for analysis off-site.

2.5.3.1 The interview

On arrival at site the most appropriate staff member (or point of contact from the telephone survey) was

identified. The interviewer asked to be taken to the area of the site where waste was kept prior to removal. A

brief interview was then conducted to determine when each of the waste types was last collected and whether

the waste available was typical of an average week. The auditor also asked for information on the number of

meals served per day and asked for permission to remove the waste for analysis.

Even though the focus of the study was on mixed waste, information was also collected about bulky waste.

However, in every case where bulky waste was found, the interviewee stated that it was generated on an ad-hoc

basis and found it impossible to quantify the amount. Within larger establishments the bulky waste tended to be

generated as part of a refurbishment programme or as a result of the breakdown in a specific piece of

equipment, but this would not take place at regular intervals. Hotels under corporate ownership generally

undergo a major refurbishment every 7-12 years with more minor work being completed on an ad-hoc basis,

with contractors managing the waste. Because in most cases there was no physical waste to sample and little

knowledge on the part of the site manager about what waste was generated at the last refurbishment, bulky

waste had to be excluded from this research.

2.5.3.2 The visual inspection

The remainder of the time on-site consisted of a visual inspection of the waste. The information was recorded in

a table provided to the waste auditor and included:

waste type (e.g. residual waste, recycling (mixed glass), co-mingled recyclables);

container type (e.g. wheeled bin, drum, sack, loose);

volume of container;

estimates of how full the container was at point of collection (%);

number of days’ worth of waste presented in the container; and

whether all, a sub-sample (specifying the amount) or none of the waste was collected for compositional

analysis.

Using this data, information could be calculated on the levels of waste generation at each business in terms of

litres per day and kg per day. For oils and special and hazardous waste material, a note was made on the

number and size of containers. For health and safety reasons, these materials were not handled.

31 In some parts of this chapter, we refer to 139 site audits and in others to 138 site audits. This is because although 139 site

audits were carried out, the data from one had to be removed from the analysis because it was abnormal and deemed an outlier. Although this premises’ data is not relevant to the project, the methodological lessons learnt whilst visiting it are relevant, so sometimes it will be appropriate to refer to 139 audits and sometimes to 138.


Table 8 shows the number of different types of waste containment observed and sampled at the 138 businesses

visited during the site audit. Throughout the waste audits, emphasis was placed on collecting as much residual

waste as possible.

Table 8 Number of each waste stream observed and sampled at the 138 audited premises

Waste type

Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Total

Ob

se

rved

Sa

mp

led

Ob

se

rved

Sa

mp

led

Ob

se

rved

Sa

mp

led

Ob

se

rved

Sa

mp

led

Ob

se

rved

Sa

mp

led

Brown glass recycling 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 5 2

Card recycling 15 9 4 3 11 8 8 6 38 26

Clear glass recycling 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 1 6 3

Co-mingled recycling 6 5 5 5 7 6 5 3 23 19

Food recycling 6 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 10 4

Green glass recycling 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 5 2

Metal recycling 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 6 5

Mixed glass recycling 25 14 16 6 4 2 16 7 61 29

Mixed plastic recycling 4 3 0 0 2 2 3 3 9 8

Oil recycling 30 0 18 0 17 0 31 0 96 0

Paper & card recycling 5 4 1 1 4 3 0 0 10 8

Paper recycling 3 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 6 3

Mixed (residual) waste 35 35 29 29 32 32 42 40 138 136

Total 134 81 80 49 82 55 117 60 413 245

This is clearly a snapshot of waste from each business, and the project could not take account of seasonal

differences in waste set out for disposal which may be important for some sub-sectors. The data presented in

this report should therefore be regarded as indicative of the waste sent to disposal by the sector rather than

definitive.

2.5.3.3 Collection of waste

Early in the project, a key task was to consider the best approach to collect and sort waste from businesses

within the hospitality sector on a national scale. Two approaches were considered:

sorting on location at the targeted premises; and

a central sorting approach where waste would be collected and brought to a central location.

A review of the relative merits of each approach was undertaken and the central sort approach was adopted.

This was because, during the first few pilot audits, it became immediately apparent that sorting waste on-site at

the business was going to be impossible due to a lack of space, public perception and issues surrounding health

and safety. Whilst it was recognised that taking waste off-site for analysis could result in a smaller weight of

samples being collected at each business due to limited space on the collection vehicle, the ‘sorting on location’

approach was simply out of the question.

On-site, the waste had to be emptied into another container to be removed from site. This was because, when

recruiting businesses, it became clear that companies had concerns about their business’s waste containers being

removed from the property.

Where practicably possible, all waste available for collection was collected, including co-mingled waste destined

for recycling. Where this was not possible, a sub-sample was taken from the container trying to ensure that as

representative a sample as possible was taken. This was then transferred to one of the seven central waste

sorting depots. In some cases there was no material to collect. The priority throughout the project was to ensure


that, as a minimum, the mixed residual waste was collected since this was the focus of the research. The waste

from the businesses was hand-loaded into separate containers and coded with the date, a unique business code

and the waste type. The waste was collected and transported in one of two 3.5-tonne Luton vans to the central

sorting facility. Waste from up to six businesses each day was collected.

Table 9 shows the amount of material sampled as a proportion of the total volume of material presented for

collection at the time of the waste audit. The volume of material sampled was measured from how full containers

of material were before and after a sample had been taken. Out of a total of 413 instances of a material being

presented for collection by the 138 businesses audited, 168 instances were not sampled. A very large proportion

of residual waste samples collected represented 100% of the volume of waste presented (118 samples out of

138). Waste kitchen oil was not collected as it was assumed to be 100% kitchen oil (in practice there would have

been some contamination, but this is thought to be minimal).

Table 9 Number of samples by waste stream grouped by % of available material that was sampled

Material type sampled % of material presented that was sampled

None collected

0% to <20%

20% to <40%

40% to <60%

60% to <80%

80% to <100%

All collected

Total

Food recycling 6 - - - - - 4 10

Paper & card recycling 17 3 3 1 - - 30 54

Glass recycling 41 3 - 2 - - 31 77

Metal recycling 1 - - - - - 5 6

Plastic recycling 1 - 1 - - - 7 9

Oil recycling 96 - - - - - - 96

Co-mingled recycling 4 1 - 1 - - 17 23

Residual waste 2 2 7 6 2 1 118 138

Total 168 9 11 10 2 1 212 413

One key source of error associated with this aspect of the study is the uncertainty about what proportion of a

week’s waste was collected. This was because businesses varied considerably as to when their waste was

collected: in central London, for example, waste is collected all through the night, whilst in more rural settings or

for smaller businesses it might be collected once a week. Although respondents were asked when their waste is

normally collected, this information proved unreliable. As a result, it was not possible to generalise about the

best time to arrive for the audit in order to yield the maximum amount of waste; sometimes teams would arrive

and there would be no waste to collect. No analysis was done on whether day of the week on which the waste

was collected affected the results and we were unable to check the sensitivity of the approach to calculating a

weeks’ worth of waste on the resulting data.

2.5.3.4 Logistical constraints and their effect on-site audit data

Participating businesses were allocated a collection time within a one week collection ‘slot’ in each of the seven

areas. This was dictated by the limited time available at each of the central sorting sites. Whilst it was important

that as much waste as possible was collected from each business, this had to be balanced against a range of

other criteria. For example:

all recruited businesses had to be sampled within the one-week programme due to the resources available to

the project (e.g. sorting site availability) and the timescale of the research;

the maximum amount of time had to be left between when the waste was last collected and when the

sample was collected (i.e. to generate the maximum number of days’ worth of waste). Only one visit per

business could be made, so where recycling and mixed waste were collected on different days the priority

had to be the mixed waste;

due to the wide geographical spread, waste from businesses in close proximity to each other was collected

together in order to minimise travel time; and

only three or four premises could be scheduled for the same collection due to the limited payload of the

collection vehicle. Waste could not be compacted as it had to be hand-sorted later.


Because it was not possible to prioritise all criteria, compromises were made on the number and weight of

samples collected.

Additional vehicles and sampling crews were allocated to the project to help increase the overall weight of

material collected, in an attempt to mitigate some of the issues raised during the early audits. Despite these

efforts, two issues influenced the quality of the data collected.

1. Some samples only represented between one and three days’ worth of waste. This was a result of

scheduling constraints or incorrect information being provided by the business about collection days/times

during the on-site interview. Although this factor was corrected for when scaling up, some types of waste

could have been missed if they are only generated on specific days of the week.

2. As the sample of businesses was selected at random using the sampling framework, there were occasions

where only a small amount of waste was produced, particularly by small or remote businesses. Although it is

correct that these businesses were included, it does mean that a smaller amount of waste has been

analysed, increasing sample errors.

2.5.4 Off-site sorting and analysis of waste

On arrival at the waste sorting facility, each waste stream (i.e. residual waste, organic waste and recyclable

waste) from each business was emptied onto the floor, weighed and then placed onto a 10mm sorting screen for

hand-sorting. Each waste stream from each business was processed separately. The material was hand-sorted by

a team of around five people into the 37 categories listed in Table 10. Once sorted, the weight of each waste

material was recorded and it was then disposed of or recycled as appropriate. The waste was not returned to the

participating business.

Apart from kitchen waste, the waste sorting categories shown in Table 8 are standard material categories used in

other ‘sort and weigh’ waste composition projects. This approach means that the results can be readily compared

and could also be easily recoded into the Substance Oriented Category (SOC) list and European Waste Catalogue

(EWC) list if required.32

During waste category development, two factors were identified by WRAP as important for the classification of

food waste – whether the waste was avoidable/unavoidable and whether the waste was in packaging or loose in

the waste container (packaged/non-packaged). The use of these categories will provide an indication of the

opportunities for both the prevention of avoidable food waste and the level of pre-treatment required to remove

packaging prior to processing in composting/digestion facilities. Food/kitchen waste was separated into one of

the four following categories:

packaged avoidable kitchen waste: food waste which could be avoided and was contained inside packaging,

e.g. a packet of frozen beef burgers, a packet of frozen peas and a bag of whole potatoes;

packaged unavoidable kitchen waste: food waste which could not be avoided and was contained inside

packaging, e.g. an apple core put into some empty packaging for disposal (in practice, this classifier was very

unlikely to occur and is not recommended for future studies);

non-packaged avoidable: food waste which could be avoided and was not contained inside any packaging,

e.g. food scrapings from a half-finished meal or a half-eaten pizza; and

non-packaged unavoidable: food waste which could not be avoided and not contained inside any packaging,

e.g. a banana skin or melon rind.

Waste disposed to sewer was not included in the study.

32 Both of these are waste classification systems used in the EU. The UK has to report data to the European Commission based

on these categories, so it is important that information is available in this format if required.


Table 10 Waste categories used for compositional analysis

Primary category Secondary category

1 Paper

1.1 Newspaper, magazines, catalogues & other recyclable paper

1.2 Paper packaging

1.3 Non-recyclable paper

2 Card

2.1 Liquid cartons

2.2 Board packaging

2.3 Card packaging

2.4 Other card

3 Dense plastic

3.1 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles

3.2 High-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bottles

3.3 Other plastic bottles

3.4 Other dense plastic packaging

3.5 Other dense plastic

4 Plastic film 4.1 Plastic film

4.2 Carrier bags

5 Textiles 5.1 All textiles

6 Glass

6.1 Green glass bottles and jars

6.2 Clear glass bottles and jars

6.4 Brown glass bottles and jars

6.3 Other glass

7 Miscellaneous combustibles 7.1 All miscellaneous combustibles

8 Miscellaneous non-combustibles 8.1 All miscellaneous non-combustibles

9 Ferrous metal

9.1 Ferrous food and beverage cans

9.2 Ferrous aerosol

9.3 Other ferrous metal

10 Non-ferrous metal

10.1 Non-ferrous food and beverage cans

10.2 Foil

10.3 Non-ferrous aerosol

10.4 Other non-ferrous metal

11 Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) 11.1 All WEEE

12 Hazardous waste, batteries and clinical waste 12.1 All hazardous waste, batteries and clinical waste

13 Garden waste 13.1 All garden waste

14 Kitchen (food) waste

14.1 Packaged avoidable

14.2 Packaged unavoidable

14.3 Non-packaged avoidable

14.4 Non-packaged unavoidable

15 Fines 15.1 Fines (<10mm)

16 Liquids 16.1 Liquids (including oil)


For all the waste categories listed in Table 10, standard waste-sorting practices and quality control procedures

were employed. For example:

waste materials were separated into their material parts, e.g. an empty cereal box would be separated into

plastic film and card packaging;

where two materials were inseparable (or composite), the item was allocated to the material category

contributing the main weight (the exception to this rule was packaged food waste which was always classified

as kitchen waste);

liquids in containers were separated and weighed separately, e.g. where a full bottle of cola was identified,

the liquid was emptied into a separate container and weighed separately from the plastic bottle;

materials which could not be clearly allocated into an appropriate material category, or were unidentifiable by

material type, were categorised based on whether or not the majority of the material would combust and

were allocated to either the miscellaneous combustible or the miscellaneous non-combustible category;

material falling through the 10mm screen was classified as fines – whilst material was passed over and sorted

on top of the screen, no material was forced through the screen holes or passed over the screen indefinitely

until the material fell through;

prior to weighing each sorted material category, the contents of the container were checked by the site

supervisor and any incorrectly sorted material was removed and placed into an appropriate container;

when weighing each sorting container, the container including the contents was weighed, the contents were

removed and then the container without the contents was weighed again to provide an accurate sample

weight; and

the weighing scales were regularly checked with a known weight to ensure consistency in the weights

displayed.

2.5.5 Final sampling for waste audits

Figure 3 shows the location of the 139 businesses that were visited during the waste audits and Table 11 shows

the number of businesses sampled, by subsector and UK nation.

Figure 3 Final waste audit business locations


Table 11 Final number of businesses sampled during the waste audit exercise

Subsector England Scotland Wales N. Ireland Total

Hotels 19 6 9 1 35

Pubs 21 3 5 0 29

QSRs 14 6 4 8 32

Restaurants 24 6 5 7 42

Total 78 21 23 16 138

Whilst there is an underlying assumption that the country location itself should not be a sampling criterion, i.e. a

pub in England with a similar business profile to one in Wales will have the same waste generation

characteristics, a reasonable cross-section of premises is included in the sample. Table 12 shows the weight of all

material hand-sorted from each sampled waste type. Given the budget and logistical constraints highlighted

previously (e.g. see Section 2.5.3.4), emphasis was placed on collecting as much residual waste as possible.

Waste consisting of a single material was recorded but not taken for sorting (e.g. cooking oil).

Table 12 Total weight (kg) of samples collected and hand-sorted

Material Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Total

Brown glass 5 24 0 0 29

Card 60 24 127 36 247

Clear glass 13 119 0 9 141

Co-mingled 150 64 28 25 267

Food 63 0 0 0 63

Green glass 12 112 0 0 124

Metal 12 1 15 0 28

Mixed glass 628 141 17 398 1184

Mixed plastic 28 0 4 12 44

Paper & card 250 1 81 0 332

Paper 9 0 0 0 9

Mixed waste for disposal 3,031 2,471 2,193 4,211 11,906

Total 4,261 2,957 2,465 4,691 14,374

2.6 Calculating the composition of mixed waste

This section describes the calculations that were made to generate estimates of the amount of waste produced

by each sampled business per year and overall.

Table 8 above has summarised the number of recycling samples achieved by the end of the project, whilst the

logistical constraints of waste collection have been described in Section 2.5.3.4. Given the emphasis of the

research on the mixed waste stream going for disposal, a relatively small number of samples were taken of

waste set out for recycling, so the decision was taken not to use recycling data from the waste audits in any

subsequent calculations. Future studies should consider whether it is worth collecting any recycling samples if

data on total amounts exists, as in this case.

From the compositional analysis work described in Section 2.5.4, an estimate was derived of the proportion of

the mixed waste accounted for by each waste material. Appendix B provides summary figures from this dataset

(e.g. mean and standard deviation); these are based on the observed composition of mixed waste measured at

each business. The data shown in Appendix B is not normalised to variables that will affect the quantity of waste

produced, e.g. number of days trading each year and how many days’ worth of waste the sample represented. A

number of steps were required to normalise this data into an annual estimate of the total amount of mixed waste

by material component. The following section describes the calculations required to do this, together with a


worked example. The likely sources of error introduced with these calculation steps are also highlighted. The end

product of these calculations is a typical composition of mixed waste for each subsector.

2.6.1 Estimating the total quantity of mixed waste each year

During the waste audit, information originally collected in the survey was confirmed, i.e. the number of waste

containers at the premises and their capacity. In addition, information was collected on how full they were on the

day of the audit and the number of days’ worth of waste they contained on the day of collection. In cases where

it was logistically impossible to take away all of the waste available, the approximate volume of the sample was

recorded at the site.

Each sample of mixed waste taken away for analysis was weighed in its entirety at the sort site to establish its

weight accurately. Where some of the waste available was not sampled (see Table 9 on page 25), a bulk density

factor was applied to the estimated volume of the uncollected waste. These bulk density factors were calculated

from the sample that was taken away by dividing the known weight by the estimated volume to obtain kg per

litre. This factor was then applied to the unsampled waste. Appendix E provides the average bulk densities for

mixed waste and Section 5.5 compares these figures with those generated from previous studies.

This approach enabled an estimate to be made of the weight of mixed waste produced per day on each sampled

premises. During the telephone survey, businesses were asked how many days a year they typically trade. This

was then applied to the weight per day for each waste stream to estimate weight generated per year. A worked

example of the calculation steps is shown in Table 13 below.

Table 13 Calculating weight per year for a sample of mixed (residual) waste from one premises – worked example

Stage in the calculation Result Source of information

a. Container type Continental Site audit visual inspection

b. Container capacity 1280l Site audit visual inspection

c. Number of containers 3 Site audit visual inspection

d. Fullness

Container 1 – 90%

Container 2 – 80%

Container 3 – 20%

Site audit visual inspection

e. Total waste on-site on day of audit 2432l (90% of 1280l= 1152) + (80% of 1280l = 1024) + (20% of 1280l = 256)

f. Number of days’ worth of waste 2 Site audit interview

g. Volume of waste sampled 2000l Recorded during waste collection where not all of the waste could be taken for logistical reasons

h. Weight of sample taken 190kg Recorded on delivery to sort site

i. Bulk density (kg per litre) 0.095kg per litre h ÷ g

j. Weight per day – sampled waste 95kg h ÷ f

k. Weight per day – unsampled waste 20.52kg (e – g) x i ÷ 2

(2432 – 2000) x 0.095 ÷ 2

l. Weight per day – total waste 115.52kg j + k

m. Number of days trading per year 342 From telephone survey

n. Total weight of waste per year 39,508kg or 39.5 tonnes l. x m. ÷ 1000 for tonnes

There are several likely sources of error associated with this approach.

1. The sample of waste collected for waste composition analysis is unlikely to have been representative of the

waste produced over the whole course of the year. Resource constraints meant that this research could not

address seasonal, week-on-week or day-by-day variations in waste production.

2. It assumes that all types of waste produced over the course of a year were available on the day of the site

audit. Feedback on bulky waste has suggested this is not the case and common sense would indicate that


this will be the same with other one-off waste streams or wastes generated as a result of unusual events.

Again, resource constraints did not permit return visits and previous disappointing experiences with asking

for this kind of information in questionnaires meant that we deliberately did not cover this in the telephone

survey.

3. Although applying the bulk density factor derived from the sampled waste to the unsampled waste in any

particular company is probably robust, there is evidence from the study that bulk densities varied quite

significantly between apparently similar establishments.

4. The calculation above relies on a visual estimate of how full a bin was. Whilst a full container should be

relatively consistent, estimates of less than 100% are subject to variations in judgement.

5. Where information was missing on the number of days’ trading each year, 365 days was assumed. This

assumption was applied in 13 of the 138 audited businesses. This is expected to be a relatively small

overestimate as just over 70% of audited businesses reported more than 350 days’ trading per year.

6. Number of days’ trading per year was calculated from two questions in the telephone survey – how many

days a week the establishment trades and how many weeks per year it trades, divided into five bands each

of ten weeks (0-9, 10-19, 20-29 etc.) and one band of 49+. The midpoint of each band was taken and

multiplied by the number of days per week. This introduced a degree of inaccuracy but it is not thought to

be significant.

7. The research has not accounted for different business opening hours; this was not asked about in the

questionnaire nor during the site audit, so we have had to assume that all businesses within each subsector

are open for the same number of hours each year.

8. It proved very difficult to get an accurate measure of the number of days’ worth of waste in the container.

In large hotels, for example, waste arises in different departments at different times and is brought to the

containers at different times, with the result that no one person in the organisation has a clear knowledge of

timescales. This was also different for different waste streams because they were often collected on

different days. All ‘days’ worth of waste’ figures have been rounded up for consistency; e.g. if the audit took

place on a Friday at 10.00 and the normal collection was on a Monday at 16.00, this would be counted as

four days’ worth of waste.

2.6.2 Calculating the overall composition of mixed waste for each subsector

After estimating the total amount of mixed waste produced by an individual business each year, the next step

was to translate individual business data into a typical composition of mixed waste for each subsector. This was

required for estimates of UK mixed waste composition (see Section 2.7). The weight of individual material

components of the mixed waste was firstly summed across each subsector (e.g. the quantity of ferrous metal

cans from hotel 1’s mixed waste was added to that appearing in the mixed waste in hotel 2, 3, 4 and so on). This

calculation was repeated for each material type. The percentage that each material makes up of the total mixed

waste in each subsector was calculated by dividing the total for each material by the total for the subsector as a

whole. Because these estimates are based on the annualised data for each business, they are subject to the

same sources of error highlighted in Section 2.6.1 above. Confidence intervals have been calculated for this data

and are included in Annex B. It should be borne in mind that these intervals reflect sampling error and not the

other types of error described above.

2.7 Generating UK estimates of mixed waste quantity and composition

One of the principal objectives of the research was to produce reliable estimates of the waste arising from the

UK hospitality sector. The waste audit work described in Section 2.5 resulted in 138 snapshot observations of the

composition of mixed waste across four subsectors across the UK. This is a relatively small number of samples

but it was all that was affordable within the timescale. Throughout the research it was accepted that it would be

difficult to generate reliable national estimates of waste production based on this size of sample, but that the

samples would provide usable information on waste composition in combination with national data from much

larger sampling programmes on the amount of each type of waste generated.


The original intention was to take published data on the amount of mixed waste produced by the hospitality

sector in each of the four countries of the UK and apply typical composition figures from this research to it. This

approach proved over-simplistic because:

not all of the nations could provide data in suitable form;

each nation’s definition of the hospitality sector and of mixed waste was slightly different; and

the quality and timeliness of the surveys varied.

This section describes how UK estimates for the composition of mixed waste were calculated using a combination

of the waste audit data (see Section 2.5), existing industrial and commercial waste datasets, and ONS population

numbers for the hospitality subsectors of interest. Figure 4 summarises the datasets used and a more detailed

description of each calculation step is given in the following sections.

Figure 4 Summary of the datasets used to estimate UK hospitality mixed waste composition (hotels are used as an example of one of the four sub-sectors in the research)

2.7.1 The total amount of mixed waste – the choice of the Defra dataset

A number of large-scale surveys have been undertaken in the UK to provide estimates of industrial and

commercial waste. The most recent surveys are set out in Table 14. The data from the most recent Defra survey

was selected as the most appropriate to be used in this research.

National and regional surveys of industrial and commercial waste tend to follow similar methodologies. The

sampling framework is generally based on industry type (SIC) and employee numbers to generate a matrix of all

the relevant business sites. This data is typically obtained from the ONS, although alternatives such as the Yellow

Pages Business Database have also been used. A random sample is then taken within each ‘stratum’ of the

matrix. The level of required statistical accuracy is sometimes set out in advance and the number of samples

determined to meet this requirement. For other surveys, sample size is dictated by available resources. To

calculate overall estimates, average waste per business is calculated for each cell in the matrix. This is then

multiplied by the total number of businesses within that cell. All the cells are then summed to produce an

estimate of total arisings and outliers are added to the total. For empty cells (i.e. no business sampled), average

data from neighbouring cells is commonly used. Where a survey has made an assessment of mixed waste


composition, normally through asking the respondent to estimate a typical composition, proportions are also

taken from the sample for each cell and applied to the estimated cell total.

Surveys can be undertaken by telephone, post or, more recently, by email or using the Internet. The preference

is for site visits where the surveyor will meet with the business person responsible for waste management, but

not all funders have been able to meet the costs of doing so and as a result have had to rely on postal or

telephone surveying. For surveys based on-site visits, estimates of annual waste arisings are based on company

records or a visual survey of the containers. The degree of accuracy reported for the surveys assumes that any

variation of the estimate from the true figure is due only to sample size and that each survey response is an

accurate assessment of annual arisings.

Table 14 Summary of the four national industrial and commercial waste datasets that were candidates for use in this research

Country Funder Date Notes on methodology

England

Defra via the

Environment Agency

2002/03

Of smaller sample size than the previous 1998/99 national industrial and

commercial waste survey (and therefore suffered from broader l imits in terms of data confidence), but used a robust and statistically valid

sampling strategy based on the 1998/99 survey, which has been used in other more recent surveys. Generated from face–to-face surveys of companies selected from a developed sample frame. The most dated of

all the surveys.

Defra 2010

Used a similar sampling strategy to the 2002/03 survey but a wider

variety of data sources, with just over half of the data records coming from face-to-face interviews and the rest from a mixture of telephone

interviews, corporate data and Pollution Prevention Control (PPC) data. The data collected was combined with that gathered from a separate survey for the North West region. No 0-4 employee size-band businesses

were surveyed. They were estimated using the 0 -4:5-9 ratio from the 2002/03 survey which was then applied to the 5-9 size-band 2010

estimates. This is the most up-to-date dataset in the UK.

Scotland

Scottish

Government via the Scottish Environment

Protection Agency (SEPA)

2006 Postal and internet survey with telephone chase-up, with a response rate of 16.9%. Companies with more than 50 staff were mailed.

Wales

Welsh Assembly Government via

Environment Agency Wales

2007 Sampling strategy based on a developed sample frame with pre -defined confidence limits in the data obtained and grossed up. Predominantly

face to face survey of 1500 companies.

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland Department of the Environment

2004/05 Postal and electronic survey with a 17% response rate. Some face-to-face visits to larger companies. Companies of 10 employees or less were not surveyed.

Data for the hospitality subsectors of interest from each of the four UK national datasets was requested from the

respective funders. Specifically, the data required was individual, anonymised business survey returns cross-

referenced with employee size-bands and the specific hospitality SIC subcode. Employee data was captured as

part of the waste audit process and this allowed application of the waste composition data to the sample

frameworks used in the national datasets. This data could then be placed into current estimates of hospitality

sector population figures (e.g. the number of hotels of a given size in Scotland) and then scaled up.

The following is a summary of what was provided and how it was subsequently used.

England

(1) As the most up-to-date, the Defra 2010 survey was the most appropriate to use. The data for businesses

within Hotels and Catering was used but subsectors such as campsites which were not covered by this

research were removed leaving a sample of 249 businesses. Like all the datasets considered, this still left

some of the size-bands for some of the subsectors unrepresented. The data was obtained from Defra. As

mentioned, the Defra 2010 survey omitted the 0-4 size-band. An estimate was provided using the Defra 2003

ratio of the average weight of 0-4 size-band businesses to the 5-9 size-band companies (which was around

15%). This ratio was then applied to the Defra 2010 5-9 size-band average weight to obtain a 0-4 size-band

estimate.


(2) The data from the 2002/03 England survey was obtained directly from the Environment Agency. The

2002/03 Environment Agency survey for England included 153 businesses in the hospitality sector of which

132 were from the subsectors of interest.

Scotland

SEPA provided detailed survey returns from their 2006 survey for 264 businesses from the hospitality

subsectors of interest. Following provisional analysis (see Section 2.7.4), the average amount of waste per

business was significantly higher than from the Environment Agency dataset. Because time and resources

meant further investigation of the differences was not possible, and because the Scottish survey had not

been able to use the preferred face-to-face method, it was decided not to use the dataset any further.

Wales

Provisional enquiries with the Welsh Assembly Government identified that SIC codes 55 (Accommodation)

and 56 (Food Services) were grouped together, which meant the level of detail obtained from the waste

composition work could not be matched up. For this reason it was decided not to use the Welsh data any

further.

Northern Ireland

The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment provided data from its 2004/05 survey. The data for

the appropriate SIC codes was commonly recorded as waste volumes rather than weights, which would have

required recalculating weights from volume data. More significantly, there appeared to be a number of

discrepancies in the volume figures. It was therefore decided not to use the Northern Ireland data any

further.

Three of the national datasets are considered further – the Defra 2010 survey, the Environment Agency survey

from 2002/03, and the SEPA 2006 survey. For the SEPA dataset, the business averages are considered in Section

2.7.4 but then it is not used further.

2.7.2 The total number of hospitality businesses – the ONS data

To scale up the findings, a hospitality business population database was required. This research has used the

hospitality industry database Caterlyst (see Section 2.4). Most national surveys of industrial and commercial

waste use ONS data on the number of businesses for a given SIC code and geographical area. There are pros

and cons with both databases, but of principal concern at this point in the project was providing national waste

estimates that would be replicable in the future. For these reasons, it was decided to use ONS figures in the

calculation of UK figures.

The total UK hospitality sector according to ONS data (March 2009) is shown in 0. The ONS data is based on

Value Added Tax (VAT) and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) returns and is unlikely to pick up smaller businesses such as

bed & breakfasts. According to the ONS, over 70% of the businesses in the sector have fewer than 10

employees, with less than 3% of businesses having 50 employees or more. It should be noted that the smallest

size-band in the table is a combination of the ONS 0-4 and 5-9 groups as different surveys use slightly different

groupings and 0-9 captures all of these.


Table 15 ONS individual site count of hospitality businesses in the UK for the four subsectors of interest (March 2009) by size-band (number of employees)33

Subsector 0--9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ Total

Hotels 5975 2245 2330 1100 555 85 12,290

Pubs 33,675 8435 4790 340 20 10 47,270

QSRs 27,335 1895 725 75 10 0 30,040

Restaurants 29,525 7170 5200 1280 155 20 43,350

Total 96,510 19745 13045 2795 740 115 132,950

2.7.3 Assessing the suitability and compatibility of the different datasets

The next step was to compare the sample distribution of the four datasets under review (Defra, Environment

Agency, SEPA and WRAP waste audits) using the sample framework in 0. The data from all the surveys could be

fitted into a standard framework. In general, the distributions across the sample framework are relatively even

across the datasets. As is commonly observed with industrial and commercial waste studies, all have fairly sparse

coverage of the larger companies; this is particularly the case for the WRAP waste audits due to the failed

reliance on corporate datasets for the larger companies. However, given that the vast majority of businesses in

the sector have less than 50 employees, it is not thought to be a significant issue.

For the whole hospitality sector, a sample approaching 400 would be required to achieve a confidence interval of

+/-5% at 95%. Using a stratified random sampling method, the required sample would be in excess of 2000

businesses. None of the surveys has sufficient sample sizes within the hospitality sector to produce estimates to

this degree of confidence. Further, the different survey methods employed are likely to introduce different types

and levels of error that produce different estimates. It is therefore important to bear in mind that the estimates

quoted here should be regarded as indicative.

2.7.4 The average amount of mixed waste per company

To calculate UK estimates, a figure for the average quantity of mixed waste per company was required from the

national data for each subsector and employee size-band. Since the reliability of this figure has a very significant

impact when grossing up to UK estimates, before going ahead the average amounts of total waste from the

Defra, Environment Agency and SEPA datasets were reviewed. The average total waste per company from the

WRAP waste audit data (for total waste, not just residual waste) is also shown in 0 for comparative purposes

only; it was not intended to be used for scaling up.

33 The distribution of hospitality businesses in the ONS data is different to that observed in the Caterlyst database. This is

because the data is collected and categorised differently; see section 2.4.1.


Table 16 The average waste per company (tonnes per year) by subsector and employee size-band from the three datasets available for this study (WRAP data for comparative purposes only)

Size band Dataset Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants

1-9

WRAP 11 7 8 9

Environment Agency 16 16 6 9

Defra 16 34 10 13

SEPA 21 22 20 21

10-19

WRAP 17 14 14 17

Environment Agency 47 52 38 47

Defra 32 61 18 38

SEPA 49 31 33 40

20-49

WRAP 22 23 37 34

Environment Agency 67 45 - 76

Defra 40 67* 54 97

SEPA 93 179 95 227

50-99

WRAP 71 - - -


Defra 129 108 192* 118*

SEPA 273 202 - 235

100-249

WRAP 61 - - 90


Defra 152 - - 69

SEPA 135 - - -

250+

WRAP 112 - - -

Environment Agency 355 - - 448

Defra 614* 17* - 251

SEPA 302 - - -

* Analysis of the Defra dataset showed some anomalies that only appear when analysing the data at a subsector level. As

such, survey data from six businesses was removed from these cells for the subsequent scale-up and analysis.

Of particular note in 0 is the lack of consistency in the average quantity of mixed waste produced across the

majority of subsector samples. Waste quantities generally increase as the method of estimation moves away

from on-site collection of waste (as in the WRAP waste audits), to site visits (Defra and Environment Agency)

and finally to postal returns (SEPA). Of the 45 compared observations, only one (restaurants, size band 1-9 in

the Environment Agency sample) is within 10% of the WRAP waste audit estimates. There is also a similar lack

of consistency between the Environment Agency and SEPA samples. However, the Defra and Environment

Agency results are very broadly similar, possibly reflecting the similar method adopted in these studies.

Following provisional grossing up using the SEPA data for Scotland, the analysis confirmed that it would produce

a significantly larger total waste figure (approximately 65% higher) when compared to using averages from the

Environment Agency and Defra datasets. Therefore, despite the larger sample size in the SEPA survey, the

decision was taken to use the average waste per business from the Defra 2010 study for all UK nations with one

significant adjustment. As mentioned, to provide an estimate for the 0-4 size-band, the Defra 2010 study used

the ratio of the average weights of 0-4:5-9 size-bands from the 2002/03 and applied these to the Defra 2010 5-9

results. The ratio was around 15%. However, the WRAP dataset provides a more up to date picture with a ratio

a little over 51%. This compares with the SEPA data ratio of 55%. Given the more recent nature of the WRAP

data and the approximate agreement with the SEPA data, the 51% ratio of 0-4:5-9 weight was used to scale up.

The subsequent estimated average waste for the 1-9 size-band was different for each of the four UK nations

reflecting the different proportions of companies in the two smallest size-bands.


2.7.5 Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates of total waste

To gross up the Defra 2010 data, it is necessary to calculate the average waste per company for each cell in the

sample framework. For some cells in the framework, no businesses were sampled so an estimate was calculated

using samples from the surrounding cells. To do this the average weight per employee of the sampled cells was

calculated and applied to the non-sampled cell and the relevant employee size-band (using the mid-point). This

was carried out using the total waste from the Defra 2010 survey data and the number of businesses surveyed

for each cell (i.e. each size-band and subsector). Table 17 shows the average waste per employee for each cell

using the mid-point of the employee size-band, with the exception of 250+ employees where 250 was used. In

general, businesses with fewer employees produce more waste per employee, suggesting ‘economies of scale’

with respect to waste production.

For cells with missing data (e.g. QSRs, shaded grey cells in Table 17), average waste per employee was assumed

that broadly reflected the trends in the data from the other sectors. Figures are rounded to one decimal place.

Table 17 The average total waste per employee (tonnes per year) using Defra data by size-band mid-point (cells shaded grey denote missing survey data)

Sector Employee size-band mid-point

1-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-149 250+

Hotels 2.2 2.1 1.2 1.7 0.9 1.4

Restaurants 1.7 2.6 2.8 0.3 0.4 1.0

QSRs 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Pubs 4.7 4.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

The completion of the missing cells above produced the average waste figures in Table 18 for each cell in the

framework.

Table 18 Average total waste per company for each sample cell (tonnes per year)

Sector Employee size-band

1-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-149 250+

Hotels 11 32 40 129 152 339

Restaurants 9 38 97 18 69 251

QSRs 6 18 54 112 262 375

Pubs 24 61 53 108 262 375

The total waste produced in the UK hospitality sector was estimated by multiplying the total number of

hospitality businesses in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from ONS data (March 2009)

with estimates of total waste per business, as shown in Table 18. This provided a grossed-up total waste figure

for each subsector, size-band and nation.

2.7.6 Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates of total mixed waste and its

composition

The next calculation step was to define the proportion of the total waste figure in Table 18 which comprises

mixed (residual) waste. The Defra 2010 dataset uses Substance-Oriented Codes (SOCs) from the European

Waste Catalogue, which includes a ‘mixed waste’ category. The amount of ‘mixed waste’ not composted,

recycled or reused was expressed as a proportion of the total amount of waste for each subsector.


A similar calculation was carried out to provide the summary recycling/reuse figures in Section 3.4 by combining

waste tonnages classified as ‘recycled’ and ‘reused’ and expressing this as a proportion of total waste within the

Defra data.34

The mixed waste composition data from the WRAP waste audits carried out as part of this project was then

applied to the corresponding grossed-up mixed waste tonnages to estimate the quantity of each waste material

in the UK hospitality sector’s mixed waste going for disposal. It has been assumed that the total waste per

business (by subsector and size-band) and the ratio of mixed waste to total waste from the Defra 2010 dataset

of hospitality businesses in England is representative of UK businesses as a whole. Additionally, because of the

relatively small sample size the annualised mixed waste composition data from the WRAP waste audits was

calculated at the subsector level (rather than by employee size-band within a given subsector), so it has been

assumed that the proportion of mixed waste is the same across all the employee size-bands for a given

subsector that were subsequently used in the grossing-up procedure.

Whilst the WRAP waste audits took place across the UK (see Figure 3 ), there were insufficient samples across

the four subsectors to apply individual composition data for each individual UK nation. We have therefore

assumed that the composition of mixed waste is the same in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Confidence intervals have not been calculated for the tonnage data. This is because it proved statistically difficult

to combine several sources of error together into one measure of error in the time available. A further study will

be carried out to derive estimates of the error associated with the tonnage data reported here.

2.8 Calculating carbon35 benefits of preventing, recycling and recovering waste

This section outlines the approach taken to estimating the carbon benefits of preventing, recycling and

recovering hospitality sector waste, focusing on:

the CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e) associated with the dominant waste streams currently going to landfill;

and

the potential carbon savings to be made through prevention, recovery or recycling of them.

WRAP has been unable to find much information on the environmental impacts of out-of-home eating. For this

reason this report uses data on in-home eating combined with an estimate of in-school eating, although it is

recognised that there will be differences, particularly in the transport impacts, but currently these cannot be

quantified.

2.8.1 Carbon savings from food waste recovery

Best available evidence suggests that 0.5 tonnes of CO2e emissions are generated for every tonne of food waste

currently sent for disposal; this could be saved if the waste was diverted into AD.36

To calculate the total amount

of CO2e that could be saved if food waste was diverted to AD the total amount of food waste being disposed of

was multiplied by 0.5.

2.8.2 Carbon savings from food waste prevention

Best available evidence indicates that 4.2 tonnes of CO2e emissions are produced for each tonne of food

disposed.36 This estimate includes emissions from food production, transport and food waste disposal. The

factors were then multiplied by the total amount of food waste produced to generate estimates of the savings

that could be realised if the waste was prevented.

34 In addition to ‘composting’, ‘recycled’ and ‘reused’ , the other disposal routes used in the Defra dataset were ‘landfill’,

‘thermal treatment’, ‘transfer’, ‘other treatment’ and ‘unknown’. It is likely that an unknown proportion of the waste classified as ‘transfer’ may subsequently have gone on to be recycled.

35 By ‘carbon’ we mean CO2 equivalent emissions. Factors for converting tonnages to CO2e are generated by WRAP based on best available evidence. Factors are regularly reviewed. The most up to date set of factors can be provided on request from [email protected].

36 WRAP (2010) Waste Arisings in the Supply of Food and Drink to Households in the UK WRAP: Banbury http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail_supply_chain/research_tools/research/report_waste.html

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail_supply_chain/research_tools/research/report_waste.html


2.8.3 Carbon savings from preventing and recycling key waste streams

The carbon benefits of recycling derive from avoided raw material use, assuming that recycled material replaces

virgin raw material. Table 19 shows the factors that have been used for preventing and recycling one tonne of

the key materials. These were then multiplied by the amount of each material sent to landfill to generate

estimates of the carbon that could be saved if the materials were diverted to recycling.

Table 19 Tonnes of CO2e emissions saved as a result of preventing and recycling one tonne of waste 37

Material

Tonnes of CO2e

emissions saved from waste prevention

Tonnes of CO2e

emissions saved from recycling

Glass 0.92 0.39

Average board 1.60 1.08

Wrapping papers 1.51 0.99

Dense plastic 3.32 1.20

Plastic film 2.63 1.08

2.9 Calculating cost savings from preventing and recovering food waste

This section sets out the approach to quantifying, in monetary terms, the impact of the avoidable food waste.

This is done from two perspectives:

1. looking at the costs of food purchased and then wasted; and

2. looking at the costs of food waste disposal.

Costs associated with packaging have not been calculated on the basis that they generally cannot be avoided by

the hospitality business.

2.9.1 Potential cost savings from reduced food purchasing

If the wasted food could in some way be prevented, for example through better planning and storage, it would

avoid the need to purchase new food. This is admittedly a simplistic approach as not all avoided food waste will

avoid additional purchasing; if diners could be persuaded to avoid leaving food on their plates, for example, this

would not avoid additional purchasing. Since this study was not able to distinguish between food waste that

would and would not avoid additional purchasing if prevented, we have made a simple assumption that all

prevented food waste would avoid additional purchasing.

There are some elements of food waste that are unavoidable, for example peelings and bones. Unavoidable food

waste has not been included in the weight of food that is potentially preventable although it will be included in

the weight of food purchased. This will lead to an underestimate of the cost of disposing of avoidable food

waste.

No published information on the commercial costs of food in hospitality could be identified. However two studies

were found which were felt to bear some relevance to the sector and the mean cost per tonne was calculated

from them. The first is a study on the cost of food and drink wasted in the home states that the wasted food and

drink costs £2,264 a tonne to buy38 and the second is a study on food waste in schools from which it can be

calculated that the food purchased to make school dinners costs £1,152 a tonne.39 The mean cost of buying the

food and drink that goes on to be wasted is therefore £1,708 a tonne. Due to the very obvious differences

37 Figures taken from source data within WRAP (2011) Methodology for assessing the climate change impacts of packaging

optimisation under the Courtauld Commitment Phase 2 www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=10324 38 WRAP (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK WRAP: Banbury

www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/report_household.html 39 School Food Trust (2007) School meal provision in England and other Western countries: a review

www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/UploadDocs/Library/Documents/sft_school_meals_review.pdf. The figures quoted here

have been derived from the figures stated in the report, converting to tonnes and taking the average of the costs in the four UK nations. More information is provided in Appendix H.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=10324

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/report_household.html

http://www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/UploadDocs/Library/Documents/sft_school_meals_review.pdf


between school dinners, in-home dinners and meals provided by the hospitality industry, and the

underestimation introduced by including the costs of purchasing unavoidable parts of food items, this figure

should be regarded as at best indicative of likely costs. Further research would be needed to generate a more

precise estimate.

2.9.2 Potential cost savings from reduced food waste disposal

If food waste is prevented from occurring, the total cost of disposing of waste will be avoided. However, if food

waste is diverted to AD there will still be costs to the business so it is important that only the net savings are

considered.

Typical haulage costs for food waste in the mixed waste are around £15 per tonne, accounting for a range of

different transport methods and distances. There are some potential additional costs from diverting food waste

to AD because separately collected food waste is more likely to require bulking up before onwards transport for

processing compared to mixed waste which tends to be collected in bulk in refuse collection vehicles and

delivered direct to landfill. Typical costs of transferring waste after bulking up are £7-10 a tonne; this report

assumes the higher value.

There will also be some savings. A typical cost per tonne of disposing of food waste to landfill is £78, including

gate fee and landfill tax, while diversion to AD is currently £57 per tonne.40 Food waste recovery via AD may

therefore save around £21 per tonne. The on-going increases in landfill will make the difference between these

two options more extreme as time goes on.

2.9.3 Total potential cost savings from preventing food waste

Cost savings resulting from preventing food waste occurring in the first place are therefore:

avoided cost of purchasing food (£1,708 a tonne); plus

avoided cost of haulage (£15 a tonne for waste going to landfill or £25 for waste going to AD); plus

avoided cost of disposal (£78 a tonne for waste going to landfill or £57 a tonne for waste going to AD);

making

a total cost saving of between £1,790 to £1,801 depending on whether the waste would have otherwise gone

to landfill or AD41

Given the uncertainties in the numbers we have assumed a typical cost saving of £1,800 per tonne of food

waste.

2.9.4 Total potential cost savings from diverting waste away from landfill to AD

By simply diverting waste to AD purchase costs are not avoided so the savings to be considered are those from

avoided landfill costs alone. Assuming that costs and savings are passed on by the waste management company

to the business, diverting food waste to AD could result in the following cost savings:

an additional haulage cost of £10 a tonne; minus

avoided cost of landfill disposal of £21 a tonne; making

a total cost saving of £11 a tonne.

40 WRAP(2010) Comparing the Costs of Alternative Waste Treatment Options Banbury: WRAP

www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/2010_Gate_Fees_Report.0335a9bc.9523.pdf 41 Costs savings that may result from avoided preparation time have not been included here so the real cost savings may be

higher.


2.10 The remainder of the report

The rest of this report presents the results of the work and the conclusions and recommendations derived from

them.

Chapter 3 – The waste produced by the UK hospitality industry:

what we know about the waste generated by the hospitality sector as a result of this project, with emphasis

on mixed waste and its composition;

Chapter 4 – Waste management practices of the hospitality sector:

what we know about the waste management practices of the sector as a result of the telephone survey that

was part of the project;

Chapter 5 – Implications of the study for future research into industrial and commercial waste:

what we have learned about quantifying waste as a result of this study of the hospitality sector;

Chapter 6 – Conclusions.

The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry42

3.0 The waste disposed of by the UK hospitality industry

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents what we know about the waste generated by the hospitality sector as a result of this

project. To re-emphasise, the scope of the hospitality sector for the purposes of this study includes:

the profit sector, i.e. hotels, pubs, QSRs and restaurants;

and excludes:

canteens, cafés and other catering establishments that are situated in other organisations (sometimes

referred to as the cost sector);and

the leisure sub-sector including self-catering profit establishments such as caravan sites and holiday cottages.

The chapter is broken down into the following sections:

Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are a brief recap on methods and sources of error, referring the reader to the

appropriate methodology section for more detail;

Section 3.4 provides a summary of the total waste produced by the UK hospitality sector, by subsector and

nation, and summary estimates of mixed waste and recycling/reuse;

Section 3.5 presents more detailed data on the contents of the mixed (residual) waste stream;

Section 3.6 highlights the potential for increased recycling of the contents of the mixed waste stream using

existing and also emerging recyclate markets;

Section 3.7 looks at the opportunities for carbon savings from recycling more;

Section 0 assesses the financial savings that could be made from recycling and reducing waste; and

Section 3.9 considers the relationship between the quantity of mixed waste and the number of meals served

in order to identify if this would be a useful benchmark for hospitality businesses.

3.2 Recap on methods

Chapter 2 sets out in detail the methods used to derive estimates of the quantity and composition of mixed

waste going for disposal and outlines the thought process that decided which method would be used. The

research uses a combination of industrial and commercial waste data from the recently completed national

survey alongside the findings from the compositional analysis of mixed waste from the current study. The value

of the compositional analysis is in its depth (e.g. detailed material types) rather than its breadth (e.g. waste

over time), whilst the opposite is true for the national waste survey.

To summarise, the final method involved the following calculations and assumptions:

for each subsector, estimating the typical composition of mixed waste based on a sample of 138 waste

audits; and

applying the typical composition to the amount of mixed waste produced by UK hospitality businesses,

calculated using the Defra 2010 data on average amounts of waste per business and 2009 ONS data on the

number of businesses (adjusting the estimate for the 1-9 size-band using the WRAP survey data).

3.3 Recap on sources of error

Chapter 2 discusses sources of error in detail. For the purposes of this chapter, it is necessary to bear in mind

the following points, which are likely to be significant but were not measured and are not taken into account in

the figures presented:

respondent error (e.g. people remembering incorrectly);

observation error (e.g. inaccuracies associated with estimating how full a container is or its volume);

estimation error (e.g. inaccuracies in bulk density factors or in information about the size of the population);

and

representativity error (e.g. assuming that the sample taken is representative of a whole year’s waste).


When grossing up to the sector level, assumptions used can also affect the total. For example, using the same

assumption as used in the Defra 2010 survey to produce estimates for the 0-4 size-band reduces the total in this

analysis by almost 450,000 tonnes. For these reasons the figures presented in this report should be taken as

indicative of the nature and scale of waste produced by the hospitality sector – i.e. our current best estimate.

Unless stated otherwise, figures in the following tables are rounded. Where averages are presented, it must be

remembered that these are statistical averages and are unlikely to reflect the waste produced by any

individual company in the real world. Confidence intervals are not presented for reasons given in section 2.7.6,

but readers should bear in mind there is likely to be a considerable degree of uncertainty due to the small

sample sizes.

3.4 Summary waste estimates for the UK hospitality profit sector

Just over 3.4 million tonnes per year of waste is generated by the sector.

Just under 1.5 million tonnes (43%) of this is mixed waste that goes for disposal.

Just over 1.6 million tonnes (47%) is recycled, reused or composted.42

Table 20 shows the estimated waste – total, mixed (residual) waste and recycled/reused – produced by the UK

hospitality sector, whilst Table 21 shows the proportions that these represent (which are the same for each of

the UK nations due to the method used to generate the data). Most waste destined for disposal will be going to

landfill but a small amount will be sent to other options. Waste managed in ‘other ways’ is mainly spread on land.

Table 20 The waste produced by the UK hospitality sector in 2009 by subsector and nation (rounded to the nearest 1000 tonnes)

Nation Subsector Total waste

Mixed (residual) waste

destined for disposal

Waste destined for recycling/reuse

Non-mixed waste or mixed waste

managed in other ways

England

Hotels 370,000 131,000 231,000 9,000

Pubs 1,376,000 552,000 643,000 182,000

QSRs 202,000 88,000 110,000 3,000

Restaurants 894,000 457,000 350,000 88,000

Subtotal 2,842,000 1,228,000 1,334,000 282,000

Wales

Hotels 27,000 10,000 17,000 1,000

Pubs 89,000 35,000 41,000 12,000

QSRs 11,000 5,000 6,000 0

Restaurants 41,000 21,000 16,000 4,000

Subtotal 168,000 71,000 80,000 17,000

Scotland

Hotels 76,000 27,000 47,000 2,000

Pubs 112,000 45,000 52,000 15,000

QSRs 23,000 10,000 12,000 0

Restaurants 97,000 49,000 38,000 9,000

Subtotal 308,000 131,000 149,000 26,000

Northern Ireland

Hotels 12,000 4,000 8,000 0

Pubs 34,000 14,000 16,000 5,000

QSRs 11,000 5,000 6,000 0

Restaurants 40,000 20,000 16,000 4,000

Subtotal 97,000 43,000 46,000 9,000

UK

Hotels 485,000 171,000 303,000 11,000

Pubs 1,610,000 646,000 752,000 213,000

QSRs 246,000 108,000 135,000 4,000

Restaurants 1,072,000 548,000 419,000 105,000

UK Total 3,415,000 1,473,000 1,609,000 334,000

42 The 9% of waste in the final column is a combination of relatively rare waste types and disposal/treatment routes. The

estimates for recycling, reuse and composting are based on proportions taken from the Defra 2010 dataset.


Table 21 The proportion of waste from the UK hospitality sector managed by recycling/reuse and treatment/disposal in 2009

Waste management method

Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants

Recycling and reuse 62.4% 46.7% 54.6% 39.1%

Disposal 35.3% 40.1% 43.7% 51.1%

Other 2.3% 13.2% 1.7% 9.8%

Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

The overall amounts of waste produced that are shown in Table 20 are, to some extent, a reflection of the

number of companies in the sector. Table 22 shows the average amount of waste produced per business for

each subsector from the Defra 2010 results excluding outliers. This shows that, on average, hotels produce the

most waste and pubs the least.

Two measures of the average amount of total waste are presented in Table 22. The mean is the most

appropriate measure to use when discussing the sector as whole. When looking at the waste that any one

company within the sector is most likely to be producing, the median is the most appropriate measure to use.

When using the median, though, it should be borne in mind that there will be a few businesses that are

producing significantly more than the median amount.

Table 22 The total waste produced per company in the UK hospitality sector (tonnes per year) (rounded to the nearest tonne)

Subsector Total waste

Mean Median

Hotels 149 66

Pubs 52 43

QSRs 23 12

Restaurants 65 30

3.5 The composition of mixed (residual) waste produced by the UK hospitality industry

Section 3.2 provides a brief recap on methods and should be read before reading this section. Whilst waste

audits were carried out across the UK, there was an insufficient number of audits across the four subsectors (see

Table 11 on page 29) to calculate individual mixed waste composition data specific to each UK nation.

Theoretically, there is little reason why the average composition of mixed waste from a hotel in Wales will be any

different to that of a hotel elsewhere in the UK. Limitations of the industrial and commercial waste datasets for

individual UK nations also meant that mixed waste data (average per business type and size-band) from the

Defra 2010 survey in England were used in all subsequent calculations for each UK nation. However, country-

specific business population numbers (sourced from ONS figures for March 2009) were used in the calculation of

national estimates.

For the reasons above, only UK estimates for the composition of mixed waste are presented and discussed in the

following section. Estimates of the quantity of different materials in the mixed waste stream are calculated for

each nation and provided in Appendix A. We suggest that the national tonnages in Appendix A for Scotland,

Wales and Northern Ireland are considered as indicative and a best estimate with the tools available.

Figures 4-8 provide a summary of the composition of mixed waste from the UK hospitality sector as a whole as

well as from the subsectors – hotels, pubs, QSRs and restaurants. For clarity, material categories with a relatively

low occurrence have been combined as ‘other’.43 The number of mixed waste samples which these figures are

based on is provided.

43 ‘Other’ comprises textiles, miscellaneous combustibles, miscellaneous non-combustibles, ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal,

WEEE, hazardous waste (including batteries and clinical waste), garden/green waste, ‘fines’ (<10mm) and liquids.


Figure 5 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by the hospitality sector (138 samples) in the UK by primary material category

Figure 6 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by hotels (35 samples) in the UK by primary material category


Figure 7 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by pubs (29 samples) in the UK by primary material category

Figure 8 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by QSRs (32 samples) in the UK by primary material category


Figure 9 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by restaurants (42 samples) in the UK by primary material category

Table 23 provides a more detailed breakdown of the primary and secondary waste material categories found in

the mixed waste of the hospitality sector. Tonnages are per year and based on Defra 2010 waste survey data,

ONS population figures for each nation (2009) and findings from the waste composition audits undertaken in this

project (2009). Tonnages are rounded to the nearest 100 tonnes and percentages rounded to one decimal place.


Table 23 The composition of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by the UK hospitality sector, by primary and secondary material category and four subsectors (tonnages rounded to nearest 100 tonnes)

Primary

category Secondary category

Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants UK Total

Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes %

Paper

Newspaper/catalogues 15,200 8.9% 24,600 3.8% 3,500 3.3% 14,500 2.6% 57,800 3.9%

Paper packaging 1,400 0.8% 3,800 0.6% 2,500 2.3% 1,800 0.3% 9,500 0.7%

Non-recyclable paper 14,800 8.7% 41,100 6.4% 10,300 9.5% 62,400 11.4% 128,600 8.6%

Paper subtotal 31,400 18.3% 69,500 10.8% 16,300 15.1% 78,700 14.3% 195,900 13.2%

Card

Liquid cartons 400 0.2% 2,000 0.3% 200 0.2% 1,000 0.2% 3,600 0.2%

Board packaging 7,000 4.1% 40,800 6.3% 6,800 6.3% 44,500 8.1% 99,100 6.7%

Card packaging 4,600 2.7% 13,200 2.0% 2,000 1.9% 8,300 1.5% 28,100 1.9%

Other card 500 0.3% 2,200 0.3% 100 0.1% 700 0.1% 3,500 0.2%

Card subtotal 12,500 7.3% 58,100 9.0% 9,200 8.6% 54,500 9.9% 134,300 9.1%

Dense plastic44

PET plastic bottles 1,600 0.9% 4,000 0.6% 900 0.8% 2,800 0.5% 9,300 0.6%

HDPE plastic bottles 1,900 1.1% 5,500 0.8% 900 0.9% 4,900 0.9% 13,200 0.9%

Other plastic bottles 1,000 0.6% 2,400 0.4% 200 0.2% 1,700 0.3% 5,300 0.4%

Other dense plastic packaging 5,200 3.0% 12,700 2.0% 2,700 2.5% 9,300 1.7% 29,900 2.0%

Other dense plastic 2,600 1.5% 4,900 0.8% 500 0.4% 2,400 0.4% 10,400 0.7%

Dense plastic subtotal 12,300 7.2% 29,500 4.6% 5,200 4.8% 21,200 3.9% 68,200 4.6%

Plastic film45

Plastic film 9,500 5.5% 18,200 2.8% 5,000 4.6% 17,600 3.2% 50,300 3.4%

Plastic bags 3,600 2.1% 10,900 1.7% 1,500 1.4% 10,800 2.0% 26,800 1.8%

Plastic film subtotal 13,100 7.6% 29,000 4.5% 6,500 6.0% 28,400 5.2% 77,000 5.2%

Textiles 2,600 1.5% 14,100 2.2% 500 0.4% 4,800 0.9% 22,200 1.5%

Glass

Green glass bottles and jars 5,100 2.9% 22,700 3.5% 1,200 1.1% 37,400 6.8% 66,400 4.4%

Clear glass bottles and jars 10,200 5.9% 59,000 9.1% 1,600 1.5% 27,700 5.1% 98,500 6.7%

Brown glass bottles and jars 1,400 0.8% 34,100 5.3% 300 0.3% 9,300 1.7% 45,100 3.1%

Other glass 300 0.2% 1,600 0.3% 100 0.1% 1,000 0.2% 3,000 0.2%

Glass subtotal 16,900 9.9% 117,500 18.2% 3,200 3.0% 75,300 13.7% 212,900 14.4%

44 Includes plastic bottles and other containers as well as hard plastic objects. 45 Includes single-use plastic bags and bin bags.


Primary category

Secondary category Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants UK Total

Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes %

Miscellaneous combustible46 3,400 2.0% 38,300 5.9% 1,500 1.4% 7,900 1.4% 51,100 3.5%

Miscellaneous non-combustible47 1,200 0.7% 2,000 0.3% 100 0.1% 3,900 0.7% 7,200 0.5%

Ferrous metal

Ferrous food and beverage cans 1,900 1.1% 8,200 1.3% 1,800 1.7% 7,500 1.4% 19,400 1.3%

Ferrous aerosols 100 0.1% 500 0.1% 0 0.0% 400 0.1% 1,000 0.1%

Other ferrous metal 1,200 0.7% 2,400 0.4% 200 0.2% 2,300 0.4% 6,100 0.4%

Ferrous metal subtotal 3,200 1.9% 11,200 1.7% 2,000 1.9% 10,300 1.9% 26,700 1.8%

Non-ferrous metal

Non-ferrous food & beverage cans 300 0.2% 3,000 0.5% 600 0.5% 1,300 0.2% 5,200 0.4%

Foil 400 0.2% 2,500 0.4% 400 0.3% 1,500 0.3% 4,800 0.3%

Non-ferrous aerosols 100 0.0% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 100 0.0% 300 0.0%

Other non-ferrous metal 100 0.1% 200 0.0% 0 0.0% 800 0.2% 1,100 0.1%

Non-ferrous metal subtotal 1,000 0.6% 5,900 0.9% 900 0.9% 3,600 0.7% 11,400 0.8%

WEEE 300 0.2% 200 0.0% 0 0.0% 1,600 0.3% 2,100 0.1%

Hazardous waste48 100 0.1% 400 0.1% 500 0.4% 600 0.1% 1,600 0.1%

Garden waste 5,100 3.0% 12,500 1.9% 3,300 3.0% 1,400 0.3% 22,300 1.5%

Kitchen (food) waste

Packaged avoidable 1,700 1.0% 2,900 0.5% 2,800 2.6% 6,100 1.1% 13,500 0.9%

Packaged unavoidable 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100 0.0%

Non-packaged avoidable 38,700 22.6% 151,400 23.4% 36,500 33.9% 160,900 29.3% 387,500 26.3%

Non-packaged unavoidable 23,300 13.6% 87,200 13.5% 15,400 14.3% 72,900 13.3% 198,800 13.5%

Kitchen waste subtotal 63,700 37.2% 241,500 37.4% 54,700 50.8% 239,900 43.7% 599,800 40.8%

Fines (<10mm)49 3,400 2.0% 12,600 1.9% 2,900 2.7% 11,900 2.2% 30,800 2.1%

Liquids50 1,100 0.7% 3,800 0.6% 900 0.8% 4,300 0.8% 10,100 0.7%

Total 171,400 100.0% 645,900 100.0% 107,700 100.0% 548,400 100.0% 1,473,400 100.0%

46 E.g. wood. 47 E.g. building rubble. 48 Includes batteries and clinical waste. 49 Material so small that it fell through the 10mm by 10mm sorting screen. 50 Includes liquids inside containers and cooking oils (the latter accounts for the majority of the weight reported). Excludes liquids disposed of to the sink and sewer since these were outside the

scope of the study.


The composition of mixed waste was relatively consistent across the four subsectors. Kitchen (food) waste

dominates all four subsectors (37-51%); from Table 23 just under 600,000 tonnes of food waste is estimated to

be disposed of each year.

One of the main opportunities for waste prevention is the quantity of avoidable food waste, i.e. wasted food that

could have been eaten if it had been better portioned, managed, stored and/or prepared and excluding items not

usually consumed (e.g. banana skins and vegetable peelings).51 This study estimates that around 400,000 tonnes

of food waste (or 67% of the total food waste) could in theory have been avoided. The great majority of

avoidable food waste (97% or 388,000 tonnes) was disposed of outside any original packaging. In practice, this

type of food waste is primarily loose food left over at the end of a meal – i.e. plate scrapings. The 12,000 tonnes

of avoidable food waste contained in its original packaging is likely to reflect waste associated with stock

management.

Not all food waste can be avoided – 200,000 tonnes (or 33% of the total food waste) is unavoidable and outside

any original packaging (e.g. vegetable peelings). Although this unavoidable food cannot be prevented, it could be

captured using a separate recycling collection and sent for more environmentally beneficial treatment and

disposal than landfill where the majority of this waste currently goes.

At 200,000 tonnes or over 13% in total, paper makes up a significant proportion of the mixed waste from

hospitality businesses. Although approximately 65% of the paper in the mixed waste was deemed non-

recyclable, recyclable newspapers and catalogues still comprise between 3% and 9%, depending on the

subsector. Glass accounts for a significant proportion of mixed waste from pubs (18% or 118,000 tonnes) and

restaurants (14% or 75,000 tonnes) where greater consumption of bottled drinks would be expected. The

occurrence of relatively large amounts of glass in the mixed waste from pubs is despite the relatively common

occurrence of glass recycling schemes observed during the waste audits (see Table 8 on page 24).

Approximately 74% of the 134,000 tonnes of card produced by hospitality businesses was classified as board

packaging and its occurrence varied from 4-8% across the subsectors. Plastic film (5-8%) and dense plastic

(4-7%) make up very similar proportions of the mixed waste across all four subsectors. PET and HDPE plastic

bottles, which are commonly recycled in the household waste collection system, make up 33% or 23,000 tonnes

of the total dense plastic found in the whole sector. Nearly 38,000 tonnes of metal is disposed with most coming

from pubs and restaurants sub-sectors.

3.6 The opportunities for increased recycling of mixed waste

The composition analysis of the mixed waste stream enabled an assessment of the proportion of material that

could be recovered through increased recycling. A series of assumptions (see Appendix G) were made about

whether markets readily exist (e.g. for glass bottles) or whether a material is technically recyclable but markets

are only just starting to emerge (e.g. for mixed plastics). Dry recyclables are materials such as newspapers and

glass bottles. There are no emerging markets for food waste.

Table 24 Proportion of residual waste that could be recycled or composted (%)

Type Market type Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants

Food waste Established markets

only 39.1 38.9 51.2 42.9

Dry recyclables

Established markets

only 32.1 38.1 23.5 31.9

Established and

emerging markets 42.4 43.4 28.2 37.6

Total

Established markets

only 71.2 77.0 74.7 74.8

Established and

emerging markets 81.5 82.3 79.4 80.5

51 For a fuller description of food waste definitions please see section 2.5.4.


Table 24 shows the proportion of material in the residual waste that could be recycled/composted (including

energy generation through anaerobic digestion systems) through existing and emerging markets for all four

subsectors. Approximately 70% of the mixed waste produced by the hospitality sector could in theory be

recycled through established markets. This amount will increase to over 80% once emerging markets are

established. However, any increase would require the introduction of new collection schemes since only one-third

of the mixed waste could be recycled using the recycling collection systems observed during the waste audits.

There are also likely to be barriers other than just the introduction of a collection scheme. For example, an

increase in food waste recovery could be challenging due to issues with storing the waste on the premises,

attitudes amongst staff to food recycling and the need for the waste industry to build more treatment

infrastructure so that the food can be processed in accordance with current legislation.

3.7 Opportunities for carbon52 savings

Table 25 shows the CO2e impacts of the key waste materials streams found in the UK hospitality sector’s mixed

residual waste. Together these materials make up 87% of the waste going to landfill in 2009 and as the table

shows they have a combined impact just less than 3.7 million tonnes of CO2e.

Table 25 Carbon emissions resulting from the key waste materials currently going to landfill (tonnes CO2e rounded to the nearest 1,000 tonnes)

Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants UK

Glass 16,000 108,000 3,000 69,000 196,000

Card 20,000 93,000 15,000 87,000 215,000

Paper 47,000 105,000 25,000 119,000 296,000

Dense plastic 41,000 98,000 17,000 70,000 226,000

Plastic film 34,000 76,000 17,000 75,000 202,000

Food waste

Avoidable 169,000 648,000 165,000 701,000 1,683,000

Unavoidable 98,000 366,000 65,000 306,000 835,000

Total 267,000 1,014,000 230,000 1,007,000 2,518,000

Total 425,000 1,494,000 537,000 2,435,000 3,653,000

Table 25 suggests that if the avoidable food waste was prevented, the hospitality sector could potentially save

nearly 1.7 million tonnes of CO2e emissions.

Table 26 shows the potential GHG savings from diverting these materials to recycling or recovery. Kitchen waste

holds the greatest potential saving accounting for one third of the total.

Table 26 Potential CO2e savings from diverting key waste materials to recycling or recovery (tonnes CO2e rounded to nearest 1,000 tonnes)

Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants UK

Glass 7,000 46,000 1,000 29,000 83,000

Card 14,000 63,000 10,000 59,000 146,000

Papers 31,000 69,000 16,000 78,000 194,000

Dense plastic 15,000 35,000 6,000 25,000 81,000

Plastic film 14,000 31,000 7,000 31,000 83,000

Food waste 32,000 121,000 28,000 182,000 363,000

Total 113,000 365,000 96,000 586,000 950,000

52 By ‘carbon’ we mean CO2 equivalent savings, abbreviated as CO2e


3.8 Opportunities for financial savings

UK hospitality businesses pay around £1.02 billion a year to buy the food that is wasted. Preventing avoidable

food waste therefore offers significant opportunities for cost savings. At £1,800 per tonne of food wasted, Table

27 shows that the cost of avoidable food waste amounts to £722 million.

Table 27 Potential savings from preventing avoidable food waste (£m per annum)

Sector Potential savings

(£m)

Hotels 73

Pubs 278

QSRs 71

Restaurants 301

Hospitality sector 722

There are also cost savings to be made from diverting food waste away from landfill into AD. At £21 a tonne,

Table 28 shows that the sector as a whole could potentially save £6.6 million once AD plants and associated

collection schemes are more widespread.

Table 28 Potential savings from diverting all food waste from landfill to AD (£m per annum)

Sector Potential savings

(£m)

Hotels 0.7

Pubs 2.7

QSRs 0.6

Restaurants 2.6

Hospitality sector 6.6

As noted in section 2.9, non-food waste streams have not been considered because it is not typically within an

individual business’s control to reduce them.

3.9 Business waste ‘benchmarks’

The idea of establishing waste production ‘benchmarks’ was discussed during the early stages of the research.

The amount of waste per meal served was identified as having most potential as it is likely to be a measure

common to all hospitality businesses. During the literature review, no previous studies were identified that had

looked at the relationship between waste and meals served. During the waste audits, businesses were asked to

provide details of the number of meals served and this has been combined with annualised estimates of mixed

waste (see Section 2.6.1) for a given business.

Hotels, pubs and QSRs showed a relatively weak relationship between waste production and the number of

meals served; less than 20% of the variation in waste was explained by the number of meals served. For

restaurants, there was a much stronger relationship; 57% of the variation in waste was explained by the number

of meals served which translates into an average of 0.5kg of mixed waste per meal served for the restaurants

included in the study.

The fact that hotels and pubs do not show a strong correlation between mixed waste produced and number of

meals served may be related to the fact that they have other functions, such as providing accommodation and

drinks, which dilute the effect. For QSRs, the likelihood is that most of the waste generated from their meal-

making activities occurs off-site. While it should be borne in mind that sample sizes are relatively small, the


findings for restaurants suggest that there may be value in putting further research effort into developing

benchmarks that are specific to each subsector, not necessarily just the number of meals served.

4.0 Waste management practices of the hospitality sector

This chapter draws mainly on the results of the telephone survey carried out as part of the study. Approximately

1600 businesses responded. A copy of the telephone questionnaire is provided in Appendix F. Whilst the

telephone survey was conducted using standard approaches for quality checking, it is important to highlight that

the results described below are self-declared behaviour and were not subject to on-site checks.

4.1 Waste collection

The vast majority of businesses pay for a professional waste collection; only 13 survey respondents (0.8% of the

total) said they did not pay for removal of their general waste, suggesting that it was put out with their

household waste or taken to a local household waste recycling centre (HWRC).

4.2 How mixed waste is kept on-site

Table 29 summarises the methods of mixed waste containment captured from the telephone survey. It is

important to remember that any one business may use more than one type of container, so rows will not add up

exactly. It should also be noted that the survey tended to focus on medium-sized businesses, excluding those

that used the household waste stream and those that were part of major chains. The survey revealed that by far

the most common type of container for mixed waste is the 1,100 litre four-wheeled continental bin, with 82% of

all businesses having at least one of these on-site.

Table 29 Typical methods of mixed waste containment by subsector

Subsector

2-wheeled

‘wheelie’ bin

4-wheeled

‘continental’ bin

Skip with

compactor

Skip without

compactor Sacks Other Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No.

Hotels 44 12.5 329 93.5 8 2.3 19 5.4 17 4.8 2 0.6 352

QSRs 40 12.8 230 73.7 1 0.3 7 2.2 30 9.6 3 1.0 312

Restaurants 59 9.4 488 77.8 4 0.6 12 1.9 71 11.3 2 0.3 627

Pubs 31 8.4 314 85.1 0 0.0 11 3.0 13 3.5 1 0.3 369

Total 174 10.5 1361 82.0 13 0.8 49 3.0 131 7.9 8 0.5 1,660

Table 30 shows the average number of mixed waste bins held on-site for each bin type.

Table 30 The average number of mixed waste bins on-site for each bin type by subsector

Subsector

2-wheeled

‘wheelie’ bin

4-wheeled

continental bin

Skip with

compactor

Skip

without compactor

Sacks Other

Hotels 2.0 3.1 1.0 1.5 5.1 1.0

QSRs 2.3 1.7 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0

Restaurants 2.8 2.2 1.0 1.2 4.9 2.5

Pubs 2.8 1.7 1.0 1.6 4.8 1.0

Average 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.4 4.7 1.8

Table 31 shows the average number of collections per week for each mixed waste bin type. It suggests that the

typical four-wheeled bin is collected between one and two times a week, whilst sacks are collected between four

and five times a week.53

53 Many of the observed sack collections were in London where collections are more frequent than in other parts of the UK, so

this figure should not be regarded as a UK average.


Table 31 The average number of residual waste bin collections per week for each bin type across the four subsectors (n = 1660)

Subsector 2-wheeled ‘wheelie’

bin

4-wheeled continental

bin

Skip with compactor

Skip without

compactor

Sacks Other

Hotels 1.2 1.7 2.2 1.9 2.7 2.3

QSRs 2.1 1.8 2.5 1.5 3.6 2.7

Restaurants 2.6 2.2 3.0 1.8 5.3 5.0

Pubs 1.9 1.3 No data 1.3 3.4 1.0

Average 2.0 1.8 2.5 1.7 4.4 2.8

This study has shown that the density of mixed waste in containers is typically very low (see Section 5.5 page

62). This suggests that containers have significant amounts of void space. As mixed waste is usually paid for

according to the number of collections rather than the weight of the waste, this suggests that hospitality

businesses are likely to be paying more than they need to for their waste management.

4.3 On-site waste treatment technologies

A relatively small number of businesses (180) responded to the question regarding on-site waste treatment

technologies used to reduce the volume of material managed. Most had invested in just one technology. Figure

10 shows the proportion of respondents that utilised different on-site waste treatment technologies to manage

wastes.

Macerators (in-sink grinders that enable food waste to be flushed away to the sewer) are relatively uncommon,

with just 7% of businesses having one. Glass crushers are exceedingly rare with just 1% of businesses having

one. These technologies can be very useful at reducing storage space and potentially reducing the costs of waste

disposal and recycling.

Figure 10 Proportion of hospitality businesses that use one or more on-site waste treatment technologies

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Macerator Baler Glass crusher Compactor

%


4.4 Extent of recycling

Three-quarters (76%) of UK hospitality businesses claim to recycle at least one material. Recycling is most

prevalent in hotels and pubs and least common in QSR outlets (Figure 11 ).

Figure 11 Proportion of UK hospitality businesses that claim to recycle at least one material

4.5 Materials recycled

Figure 12 provides details of claimed recycling activity across the four subsectors. Perhaps unsurprisingly the

items most commonly recycled are those for which there is a greater availability of recycling services. Card and

glass are amongst the items that are most commonly recycled, while textiles and kitchen waste are least

commonly recycled. Very few businesses claimed to recycle electrical items: the results of the site audits

demonstrate that this is because these items are infrequently disposed of and, when items are replaced, it tends

to be done by a specialist contractor that deals with the waste. The level of food recycling is low across all

subsectors.54 Oil recycling was not explicitly asked about in the questionnaire; this was because oil is rarely found

in the mixed waste which was the focus of the study.

A relatively small proportion of QSRs claimed to recycle glass in comparison to the other four subsectors. A

significantly higher proportion of hotels claim to recycle their paper in comparison to the other subsectors.

54 This was also observed when visiting premises during the site audit where only 10 out of the 139 businesses audited had

food waste recycling schemes.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Recycle Do not recycle

Recycle 89.5% 82.8% 62.9% 69.6%

Do not recycle 10.5% 17.2% 37.1% 30.4%

Hotel Pub QSR Restaurant


Figure 12 Proportion of UK hospitality businesses claiming to recycle different waste streams

4.6 Recycling services used

The most prominent mode of recycling was via a recycling service paid for directly by the business itself or by the

group to which it belonged. Notable exceptions to this were for the less commonly recycled items such as:

kitchen waste, where composting (we assume on the premises) was used by 30% of businesses claiming to

recycle food;55 and

fabrics/textiles, which were taken to a ‘bring’ facility in a central car park by five of the 10 businesses that

claimed to be recycling these items.

Despite the relatively high level of claimed use of paid recycling services, a significant proportion of businesses

are utilising domestic council-provided kerbside recycling or bring sites for at least some of their recycling (see

Figure 13 ).

55 We did not ask whether composting was on or off-site, but only a very small percentage of premises had waste disposal

bins dedicated to composting so we assume that it is on-site.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f R

espondents

Sector Hotel 64.2% 76.3% 37.0% 25.9% 1.3% 88.3% 1.9% 9.2% 2.5%

Sector Pub 28.6% 65.4% 19.0% 19.9% 0.0% 89.6% 1.0% 3.5% 0.8%

Sector QSR 27.0% 76.5% 28.6% 21.9% 0.0% 33.2% 0.0% 3.6% 3.6%

Sector Restaurant 29.8% 63.5% 22.5% 18.3% 0.6% 78.7% 0.6% 7.6% 1.1%

Total 37.6% 69.3% 26.0% 21.3% 0.5% 77.5% 0.9% 6.1% 1.7%

Paper Cardboard Plastic Metal WEEE Glass TextilesKitchen

WasteOther


Figure 13 Proportion of UK hospitality businesses that recycle using council-provided bring sites or kerbside recycling schemes for key materials56

4.7 Barriers to recycling amongst non-recyclers

A total of 233 businesses who claimed not to be recycling were asked about the main barriers to them recycling.

The results are shown in Table 32 below. Few non-recycling businesses ‘can’t see the point’ of recycling.

However, 13% of businesses suggested that they had not considered recycling or it was not a priority. There

were notable differences in commitment to recycling across the four subsectors, with 16% of QSRs and

restaurants but only 4% of hotels not seeing recycling as a priority. A significant proportion of businesses

suggested that they were planning to recycle in the future. The most commonly cited barriers across the four

subsectors were a lack of recycling services in the area (29%) and space constraints (13%). QSRs (15%) and

restaurants (21%) often cited a lack of supplier collection service (e.g. for returnable, recyclable packaging)

whereas no hotels did.

Table 32 Proportion of non-recycling UK hospitality businesses citing each barrier to recycling (%)

Hotels QSRs Restaura

nts Pubs Overall

There are no recycling/reuse services in my area 38 36 22 33 29

Time constraints 0 2 6 8 4

Space/storage constraints 13 10 15 15 13

No spare capacity in recycling/reuse services in my area 0 3 4 8 4

Can't see the point in recycling 4 8 3 3 4

No collection service offered by suppliers57 0 15 21 5 15

Never thought about it/other things to think about/not a priority 4 16 16 8 13

Planning to recycle in the near future 42 10 15 21 17

56 Businesses are required by law to comply with the Duty of Care which among other things requires a transfer note to be

produced and retained. Most councils either charge businesses for using services or refer them to private companies that

provide a service. It is possible that some businesses are using council services without permission or payment. If they are

not complying with the Duty of Care they may even be using them illegally. In England and Wales Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 SI 2839 as amended by Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 SI 63 and Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2003 SI 1720; in

Northern Ireland Controlled Waste (Duty of Care) Regulations (Northern Ireland) SR 2002/271; and in Scotland Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations SSI 2011/228.

57 ‘Suppliers’ in this context means suppliers of food, drink and other business inputs rather than suppliers of waste management services.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pape

r

Card

board

Plas

tics

Metals

Glass

Food

was

te

Recycling stream

Per

cent

age

Domestic kerbsidecollection

Recycling facility in carpark or other publicspace

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19912839_en_1.htm

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19912839_en_1.htm

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20030063.htm

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20030063.htm

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales/wsi2003/20031720e.htm


4.8 Waste minimisation policies

A relatively small proportion of businesses claimed to have policies in place for waste minimisation within the

business (see Figure 14 ). An informal commitment to reducing waste was the most common type of policy in

place, with businesses in group ownership more likely to have a formal environmental policy statement.

Figure 14 Percentage of UK hospitality businesses with policies in place to minimise waste

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Environm

enta

l

policy

sta

tem

ent

Targ

ets

for

recycling

Waste

managem

ent

str

ate

gy

Supplier

take

back

pro

gra

mm

es

Info

rmal

com

mitm

ent

to r

educin

g

waste

Perc

enta

ge o

f re

sponses


5.0 Implications of the study for future research into industrial and commercial waste

This chapter takes some key methodological questions and sets out what this research has learned in relation to

them.

5.1 Is a composition-led approach practicable?

Previous studies have focused on visual assessments of the composition of mixed waste in containers. Common

sense suggests this approach will be inaccurate because materials at the bottom of containers cannot be

assessed and the weight of lighter but more voluminous materials such as plastics can be overestimated. This

study was an attempt to develop a workable method to assess the composition of mixed waste more reliably.

Although many lessons were learned along the way, the approach has been shown to be practicable.

Importantly, the type of waste collected and hand-sorted was not too dissimilar to municipal waste, for which

there are established protocols. Standard considerations such as health and safety, sorting rates, waste analyst

requirements, days to process the waste, and material identification characteristics were found to be similar in

this project to municipal waste projects, making future planning much easier. However, three key operational

considerations have been identified as important within the context of this programme and future initiatives of

similar scope, as described below.

5.1.1 Location of the sampled businesses

On the one hand, the research needed to sample as randomly as possible within the sample framework to

ensure the results were robust. On the other, logistics demanded that businesses be clustered so that collections

could be made as cost-effectively as possible and travel distances to sorting sites minimised. Balancing these two

needs proved to be difficult.

The method adopted preferentially sampled businesses within a 50-mile radius of sort sites, but in practice this

still meant there were considerable distances between the sampled premises and the sort sites – on some

occasions as much as a four-hour drive. This added cost to the project both in terms of ‘wasted’ staff time spent

driving or as a passenger, and in fuel and vehicle hire costs. It also increased the environmental impact of the

study in terms of carbon emissions. Future studies may wish to consider carrying out a larger telephone survey

to maximise chances of being able to cluster businesses more tightly, or limiting the selection radius even more

to, say, 20 miles from the sort site. Alternative approaches, e.g. selecting businesses for inclusion on arrival in

the area, are not possible because the questionnaire has to be completed first and informed consent obtained.

Mirroring the approach used for household waste, where whole streets are selected for sampling, was felt to

introduce too much locational bias to the sample.

Although any approach which involves visiting sites will involve significant amounts of travelling and require

careful planning to maximise efficiencies, this is even more problematic with a full-scale composition-led

approach because of the need to collect the waste and take it to a central sorting site. This adds significant

complexity because there is limited room on the van for the waste, yet the amount of waste that will require

removal cannot be reliably estimated in advance. Although estimates of the amounts of waste that could be

expected were made based on responses to the questionnaire, in general this study found that less waste than

expected was found at sites and that more sites could therefore have been audited in a day.

5.1.2 Encouraging businesses to participate

Businesses are often difficult to engage in any type of research. A typical response rate to reasonably complex

surveys of businesses is between 10% and 20%. For this project, it was not only essential that businesses

completed a questionnaire but also that they gave informed consent to a site audit and to having their waste

removed for analysis. The survey obtained a creditable 18% response rate but only a further 18% of those

businesses that completed the telephone survey agreed to the site audit – just 3% of all contacted businesses.

In retrospect, some of the reticence is thought to have been because we were unable to provide precise details

of how the audit and waste collection would happen; as the study was exploratory, the methodology was being


developed in parallel and tested through pilot exercises going on at the same time as the survey. One particular

issue that might have deterred businesses from participating was that it was still possible we would be sorting

the waste on the site of the business (this was ruled out as an option following the pilot). Once it became clear

that not enough businesses had agreed to take part in the audit, and the method had been determined,

businesses that had initially refused were re-contacted and enough of them agreed to take part. This suggests

that with better information the extent to which companies volunteer should improve.

5.1.3 Getting the timing right

An additional degree of complexity was introduced by the fact that businesses have different waste collection

days. This is important because of the need to maximise the amount of waste collected for compositional

analysis in order to ensure the sample is representative of the waste generated by each company. Often

businesses could not tell us when their normal collection was, and even when they could it was often wrong. It is

important to ensure that the scheduled collection day is sufficiently ahead of the normal collection, whilst also

ensuring as long a period as possible from the last collection day. It is also necessary to bear in mind that

collection days and times will differ across waste types within the same organisation. The optimal solution must

be worked out on a business-by-business basis and bearing in mind the need to maximise collection efficiencies

by planning a sensible route. To ensure collection days and times are as accurate as possible, it may be worth

contacting the collection contractor rather than relying on what the business says. This will evidently add cost

and time to the planning stage of any study.

The time of day when the waste is generated varied significantly not only across the four subsectors but also

across businesses within the same subsector. A Central London restaurant which sets out all of its waste in sacks

at the front of the property at 22.45 to be collected by the normal collection crew between 22.45 and 03.00 and

a restaurant in a remote village in Scotland open between 11.00 and 14.00, with the waste locked in a storage

area and collected once a fortnight, present very different challenges. It is important to know as much

information about collection times and locations in advance in order to plan effective collection routes.

For most businesses, waste is stored in a designated place where one or more waste or recycling containers are

located. For businesses which set their waste out at the end of a working day, it was straightforward to ensure

that all waste was included in the sample. It was more challenging for businesses which set their waste out

throughout the day – sometimes throughout the night too – and often from several different departments. For

example, large hotels generate waste from a range of activities including housekeeping, cleaning, bars,

restaurants, car parks, the lobby etc.; these different waste streams are potentially quite different in terms of

composition and each one needs to be included in the sample. Although they would all eventually be presented

at the single collection point in the central waste storage area, at any given time a container may not contain all

of the waste for that day and important waste streams may be missing. This problem is difficult to overcome

using a snapshot audit methodology such as the one used in this study. A longitudinal study would be required

to better understand the variation in the waste produced by some of these large enterprises, but this was

beyond the scope of this study. The best way that was identified to mitigate this problem was to discuss with the

on-site contact during the audit where the waste arose and to ensure that as much of it as possible was available

for sampling.

5.2 Is a composition-led approach affordable?

The method used for this study is undeniably expensive: this study cost approximately £1500 per business

audited (including all aspects of the study – design, fieldwork, analysis and reporting). Some of that expense

would be avoidable in future studies because of the lessons learnt. The unavoidable expense comes from three

key factors, as outlined below.

5.2.1 The need for expertise

Several kinds of expertise are required to carry out work like this: statistical, operational, reporting and sector

knowledge. The probability is that anyone wanting to undertake this would be looking to an external contractor

or consortium to do the work, due to the very specific waste collection and sorting equipment and expertise that

is needed. Despite competitive procurement securing best value for money, this expertise does not come

cheaply.


5.2.2 The size of the sample needed for the telephone survey

In order to maximise chances of having enough businesses that agree to the waste audit, a large survey sample

is required. Assuming that only 5% completing the survey will agree to a waste audit, to achieve an audit sample

of, say, 100 an achieved sample of 2000 companies will be needed in the survey. Assuming that 20% of

companies contacted will agree to be surveyed, this means a total sample of 10,000 companies. In some cases

this may be more than the whole population of businesses. Techniques that increase the likelihood of companies

agreeing, such as rewards like prize draws or provision of a report on the findings, may help.

5.2.3 The logistics of collecting and sorting waste

The logistics of a study like this are complicated and many problems arise that can not be planned for, such as

businesses cancelling at the last minute or the person who had agreed to the audit not being on-site at the time.

Effective communication with the business can minimise this. It is difficult to find sites for sorting the waste and

experience has shown that, even when they have been secured, they can fall through at the last minute. Again,

communication can minimise these problems but they are difficult to avoid all together. There will always be a

need to allow for contingencies.

5.3 Is self-reported information on quantities of waste from telephone surveys an adequate proxy for an on-site audit?

Past experience suggests that telephone surveys are likely to be less reliable than face-to-face or audit methods.

In completing a waste survey, a face-to-face interview allows the surveyor to review available paperwork (e.g.

invoices or consignment notes) with the interviewee, allows the testing of responses (e.g. on the size of waste

collection containers) and gives less opportunity for the interviewee to cut the interview short by not reporting all

waste streams. For telephone interviews, survey fatigue introduces measurement error, as respondents are more

likely to omit or conflate waste streams and are unlikely to search out documentary evidence which is not

immediately available to them at the time of the call. Therefore, without prompting from a surveyor, telephone

survey respondents are more likely to make estimates rather than looking up figures. The social pressure needed

to extract complete and accurate information is more difficult to exert over the phone and telephone interviewers

are unable to spot omissions and inaccuracies that would be obvious if they could see the site.

There is some evidence to support this common sense view. Urban Mines reports that in one telephone survey of

waste management companies and reprocessors, for example, a good overall response rate was achieved, but in

providing their answers only 41% of respondents consulted records and less than 2% could be persuaded to

actually leave the phone to look up records. By contrast, a face-to-face survey in Wales managed to collect

record-based data for 37% of waste streams, equivalent to 91% of the total weight of the waste surveyed.

Common sense would suggest that responses based on records will be more reliable than those based on over-

the-phone guesswork on the part of the respondent. In a meta-analysis of a range of studies comparing

telephone to face-to-face surveys, Green and Krosnick58

concluded that “the likelihood that a respondent will

satisfice (i.e. act in such a way as to satisfy the minimum requirements for achieving a particular result) is

thought to be a function of three classes of factors: respondent ability, respondent motivation, and task

difficulty”. On motivation, they also concluded that, “rapport developed in face-to-face interviews inspires

respondents to work harder at providing high quality data”.

Other studies also report data quality differences in the two types of survey methodology, especially if the survey

questionnaire is long or the survey subject complex. The relationship between the complexity and length of a

survey questionnaire, the effort required by the interviewee to answer questions accurately and the quality of the

data thus collected has also been studied in detail, showing that the interviewee is more likely to disengage the

more work he needs to do59

. Work has also shown that telephone respondents were more likely to give

58 Ohio State University (1999) Comparing telephone and face to face interviewing in terms of data quality 59 White, G. D. and Luo, A. (2005) ‘Business survey response rates – can they be improved?’ The American Statistical

Association


“socially desirable responses” than those involved in face-to-face interviews, e.g. “yes, we do recycle”.60

It had originally been hoped that this study would be able to quantify this effect by gathering an estimate of

mixed waste from the survey and comparing this with a measured amount from the audit and waste composition

analysis. However, this proved too difficult to do.

5.4 Is useful data available from large corporate companies?

Very often data collection exercises are criticised by industry as being overly burdensome; it is asserted that data

routinely collected by businesses could be provided and would meet government’s needs. This study has shown

that this is not the case, for the hospitality sector at least.

companies were very slow in responding to requests for information and had to be chased on a number of

occasions, even where data had been promised;

working with trade associations – in this case the British Hospitality Association and VisitBritain – did not

appear to add weight to requests; and

where data was provided, it proved difficult to combine with other datasets as it usually consisted of the

number of bins and lifts rather than a standardised weight or volume of waste.

No data from large corporate companies could be used in this study, despite much time and effort being invested

in its collection. Unless statutory requirements tighten with respect to corporate reporting, there seems to be

very limited value in trying to obtain corporate data.

This conclusion has implications for the design of the sample for future surveys. A decision was taken to avoid

corporate businesses as part of the survey on the assumption that they would be catered for in the separate

corporate data collection exercise. Because the corporate data collection initiative was unsuccessful, this study

under-represents corporate sites. This is not thought to be a major problem for this study because non-corporate

sites were similar in size and nature to corporate sites, but this may not apply in other industries.

5.5 How reliable are existing bulk density factors?

Bulk density factors have been used for many years to convert volumes of waste to weights. Their use dates

back to the 1970s when councils were obliged to carry out surveys of industrial and commercial waste as part of

the process of preparing a waste disposal plan for each county.61 No standard list existed, however, until the

Environment Agency started its survey at the end of the 1990s and it set about combining the various sets of

factors used by different councils to produce a consolidated list. Because many of these factors had not been

derived empirically but represented the ‘best guess’ of professionals, in 1999 the Environmental Services

Association (ESA) and the Environment Agency commissioned a study of bulk density factors involving more than

25,000 sampling points and 48 different waste types.62 Key bulk densities of relevance to the hospitality sector

are presented below; full bulk density data from this study is presented in Appendix E. Whilst there are a

significant number of samples for the mixed waste stream, some of the bulk densities for recycling collections

are based on very small sample sizes (e.g. food recycling) and should be treated as indicative.

60 Jäckle, A., Robers, C. and Lynn, P. (2006) Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing: mode effects on data quality and

likely causes ISER Working Paper 2006-41 http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/iser/2006-41.pdf 61 Department of the Environment (1976) Waste Management Paper 2/3: Waste Disposal Plans DoE: London 62 Debenham, J.M.P. and Harker, A.P. (2002) ‘Volume to weight conversion factors for industrial and commercial wastes’

Proceedings of Waste 2002 – Integrated Waste Management and Pollution Control: Research Policy and Practice. Stratford upon Avon 24-26 September 2002, pp. 250-258

http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/iser/2006-41.pdf


Table 33 Comparison of densities of waste measured in this study with those measured by the ESA/Environment Agency study

This study ESA/Environment Agency study

Waste description Tonnes per m3 Waste description Tonnes per m3

Card 0.03 Paper and/or card 0.21

Paper & card 0.08

Mixed glass 0.27 Glass 0.33

Co-mingled recycling 0.06 N/a -

Food 0.52 Waste food – animal or mixed 0.20

Metal 0.05 Mixed ferrous metal 0.26

Mixed ferrous and non-ferrous metal 0.04

Mixed plastics 0.05 Plastics and polymers 0.21

Mixed waste 0.10 Commercial waste – general 0.30

The much lower bulk density recorded in this study for all materials except food waste may be attributable to the

fact that the ESA/Environment Agency data was taken from larger containers as they arrived at

treatment/disposal facilities whereas the waste from this study was typically from 1100l containers or less. Food

waste is an anomaly but may be explained by the very small sample size in our study – just three companies

were found that recycled food, the minimum of which was 0.05 tonnes per m3 and the maximum of which was

1.11 tonnes per m3.

Which factors are most useful depends on the purpose they are to be used for. The ESA/Environment Agency

data is the more reliable dataset because it is based on a very large sample size. However, for assessing the

density of material found at business premises as set out for collection it is likely to overestimate the amount

of waste and therefore may not be appropriate for use in studies like this.

Using reliable and appropriate bulk density factors is critical for any survey of industrial and commercial waste.

We recommend that any future studies should collect more information on bulk densities to supplement the

information gathered as part of this project so that a databank of densities of different materials in different

circumstances can be built up.

5.6 How reliable is the approach to scaling up the results?

Because the approach to scaling up makes use of data from previous surveys, the accuracy of the estimates in

this report is heavily dependent on the quality of those other datasets. Previous national surveys have employed

different methods in terms of type of contact with the respondents (see Table 14). The Defra 2010 data that we

used to scale up mostly employed a face-to-face survey, so is arguably less prone to the problems associated

with self-reported data (see Section 5.23). The potential effect of self-reported surveying may at least partly

explain the significantly higher average amounts of waste per business that we found in provisional analysis of

the SEPA dataset when compared to the Defra data and preceding studies using the same method. For the

reasons described previously, we were unable to use Wales and Northern Ireland data that may have shed more

light on this point.

Perhaps more than other sectors of the economy, the hospitality sector is likely to be seasonal with some

businesses closed for long periods of the year. One of the key factors that this research was unable to take

account of was seasonal variations in the composition of mixed waste, both in respect of sampling over different

periods of time and of sampling in summer when seasonal businesses were most likely to be open (this research

was carried out in March). This was due to resource constraints rather than by design, and had more time and

money been available seasonality would have been incorporated. Seasonal businesses are also likely to be

located in certain geographical areas such as seaside and other tourist resorts; again this project did not sample

from those areas.


Seasonality should not affect the estimates of the total amount of waste produced since these have been derived

from national data,63 but it may affect the estimates of the types of waste generated since these are based on

the compositional analysis from this study. Any future study should attempt to address this shortcoming.

63 However, it should be noted that these national surveys also sampled at specific times of year and may not have adequately

covered seasonal businesses; but the extent to which this is the case is unknown.


6.0 Conclusions

6.1 Significant quantities of waste are produced by pubs, hotels, QSRs and restaurants – there is considerable scope for waste prevention and increased recycling and recovery

Our best estimate is that in 2009, UK hotels, pubs, QSRs and restaurants

o produced just over 3.4 million tonnes of waste; o recycled, reused or composted just over 1.6 million tonnes or 47% of it; and

o disposed of a little under 1.5 million tonnes or 43% of it as mixed waste – this has

been the focus of this study.

Of the 1.5 million tonnes of mixed waste that went for disposal:

o businesses in England produced just over 1.2 million tonnes;

o businesses in Northern Ireland produced a little over 42,000 tonnes;

o businesses in Scotland produced just under 133,000 tonnes; and

o businesses in Wales produced just over 72,000 tonnes.

78% of the mixed waste is made up of just four materials – food waste (600,000 tonnes or 41%),

paper (196,000 tonnes or 13%), glass (213,000 tonnes or 14%) and card (134,000 tonnes or 9%).

Of the 600,000 tonnes of food waste in the mixed waste, 400,000 tonnes (67%) is avoidable, i.e. it

could have been eaten had it been better portioned, managed, stored and/or prepared.

One of the main opportunities for waste prevention is provided by the quantity of food waste thrown

away that is thought to be avoidable. Avoidable food waste is food that could have been eaten had it

been better portioned, managed, stored and/or prepared. It excludes inedible items such as banana

skins and apple cores:

o around 44% of waste set out for disposal from restaurants is food waste, of which

approximately 70% is avoidable; and

o between 60% and 70% of food waste in the other three subsectors is avoidable.

The introduction of waste prevention strategies will be challenging because of the need to ensure that

customers feel they are getting value for money (e.g. portion controls cannot be too tight), the shelf-

life of some products, and the difficulties in predicting business volumes. Although we have classified

the food waste as avoidable, commercial considerations may mean in practice it is unavoidable.

WRAP’s work with the hospitality industry supply chain may help over the next few years.

6.2 Most waste goes for disposal – there is considerable scope for increased recycling

Much of the waste is put out for disposal rather than recycling. Overall, just less than half of all

waste (48%) is recycled, with the following sub-sectoral breakdown:

o 62% is recycled by hotels;

o 47% is recycled by pubs;

o 55% is recycled by QSRs; and

o 39% is recycled by restaurants.

Overall, 76% of businesses claim to recycle at least one material:

o 78% said they recycled glass;

o 69% said they recycled card;

o 38% said they recycled paper;

o 26% said they recycled plastics;

o 21% said they recycled metals;

o 1% said they recycled textiles;

o 0.5% said they recycled WEEE items; and

o 2% said they recycled other materials.


Over 70% of waste currently sent for disposal could be recycled using existing markets. This

increases to 80% if we include emerging markets for materials that are currently difficult to recycle

(e.g. mixed plastics and liquid cartons).

A significant proportion of businesses suggested that they were planning to recycle in the future, but

the most commonly cited barriers to recycling were lack of services in their area (29%) and space

constraints (15%).

There were notable differences in commitment to recycling across the four subsectors, with 16% of

QSRs and restaurants but only 4% of hotels not seeing recycling as a priority.

6.3 On-site waste management is still very traditional – there is considerable scope for the introduction of new services

By far the most common method of mixed waste containment was a four-wheeled continental bin

(82%). Typically businesses have two of these bins in place and have them emptied approximately

twice a week.

Although most companies use a paid-for recycling service, the use of council-provided services is

relatively common in those businesses that said they recycle:

o paper – 15% use council-provided bring sites and 10% use a domestic kerbside collection;

o card – 9% use council-provided bring sites and 6% use a domestic kerbside collection;

o plastics – 13% use council-provided bring sites and 7% use a domestic kerbside collection;

o metals – 18% use council-provided bring sites and 9% use a domestic kerbside collection;

o glass – 12% use council-provided bring sites and 5% use a domestic kerbside collection;

and

o food waste – 7% use council-provided bring sites and 7% use a domestic kerbside

collection.

Few companies had invested in on-site waste treatment technologies:

o 7% used an in-sink macerator;

o 4% used a baler;

o 1% used a glass crusher; and

o 2% used a compactor.

Significant amounts of food waste are potentially available for anaerobic digestion or in-vessel

composting. Just 6% of companies said they currently compost food waste. Almost all (97%) of the

food in the mixed waste was not contained within any packaging, thereby avoiding the need for

potentially expensive de-packaging processes.

6.4 The overall approach taken by this study has proved to be effective

Although the approach experienced teething problems and had to be adapted as the research

progressed, the project has demonstrated that gathering information about commercial waste using a

method focused on the composition of mixed waste is a practical proposition. This approach is likely to

be important for sectors where mixed waste is a significant waste stream.

The approach adopted in this study involved collecting, hand-sorting and weighing the components of

mixed waste. This provided a detailed and accurate breakdown of the waste material, enabling (for

example) distinctions to be made between avoidable and unavoidable food waste and corrugated and

uncorrugated card that would be unreliable as part of a self-reporting methodology. This level of detail

may be important when considering the commercial viability of new recycling schemes, for example,

or the provision of information to help businesses prevent waste from occurring in the first place.

The approach is expensive, costing in this study approximately £1500 per audited business, although

savings could be expected in future studies because the study reported here was exploratory and

developmental.


6.5 The telephone survey provided useful information but is not on its own an adequate technique for quantifying the composition of waste

The telephone survey proved an effective method for gathering information to enable sampling of

sites for waste audit and compositional analysis.

There is a good evidence base to suggest that on-site waste audits will reduce the measurement error

associated with respondent fatigue, survey complexity or socially desirable responses that are a

feature of more remote telephone surveys.

Adopting a sampling strategy for the survey that sampled businesses in proportion to their prevalence

in each nation resulted in an inadequate sample size in Northern Ireland; in future, alternative

approaches should be considered that rely on over-sampling followed by the re-weighting of results

back to the national profile.

The survey achieved a response rate of 18%, despite the fact that it was relatively long –especially for

businesses that recycled a range of waste materials. Most of the non-responses were because we

were unable to get through to the company; only 20% of the companies contacted actively declined

to answer.

Although the Caterlyst database proved an effective source of up-to-date information on businesses

within this fast-changing sector, ONS data was felt to be the most appropriate set of data for scaling

up. In future studies, one consistent data source should be used for both sampling and scaling up.

Although there are shortcomings in the ONS data, not least the lack of telephone numbers, it is felt

that using ONS data would be most appropriate.

The evidence suggests that the sample obtained for the survey was broadly representative of the

sector as a whole. Although we recognise that smaller businesses and sites that are part of corporate

groups were under-sampled, key characteristics of the sampled businesses were similar to the

hospitality sector as a whole, for example:

o the majority of pubs and hotels were independently owned;

o QSRs and restaurants were generally part of a group;

o 83% of business opened seven days a week with a further 12% opening six days a week; and

o in most cases businesses operated more than 49 weeks of the year.

6.6 The logistics of collecting waste from the sites proved challenging

The logistics of collecting the waste from businesses in an unbiased way proved extremely challenging

and required significant levels of planning and resources. For example:

o relatively few businesses volunteered to take part in the audit, i.e. just 18% of those who

completed the telephone survey, which equates to 3% in total. In future studies, we would

expect higher rates of volunteering because we would be able to be clearer about what would

happen during the on-site aspect of the audit and about the minimal levels of disruption that

would be caused;

o sorting waste at the business premises – including using a mobile sorting operation based out

of the back of a van – proved to be out of the question due to concerns about space,

disruption and the impact on customers;

o securing a site at which the waste could be sorted was difficult, with offers of assistance being

withdrawn late in the process; in future studies, sourcing sorting sites should be the first task

and sampling based around their availability. The lack of a nearby site causes waste to travel

longer distances, increasing costs, reducing the opportunity to take more samples and

increasing the environmental impact of the study; and


o ensuring that waste was collected from each site at a time when the maximum amount would

be available was very difficult, especially when a series of businesses had to be audited in one

day to maximise the amount of waste that could be collected for the budget.

The process of hand-sorting the waste was similar to the hand-sorting of municipal waste for which

established procedures exist; no significant quantities of hazardous, clinical or otherwise dangerous

wastes were found.

The hand-sorting approach has generated some new estimates of the density of waste materials as

collected. This study has confirmed that bulk density varies significantly by material type, but more

importantly that even for the same material it varies depending on the container used to dispose of

the material. The accuracy of bulk density factors is important if estimates of volume are going to be

converted into weights, as is the case with many surveys.

6.7 Opportunities for hospitality businesses

The waste estimates in this report show that there is a significant opportunity for hospitality businesses to cut

costs and reduce their environmental impact by changing their approach to waste. Hospitality suppliers, including

food manufacturers, as well as customers will also have a role to play in this process. For its part, over the

coming months WRAP will be exploring the ways in which it can help support increased waste prevention and

recycling within the industry. For more information, please visit www.wrap.org.uk/hospitality or email

[email protected].

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix A – The composition of mixed

waste in the UK nations

The four tables below provide estimates for the composition of mixed waste from hospitality businesses in each

of the four UK nations. Figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are based on calculations using the

average quantities of business waste taken from the Defra 2010 industrial and commercial survey for England

and ONS population numbers for each nation separately. We therefore suggest that the figures for Scotland,

Wales and Northern Ireland are considered as indicative and our best estimate with the tools we have available.

Because the following tonnages are based on the same composition data across the UK, we do not repeat the

percentages in the tables. Please see Table 23 on page 48 for this information.

Notes on tables

Dense plastic includes plastic bottles and other containers as well as hard plastic objects.

Plastic film includes single-use plastic bags and bin bags.

Miscellaneous combustible includes wood.

Miscellaneous non-combustible includes rubble.

Hazardous waste includes batteries and clinical waste and may not be hazardous in the strict legal definition

of hazardous waste.

‘Fines’ is material so small that it fell through the 10mm by 10mm sorting screen.

Liquids include liquids inside containers and cooking oils, and exclude liquids disposed of to the sink and

sewer since these were outside the scope of the work.


Table 34 The composition of mixed waste (tonnes per year) disposed of by hospitality sector businesses in England, rounded to the nearest 100 tonnes

Primary category

Secondary category Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Total

Paper

Newspaper/catalogues 11,600 21,000 2,900 12,100 47,600

Paper packaging 1,100 3,200 2,000 1,500 7,800

Non-recyclable paper 11,300 35,100 8,400 52,000 106,800

Paper subtotal 24,000 59,400 13,300 65,600 162,200

Card

Liquid cartons 300 1,700 200 800 3,000

Board packaging 5,300 34,800 5,600 37,100 82,800

Card packaging 3,500 11,300 1,700 6,900 23,400

Other card 400 1,900 100 600 2,900

Card subtotal 9,500 49,600 7,500 45,500 112,200

Dense plastic

PET plastic bottles 1,200 3,400 700 2,400 7,800

HDPE plastic bottles 1,400 4,700 800 4,100 11,000

Other plastic bottles 800 2,100 200 1,400 4,400

Other dense plastic packaging 4,000 10,900 2,200 7,700 24,800

Other dense plastic 2,000 4,200 400 2,000 8,500

Dense plastic subtotal 9,400 25,200 4,200 17,700 56,500

Plastic film

Plastic film 7,200 15,500 4,100 14,700 41,500

Plastic bags 2,800 9,300 1,200 9,000 22,300

Plastic film subtotal 10,000 24,800 5,300 23,700 63,800

Textiles 2,000 12,000 400 4,000 18,400

Glass

Green glass bottles and jars 3,900 19,400 1,000 31,200 55,400

Clear glass bottles and jars 7,700 50,400 1,300 23,100 82,600

Brown glass bottles and jars 1,100 29,100 300 7,700 38,300

Other glass 200 1,400 100 800 2,500

Glass subtotal 12,900 100,400 2,600 62,800 178,700

Miscellaneous combustible 2,600 32,700 1,200 6,600 43,200

Miscellaneous non-combustible 900 1,700 100 3,200 5,900

Ferrous metal

Ferrous food and beverage cans 1,400 7,000 1,500 6,300 16,300

Ferrous aerosols 100 400 <50 300 900

Other ferrous metal 900 2,100 100 2,000 5,100

Ferrous metal subtotal 2,500 9,600 1,700 8,600 22,300

Non-ferrous metal

Non-ferrous food and beverage cans 300 2,600 500 1,100 4,400

Foil 300 2,100 300 1,200 4,000

Non-ferrous aerosols 100 100 <50 100 200

Other non-ferrous metal 100 200 <50 700 1,000

Non-ferrous metal subtotal 700 5,000 800 3,000 9,500

WEEE 200 200 <50 1,300 1,700

Hazardous waste 100 300 400 500 1,300

Garden waste 3,900 10,600 2,700 1,200 18,400

Kitchen (food)

waste

Packaged avoidable 1,300 2,500 2,300 5,100 11,200

Packaged unavoidable 100 <50 <50 <50 100

Non-packaged avoidable 29,500 129,400 29,900 134,200 322,800

Non-packaged unavoidable 17,800 74,500 12,600 60,800 165,700

Kitchen waste subtotal 48,600 206,400 44,800 200,100 499,800

Fines (<10mm) 2,600 10,700 2,400 9,900 25,600

Liquids 900 3,200 700 3,600 8,400

Total 130,500 551,800 88,200 457,000 1,227,500


Table 35 The composition of mixed waste (tonnes per year) disposed by hospitality sector businesses in Scotland, rounded to the nearest 100 tonnes

Primary category


Paper

Newspaper/catalogues 2,400 1,700 300 1,300 5,700

Paper packaging 200 300 200 200 900

Non-recyclable paper 2,300 2,900 900 5,600 11,800

Paper subtotal 4,900 4,800 1,500 7,100 18,400

Card

Liquid cartons 100 100 <50 100 300

Board packaging 1,100 2,800 600 4,000 8,600

Card packaging 700 900 200 800 2,600

Other card 100 200 <50 100 300

Card subtotal 2,000 4,100 900 4,900 11,800

Dense plastic

PET plastic bottles 300 300 100 300 900

HDPE plastic bottles 300 400 100 400 1,200

Other plastic bottles 200 200 <50 200 500

Other dense plastic packaging 800 900 200 800 2,800

Other dense plastic 400 300 <50 200 1,000

Dense plastic subtotal 1,900 2,100 500 1,900 6,400

Plastic film

Plastic film 1,500 1,300 500 1,600 4,800

Plastic bags 600 800 100 1,000 2,400

Plastic film subtotal 2,100 2,000 600 2,600 7,200

Textiles 400 1,000 <50 400 1,900

Glass

Green glass bottles and jars 800 1,600 100 3,400 5,900

Clear glass bottles and jars 1,600 4,100 100 2,500 8,400

Brown glass bottles and jars 200 2,400 <50 800 3,500

Other glass <50 100 <50 100 300

Glass subtotal 2,700 8,200 300 6,800 17,900

Miscellaneous combustible 500 2,700 100 700 4,100

Miscellaneous non-combustible 200 100 <50 300 700

Ferrous metal

Ferrous food and beverage cans 300 600 200 700 1,700

Ferrous aerosols <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Other ferrous metal 200 200 <50 200 600

Ferrous metal subtotal 500 800 200 900 2,400

Non-ferrous metal

Non-ferrous food and beverage cans 100 200 100 100 400

Foil 100 200 <50 100 400

Non-ferrous aerosols <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Other non-ferrous metal <50 <50 <50 100 100

Non-ferrous metal subtotal 100 400 100 300 1,000

WEEE <50 <50 <50 100 200

Hazardous waste <50 <50 <50 100 100

Garden waste 800 900 300 100 2,100


Packaged avoidable 300 200 300 600 1,300

Packaged unavoidable <50 <50 <50 <50 <50


Non-packaged unavoidable 3,700 6,100 1,400 6,600 17,700


Fines (<10mm) 500 900 300 1,100 2,800

Liquids 200 300 100 400 900

Total 26,800 45,000 10,000 49,400 131,200


Table 36 The composition of mixed waste (tonnes per year) disposed by hospitality sector businesses in Wales, rounded to the nearest 100 tonnes

Primary category


Paper

Newspaper/catalogues 900 1,300 200 600 2,900

Paper packaging 100 200 100 100 500

Non-recyclable paper 800 2,200 500 2,400 5,900

Paper subtotal 1,800 3,800 700 3,000 9,300

Card

Liquid cartons <50 100 <50 <50 200

Board packaging 400 2,200 300 1,700 4,600

Card packaging 300 700 100 300 1,400

Other card <50 100 <50 <50 200

Card subtotal 700 3,200 400 2,100 6,400

Dense plastic

PET plastic bottles 100 200 <50 100 500

HDPE plastic bottles 100 300 <50 200 600

Other plastic bottles 100 100 <50 100 300

Other dense plastic packaging 300 700 100 400 1,500

Other dense plastic 100 300 <50 100 500

Dense plastic subtotal 700 1,600 200 800 3,400

Plastic film

Plastic film 500 1,000 200 700 2,400

Plastic bags 200 600 100 400 1,300

Plastic film subtotal 700 1,600 300 1,100 3,700

Textiles 100 800 <50 200 1,100

Glass

Green glass bottles and jars 300 1,200 100 1,400 3,000

Clear glass bottles and jars 600 3,200 100 1,100 4,900

Brown glass bottles and jars 100 1,900 <50 400 2,300

Other glass <50 100 <50 <50 100

Glass subtotal 900 6,400 100 2,900 10,400

Miscellaneous combustible 200 2,100 100 300 2,700

Miscellaneous non-combustible 100 100 <50 100 300

Ferrous metal

Ferrous food and beverage cans 100 400 100 300 900

Ferrous aerosols <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Other ferrous metal 100 100 <50 100 300

Ferrous metal subtotal 200 600 100 400 1,300

Non-ferrous

metal

Non-ferrous food and beverage cans <50 200 <50 <50 300

Foil <50 100 <50 100 200


Other non-ferrous metal <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Non-ferrous metal subtotal 100 300 <50 100 600

WEEE <50 <50 <50 100 100

Hazardous waste <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Garden waste 300 700 100 100 1,200


Packaged avoidable 100 200 100 200 600



Non-packaged unavoidable 1,300 4,800 700 2,800 9,600


Fines (<10mm) 200 700 100 500 1,500

Liquids 100 200 <50 200 500

Total 9,600 35,200 4,900 21,200 70,900


Table 37 The composition of mixed waste (tonnes per year) disposed by hospitality sector businesses in Northern Ireland, rounded to the nearest 100 tonnes

Primary category


Paper

Newspaper/catalogues 400 500 200 500 1,600

Paper packaging <50 100 100 100 300

Non-recyclable paper 400 900 500 2,300 4,000

Paper subtotal 800 1,500 700 2,900 5,900

Card

Liquid cartons <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Board packaging 200 900 300 1,700 3,000

Card packaging 100 300 100 300 800

Other card <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Card subtotal 300 1,200 400 2,000 4,000

Dense plastic

PET plastic bottle <50 100 <50 100 300

HDPE plastic bottles <50 100 <50 200 400

Other plastic bottles <50 100 <50 100 100

Other dense plastic packaging 100 300 100 300 900

Other dense plastic 100 100 <50 100 300

Dense plastic subtotal 300 600 200 800 2,000

Plastic film

Plastic film 200 400 200 700 1,500

Plastic bags 100 200 100 400 800

Plastic film subtotal 300 600 300 1,100 2,300

Textiles 100 300 <50 200 600

Glass

Green glass bottles and jars 100 500 100 1,400 2,100

Clear glass bottles and jars 300 1,300 100 1,000 2,600

Brown glass bottles and jars <50 700 <50 300 1,100

Other glass <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Glass subtotal 400 2,500 100 2,800 5,900

Miscellaneous combustible 100 800 100 300 1,300

Miscellaneous non-combustible <50 <50 <50 100 200

Ferrous metal

Ferrous food and beverage cans <50 200 100 300 600

Ferrous aerosols <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Other ferrous metal <50 100 <50 100 200

Ferrous metal subtotal 100 200 100 400 800

Non-ferrous

metal

Non-ferrous food and beverage cans <50 100 <50 <50 100

Foil <50 100 <50 100 100


Other non-ferrous metal <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Non-ferrous metal subtotal <50 100 <50 100 300

WEEE <50 <50 <50 100 100

Hazardous waste <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Garden waste 100 300 100 100 600


Packaged avoidable <50 100 100 200 500



Non-packaged unavoidable 600 1,900 700 2,700 5,900


Fines (<10mm) 100 300 100 400 900

Liquids <50 100 <50 200 300

Total 4,300 13,700 4,800 20,500 43,300


Appendix B – The composition of mixed

waste from waste audits

The following tables are based on observations from the waste audit and are not normalised to factors such as

the number of days’ trading, number of waste collections etc. Measures of spread around the mean (e.g.

standard deviation, standard error) are provided. This data has been included for reference for anyone planning

similar waste composition work in the future. These figures should not be used to report the percentage

composition of mixed waste from each subsector as they do not account for the variations highlighted above.

Please refer to Table 23 for annualised composition figures.

The first table below is for all mixed waste samples (i.e. combined observations of residual waste from hotels,

pubs, QSRs and restaurants). Subsequent tables then provide separate data for each subsector. The number of

samples is shown as ‘n’ in all tables.

Definitions of terms and abbreviations

Mean The arithmetic mean, i.e. the total weight of material collected divided by the number of

samples.

Standard deviation A measure of the variation between samples of the amount of material collected.

Standard error A measure of how well the mean calculated from the samples represents the population –

calculated from the standard deviation and the number of samples analysed; if the

sampling were repeated many times and the mean calculated from these samples, 95% of

these sample means would be within two standard errors of the population mean.

Minimum The lowest observed value of the sample.

Maximum The highest observed value of the sample.

Median The middle value if all values were to be placed in order; in addition to the mean, the

median is a useful measure of the average for distributions that are not symmetrical.

95% upper and

lower confidence

interval (CI)

If the sampling were repeated many times and the mean calculated, it would be expected

that 19 times out of 20 (i.e. in 95% of instances), the mean would fall within the 95% CI;

the CI interval is made up of the upper bound (the mean plus twice the standard error)

and the lower bound (the mean minus twice the standard error).

n Abbreviation for number of samples included in the analysis.

PET Polyethylene terephthalate – the plastic used for bottles such as fizzy drink bottles.

HDPE High-density polyethylene – the plastic used for bottles such as milk bottles.

WEEE Waste electrical and electronic equipment.

Residual waste Mixed waste set out for disposal – i.e. what is left over (the ‘residue’) once all waste for

recycling is taken out.


Table 38 Detailed average waste composition for all mixed waste samples (%) (n=136) – not scaled up

Primary


Mea

n

Sta

nd

ard

devia

tio

n

Sta

nd

ard

err

or

Min

imu

m

Ma

xim

um

Med

ian

95

% l

ow

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

95

% u

pp

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

Paper

Newspaper/catalogues 5.05 6.39 0.55 0.00 35.08 2.95 3.98 6.13

Paper packaging 1.11 2.56 0.22 0.00 19.48 0.20 0.68 1.54

Non-recyclable paper 9.95 7.68 0.66 0.00 56.25 8.51 8.66 11.24

Subtotal 16.11 10.00 0.86 0.00 59.66 15.12 14.43 17.80

Card

Liquid cartons 0.39 0.79 0.07 0.00 6.22 0.13 0.25 0.52

Board packaging 6.60 8.38 0.72 0.00 40.35 3.25 5.19 8.01

Card packaging 2.27 2.95 0.25 0.00 21.93 1.66 1.77 2.76

Other card 0.26 1.10 0.09 0.00 9.36 0.00 0.07 0.44

Subtotal 9.51 8.90 0.76 0.60 49.13 6.57 8.02 11.01

Dense plastic

PET plastic bottles 0.92 1.24 0.11 0.00 9.55 0.57 0.71 1.12

HDPE plastic bottles 2.81 3.62 0.31 0.00 25.76 1.81 2.20 3.42

Other plastic bottles 0.67 1.14 0.10 0.00 6.87 0.24 0.48 0.86

Other dense plastic packaging 0.40 0.97 0.08 0.00 7.39 0.00 0.23 0.56

Other dense plastic 1.18 2.20 0.19 0.00 17.82 0.60 0.81 1.55

Subtotal 5.97 5.07 0.44 0.21 31.38 4.62 5.11 6.82

Plastic film

Plastic film 4.78 3.10 0.27 0.59 16.21 3.90 4.25 5.30

Plastic bags 1.84 1.61 0.14 0.00 6.51 1.49 1.57 2.11

Subtotal 6.61 3.42 0.29 1.31 16.49 5.80 6.04 7.19

Textiles 1.22 2.59 0.22 0.00 20.29 0.21 0.78 1.65

Glass

Green glass bottles and jars 2.66 5.54 0.48 0.00 34.05 0.10 1.72 3.59

Clear glass bottles and jars 4.17 7.08 0.61 0.00 37.63 1.23 2.98 5.36

Brown glass bottles and jars 1.94 5.57 0.48 0.00 32.74 0.00 1.00 2.88

Other glass 0.17 0.71 0.06 0.00 6.91 0.00 0.05 0.29

Subtotal 8.93 15.22 1.31 0.00 82.38 2.52 6.37 11.49

Miscellaneous combustible 2.58 6.99 0.60 0.00 58.02 1.07 1.40 3.76

Miscellaneous non-combustible 0.59 1.72 0.15 0.00 14.11 0.00 0.30 0.88

Ferrous metal

Ferrous food and beverage cans 1.51 1.96 0.17 0.00 10.00 0.82 1.18 1.84

Ferrous aerosols 0.17 0.74 0.06 0.00 5.46 0.00 0.04 0.29

Other ferrous metal 0.37 0.65 0.06 0.00 3.82 0.11 0.26 0.48

Subtotal 2.05 2.20 0.19 0.00 10.00 1.23 1.68 2.42

Non-ferrous metal

Non-ferrous food and beverage cans 0.41 0.75 0.06 0.00 5.27 0.14 0.28 0.53

Foil 0.36 0.66 0.06 0.00 5.89 0.16 0.25 0.47

Non-ferrous aerosols 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.00 2.84 0.00 0.00 0.08

Other non-ferrous metal 0.06 0.21 0.02 0.00 1.59 0.00 0.02 0.09

Subtotal 0.86 1.02 0.09 0.00 5.89 0.55 0.69 1.03

WEEE 0.23 1.28 0.11 0.00 11.39 0.00 0.01 0.44

Hazardous waste, batteries and clinical waste 0.36 3.39 0.29 0.00 39.36 0.00 -0.21 0.93

Garden waste 1.36 5.88 0.50 0.00 59.62 0.00 0.37 2.35


Packaged avoidable 1.68 4.41 0.38 0.00 33.69 0.00 0.94 2.43

Packaged unavoidable 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.01

Non-packaged avoidable 25.88 17.98 1.54 0.00 81.28 22.42 22.86 28.91

Non-packaged unavoidable 13.17 13.04 1.12 0.00 58.31 9.34 10.98 15.37

Subtotal 40.74 19.70 1.69 0.00 85.26 42.12 37.43 44.06

Fines (<10mm) 2.24 2.88 0.25 0.00 14.47 1.47 1.75 2.72

Liquids 0.64 1.29 0.11 0.00 7.92 0.00 0.42 0.86


Table 39 Detailed average waste composition breakdown for hotel mixed waste samples (%) (n=35) – not scaled up

Primary category

Secondary category

Mea

n

Sta

nd

ard

devia

tio

n

Sta

nd

ard

err

or

Min

imu

m

Ma

xim

um

Med

ian

95

% l

ow

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

95

% u

pp

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

Paper


Paper packaging 0.61 1.01 0.17 0.00 4.72 0.23 0.27 0.94


Subtotal 18.69 8.44 1.43 2.16 39.69 17.00 15.89 21.49

Card

Liquid cartons 0.42 0.55 0.09 0.00 2.39 0.21 0.24 0.60

Board packaging 4.69 6.69 1.13 0.00 29.02 1.88 2.48 6.91

Card packaging 3.12 4.09 0.69 0.00 21.93 2.18 1.77 4.48

Other card 0.34 1.26 0.21 0.00 7.31 0.00 -0.08 0.76

Subtotal 8.58 9.32 1.57 0.90 49.13 6.53 5.49 11.67

Dense plastic






Subtotal 6.88 4.41 0.75 1.53 20.74 5.55 5.42 8.35

Plastic film

Plastic film 5.41 2.78 0.47 1.31 11.99 4.80 4.49 6.33

Plastic bags 2.01 1.70 0.29 0.00 6.51 2.02 1.45 2.58

Subtotal 7.43 2.96 0.50 1.31 14.69 7.37 6.44 8.41

Textiles 1.58 2.26 0.38 0.00 9.35 0.72 0.83 2.33

Glass




Other glass 0.10 0.29 0.05 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.01 0.20

Subtotal 8.02 14.22 2.40 0.00 82.38 4.55 3.31 12.74



Ferrous metal


Ferrous aerosols 0.20 0.81 0.14 0.00 4.77 0.00 -0.06 0.47


Subtotal 2.00 1.81 0.31 0.00 8.51 1.58 1.40 2.60

Non-ferrous metal


Foil 0.44 0.56 0.09 0.00 2.61 0.24 0.25 0.62


Other non-ferrous metal 0.07 0.27 0.05 0.00 1.59 0.00 -0.02 0.16

Subtotal 0.81 0.64 0.11 0.06 2.92 0.66 0.59 1.02

WEEE 0.25 0.90 0.15 0.00 4.99 0.00 -0.05 0.55

Hazardous waste, batteries and clinical waste 0.08 0.26 0.04 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.17

Garden waste 2.45 10.33 1.75 0.00 59.62 0.00 -0.98 5.87



Packaged unavoidable 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.37 0.00 -0.01 0.03



Subtotal 38.07 16.27 2.75 3.18 72.56 39.79 32.67 43.46

Fines (<10mm) 1.58 1.54 0.26 0.00 6.31 1.35 1.07 2.09

Liquids 0.75 1.32 0.22 0.00 5.08 0.00 0.31 1.19


Table 40 Detailed average waste composition breakdown for pub mixed waste samples (%) (n=29) – not scaled up

Primary


Mea

n

Sta

nd

ard

devia

tio

n

Sta

nd

ard

err

or

Min

imu

m

Ma

xim

um

Med

ian

95

% l

ow

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

95

% u

pp

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

Paper


Paper packaging 0.74 1.12 0.21 0.00 4.11 0.21 1.15 0.33


Subtotal 12.59 11.75 2.18 0.00 59.66 9.61 16.88 8.31

Card

Liquid cartons 0.45 0.99 0.18 0.00 5.01 0.11 0.81 0.09

Board packaging 5.75 7.69 1.43 0.00 37.05 3.21 8.56 2.95

Card packaging 2.43 2.94 0.55 0.00 14.73 1.67 3.50 1.36

Other card 0.53 1.75 0.32 0.00 9.36 0.00 1.17 -0.10

Subtotal 9.17 8.20 1.52 0.60 40.47 5.76 12.15 6.18

Dense plastic






Subtotal 5.44 3.93 0.73 1.15 18.05 4.07 6.87 4.01

Plastic film

Plastic film 3.24 1.91 0.36 0.85 7.87 3.40 3.94 2.54

Plastic bags 1.96 1.67 0.31 0.00 5.53 1.26 2.57 1.36

Subtotal 5.21 2.89 0.54 1.37 13.40 4.35 6.26 4.15

Textiles Textiles 2.03 4.17 0.78 0.00 20.29 0.31 3.55 0.51

Subtotal 2.03 4.17 0.78 0.00 20.29 0.31 3.55 0.51

Glass




Other glass 0.16 0.64 0.12 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.39 -0.07

Subtotal 16.31 21.64 4.02 0.00 68.36 3.59 24.20 8.43



Ferrous metal


Ferrous aerosols 0.29 1.08 0.20 0.00 5.46 0.00 0.68 -0.10


Subtotal 2.09 1.92 0.36 0.00 9.26 1.68 2.79 1.39

Non-ferrous metal


Foil 0.52 1.14 0.21 0.00 5.89 0.16 0.94 0.10

Non-ferrous aerosols 0.11 0.53 0.10 0.00 2.84 0.00 0.30 -0.09

Other non-ferrous metal 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.09 -0.01

Subtotal 1.33 1.62 0.30 0.00 5.89 0.53 1.92 0.74

WEEE 0.30 1.50 0.28 0.00 8.09 0.00 0.84 -0.25

Hazardous waste, batteries and clinical waste 0.05 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.11 -0.01

Garden waste 1.64 3.32 0.62 0.00 13.89 0.00 2.85 0.43

Kitchen waste





Subtotal 35.91 25.60 4.75 0.06 75.72 28.14 45.24 26.59

Fines (<10mm) 2.12 3.19 0.59 0.00 14.47 0.86 3.29 0.96

Liquids 0.49 0.84 0.16 0.00 3.76 0.00 0.80 0.19


Table 41 Detailed average waste composition breakdown for QSR mixed waste samples (%) (n=32) – not scaled up

Primary category

Secondary category

Mea

n

Sta

nd

ard

devia

tio

n

Sta

nd

ard

err

or

Min

imu

m

Ma

xim

um

Med

ian

95

% l

ow

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

95

% u

pp

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

Paper


Paper packaging 2.30 3.45 0.61 0.00 11.02 0.95 3.49 1.10


Subtotal 17.58 10.94 1.93 0.25 49.84 16.92 21.38 13.79

Card

Liquid cartons 0.31 0.45 0.08 0.00 1.73 0.09 0.47 0.16

Board packaging 6.39 8.34 1.47 0.00 33.92 3.09 9.28 3.49

Card packaging 2.19 2.80 0.50 0.00 12.37 1.49 3.16 1.21

Other card 0.12 0.68 0.12 0.00 3.85 0.00 0.36 -0.11

Subtotal 9.01 8.09 1.43 0.71 34.13 5.30 11.81 6.20

Dense plastic






Subtotal 7.10 7.22 1.28 0.67 31.38 5.01 9.60 4.59

Plastic film

Plastic film 6.51 4.23 0.75 1.36 16.21 4.80 7.97 5.04

Plastic bags 1.41 1.27 0.23 0.00 4.87 1.33 1.85 0.96

Subtotal 7.91 4.20 0.74 2.50 16.48 6.67 9.37 6.46


Subtotal 0.58 1.21 0.21 0.00 5.48 0.01 1.00 0.16

Glass

Green glass bottles and jars 0.42 1.81 0.32 0.00 10.06 0.00 1.04 -0.21



Other glass 0.23 1.22 0.22 0.00 6.91 0.00 0.66 -0.19

Subtotal 1.99 3.61 0.64 0.00 17.88 0.59 3.25 0.74

Miscellaneous combustible 2.25 9.50 1.68 0.00 54.09 0.24 5.54 -1.05


Ferrous metal



Other ferrous metal 0.14 0.45 0.08 0.00 2.15 0.00 0.30 -0.02

Subtotal 1.89 2.63 0.47 0.00 10.00 0.67 2.81 0.98

Non-ferrous metal


Foil 0.24 0.40 0.07 0.00 1.76 0.05 0.38 0.10

Non-ferrous aerosols 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.04 -0.01

Other non-ferrous metal 0.04 0.18 0.03 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.10 -0.02

Subtotal 0.77 0.70 0.12 0.00 2.22 0.62 1.01 0.52

WEEE 0.04 0.21 0.04 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.11 -0.04


Garden waste 1.42 4.41 0.78 0.00 20.11 0.00 2.95 -0.11

Kitchen

waste





Subtotal 45.40 17.38 3.07 14.65 85.26 45.81 51.43 39.37

Fines (<10mm) 2.91 3.70 0.65 0.00 14.45 1.63 4.19 1.63

Liquids 0.88 1.69 0.30 0.00 7.92 0.00 1.47 0.29


Table 42 Detailed average waste composition breakdown for restaurant mixed waste samples (%) (n=42) – not scaled up

Primary category

Secondary category

Mea

n

Sta

nd

ard

devia

tio

n

Sta

nd

ard

err

or

Min

imu

m

Ma

xim

um

Med

ian

95

% l

ow

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

95

% u

pp

er

co

nfi

den

ce

lim

it

Paper


Paper packaging 0.87 3.13 0.50 0.00 19.48 0.01 1.84 -0.10


Subtotal 15.24 8.49 1.34 0.00 32.40 15.68 17.87 12.60

Card

Liquid cartons 0.37 1.01 0.16 0.00 6.22 0.08 0.68 0.06

Board packaging 9.07 9.80 1.55 0.00 40.35 6.35 12.11 6.03

Card packaging 1.46 1.35 0.21 0.00 5.84 1.15 1.88 1.04

Other card 0.09 0.37 0.06 0.00 2.27 0.00 0.20 -0.03

Subtotal 10.98 9.73 1.54 0.62 40.35 8.14 14.00 7.97

Dense plastic






Subtotal 4.64 3.98 0.63 0.21 19.21 3.44 5.88 3.41

Plastic film

Plastic film 3.94 2.11 0.33 0.59 12.13 3.79 4.60 3.29

Plastic bags 1.94 1.72 0.27 0.00 6.21 1.53 2.47 1.40

Subtotal 5.88 2.96 0.47 1.54 16.49 5.37 6.80 4.96


Subtotal 0.81 2.01 0.32 0.00 10.53 0.12 1.43 0.18

Glass




Other glass 0.18 0.44 0.07 0.00 1.62 0.00 0.31 0.04

Subtotal 9.93 14.06 2.22 0.00 54.97 2.65 14.29 5.57



Ferrous metal




Subtotal 2.19 2.40 0.38 0.00 9.44 1.31 2.94 1.45

Non-ferrous metal


Foil 0.27 0.39 0.06 0.00 1.54 0.11 0.39 0.15


Other non-ferrous metal 0.07 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.14 0.01

Subtotal 0.64 0.85 0.13 0.00 3.95 0.36 0.90 0.38

WEEE 0.30 1.80 0.28 0.00 11.39 0.00 0.86 -0.25


Garden waste 0.15 0.75 0.12 0.00 4.75 0.00 0.38 -0.08

Kitchen waste

Packaged avoidable 1.21 5.34 0.84 0.00 33.69 0.00 2.87 -0.45




Subtotal 42.86 18.85 2.98 0.00 74.38 46.12 48.71 37.01

Fines (<10mm) 2.35 2.78 0.44 0.00 12.34 1.58 3.22 1.49

Liquids 0.46 1.15 0.18 0.00 5.34 0.00 0.82 0.11


Appendix C – Example of waste audit map


Appendix D – Corporate waste survey

Introduction

A small number of corporate brands dominate the hospitality sector. The biggest players in the accommodation

sector are: Whitbread (518 hotels), InterContinental Hotels Group (256 hotels), Travelodge (333 hotels), Accor

(130 hotels), Hilton (71 hotels), Marriott (52 hotels) and Wyndham (trading as Ramada in the UK – 107 hotels).

Within the pub sector, around 10 corporate brands dominate. These are supplemented by a range of

management companies (e.g. BDL), which build and operate hotels, pubs etc. on their behalf.

In many of these organisations, the head office makes arrangements for waste collection on behalf of individual

sites. The aim of this part of the project was to capture waste management data from head offices, rather than

approaching individual premises. It was initially hoped that corporate businesses (i.e. those with over 100

outlets) would provide a mass of useful data that could be incorporated into the project.

Approach

A list of hospitality businesses with more than 100 individual units operated on a management, franchise or

tenancy basis was drawn down from the Caterlyst database. This contained 52 businesses, including three

duplicate records. Further businesses were added to the list from CESHI’s contact database. These were selected

either because:

they were known to collect waste data at corporate level; or

they had contributed data about environmental/Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance to

previous projects; or

they were a member of an association such as the Considerate Hoteliers Association and known to be

monitoring their waste to a greater or lesser extent.

In total, 62 businesses were contacted and subdivided between the subsectors as shown in Table 43. Each

business was approached by e-mail and/or telephone call to a known contact where details were available, over

a period of four to six months. E-mails were followed up by a minimum of three telephone calls to each listed

business.

The information requested from all sectors was as follows:

volume or weight of waste disposed of by each unit. It was made clear in the request for information that

this data may not be available for every unit, but for those where data exists (e.g. wholly owned units) this

data could be in the form of waste bills or as recorded on an internal system such as a spreadsheet;

the above data broken down by waste sent to landfill and waste sent for recycling (specifying which materials

are recycled);

any data collected on the volume or composition of waste – this data could be in the form of bin size and

number of collections per week per unit; and

any other data, e.g. data from any waste audit carried out in the last three years.

Specific data was also requested from the hotel sector as follows:

the size of hotel, the number of rooms, occupancy and any conference or banqueting facilities; and

waste generated per guest night.


Results

In total, 15 companies responded to the request for information as illustrated in Table 43.

Table 43 Responses from companies to requests for corporate data

Response Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Total

Data provided 7 5 3 0 15

Data refused 0 1 0 2 3

Date not available 1 9 0 0 10

No response to contact 10 15 2 7 34

Total 18 30 5 9 62

Of the datasets provided, five are not included in this summary. This is because the variety of data collection

methods means that the corporate datasets could not be compared, even at a high level based on averages. In

total, 10 business datasets representing 3161 properties were reviewed but only that relating to 3115 units could

be used. Table 44 provides information about the waste datasets that were analysed.

Table 44 Datasets used in the analysis by waste stream

Sector No.

units Total sets

Mixed Card Glass Paper Fluor-escent tubes

WEEE

Hotels 539 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Pubs 1807 5 5 3 3 0 0 0

QSRs 769 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Restaurants - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3115 10 6 4 4 1 1 1

The data for each subsector comprised the following:

Hotels

quarterly/annual tonnage for general waste and different recyclable streams for each hotel in the group; and

annual tonnage for all hotel sites – mixed waste and two recyclable streams.

Pubs and QSRs

the size of bins;

the number of bins per site; and

the number of lifts per bin per site per week.

Some businesses, mainly hotels, were able to provide additional data on the following:

annual tonnage of mixed waste and recycling;

number of customers and occupancy levels;

bin weight estimates; and

estimates for the weight of compacted waste.

Analysis

It should be noted when reading the following analysis that the quality of data provided was variable and that

the data itself was gathered via a range of collection methods. There are also likely to be significant variances in

some of the datasets that are caused by the fact that some businesses in the dataset recycle whilst others do

not. These differences cannot be shown for individual business units, but will impact on fill levels for bins and

weights (where weight data is provided) for those businesses that recycle.


For most of the datasets, only bin size and frequency of collection was available, with no data on the fill levels of

the bins from which to validate the data. For some datasets, information on bin weights was available, but no

data on variables within individual units that may affect weights (e.g. access to recycling facilities) was collated.

The calculations of waste volume below are based on bins being 100% full on collection. Clearly, this is unlikely

and the waste volumes stated in this section are likely to be an overstatement of the actual waste production

characteristics.

Waste volume and weight

Data from two hotel groups (one five-star and one budget chain) was entered into the analysis, representing 539

units and broken down as shown in Table 45.

Table 45 Hotels – residual waste and recycling (mean tonnes per year and number of premises)

Mixed Glass Card Paper Fluorescent

tubes WEEE

Hotel

group 11

Mean tonnes per year 201 66 14 10 <1 1

Number of premises 58 25 24 10 12 3

Hotel

group 22

Mean tonnes per year 53 23 10 - - -

Number of premises 481 481 481 - - -

1. Data collected via waste contractor – different recycling contractor for some hotels means that recycling data is incomplete.

2. Data collection method unknown.

The data from group 1 (the five-star group) does not truly reflect the group’s waste generation/recycling

patterns. However, it is believed to be more reliable than some other datasets obtained from corporate

businesses. The data source is a private sector waste management company that offers waste management to

hotels. However, this company does not always offer a full range of waste management options; for example,

they may be responsible for general waste collection, while another waste management contractor collects

recyclable materials.

Data from five pub groups was entered into the analysis, representing 1807 units. Of these, 524 had a glass

recycling scheme and 417 a card scheme. Weight data was not available but the estimated average bin volume

per unit is shown in Table 46.

Table 46 Pubs – waste collection schemes, average bin volumes (litres per unit per week1)

Residual Glass Card

Pub group 12 5956 1730 2021

Pub group 23 5080 - -

Pub group 33 5049 1040 812

Pub group 43 2549 - -

Pub group 53 5317 1479 2089

1. Conversion factor from litres to kg/tonnes not currently available.

2. Managed estate – number of bins, sizes and lifts per week provided (two different contractors).

3. Tenanted, leased and some managed pubs – number of bins, sizes and lifts per week provided.

The total volume of waste produced by the pubs was around 10,000m3 per week, with an average of 5.6m3 per

establishment. It must be noted that only three of the pub groups provided data on recycled materials and

therefore we should assume that the data from those who did not provide recycling data represents mixed waste

including materials which could be recycled.

Data from three QSR groups (fast food menu, coffee shop and sandwich shop) were entered into the analysis,

representing 769 units broken down as shown in Table 47.


Table 47 QSRs – residual waste and recycling

Average

volume (litres/site/

week1)

Mixed waste

(tonnes/ year)

Recycling

(tonnes/ year)

QSR group 12 4417 - -

QSR group 23 - 0.85 0.35

QSR group 33 - 62.5 -

1. Conversion factor from litres to kg/tonnes not available for mixed waste.

2. Number of bins, sizes and lifts per week provided – weights based on averages from UK-wide weight trials.

3. Data collection method unknown.

Conclusions

The waste data collected by hospitality businesses varied widely and generally consisted of the number of bins

and lifts rather than the actual weight or volume of waste. This variation meant that the available data did not

lend itself to use in the current study.

The lesson learnt from the corporate survey was that gathering data from large corporate businesses is not a

quick solution to gaining a large amount of analysable data. It would also appear that a number of corporate

businesses do not collect waste data at all. When data is collected, a significant amount of time is needed to

work with the corporate sector not only to obtain data but also to standardise the data before any analysis can

be conducted.


Appendix E - Bulk density data

The on-site waste audits described in Section 2.5 produced a set of bulk densities for different types of waste

(e.g. mixed waste, card and paper) and the container types they were held in at the sampled businesses. Table

48 below summarises the bulk densities obtained by the sampling and weighing of waste during the audits.

Whilst there are a significant number of samples for the mixed (residual) waste, sample sizes for some of the

recycling collections are very small (e.g. for food recycling) and should be treated as indicative only.


Table 48 Average bulk density of waste samples, by waste stream type and container (densities can be expressed as tonnes/m3 or kg/litre)

Waste type

Data 2-wheeled

bin 4-wheeled

bin Sacks

Skip, with compactor

Skip, without

compactor

Other container

Overall

Residual

waste (mixed waste for

disposal)

Number of samples 21 87 10 - 6 1 125

Average 0.11 0.10 0.10 - 0.15 0.13 0.10

Maximum 0.26 0.29 0.21 - 0.28 - 0.29

Minimum 0.04 0.01 0.04 - 0.05 - 0.01

Clear glass

for recycling

Number of samples 3 - - - - - 3

Average 0.14 - - - - - 0.14

Maximum 0.31 - - - - - 0.31

Minimum 0.04 - - - - - 0.04

Co-mingled

recyclables

Number of samples 7 5 4 - - - 16

Average 0.07 0.05 0.05 - - - 0.06

Maximum 0.22 0.13 0.07 - - - 0.22

Minimum 0.03 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.01

Food

Number of samples 1 - - - - 2 3

Average 0.38 - - - - 0.58 0.52

Maximum - - - - - 1.11 1.11

Minimum - - - - - 0.05 0.05

Metal for recycling

Number of samples 2 - 2 - - 1 5

Average 0.05 - 0.02 - - 0.11 0.05

Maximum 0.05 - 0.03 - - - 0.11

Minimum 0.04 - 0.02 - - - 0.02

Mixed glass

for recycling

Number of samples 18 3 5 - - 2 28

Average 0.30 0.29 0.21 - - 0.19 0.27

Maximum 0.62 0.44 0.36 - - 0.19 0.62

Minimum 0.05 0.18 0.07 - - 0.18 0.05

Mixed

plastic64 for recycling

Number of samples 2 1 2 - - 2

Average 0.02 0.03 0.02 - - 0.11 0.05

Maximum 0.02 - 0.03 - - 0.16 0.16

Minimum 0.02 - 0.00 - - 0.05 0.00

Paper & card for

recycling

Number of samples 3 3 - - - 2 8

Average 0.07 0.12 - - - 0.04 0.08

Maximum 0.14 0.28 - - - 0.05 0.28

Minimum 0.03 0.03 - - - 0.02 0.02

Card for recycling

Number of samples 1 9 1 1 2 2 16

Average 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03

Maximum 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.08

Minimum 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01

64 The majority of the material in the plastic recycling schemes was dense plastic, of which the majority comprised of bottles.


Appendix F - Telephone survey

questionnaire

A copy of the final questionnaire used in the telephone survey is provided below. Further details of the telephone

survey methodology, including the selection and sampling of businesses, can be found in Section 2.4.

Q1 Reference:

_____________________________________________

Q2 Establishment name:

_____________________________________________

Q3 Address 1:

_____________________________________________

Q4 Address 2:

_____________________________________________

Q5 Town:

_____________________________________________

Q6 Postcode:

_____________________________________________

Q7 What region are you in?

England ........................................................

Scotland .......................................................

Wales ...........................................................

Northern Ireland.............................................

Q8 Contact name:

_____________________________________________

Q9 Contact job title:

_____________________________________________

Q10 Telephone:

_____________________________________________

Q11 Sector:

Hotel ............................................................

Restaurant ....................................................

Pub ..............................................................

QSR .............................................................

Q11a What is the star rating of your hotel?

Not rated .......................................................

1 star ............................................................

2 star ............................................................

3 star ............................................................

4 star ............................................................

5 star ............................................................

1 diamond .....................................................

2 diamond .....................................................

3 diamond .....................................................

4 diamond .....................................................

5 diamond .....................................................

I don't know ...................................................

I'm not willing to answer ..................................

Q12 How many rooms are there in your hotel?

0 - 10 ............................................................

11 - 25 ..........................................................

26 - 50 ..........................................................

51 - 100 ........................................................

101 - 200 ......................................................


201 - 500 ......................................................

501 - 750 ......................................................

751+ .............................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q13 Can you tell us approximately what room occupancy rate you achieved last year?

(The number of rooms you sold as a % of total rooms available)

0 - 20% .........................................................

21 - 50% .......................................................

51 - 75% .......................................................

76 - 90% .......................................................

90 - 100% .....................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q14 Is your pub:

A freehouse...................................................

Tenanted ......................................................

Managed ......................................................

A wine bar .....................................................


Q15 Type of QSR:

Fish & chip shop ............................................

Mobile operator .............................................

Ethnic ...........................................................

Cafe .............................................................

World food ....................................................

Takeaway .....................................................

Group burger and chicken ..............................

I don't know ...................................................


Q16 Type of restaurant

Traditional .....................................................

Pizza/pasta ...................................................

Pub/restaurant ...............................................

World food/ethnic ...........................................

Other ............................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q17 Is the business part of a group?

Yes ..............................................................

No ................................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q18 Do you currently recycle?

Yes ..............................................................

No ................................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q19 If yes, what do you recycle?

Paper ...........................................................

Cardboard .....................................................

Plastics .........................................................

Metals ..........................................................

Electrical appliances ......................................

Glass ............................................................

Fabric and textiles ..........................................

Food waste ...................................................

Other ............................................................


I don't know ...................................................


Other, please specify _____________________

Q20 In addition to your council tax, do you currently pay for the removal of any of your

general waste?

Yes ..............................................................

Yes, but head office deals with this ..................

No ................................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q21 Thinking of your general waste, what size bins do you have and how many of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0

2-wheeled bin (similar to a household dustbin)

4-wheeled bin

Skip (with a compactor)

Skip (without a compactor)

Sacks

Other

Q22 How many times per week are your bins emptied?

1 2 3 4 5 6

2-wheeled bin

4-wheeled bin

Skip (with a compactor)

Skip (without a compactor)

Sacks

Other

Q23 How do you currently recycle the previously mentioned items?

Domestic

kerbside

collection

Recycling

facility in a

car park

Paid

recycling

service

Specialist

group

recycling

Free

recycling

service

Composting Other

Paper

Cardboard

Plastics

Metals

Electrical appliances

Glass

Fabric and textiles

Food waste

Other

Q24 Thinking about your paper recycling, what size bins do you have and how many are there

of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0

2-wheeled bin (similar size to a household bin)

4-wheeled bin

Skip (with compactor)

Skip (without compactor)

Sacks

Other

Q25 How many times per week is your paper collected for recycling?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other


Q26 Thinking about your cardboard recycling, what size bins do you have and how many are

there of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q27 How many times per week is your cardboard collected for recycling?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q28 Thinking about your plastics recycling, what size bins do you have and how many are

there of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q29 How many times per week is your plastic collected for recycling?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin


Sacks


Other

Q30 Thinking about your metal recycling, what size bins do you have and how many are there

of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q31 How many times per week is your metal collected for recycling?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q32 Thinking about your electrical appliance recycling, what size bins do you have and how

many are there of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin




Sacks

Other

Q33 How many times per week are your electrical appliances collected for recycling?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q34 Thinking about your glass recycling, what size bins do you have and how many are there

of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q35 How many times per week is your glass collected for recycling?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q36 Thinking about your fabric and textiles recycling, what size bins do you have and how

many are there of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q37 How many times per week is your fabric and textiles collected for recycling?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q38 Thinking about your food waste recycling, what size bins do you have and how many are

there of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q39 How many times per week is your food waste collected for recycling?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin




Sacks

Other

Q40 Thinking about your grouped recycling, what size bins do you have and how many are

there of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q41 How many times per week is your grouped recycling collected?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q42 Thinking about your other recycling, what size bins do you have and how many are there

of each size?

1 2 3 4 5 6 0


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q43 How many times per week is your other recycling collected?

1 2 3 4 5 6


4-wheeled bin



Sacks

Other

Q44 Do you use a deep fat fryer?

Yes ..............................................................

No ................................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q45 If yes, roughly how many 20 litre drums of oil do you dispose of in a month?

0 - 2 ..............................................................

3 - 5 ..............................................................

6 - 8 ..............................................................

9+ ................................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q46 How many days per week do you trade?

1 ..................................................................

2 ..................................................................

3 ..................................................................

4 ..................................................................

5 ..................................................................

6 ..................................................................

7 ..................................................................

I don't know ...................................................



Q47 How many weeks per year do you trade?

0 - 9 ..............................................................

10 -19 ...........................................................

20 - 29 ..........................................................

30 - 39 ..........................................................

40 - 49 ..........................................................

49+ ...............................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q48 Which of the following types of food service do you provide?

Breakfast ......................................................

Morning coffee...............................................

Lunch ...........................................................

Afternoon tea.................................................

Dinner ..........................................................

Snacks .........................................................

Takeaway .....................................................

No meals are provided ...................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q49 Do you have a seating area within your establishment where customers can consume

food on the premises?

Yes ..............................................................

No ................................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q50 Do the majority of your customers consume food on your premises or take food away?

Eat on the premises .......................................

Take food away from the premises ..................

About the same .............................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q51 How many meals do you serve on a daily basis?

0 - 25 ............................................................

26 - 50 ..........................................................

51 - 100 ........................................................

101 - 200 ......................................................

201 - 300 ......................................................

301+ .............................................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q52 Do you use any of the following?

A macerator/food waste disposal unit? .............

A cardboard baler? ........................................

A crusher for glass? .......................................

A waste compactor?.......................................

None of the above .........................................

I don't know ...................................................


Q53 Does your business have any of the following in place?

An environmental policy statement ..................

Company-wide targets for waste recycling ........

A waste management strategy for the business unit

A process for asking suppliers to take back containers from deliveries for reuse

An informal commitment to reducing waste/environmental impacts

None of the above .........................................

I don't know ...................................................



Q54 Earlier you mentioned that you don't currently recycle. Why is that?

There are no recycling/reuse services in my area

Time constraints ............................................

Space/storage constraints ..............................

There is no spare capacity in recycling/reuse services in my area

Can't see the point in recycling ........................

No collection service offered by suppliers .........

Never thought about it/other things to think about/not a priority

Planning to recycle in the near future ...............


Other, please specify _____________________________________________

Q55 As part of this project, WRAP is offering some businesses a free waste audit. This

involves our team collecting and analysing your waste to determine what it contains.

From this, opportunities for waste/cost reduction can be found. Would you be interested

in this?

Yes ..............................................................

No ................................................................

Q56 It is possible that WRAP, the project funders, may wish to carry out research in the

future into how they could help the hospitality sector improve its environmental

performance and save money by reducing waste. Would you be willing for your contact

details and your answers to the questions that I have asked you today to be passed to

WRAP and central government for these purposes? Any published information gathered

as part of these questions or any waste audit will be used for research purposes only. It

will be treated with the strictest confidence.

Yes ..............................................................

No ................................................................

Q57 Call outcome:

Complete – waste disposal paid for .................

Complete – disposal not paid for .....................

Refused to answer .........................................

No reply ........................................................

Call back .......................................................

Number not recognised ..................................

Business moved ............................................

Unsound – other ............................................


Appendix G – Recycling market

assumptions

Secondary material category Established markets Emerging markets

Newspaper/catalogues Yes Yes

Non-recyclable paper No No

Paper packaging No No

Board packaging Yes Yes

Card packaging Yes Yes

Liquid cartons No Yes

Other card Yes Yes

HDPE plastic bottles Yes Yes

Other dense plastic No No

Other dense plastic packaging No Yes

Other plastic bottles Yes Yes

PET plastic bottles Yes Yes

Plastic bags Yes Yes

Plastic film No Yes

Ferrous aerosols Yes Yes

Ferrous food and beverage cans Yes Yes

Other ferrous metal No No

Foil Yes Yes

Non-ferrous aerosols Yes Yes

Non-ferrous food and beverage cans Yes Yes

Other non-ferrous metal No No

Brown glass bottles and jars Yes Yes

Clear glass bottles and jars Yes Yes

Green glass bottles and jars Yes Yes

Other glass No No

Textiles No Yes

Miscellaneous combustible No No

Miscellaneous non-combustible No No

Kitchen waste non-packaged avoidable Yes Yes

Kitchen waste non-packaged unavoidable Yes Yes

Kitchen waste packaged avoidable No No

Kitchen waste packaged unavoidable No No

Garden waste Yes Yes

WEEE No No

Hazardous waste, batteries and clinical waste No No

Fines (<10mm) No No

Liquids No No


Appendix H – Average estimated meal

weight

The average meal weight calculated for the purpose of estimating the cost of a tonne of food ingredients in a

school consisted of a portion of mashed potato, one sausage, one portion of cooked vegetable, a yogurt and a

piece of fruit; the average meal constituents were selected by WRAP. The portion sizes were taken from the

“Hungry for Success Programme” in 2002.

Table H1 Average portion sizes detailed in “Hungry for Success” programme, 2002

Meal element

Recommended Portion Size

5-11 year olds

12-18 year olds

Average

Mashed potatoes, boiled potatoes, potato croquettes

90-130g 190g 140g

Cooked vegetables including peas, green beans, sweetcorn, carrots, mixed vegetables, cauliflower, broccoli, swede, turnip, leek, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, spinach, spring greens

40-60g 80g 60g

Yoghurts 100-125ml 125-150ml 125ml

Sausages: beef, lamb, pork, Lorne (raw weight) 60-80g 120g 90g

Piece of fruit 50-100g 100g 75g

Total 490g


Appendix I – Literature review and

bibliography

A literature review was undertaken as a part of the development of the initial proposal and this was

supplemented during the early part of the project. This section describes the information sources searched

during the review, summarises key findings and lists key sources. A fuller bibliography is also provided towards

the end of the section.

The literature review was limited to material published/available after 2000 in the UK only. The following

literature resources were searched:

databases referencing abstracts of hospitality, leisure and tourism literature (e.g. CABI);

databases referencing data from the waste management industry or environmental management data in

general (e.g. SAGE Waste Management and Research online);

websites, environmental reports and corporate information from the major corporate hotel groups, pub

companies and catering businesses (e.g. Accor, InterContinental Hotel Group, Hilton, Whitbread, Mitchells &

Butlers, Hall and Woodhouse, Jurys Doyle, Greene King, Compass Group, Sodexo, Elior, McDonalds);

websites hosting ‘best environmental practice’ examples from hospitality businesses (e.g. the International

Hotel & Restaurant Association, NetRegs, ATLAS, the BEST network); and

websites, reports, databases and publications from organisations seeking to influence/inform the

environmental management practices of businesses in general or hospitality businesses in particular (e.g.

CIRIA, the Building Research Establishment, the Food and Drink Federation, WRAP, the Institute of

Hospitality, the International Tourism Partnership, Envirowise, the Environment Agency, AEA Technology,

IGD, the Food Service Federation, the Considerate Hoteliers Association, the Institute of Wastes

Management, REY, businesses offering waste auditing or waste collection services, and other regional waste

entities).

The project team also sought information from a number of other sources:

members of the advisory group for this project were approached and asked to provide access to any

information sources that had been generated/commissioned by their organisation or of which they were

aware and which could inform this study. This request resulted in six responses, mainly including data that is

not normally within the public domain;

Enviros and CESHI approached known contacts and asked them to provide access to any information sources

that had been generated by their organisation or of which they were aware and which could inform this

study. Client confidentiality, however, requires that some of the specific data from these reports remains

confidential; and

Enviros and CESHI included reports that had been generated from their own research, within the scope of the

literature review. Client confidentiality, however, requires that some of the specific data from these reports

remains confidential.

Once collected, information was ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 was the most useful data to inform the

study and 5 the least useful) as follows:

1: the literature contains quantitative data about the volume/weight and composition of waste arisings from

multiple hospitality businesses with UK-wide scope;

2: the literature contains quantitative data about the volume/weight and composition of waste arisings from

multiple hospitality businesses within one UK region or nation;

3: the literature contains quantitative data about the volume/weight of waste arisings from multiple

hospitality businesses but contains no compositional analysis with UK-wide scope;

4: the literature contains quantitative data about the volume/weight of waste arisings from multiple

hospitality businesses but contains no compositional analysis within one UK region or nation; and,

5: the literature contains data about and volume/composition of waste from one or two hospitality business

units only.


Literature receiving a score of 1 or 2 in the above scheme was assessed further to define:

the number of hospitality outlets represented in the dataset;

the mode of data collection (telephone survey, mail survey, face-to-face interview, compositional analysis);

and

the regional scope of the data (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, or the name of the regional

devolved authorities covered).

Identification and appraisal of key studies

Using the categorisation previously outlined, we identified the following studies as having potential to inform our

approach:

the Environment Agency 2000. Commercial and industrial waste production survey 1998/99. The Environment

Agency;

Entec 2008. Local development framework: commercial and industrial waste survey. Rutland County Council;

WRAP 2007. Glass collected from licensed premises: determination of how much glass is collected for

recycling from licensed premises. Banbury, WRAP;

Oakdene Hollins for WRAP 2008a. Hospitality sector glass collection. Banbury, WRAP;

Oakdene Hollins 2008b. Mapping waste in the food industry. Defra and the Food and Drink Federation;

Thomas, C., Dacombe, P., Maycox, A., Banks, C., Khan, T. and Slater, R. 2007. Identification of key resource

streams in commercial and industrial waste from small businesses in the food sector. The Open University

Integrated Waste Systems Research Group: Milton Keynes.

Defra 2006. Food industry sustainability strategy. www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/fss/pdf/fiss2006.pdf;

and

Todd, M. and Hawkins, R. 2001. Waste counts: a handbook for accommodation operators. CESHI, Oxford

Brookes University.

Studies that are not available within the public domain and that have also influenced our approach include:

CESHI 2007. Biodegradable tableware products and the UK food service industry. CESHI, Oxford Brookes

University;

Environment Agency 2000. C&I research report and data; and

Local Authority Support Unit (LASU) data: a database compiled by M·E·L Research Ltd of various waste

composition studies undertaken as part of the Waste Implementation Programme.

Summary of key findings

The literature review covered a list of 136 articles in the public domain and other articles sourced from Enviros,

CESHI or advisory group contacts. Of these, only a handful of studies provided detailed compositional data

collated from samples of 10 businesses or more. The key points from our review are summarised below:

most of the literature focuses on providing advice for hospitality businesses (usually focused around

complying with regulation and/or minimising waste disposal costs);

many of the surveys that have been undertaken:

o have only achieved acceptable response rates using telephone calls or personal visits to

persuade staff to complete questionnaires;

o do not provide reliable data about waste volumes or values. Most rely on businesses estimating

the volume of waste by assessing the number of bins and their fill levels and adding these

details to survey forms. As a report from Oakdene Hollins (2008) states, such estimates may

overstate the volume of waste generated because of the errors implicit when converting waste

volume data into weight estimates. Furthermore, WRAP (2007) states that current estimates of

the weight of glass for recycling available in licensed premises are likely to be overstated

because respondents to self-completion surveys overestimate the amount of glass they

produce and these estimates are summed up without taking due account of the difference in

waste produced by urban and rural establishments; and

o do not provide detailed attitudinal data about wastes.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/fss/pdf/fiss2006.pdf


much of what has been written focuses on:

o glass specifically, with a lesser focus on food and packaging waste;

o the licensed retail trade specifically (with some data available for hotels but very limited data

available for restaurants, QSRs and other types of catering outlets);

o wastes for which easily accessible and commercially viable recycling services exist;

o the economics of changing waste collection procedures for waste collection organisations,

rather than for hospitality businesses; and

o businesses that have direct influence over their own waste management (rather than those for

whom waste is managed by a third party).

there is very limited information available on:

o difficult-to-manage wastes from the sector with the exception of oil and grease (especially

hazardous wastes);

o wastes that occur before the point of final disposal (especially packaging returned to

manufacturers and waste disposed of via a macerator);

o detailed attitudinal data at relevant decision-making points in businesses (e.g. many head

office businesses have waste recycling as a key priority, but few are able to actively enforce

this throughout all units. There is very little data that identifies why some units under the

management of the same head office implement waste management programmes and others

do not); and

o the different approaches to waste within the sector mapped onto different waste recycling

service provision and different levels of fee charging.

most of the compositional data that is available for the sector:

o is developed from very small sample sizes;

o has employed varying audit methodologies (e.g. auditing all waste or a sample of waste, visual

analysis of waste volumes and conversion of this data into weights);

o employs different materials definitions; and

o has rarely been correlated against key business performance criteria (e.g. occupancy for

hotels, number of meals served for restaurants), with the exception of the reports generated

for benchmarking purposes by hospitality businesses.

Most of the data that is presented across the sector as a whole:

o is based on very small samples, sometimes grossed up to represent the sector, using different

methodologies;

o uses methodologies that gross up making no allowance for seasonal fluctuations/volume of

trade etc.;

o is not representative of the range of different models of working across the sector (e.g.

tenanted, managed, facilities management contract); and

o makes no allowance for the patchwork of provision of waste recycling infrastructure and the

cost-effectiveness of engaging in these services across the country.

Details of all studies considered (i.e. key points from each study are listed)

Category 1 – Volume & composition of waste: multiple hospitality businesses in the UK

1. WRAP 2007. Glass collected from licensed premises: determination of how much glass is collected for

recycling from licensed premises. Banbury, WRAP:

o in 2006, 54% of licensed premises separated their glass waste from general waste. Although

figures show an increase in the amount of glass recycled (2006-7), previous figures (2004-5)

appeared to be overestimations, especially for the smaller premises, and did not match the

industry figures, indicating that licensed premises are not effectively monitoring their waste;

and

o special glass collectors and local authorities reported an increase in the amount of glass

collected for recycling in 2006 compared to 2005 as licensed premises were more aware of the

services available to them.


2. WRAP 2008. Hospitality sector glass collection. WRAP, Oakdene Hollins Ltd:

o the report focused on quantifying the level of glass container waste arising from the UK

hospitality sector to determine current recycling rates. Between 113,500 and 141,700 tonnes

of glass were recovered from the UK hospitality sector in 2007 with a mean recycling rate of

approximately 21%;

o 25% of the total UK container glass arisings are historically attributed to the hospitality sector,

yet its recycling rate has not risen much since the introduction of the 1997 Packaging Waste

Directive, i.e. in comparison to household glass recycling which has seen a dramatic rise since

then; and

o the study estimated total glass waste arisings in the UK hospitality sector at between 588,000

and 652,000 tonnes per year with beer, wine and soft drinks the main contributors and bottled

water cited as a notable generator.

3. Envirowise Guide. Better management of fats, oils and greases in the catering sector (GG809):

o a Good Practice guide to help catering premises of all types and sizes to improve their

management of fats, oils and greases based on volumes purchased and their appropriate

usage/disposal; and

o gives examples of ways in which restaurants, canteens etc. can reduce their use of fats and

oils and illustrates cost savings and other benefits of such good practice.

4. Oakdene Hollins Ltd 2008. Mapping waste in the food industry. Defra and the Food and Drink Federation:

o this report provides a snapshot of the level of food and packaging waste arising across the

Federation’s member companies during 2006 and its geographical distribution;

o overall, the quantity of food and packaging waste sent to landfill was modest, amounting to

16.5% of total tonnage or 138,000 tonnes of waste. Of the 835,000 tonnes of waste produced,

686,000 tonnes (82%) was recycled or recovered while 512,000 tonnes of potential waste was

avoided through the use of by-products such as animal feed; and

o mixed waste comprised only 135,000 tonnes but represented a much higher proportion of

landfilled waste (110,00 tonnes of the 138,000 tonnes).

Category 2 – Volume & composition of waste: multiple hospitality businesses with regional scope

(including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)

1. Thomas, C., Dacombe, P., Maycox, A., Banks, C., Khan, T. and Slater, R. 2007. Identification of key resource

streams in commercial & industrial waste from small businesses in the food sector. The Open University

Integrated Waste Systems Research Group: Milton Keynes.

o the report indicated the significance of the resource potential from the waste stream of SMEs

in the food manufacturing, wholesale and retail, and hospitality sectors in Hampshire;

o only 38% recycled, three-quarters of which is paper and card; and

o the report concluded that there is considerable opportunity for increasing recovery of the main

material constituents, particularly paper and card, food waste, plastic and glass.

2. Defra 2006. Food Industry Sustainability Strategy:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/fiss/pdf/fiss2006.pdf [accessed 21/01/09]:

o this Environment Agency survey estimated total industrial and commercial waste arisings in

England and Wales in 1998/99 to be 75 million tonnes, of which the food and drink (and

tobacco) manufacturing sector was responsible for 7 million tonnes;

o the survey also found that overall ‘food waste’ across all sectors was 2.6 million tonnes of

which 69% was recovered, reused or recycled, 25% was disposed of to landfill and the balance

was mainly sent for treatment; and

o paper and card waste from the food and drink (and tobacco) manufacturing sector was

233,000 tonnes, 4% of the national total.

3. Todd, M. and Hawkins, R. 2001. Waste counts: a handbook for accommodation operators. CESHI, Oxford

Brookes University:

o this handbook provides useful information for accommodation managers/owners concerning

the ways in which waste produced can be minimised and the associated costs of disposal and

handling managed; and

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/fiss/pdf/fiss2006.pdf


Category 3 – Volume/weight but not composition: multiple hospitality businesses in the UK

1. Food MarketWatch 2008. UK food and drink: failure to comply with environmental legislation could cost

manufacturers dearly. Food MarketWatch, Datamonitor:

o the article reports on a survey commissioned by the environmental guidance website NetRegs

indicating that the fast pace of change in UK environmental laws makes it difficult for small

food and drink manufacturers to cope with the legislation; and

o the food and drink manufacturing sector is the third highest producer of waste in the UK –

generating 3.4 million tonnes of waste in 2006, which means that the sector could prevent a

substantial portion of waste going to landfill by complying with the new rules.

Category 4 – Volume/weight but NOT composition: multiple hospitality businesses with regional

scope

No literature could be sourced covering this category.

Category 5 – Volume/composition of waste: one or two hospitality businesses

1. Envirowise 2008. Crannaig House. Scottish Tourist Businesses:

o case study of financial benefits of waste reduction/management;

o received Gold Award from Green Tourism Business Scheme; and

o reduction in volume of waste (60%) and utility usage led to cost savings (waste reduction

volumes > waste produced).

2. Envirowise 2008. Glencoe Cottages. Scottish Tourist Businesses:

o case study of financial benefits of recycling (diversion from landfill reduced waste volume by

21.5m3/£360 per year); and

o received Gold Award from Green Tourism Business Scheme.

3. Envirowise 2008. Slochd Mhor Lodge. Scottish Tourist Businesses:

o case study of financial benefits of recycling, reusing and careful purchasing (diversion from

landfill saved 24.1m3/£220 per year); and

o received Silver Award from Green Tourism Business Scheme.

4. Envirowise 2006. Holiday village saves by minimising water use and waste: a case study at Center Parcs,

Whinfell Forest:

o case study demonstrates the cost benefits of water efficiency and waste minimisation. Less

waste is sent to landfill (298 tonnes in 2004/05); and

o of 230 tonnes of waste recycled in 2004/05, 42.9% was paper/card and 56.6% glass. A

reduction in water use of 30,107m3 per year was also achieved.

5. Envirowise 2008. Hotel saves money with resource efficiency. Envirowise case study:

o this case study of Best Western Kings Manor Hotel, Edinburgh demonstrates the benefits of

maximising waste recycling and resource use efficiency;

o recycling of glass, cans, newspapers, cardboard and plastic bottles diverted around 50% of

waste from landfill and saved £1716 per year; and

o efficiency measures reduced water bills by £400 per year and energy consumption reduced by

10%, leading to total energy savings of £27,600 per year.

6. Envirowise 2006. Resource efficiency at a small hotel. Envirowise case study:

o a case study of Strattons Hotel demonstrating a commitment to eliminate, reduce, reuse and

recycle, with over 98% of all waste reused or recycled;

o describes how under 2% (9130kg) of the hotel’s waste is sent to landfill; and

o shows the annual breakdown of waste generated at the hotel.


7. Zero Waste Alliance 2002. Green hotels: opportunities and resources for success. Portland, Zero Waste

Alliance:

o discusses case studies that illustrate ways hotels reduce consumption of resources and change

practices so that the waste they produce can be used as raw material (i.e. zero waste); and

o quotes statistics from a waste generation study of 25 hotels giving a picture of the variety of

waste that can be produced by a small number of hotels in a city.

8. Travel Trade Gazette 2007. Talking rubbish – scream if you’re green: week 14 – hotels breeze into action.

Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland, United Business Media:

o this article focuses on Hilton Hotels and their new method of rubbish recycling, following Hilton

Glasgow which slashed waste to 49 tonnes between November and January (i.e. 24 tonnes

less than the same period the previous year) after the hotel installed colour-coded recycling

bins for paper, glass, oil and food.

9. InterContinental Hotels Group 2008. Energy saving at Holiday Inn, Basildon, UK: corporate responsibility –

case studies. Retrieved online at http://www.ihgplc.com/ [Accessed 18/01/2009]:

o this article illustrates the variety of initiatives that InterContinental Hotels Group has

implemented within its corporate responsibility umbrella; and

o the Holiday Inn, Basildon, UK received the Environmental Awareness Award in the large

company category at the 12th Annual Basildon Business Awards because of its 22% reduction

in gas use and 6% cut in electricity use.

10. InterContinental Hotels Group 2008. Crowne Plaza London St James wins water reduction award: corporate

responsibility – case studies. Retrieved online at http://www.ihgplc.com/ [Accessed 18/01/2009]:

o as part of the Considerate Hotel of the Year Awards, the Crowne Plaza London St James Hotel

won the Envirowise Water Management Challenge for achieving a 48% reduction in the

amount of water consumed per guest per night, without compromising the quality of guest

facilities or customer service but through a commitment to improve water efficiency and

environmental performance in all areas of operation.

11. Marriott 2008. Water, waste & energy reduction. Retrieved online at

http://www.marriott.com/marriott.mi?page=green_reduction [Accessed 18/01/2009]:

o Marriott plans to reduce its environmental footprint by: committing to reducing its fuel and

water consumption by an additional 25% per available room over the next 10 years; installing

solar power at up to 40 hotels by 2017; and expanding existing ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’

programmes already in place in 90% of its hotels.

12. Thomas 2007. Marriott to take part in Environmental Awareness Month. Caterersearch. Retrieved online at

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007 [Accessed 18/01/2009]:

o Marriott is on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 20% over the 10 years to

2010. It launched a pilot programme at 30 hotels to measure, standardise and expand

recycling companywide; and

o currently more than 96% of Marriott hotels actively recycle and, in the UK, all hotels and the

company’s regional office have recycling programmes in place.

13. Accor 2007. The spirit of smiles: 2007 annual report. Retrieved online at http://www.accor.com/gb

[Accessed 17/01/2009]:

o under the Earth Guest program, one of Accor’s eight priorities is effective waste management

by recycling more and better and reducing the amounts of waste produced. Accor plans to

reduce consumption of water and energy by 10% and fit out 200 hotels with solar panels.

Accor will also introduce waste-sorting programmes in all its hotels in Europe.

14. Whitbread plc 2006. Our waste management and recycling – Whitbread plc environment report 2004/05:

o Whitbread has a central contract to handle waste disposed of to landfill but the company also

comprehensively monitors numbers and types of waste containers at site level to help

maximise the opportunity to capture recyclable material;

o in its highlights of the year 2004/05, recycling increased with cardboard recycling going up in

restaurants by 116% and glass recycling going up by 34%.

http://www.ihgplc.com/

http://www.ihgplc.com/

http://www.marriott.com/marriott.mi?page=green_reduction

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007

http://www.accor.com/gb


15. Caterersearch 2007. 10 ways to make your hotel greener. Retrieved online at:

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007/10/25/316809/10-ways-to-make-your-hotel-greener.html

[Accessed 21/01/09]:

o highlights the need to recycle and points out the 365-bedroom Hilton Heathrow which was

commended for its waste policy by the Considerate Hoteliers Association in its annual awards.

Glass, paper, oil, toner cartridges, cardboard, plastic, batteries, cans and light bulbs are

recycled. Old furniture is given away, food is processed through a macerator into a waste drain

and garden waste is cut up and used as compost. All this resulted in the hotel sending only

125 tonnes of waste to landfill in 2006 for the 62,000 guests who visited (i.e. a reduction of 12

tonnes from the year before).

16. Countryside Agency 2000. Green audit kit version 2. Retrieved online at

http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/CA%2025%20-%20Green%20Audit%20Kit1.pdf [Accessed

21/01/09]:

o a Case study of Sandy Balls, a 25-acre holiday centre for touring vans, static holiday homes

and pine log chalets, which has over 20 recycling ‘hides’ and a policy to encourage source

separation of recyclable materials from refuse generated by visitors. The volume of non-

recyclable waste has been reduced by 28% from 1996 levels and the visibility of the project

has increased visitor awareness of the environmental work of the company.

17. Perth & Kinross Council 2006. Waste minimisation case study – Tower Hotel. Scottish Organic Services:

o this article explains how recycling rates have gone up at the Tower Hotel under new ownership

which targets separate collection of wastes. Some 3.6m3 of materials are recycled monthly

comprising 1920l of glass , 400l of cardboard, 140l of paper, 480l of cans, 300l of organic

kitchen waste , 40l of vegetable oil and 240l of plastic milk bottles.

18. Environment Agency 2008. Whitbread plc: Project Water. Retrieved online at http://www.environment-

agency.gov.uk/business/topics/ [Accessed 20/01/2009]:

o this article explains how successfully Whitbread has put energy and water efficiency on the

business agendas of all its operations under ‘Project Water’; and

o savings of more than 330,000m3 of water per year have been made, amounting to £35,000 of

business savings.

19. Accelerated Compost 2008. University of Salford, Greater Manchester:

o this is a case study of the University of Salford which has a number of catering facilities dotted

around the campus. Food waste became an issue as dirty, smelly bins attracted vermin and

waste disposal costs were rising;

o with the A500 Rocket in-vessel composter, food waste is recycled on-site without the need to

segregate it. The A500 Rocket was a huge success and diverts around 19 tonnes of food waste

from landfill each year. Two machines save 57 tonnes per year; and

o collecting other recyclables reduced the number of bins needed. Cardboard from the catering

facilities is one of the largest waste streams on-site and five 1100l bins of cardboard are

recycled each week.

20. Accelerated Compost 2008. The National Trust: Cotehele National Trust Estate, Saltash

o this article is based on the assessment of the impact of climate change on National Trust

houses, gardens, coast, countryside and the wider environment, but focuses on a case study of

Cotehele where the biggest contributor to unusable waste is from the catering section; and

o in 2006, the A500 Rocket in-vessel composter was installed to significantly reduce waste and

to produce garden compost. In the first year, around 31,000l of waste was processed through

the composter, which reduced potential waste to landfill by 15 tonnes. Cotehele is one of four

National Trust estates now using the Rocket.

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007/10/25/316809/10-ways-to-make-your-hotel-greener.html

http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/CA%2025%20-%20Green%20Audit%20Kit1.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/


21. Accelerated Compost 2008. Canolfan Conwy Centre, Anglesey

o in this case study, increased waste collection costs became apparent, with 13 1100l bins and

four 800l bins, after an eco-audit. Following the eco-audit, an Environmental Committee was

formed to reduce energy consumption, reduce unrecyclable plastic waste and increase

recycling where possible;

o as a result, heating efficiency increased from 76% to 93% whilst the amount of utility/recycling

has been reduced due to the use of a compactor and a Rocket in-vessel composter. By the end

of 2006, the amount of material being recycled annually was: cardboard 353.6m3; paper

50m3; glass 132.6m3; and plastic bottles 136.08m3; and

o in 2007, the Centre was awarded the Environmental Management System Award for the Public

Sector in the Welsh Sustainability Awards.

22. ARAMARK 2008. Environmental stewardship. Retrieved online at http://www.aramark.com/ [Accessed

19/01/2009]:

o this article explains that ARAMARK, as a member of the Laundry Environmental Stewardship

Program (LaundryESP), has contributed to the reduction of the industry’s water use by

approximately 12%, energy use by 10% and pollutant discharge by 40%.

23. Cummings 2008. Initiatives: sustainability – stage by stage. Retrieved online at

http://www.sustainablefacility.com/

o this article details the measures that ARAMARK Facility Services has taken to reduce the

company’s environmental impact; and

o ARAMARK Facility Services recycles 100% of office paper every other week, approximately 18

large bales of corrugated cardboard are recycled per month and 364 tonnes of garbage are

incinerated to produce 650,000MW of electricity per year.

24. J D Wetherspoon 2007. Bringing you the best UK pubs and the best ale and wine festivals – awards and

accolades. Retrieved online at http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/awards/ [Accessed 24/01/09]:

o this article talks about Wetherspoon’s award for the ‘high-street recycling champion’.

Wetherspoon is praised for nationwide recycling initiatives across the entire pub chain; and

o Wetherspoon is annually recycling 1600 tonnes of used cooking oil, 3100 tonnes of cardboard,

200 tonnes of paper and 100 tonnes of plastic and aluminium.

25. J D Wetherspoon 2007. Bringing you the best UK pubs and the best ale and wine festivals – Corporate Social

Responsibility. Retrieved online at http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/social-responsibility/environment.php


o Wetherspoon does all it can to recycle ordinary materials such as cans, glass and paper, but

also recycles items such as cooking oil. Each year the company aims to recycle more and

figures for the years 2004 to 2006 indicate a steady increase of recycled materials from 2359

tonnes in 2004/05, to 3734 tonnes in 2005/06 and 5078 tonnes in 2006/07;

o Wetherspoon is also working closely with all its suppliers to reduce the amount of packaging

initially by 2% and the pub has been recognised for its efforts in recycling at two of the UK’s

major recycling events: the Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport Annual Awards of

Excellence 2006: Environmental Improvement – 2nd place: and the National Recycling Awards

2005: Best Retail Recycling Initiative – highly recommended.

26. Business Travelogue 2008. Hilton Hotels Sustainability Plan. Retrieved online at

http://www.businesstravellogue.com/travel-tips/hilton-hotels-sustainability-plan.html [Accessed 18/01/09]:

o this article provides some data about Hilton Hotels’ current practices whereby, under

sustainability projects, water consumption has been reduced by 10% in the last two years in

the UK. The introduction of carbon-free electricity has reduced CO2 emissions in participating

Hilton Hotels by more than 64,000 tonnes per year, or 56% of carbon footprint; and

o according to new plans, the hotels aim to reduce output of waste by 20%, reduce water

consumption by 10%, reduce energy consumption from direct operations by 20% and reduce

CO2 emissions by 20%.

http://www.aramark.com/

http://www.sustainablefacility.com/

http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/awards/

http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/social-responsibility/environment.php

http://www.businesstravellogue.com/travel-tips/hilton-hotels-sustainability-plan.html


27. Marston's 2007. Environmental report 2007 – waste:

o Marston’s produced around 31,500 tonnes of waste in total in the 12 months to March 2007, of

which 14,501 tonnes came from brewing processes and 16,999 tonnes came from managed

pubs. Of this total, 44% was recycled and the remaining 56% was sent to landfill; and

o 88% of the waste produced by breweries is recycled. Some of the waste, such as malt and

hops, is recycled as animal feed after brewing. Other wastes such as glass, metals, cardboard,

paper and polythene are disposed of through recycling contractors.

28. Mitchells & Butlers 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: environment. Retrieved online at

http://www.mitchells-butler.com [Accessed 24/01/09]:

o this review explains Mitchells & Butlers’ commitment to minimising the impact of their business

on the environment through energy efficiency and recycling practices across its businesses;

and

o in 2008, significant improvements were made in recycling with around 75% of retail estate

recycling glass and cardboard. Mitchells & Butlers’ pubs have thus recycled 50% more waste in

2008 (over 21,000 tonnes) compared to 14,000 tonnes in 2007. 1800 tonnes of used cooking

oil from pubs has also been converted into biodiesel, reducing UK CO2 emissions by around

6000 tonnes per year.

29. Enterprise Inns 2008. Carbon management - Head Office. Retrieved online at

http://www.enetrpriseinns.com/Investors/CSR/Environment/Pages/ [Accessed 24/01/09]:

o Enterprise Inns are targeting annual reductions of approximately 10% of carbon footprint each

year, which resulted in reducing carbon footprint by 98 metric tonnes of CO2. Energy

consumption at head office reduced by 56kWh/m2; and

o in line with WEEE regulations, 100% recycling of toner cartridges is carried out.

30. South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) 2002. Sustainable Business Awards: Shepherd Neame

Ltd. Retrieved online at www.seeda.co.uk

o Shepherd Neame Ltd, the first UK brewery to be awarded ISO 14001 in October 2000, was

recognised for its achievement in the efficient use of resources as part of its strategy. The

company was the winner in the Resource Efficiency category of the Kent Environment Awards

for Business 2001; and

o water usage was reduced by 7 million gallons per year, whilst packaging material reduced

cardboard weight by 21% and glass by 11%. Energy was also reduced by 19%.

31. WRAP and Hotel Catering and International Management Association (HCIMA). Novotel London West’s

recycling policy. Retrieved online at http://recyclenowpartners.org.uk/research_fun_facts/fun_facts.html

o a case study of Novotel London West, part of the Accor Hotel Group which ran a waste audit

and identified key materials for recycling: cardboard, paper, glass, cooking oil, cans, printer

cartridges, plastic bottles, light bulbs and batteries; and

o the hotel recycles around 20% of the total waste stream, which amounts to approximately 100

tonnes every year.

32. WRAP and HCIMA. Four Pillars, Witney.Retrieved online at

http://recyclenowpartners.org.uk/research_fun_facts/fun_facts.html

o at this hotel, it was discovered that cardboard packaging was taking up too much space in the

bins. The hotel purchased a cardboard baler and was able to sell on the compacted and baled

cardboard for recycling at around £10 per tonne. The baler paid for itself within nine months.

http://www.mitchells-butler.com/

http://www.enetrpriseinns.com/Investors/CSR/Environment/Pages/

http://www.seeda.co.uk/




Category 6 – General composition surveys (includes hospitality data within wider datasets)

1. SLR 2007. Determination of the biodegradability of mixed industrial and commercial waste landfilled in

Wales. SLR Consulting Limited, Wales:

o a study assessing the biodegradability of mixed industrial and commercial wastes landfilled

within Wales;

o the survey analysed 160 samples: 142 of waste landfilled directly, or with low levels of

diversion at a transfer station, and 18 of waste landfilled following high diversion at a transfer

station. This amounted to 41.5 tonnes of sampled materials; and

o cardboard boxes and containers constituted the largest component at 15%, whilst kitchen

waste was second at 13%.

2. Urban Mines 2007. Study to fill evidence gaps for commercial & industrial waste streams in the North West

region of England. North West Regional Technical Advisory Board (NWRTAB), Urban Mines:

o this study aimed to inform the need for new regional and sub-regional waste facilities, the

development of waste planning strategies and waste planning decisions; and

o the survey looked at all waste generated on a company’s site that was sent off-site for

treatment, disposal or recycling, and hazardous and non-hazardous waste, plus the waste

management method used for each waste (e.g. landfill, recycling) and the contractor used.

3. Mintel 2008. Waste management (industrial report): UK – December 2008. Mintel, MBD Limited:

o this report defines and analyses the sources of waste arising in the UK, and the collection,

treatment and disposal of that waste, particularly the collection and disposal of domestic,

commercial, industrial, building and demolition refuse which can be defined broadly as the

element of waste that is available to commercial contractors;

o commercial waste arising is from trade or business activities, including sport, recreation,

education or entertainment, excluding municipal, industrial, construction and demolition

activities;

o landfill remains the main method of managing most of the UK’s waste. With approximately

80% of UK waste being directed to landfill, in spite of the EU Landfill Directive and associated

Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, and a small amount going to recycling and the

rest to incineration;

o by 2012, waste collected from the commercial/industrial sector is anticipated to decline by a

marginal level to 61.9 million tonnes;

o the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) suggested that the UK will need 1700 new facilities of a

range of sizes by 2012 at a cost of £10 billion to treat, recycle and dispose of waste in order to

meet the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive; and

o initiatives such as Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) and WRAP are also cited as

helping to develop markets for reusable materials, hence increasing the amount the UK

recycles.

4. Mintel 2008. Waste arisings: waste management (industrial report) – UK December 2008. Mintel, MBD

Limited:

o this report focuses on the amount of waste arising in the UK, which is believed to have

increased marginally during 2007 to an estimated 337 million tonnes. The industrial sector

accounted for about 20%, with a decline of 1% since 2003, whilst the commercial sector is

believed to have accounted for 5% and remained relatively constant between 2006 and 2007.

o the increase in the commercial sector is attributed to: increased use of paper along with the

computerisation of offices and the associated computer printouts; the continued high use of

packaging materials, estimated to account for 5.6 million tonnes of commercial waste; the high

proportional importance of fast-food packaging collected at street bins; and the continued and

increasing use of packaging materials by catering types of outlets; and

o an analysis of the packaging element of commercial waste in 2007 indicated that paper

represented the largest share at 75% (or 4.2 tonnes) of commercial packaging waste, whilst

plastic accounted for the second-largest share of commercial packaging waste at 13%. Glass

came third at 8%. Notably, 13 million tonnes of paper was consumed in the UK in 2004, of

which only 36% was recycled and 5 million tonnes was directed to landfill.


5. Mintel 2008. Waste disposal: waste management (industrial report) – UK December 2008. Mintel, MBD

Limited:

o the principal method of controlled waste disposal in the UK is landfill. However, since October

1996, there has been a tax on landfill.

o data on waste disposal licences up to 2002 indicates that there were 8905 disposal licences in

operation in England, Wales and Scotland, of which 34% were for landfill sites; and

o other operational waste management licences include: civic amenity, transfer, storage,

treatment, incineration, material recycling, metal recycling, end-of-life vehicles (ELVs),

compost, mobile plant.

6. Mintel 2008. Waste treatment: waste management (industrial report) – UK December 2008. Mintel, MBD

Limited:

o most waste collected in the UK is disposed of to landfill sites without prior treatment but, since

the Landfill Directive, it is required that all hazardous waste must (as of July 2004) be treated

prior to landfill and all non-hazardous waste must (as of October 2007) undergo pre-

treatment;

o according to Defra, the proportion of municipal waste disposed of at landfill sites in England

was reduced from 75% in 2002/03 to 58% in 2006/07. In Wales, it was reduced from 87% in

2002/03 to 68% in 2006/07. In Scotland 73% was disposed of to landfill in 2005/06, whilst in

Northern Ireland landfill disposal was reported to be 74% in 2006/07; and

o an analysis of the estimated treatment and disposal of waste that typically comprises the

commercial contracting market indicated that the volume of pre-treated waste was 51.2 million

tonnes in 2007, representing 42% of total waste. Compacting, which is considered the most

important method of waste treatment, represented 23.2 million tonnes (or 19%), whilst

reclamation, considered the second most important method of waste treatment, accounted for

13.4 million tonnes in 2007. Other forms of waste treatment were considered too small to have

an impact.

7. Environment and Heritage Service 2008. Review of municipal waste component analysis:

o this report aimed at determining the composition of municipal waste in Northern Ireland in

order to review the biodegradable municipal waste fraction for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

there; and

o organic non-catering, paper and glass make the biggest contribution to municipal waste in

Northern Ireland at 25.77%, 15.93% and 14.59% respectively.

8. Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) 2007. Waste arisings. Retrieved online at

http://www.ciwm.org.uk/pm/485 [Accessed 25/01/09]:

o this web page provides data on municipal waste in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern

Ireland for 2003/04;

o in England, 29.1 million tonnes of MSW was generated, 72% being sent to landfill, 19% sent

for recycling/compositing and 9% for incineration/energy from waste (EfW). In Scotland, 3.32

million tonnes of MSW was generated, 85.4% being sent to landfill, 2.2% for incineration/EfW

and 12.4% for recycling. In Wales, 1.83 million tonnes of MSW was generated, 82.4% being

sent to landfill and 17.6% for recycling/composting. In Northern Ireland, 1.05 million tonnes of

MSW was generated, 82.9% being sent to landfill and 17.1% recycled and composted; and

o for industrial and commercial waste arisings, England produced 70 million tonnes, Wales

produced approximately 7 million tonnes, Scotland 5 million tonnes and Northern Ireland

approximately 1 million tonnes.

9. Alupro 2008. The industry organisation: facts and figures. Retrieved online at

http://www.alupro.org.uk/facts%20and%20figures.htm [Accessed 25/01/2009]:

o this article concerns getting into the habit of recycling aluminium can and foil, because the

recycling process uses only 5% of the energy used in making the metal for the first time; and

o annual UK consumption of aluminium is estimated at 900,000 tonnes, with packaging

accounting for 21% of that.

http://www.ciwm.org.uk/pm/485

http://www.alupro.org.uk/facts%20and%20figures.htm


10. Defra 2005. Producer responsibility obligations (packaging waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended):

o the data presented is on packaging handled and as provided by obligated businesses to the

relevant agencies (the Environment Agency, SEPA and the Northern Ireland Environment and

Heritage Service), whilst estimated tonnage of packaging in the waste stream comes from the

trade organisations responsible for each packaging material. Data on recovery and recycling

achieved comes from accredited reprocessors and exporters.

11. CIWM 2005. National Waste Strategy for England: 2005 review - lessons learned report and position

statement. SLR Consulting Limited:

o this review set out the position of the CIWM on the Waste Strategy 2000 and the extent to

which it had delivered to date on the objectives and targets contained therein; and

o one major outcome of the CIWM review was the recommendation of the need to give equal

weight to non-municipal wastes (which represent over 90% of the total controlled waste

stream) as municipal wastes (representing less than 10% of the total) in respect of the policy,

targets and objectives. Too great a focus on municipal waste was, it said, to the detriment of

other waste streams.

12. Enviros Consulting Ltd 2009. Market development study for the East Midlands. Banbury, WRAP:

o this study assessed regional waste arisings, existing infrastructure capacity and markets for

recyclates, and the gap between current capacity and future capacity requirements, in order to

identify market development activities to support the economic development of the East

Midlands;

o the report notes that wastes from the hospitality sector contain significant quantities of food

waste, plastic, glass and paper/card packaging, and that the sector traditionally has recycled

little of this waste due to limitations on space to store and segregate waste into different

materials; and

o a final point was that there did not appear to be regional support available to assist the

hospitality sector in recycling their waste.

13. Environment and Heritage Service 2007. Commercial & industrial waste arisings survey 2004/05. Retrieved

online at www.ehsni.gov.uk [Accessed 20/01/09]:

o this report indicates that the most common waste management option for industrial and

commercial waste in Northern Ireland is landfill, which accounts for about 998,245 tonnes or

64% of the total; and

o analysis of the composition of waste produced by businesses in Northern Ireland in 2004/05

showed that the most common waste material is mixed waste, which consists of paper,

cardboard, kitchen waste and metals and accounts for 580,166 tonnes or 37% of the total.

This is followed by packaging waste at 299,648 tonnes or 19% of the total and then waste

from thermal processes at 172,540 tonnes or 11% of the total.

14. Napier University 2008. Estimation of commercial and industrial waste produced in Scotland in 2006: final

report to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Centre for Statistics:

o this report estimates that the total industrial and commercial waste produced in Scotland in

2006 was 7.64 million tonnes. The analysis shows that the amount of commercial waste

generated is substantially larger than the amount of industrial waste; and

o in terms of business sectors, hotels & restaurants came third in the tonnage of waste produced

at 591,659 tonnes, which is 7.7% of the total. In first and second place were retail &

wholesale with 34% and miscellaneous business & service activities at 15.3% respectively.

15. Napier University 2006. Estimation of commercial and industrial waste produced in Scotland in 2004: final

report to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Centre for Statistics:

o compared to the 2008 report, this estimated a higher industrial and commercial waste total of

8.96 million tonnes produced in Scotland.

http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/


16. Eunomia 2008. Regional biowastes management study: summary report. East of England Regional

Assembly:

o this study investigated the potential future requirement for additional treatment capacity for

separately collected biowastes from the municipal, commercial and industrial waste streams;

and

o an estimate of the arisings and availability of biowastes from catering (i.e. hotels, restaurants,

pubs/bars) within the East of England region is 135,000 tonnes per year, with 68% being

generated by restaurants. It is assumed that, although very limited amounts are currently

being captured, all arisings go to landfill.

17. SEPA. Waste data digest 8: key facts and trends. Retrieved online at http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste-

data.aspx [Accessed 24/01/08]:

o this booklet presents data on arisings, recovery and disposal of municipal, commercial and

industrial wastes in Scotland. Between 2004/05 and 2006/07 the total waste arisings for

Scotland increased by 18%; and

o there was a 21% decrease in commercial waste arisings from 2004/05 to 2006/07, unlike the

other sectors where volumes either increased or were consistent.

18. Letsrecycle 2009. Scottish plastics recycling fund launched. Retrieved online at http://www.letsrecycle.com/


o this article talks about a £5 million capital grants scheme aimed at improving Scottish plastics

recycling infrastructure as part of a zero waste plan; and

o it is suggested that only 10% of waste plastics collected in Scotland are reprocessed within the

country, with the rest sent to plant in England or exported to China.

19. Environment Agency 2005. C&I survey 2002/3: Wales – waste type & disposal/recovery options:

o this survey provides data related to waste management by sector name and region. Out of a

total of 5,271,000 tonnes of waste managed by the three regions in Wales (i.e. disposed of,

recovered, reused, recycled, thermally treated, transferred, treated and unrecorded), the

hotels & catering sector accounted for 184,700 tonnes, of which 91,800 tonnes was disposed

of to landfill, 7200 tonnes was recovered , 14,000 tonnes was reused, 64,000 tonnes was

recycled, 1100 was thermally treated, 3800 was transferred, 1500 tonnes was treated and 400

tonnes was unrecorded.

20. Dawson & Probert 2007. A sustainable product needing a sustainable procurement commitment: the case of

Green Waste in Wales. Sustainable Development 5, 69-82:

o this article focuses on how green waste compost can become an accepted and viable product

in Wales and suggests how sustainable procurement initiatives could be used to facilitate the

inclusion of green waste compost in contract specifications;

o the context of the study is the Landfill Directive which introduces a maximum disposal figure

for all EU Member States with regard to the landfilling of biodegradable waste. In 1999/2000

Wales landfilled approximately 1,038.000 tonnes of biodegradable municipal waste. At 2%

growth rate, it is estimated that 1,258,000 tonnes of biodegradable municipal waste will need

to be diverted from Welsh landfill by 2020; and

o based on the Wise About Waste strategy, Wales must achieve a 40% recycling/composting

rate with a minimum of 15% compositing and a minimum of 15% recycling. This is different

from the English strategy which seeks to recover value from waste either by recycling or by

composting according to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

(2000).

http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste-data.aspx

http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste-data.aspx


21. Milne 2006. UK carbon trading proposed. Utility Week, 11/17/2006, 26:10, 6;

o the Energy Performance Commitment (EPC) scheme for organisations such as major retail

chains using more than 3GWh of electricity was proposed by the UK government as one way to

ensure they cut carbon emissions by 1.2 million tonnes by 2020;

o an alternative policy option by Defra is a system of voluntary reporting of emissions and

energy performance and voluntary benchmarking of this performance against comparable

activities. This approach would be developed for specific sectors such as hotels, supermarkets

and offices; and

o it was noted that there is limited experience of benchmarking schemes in the UK but that such

initiatives have proved successful in other countries.

22. Defra 2007. Report of the Food Industry Sustainability Strategy Champions' Group on Waste. Retrieved

online at www.defra.gov.uk

o this report provides 24 recommendations that arose out of assessing the Food Industry

Sustainability Strategy (FISS) published in 2006 based on six industry-led champions’ groups;

and

o the report suggests that the food industry generates about 10 million tonnes of waste, which is

about 10% of the industrial and commercial waste stream. The main focus was on the food

manufacturing and food retail sectors, whilst the food service and food wholesale subsectors

were considered to a lesser extent.

23. WRAP 2007. Realising the value of recovered plastics. Banbury, WRAP:

o based on a market analysis, this report focuses primarily on the recycling of packaging plastics;

and

o data suggests that 22% of plastic packaging is recycled in the UK and, to meet the target of a

24% rate by 2010, a further 70,000 tonnes of material needs to be recovered per year.

24. WRAP 2007. Realising the value of recovered paper. Banbury, WRAP:

o based on a market analysis, this report focuses primarily on recovered paper;

o over the previous three years, the collection rate of recovered paper is estimated to have

grown by 10% and then slowed to only 3% in 2006; and

o 55% of paper and board consumed in the UK is collected for recycling.

25. WRAP 2008. Realising the value of organic waste. Banbury, WRAP:

o based on a market analysis, this report focuses primarily on organic waste;

o UK annual organic waste is estimated to be around 25 million tonnes, mainly split between

food waste and garden waste; and

o the majority of organic material recovered for composting is garden waste, with a rapid

increase in garden waste kerbside collections offered by local authorities over previous years.

26. WRAP 2008. Realising the value of recovered glass: an update. Banbury, WRAP:

o based on a market analysis, this report focuses primarily on glass;

o glass recovery increased over the previous year with around 1.5 million tonnes of container

glass being recycled by June 2008; and

o municipal glass collections rose by 30% in 2006/07 to almost 1.2 million tonnes; however,

meeting Defra targets for 2008 to 2010 would mean overall recovered glass volumes might

need to reach 1.8 million tonnes by 2010.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/


27. Valpak 2005. PackFlow 2008: UK compliance with the 2008 targets of the European Packaging & Packaging

Waste Directive, Volume 1: project report. Retrieved online at:

http://www.valpak.co.uk/docs/packaging/packflow_2008_vol_1.pdf [Accessed 21/01/09]:

o this report focuses on the UK’s packaging recycling performance and examining the

contributions made by individual packaging materials;

o paper/card packaging is the dominant material in terms of its contribution towards overall

recycling tonnages; the tonnages of glass and plastics that have been recycled have both more

than doubled since 1998, with glass recycling exceeding 1 million tonnes per year for the first

time at the time of the report; aluminium recycling too has more than doubled, but the growth

in steel recycling has been rather less, whilst wood recycling has been more volatile with no

consistent growth pattern;

o between 1998 and 2004, the recovery of packaging waste in the UK increased progressively

from 32.6% in 1998 to 55.5% in 2004. Recycling also improved from 28.2% in 1998 to 49.6%

in 2004;

o in particular, material recycling for paper rose from -3.9% in 1999 to 4.5% in 2004; glass rose

from 15.6% in 1999 to 22.7% in 2000, then declined to 7.2% and -2.5% in 2001 and 2002

respectively before rising again to 15.3% and 21.6% in 2003 and 2004 respectively. On the

other hand, plastic started at 58.1% in 1999, dropped to 3% in 2000, rose again to 32.1% and

33.5% in 2001 and 2002 respectively, but dropped heavily again to -10.9% in 2003, with only

7.2% recycled in 2004;

o almost 80% of packaging recycling was derived from industrial and commercial sources in

2000, at 2,637,300 tonnes compared to 709,000 tonnes from households;

o UK business targets for 2006 to 2008 show that the tonnage of packaging waste recovered

through EfW plant increased from about 450,000 tonnes in 1998 to 600,000 tonnes in 2003,

and operational EfW capacity was expected to increase from 3.1 million tonnes per year to

more than 5 million tonnes per year by 2008.

28. Environment Agency 2007. National Packaging Waste Database: summary of recovery and recycling 2008:

o this business waste survey provides data on the amount of waste accepted for UK reprocessing

and waste exported for overseas reprocessing for three-quarters of the year 2008. The figures

show that the total waste accepted or exported steadily increased from 1,726,753 tonnes in

the first quarter to 1,787,460 tonnes in the third (i.e. total recovery including recycling).

29. Environment Agency 2007. National Packaging Waste Database: summary of recovery and recycling 2007:

o this business waste survey provides data on the amount of waste accepted for UK reprocessing

and waste exported for overseas reprocessing for four quarters of the year 2007. The figures

show that the total waste accepted or exported steadily increased from 1,668,920 tonnes in

the first quarter to 1,751,597 tonnes in the fourth (i.e. total recovery including recycling).

30. Environment and Heritage Service 2001. Commercial & industrial waste arisings survey 1999/2000.

Retrieved online at www.ehsni.gov.uk [Accessed 20/01/09]:

o the quantity of waste produced in Northern Ireland within industry and commerce was

between 389,000 and 676,000 tonnes in the year 2000, with retail trade producing 9.8% of

the total;

o by material composition, the most commonly produced waste is mixed waste which is 50% of

all waste produced and typically consists of paper, cardboard, kitchen waste and metals (i.e.

rarely hazardous); and

o 61% of waste in the year 2000 went to landfill.

31. Department of the Environment 2005. Towards resource management: the Northern Ireland Waste

Management Strategy 2006-2020:

o this is a report on a review of the Northern Ireland waste strategy largely based on the policy

measures identified in the first waste management strategy of 2000 and updated to address

emerging legislation and key issues raised by stakeholders.

http://www.valpak.co.uk/docs/packaging/packflow_2008_vol_1.pdf

http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/


32. Urban Mines 2008. Commercial and industrial waste data analysis of the North West region. NWRTAB:

o this analysis sought to improve understanding of recycling and recovery potential by sector,

waste substance and geographical location to aid market development for the collection, reuse,

recycling and recovery of waste materials currently going to landfill; and

o there is potential for 2.5 million tonnes of additional recycling and 2 million tonnes that could

be used for energy recovery. 80% of wastes that are recyclable but currently landfilled are

generated in the commercial sector, paper and card being the most prominent. 83% of

recoverable waste for energy is also in the commercial sector.


Bibliography of all published literature sourced in the public domain

Publication Relevant?

Accor 2006. Accor Hotels Environmental Charter Practical Guide. online

http://www.accor.com/gb/upload/pdf/guide_env/Accor_guide_GB.pdf [Accessed 21/01/2009] N

Accor 2007. The spirit of smiles: 2007 annual report. http://www.accor.com/gb [Accessed

17/01/2009] Y

Alupro 2008. The industry organisation: facts and figures.

http://www.alupro.org.uk/facts%20and%20figures.htm [Accessed 25/01/2009] Y

Bailey and Rupp 2004. Politics, industry and the regulation of industrial greenhouse-gas

emissions in the UK & Germany. European Environment 14, 235-250. N

Baker, C. 2008. A welcome sign: hotels adopt reuse and recycling. http://www.waste-

management-world.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARC… [Accessed 18/01/09] Y

BBC News 2008. Food waste on 'staggering' scale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7389351.stm Y

Bohdanowicz, Simanic and Martinac 2005. Sustainable hotels: environmental reporting. The

Green Globe: World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005. N

Burgos-Jimenez, J., Cano-Guillen, C.J. and Cespedes-Lorente, J. 2002. Planning and control of

environmental performance in hotels. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10:3. N

Caterer & Hotelkeeper 2007. 10 ways to make your hotel greener. Caterersearch.

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007/10/25/316809/10-ways-to-make-your-hotel-

greener.html [Accessed 21/01/09]

Y

CESHI. What's worth £9m and gets chucked in a large hole in the ground?

http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/groups/files/Publicans_Guide.pdf Y

Chan and Mak 2005. An analysis of the environmental reporting structures of selected

European airlines. International Journal of Tourism Research, 7, 249-259. N

Chan, K.T., Lee, R.H.K. and Burnett, J. 2001. Maintenance performance: a case study of

hospitality engineering systems. Facilities, 19:13/14, 494-504. N

CIWM 2005. National Waste Strategy for England: 2005 review - lessons learned report and

position statement. SLR Consulting Limited. Y

CIWM 2007. CIWM’s responses to the review of England’s Waste Strategy May 2006 compared

to Waste Strategy for England 2007. N

CIWM 2007. Waste arisings. http://www.ciwm.org.uk/pm/485 [Accessed 25/01/09]

Cockshott, M. 2008. Daniel Thwaites Brewery: Environmental Statement Jan 2008. Daniel

Thwaites Brewery. N

Collins, O’Doherty and Snell 2006. Household participation in waste recycling: some national

survey evidence from Scotland. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 49 (1), 121-

140.

N

Coskeran and Phillips 2004. Economic appraisal & evaluation of UK waste minimisation clubs:

proposals to inform the design of sustainable clubs. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 43,

361-374.

N

Countryside Agency 2000. Green audit kit: investing in your business and the environment.

West Yorkshire, Countryside Agency Publications. Y

Countryside Agency 2000. Green audit kit version 2.

http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/CA%2025%20-%20Green%20Audit%20Kit1.pdf

[Accessed 21/01/09]

Y

Dawson and Probert 2007. A sustainable product needing a sustainable procurement

commitment: the case of green waste in Wales. Sustainable Development, 15, 69-82. Y

Defra 2006. Food Industry Sustainability Strategy.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/fiss/pdf/fiss2006.pdf [Accessed 21/01/09] Y

Defra 2007. Environment protection: waste in the UK.

http://www.defra.govr.uk/environment/waste/about/ [Accessed 25/01/09] N

Defra 2007. Report of the Food Industry Sustainability Strategy Champions' Group on Waste.

www.defra.gov.uk Y

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7389351.stm

http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/groups/files/Publicans_Guide.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/



Defra 2008. Business Efficiency Resource and Waste Programme: metric results for 2006/07.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/support/pdf/0607-metrics-results-paper.pdf N

Defra 2008. Designing waste facilities: a guide to modern design in waste.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/pdf/designing-waste-facilities-guide.pdf N

Department of Environment Northern Ireland 2005. Towards resource management: the

Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy 2006-2020. Y

Defra (2005). Producer responsibility obligations (packaging waste) Regulations 1997 (as

amended). Y

Dewhurst and Thomas 2003. Encouraging sustainable business practices in a non-regulatory

environment: a case study of small tourism firms in a UK National Park. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 11, 5.

N

Diggleman and Ham 2003. Household food waste to waste water? That is the question. Waste

Management & Research, 21, 501. N

East Midlands Development Agency 2008. Cutting out waste in food and drink. The Food

Processing Faraday. N

Emery et al. 2003. An in-depth study of the effects of socio-economic conditions on household

waste recycling practices. Waste Management & Research, 21, 180. N

Enterprise Inns 2008. Carbon management: head office.

http://www.enetrpriseinns.com/Investors/CSR/Environment/Pages/ [Accessed 24/01/09] Y

Enterprising Times 2008. Scottish & Newcastle Pub Enterprises environmental/sustainability

policy. Scottish & Newcastle Pub Enterprises. N

Environment and Heritage Service 2001. Waste arisings survey for Northern Ireland (1999-

2000): industrial, commercial and municipal. Y

Environmental Protection Division 2003. Wales public sector sustainable waste management

guidance manual. http://www.wales.gov.uk [Accessed 24/01/09] N

Enviros Consulting Ltd 2009. Market development study for the East Midlands. Banbury, WRAP. Y

Envirowise 2006. Resource efficiency at a small hotel. Envirowise case study. Y

Envirowise. Better management of fats, oils and greases in the catering sector. Envirowise

guide (GG809). Y

Envirowise 2006. Holiday village saves by minimising water use and waste: a case study at

Center Parcs, Whinfell Forest. Envirowise case study. Y

Envirowise 2008. Hotel saves money with resource efficiency. Envirowise case study. Y

Envirowise 2008. Crannaig House. Scottish Tourist Businesses. Y

Envirowise 2008. Glencoe Cottages. Scottish Tourist Businesses. Y

Envirowise 2008. Slochd Mhor Lodge. Scottish Tourist Businesses. Y

EPSRC SUE Programme – Sustainable Waste Management Consortium 2002. Strategies and

technologies for sustainable urban waste management.

http://www.suewaste.soton.ac.uk/research.htm [Accessed 26/01/09]

N

EPSRC SUE Programme – Waste Consortium Case for Support 2002. Strategies and

technologies for sustainable urban waste management .

http://www.suewaste.soton.ac.uk/research.htm [Accessed 26/01/09]

N

Eshet et al. 2006. Valuation of externalities of selected waste management alternatives: a

comparative review & analysis. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 46, 335-364. N

Eunomia 2008. Regional Biowastes Management Study – summary report. East of England

Regional Assembly. Y

Fairmont Hotels and Resorts 2001. The green partnership guide: a practical guide to greening

your hotel. Toronto, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts. Y

Festzty et al. 2003. Assessment of quantities of Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

in Scotland. Waste Management & Research, 21 N

Food MarketWatch 2008. UK food and drink: failure to comply with environmental legislation

could cost manufacturers dearly. Food MarketWatch, Datamonitor. Y



Gilg and Barr 2005. Encouraging ‘environmental action’ by exhortation: evidence from a study

in Devon. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 48 (4), 593-618. N

Green Audit Kit 1993. The D.I.Y. guide to greening your tourism business. West Country Tourist

Board. Y

Green Globe 1994. Developing an effective environmental policy. London, Green Globe. N

Green Globe 1994. Managing energy for hotels. London, Green Globe. Y

Green Globe 1994. Managing energy for restaurants and catering facilities. London, Green

Globe. Y

Green Globe 1994. The environment and your business: taking the green globe path. London,

Green Globe. N

Green Globe 1994. Understanding the potential environmental impacts of your business.

London, Green Globe. N

Green Globe 1994. Water management for hotels. London, Green Globe. Y

Green Globe 1994. Water management for restaurants and catering facilities. London, Green

Globe. N

Green Tourism Business Scheme 2008. Compost toilets & green design. Case studies.

http://www.green-business.co.uk/GreenBusiness_CaseStudy.asp N

Green Tourism Business Scheme 2008 Reducing green waste to landfill. Case studies

http://www.green-business.co.uk/GreenBusiness_CaseStudy.asp N

Green Tourism Business Scheme 2008 Reuse of materials. Case studies. http://www.green-

business.co.uk/GreenBusiness_CaseStudy.asp N

Gustafson and Partlow 2002. Environmental forecasting and strategic planning practices in

country clubs: an exploratory study. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Administration, 3, 4.

N

Harmer, J. 2008. How to reduce your food waste. Caterersearch.

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2008/10/09/323901/how-to-reduce-your-food-

waste.html

Y

Heldal, Breum, Nielsen and Wilkins 2001. Experimental generation of organic dust from

compostable households waste. Waste Management & Research, 19, 98. N

Higgins 2008. Get the waste and weigh out: 23rd annual packaging trends study.

www.foodengineeringmag.com N

Hospitable Climates and Carbon Trust 2006. Three new hospitable climates.

http://www.hospitableclimates.org.uk/Documents/pdf/PressRelease/May252006.pdf N

InterContinental Hotels Group 2008. Crowne Plaza London St James wins water reduction

award: corporate responsibility – case studies. http://www.ihgplc.com/ [Accessed 18/01/2009] N

InterContinental Hotels Group 2008. Energy saving at Holiday Inn, Basildon, UK: corporate

responsibility – case studies. http://www.ihgplc.com/ [Accessed 18/01/2009] Y

InterContinental Hotels Group 2008. Corporate responsibility case studies.

http://www.ihgplc.com/index.asp?pageid=522&casestudy N

International Hotels Environmental Initiative 1993. Environmental management for hotels: the

industry guide to good practice. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Y

International Tourism Partnership 2008. Green hoteliers' guide: what is a green hotel?

http://ecofriendlytourist.com/greenhoteliersguide.aspx [Accessed 27/01/09] Y

International Tourism Partnership 2006. Going green: minimum standards towards a

sustainable hotel. http://www.tourismpartnership.org/downloads/Going%20Green.pdf N

J D Wetherspoon 2007. Bringing you the best UK pubs and the best ale and wine festivals –

awards and accolades. http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/awards/ [Accessed 24/01/09] Y

J D Wetherspoon 2007. Bringing you the best UK pubs and the best ale and wine festivals –

Corporate Social Responsibility. http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/social-

responsibility/environment.php

Y

Jafari and Marin 2002. Sustainable hotels for sustainable destinations. Annals of Tourism

Research, 29:1, 266-268. N

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2008/10/09/323901/how-to-reduce-your-food-waste.html

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2008/10/09/323901/how-to-reduce-your-food-waste.html



Jensen and Nielsen 2001. Recycling for all: preliminary criteria for the design of disability-

friendly receptacles. Waste Management & Research, 19, 498. N

Kirk, D. 1996. Environmental management for hotels. Oxford, Butterworth Heineman. Y

Letsrecycle 2009. Scottish plastics recycling fund launched. http://www.letsrecycle.com/

[Accessed 25/02/09] Y

Malmborg and Strachan 2005. Climate policy, ecological modernisation and the UK emission

trading scheme. European Environment, 15, 143-160. N

Marriott 2008. Water, waste & energy reduction.

http://www.marriott.com/marriott.mi?page=green_reduction [Accessed 18/01/2009] Y

Marston's 2007. Environmental report 2007: waste. Y

Martinac and Bohdanowicz 2003. Attitudes towards sustainability in chain hotels – results of a

European survey. The CIB 2003 International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built

Environment, 19-21 November 2003, Stamford Plaza, Brisbane, Australia.

N

Meyers et al. 2006. An international waste convention: measures for achieving sustainable

development. Waste Management & Research, 24, 505. N

Milne 2006. UK carbon trading proposed. Utility Week, 11/17/2006, 26:10, 6. Y

Mintel 2008. Waste arisings: waste management (industrial report) – UK December 2008.

Mintel, MBD Limited. Y

Mintel 2008. Waste disposal: waste management (industrial report) – UK December 2008.


Mintel 2008. Waste treatment: waste management (industrial report) – UK December 2008.


Mintel 2008. Waste management (industrial report) – UK December 2008. Mintel, MBD Limited. Y

Mitchells & Butlers 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: environment. http://www.mitchells-

butler.com [Accessed 24/01/09] Y

Napier University 2006. Estimation of commercial and industrial waste produced in Scotland in

2004: final report to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Centre for Statistics. Y

Napier University 2008. Estimation of commercial and industrial waste produced in Scotland in

2006: final report to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Centre for Statistics. Y

NetRegs 2006. Waste directory – for all businesses.

http://netregs.wastedirectory.org.uk/Index.aspx [Accessed 21/01/09] N

Oakdene Hollins Ltd 2008. Mapping waste in the food industry. Defra and the Food and Drink

Federation. Y

Organics Recycling 2009. Environmental Policy: Association of Organics Recycling.

http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/ [Accessed 25/01/09] N

Organics Recycling 2009. Hunt starts for new types of waste to be reused and recycled.

http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/ [Accessed 25/01/09] Y

Peters 2004. SME environmental attitudes and participation in local-scale voluntary initiatives:

some practical applications. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 3, 449-473 N

Petts 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberate processes: waste management case

studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 207-226 N

Petts 2003. Barriers to deliberate participation in EIA: learning from waste policies, plans and

projects. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(3), 269-293 N

Pitt and Smith 2003. An assessment of waste management efficiency at BAA airports.

Construction Management and Economics, 21, 421-431 N

Pitt, Brown and Smith 2002. Waste management at airports. Facilities, 20 (5/6), 198-207 N

Porter, J. 2008. Greene King fined for food hygiene breaches. The Publican.

http://www.thepublican.com/ N

Punch Taverns 2008. Corporate profile: 'passionate about our pubs'. www.punchtaverns.com

[Accessed 24/01/09] N



Reeve-Johnson, R. and Page, S. 2008. Summary of C&I information: research methods and

data Y

Richards, Glegg and Cullinane 2004. Implementing chemicals policy: leaders or laggards?

Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 388-402 N

Rutland County Council 2008. Local development framework: commercial and industrial waste

survey. http://www.rutland.gov.uk/pp/gold/viewGold.asp?DType=Page&ID=17953 Y

SEPA. Waste data digest 8: key facts and trends. http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste-

data.aspx [Accessed 24/01/08] Y

SLR 2007. Determination of the biodegradability of mixed industrial and commercial waste

landfilled in Wales. SLR Consulting Limited, Wales. Y

South East England Development Agency 2002. Sustainable Business Awards: Shepherd Neame

Ltd. www.seeda.co.uk Y

Thomas 2007. Marriott to take part in Environmental Awareness Month. Caterersearch.

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007 [Accessed 18/01/2009] Y

Thomas, C., Dacombe, P., Maycox, A., Banks, C., Khan, T. and Slater, R, 2007. Identification of

key resource streams in commercial & industrial waste from small businesses in the food

sector. The Open University, Milton Keynes, Integrated Waste Systems Research Group.

Y

Todd, M. and Hawkins, R. 2001. Waste counts: a handbook for accommodation operators.

CESHI, Oxford Brookes University. Y

Travel Trade Gazette 2007. Talking rubbish – scream if you’re green: week 14 – hotels breeze

into action. Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland, United Business Media. Y

Tzschentke, N., Kirk, D. and Lynch, P.A. 2004. Reasons for going green in serviced

accommodation establishments. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

16:2, 116-124.

N

Urban Mines 2007. Study to fill evidence gaps for commercial & industrial waste streams in the

North West region of England. NWRTAB, Urban Mines. Y

Urban Mines 2008. Commercial and industrial waste data analysis of the North West region.

NWRTAB. Y

Valpak 2005. PackFlow 2008: UK compliance with the 2008 targets of the

European Packaging & Packaging Waste Directive, Volume 1: project report.

http://www.valpak.co.uk/docs/packaging/packflow_2008_vol_1.pdf [Accessed 21/01/09]

Y

Valpak 2007. Valpak recycling case studies. http://www.valpak.co.uk/nav/page1566.aspx N

Walton, C. 2008. Hotels and restaurants ignorant of waste legislation. Caterersearch.

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2008/02/13/318923/hotels-and-restaurants-ignorant-of-

waste-legislation.html [Accessed 26/01/09]

Y

Webster, K. 2000. Environmental management in the hospitality industry: a guide for students

and managers. London, Cassell. Y

Welsh Assembly Government 2008. Municipal Waste Management Report for Wales, 2007-8.

Statistical Directorate. N

Whitbread plc 2006. Our waste management and recycling: Whitbread plc environment report

2004/5. Y

Woollam, Williams and Griffiths 2006. An investigation into the kerbside recycling behaviour of

two Welsh case study authorities. Waste Management & Research 24, 345 N

WRAP 2007. Glass collected from licensed premises: determination of how much glass is

collected for recycling from licensed premises. Banbury, WRAP. Y

WRAP 2007. Realising the value of recovered paper. Banbury, WRAP. Y

WRAP 2007. Realising the value of recovered plastics. Banbury, WRAP. Y

WRAP 2008. Hospitality sector glass collection. Oakdene Hollins Ltd. Y

WRAP 2008. Realising the value of organic waste. Banbury, WRAP. Y

WRAP 2008. Realising the value of recovered glass: an update. Banbury, WRAP. Y

http://www.valpak.co.uk/nav/page1566.aspx



WRAP and HCIMA (undated). Caring for a better future.

http://www.instituteofhospitality.org/info_services/is_pdf/WRAP_INTRO.pdf N

WRAP and HCIMA (undated). Recycling material.

http://www.hospitableclimates.org.uk/Documents/pdf/FactFiles N

WRAP and HCIMA (undated). What waste costs you.

http://www.instituteofhospitality.org/info_services/is_pdf/WRAP_FACTFILE1.pdf N

Yorkshire Regional Development Agency 2008. Reducing waste into and out of your business.

http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/helping-businesses/improve-your-business/green-

business/waste-minimisation/reducing-business-waste

N

Yorkshire Regional Development Agency 2008. Yorkshire given millions to improve waste

management. http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/news-events/local-news/yorkshire-given-

millions-to-improve-waste-management

N

Zero Waste Alliance 2002. Green hotels: opportunities and resources for success. Portland, Zero

Waste Alliance Y

http://www.instituteofhospitality.org/info_services/is_pdf/WRAP_INTRO.pdf

http://www.hospitableclimates.org.uk/Documents/pdf/FactFiles

http://www.instituteofhospitality.org/info_services/is_pdf/WRAP_FACTFILE1.pdf

http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/helping-businesses/improve-your-business/green-business/waste-minimisation/reducing-business-waste

http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/helping-businesses/improve-your-business/green-business/waste-minimisation/reducing-business-waste

http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/news-events/local-news/yorkshire-given-millions-to-improve-waste-management

http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/news-events/local-news/yorkshire-given-millions-to-improve-waste-management


Appendix J – Peer review by SRI Research

and WRAP’s comments on the points

made

Readers should note that the peer reviewer did not review the carbon and cost savings figures and methods which were added subsequently.

Introduction In 2010 WRAP commissioned an independent peer review of a draft of this report. The aims of the peer review

were to:

review the report and form conclusions on whether the methodology employed is sufficiently robust to

form a basis for policy and decision making;

review the report and form conclusions as to whether the estimates of waste quantities provided can be

used as a basis for policy making; and

provide recommendations on improvements to the methodology and future research priorities.

Because the peer review was carried out on a version of the report prior to proof reading. Cross-references have

been updated using this version of the report although some of the referenced text may no longer appear word-

for-word. Inverted commas and indentations are used to contain text that the peer reviewer has extracted from

the report he reviewed. WRAP’s comments on the peer reviewer’s comments are shown below each comment.

Apparent contradiction: businesses using council recycling services

PEER REVIEWER

The following statements in section 1.1 (page 8) appear to be contradicted by the percentages set out in Figure

16, Section 4.6 (page 53), which illustrates the proportion of businesses utilising council-provided kerbside

recycling or bring sites for at least some of their recycling. The figures shown in Figure 16 might be considered

significant but certainly do not constitute a ‘high percentage’.

Recycling rates within the sector are relatively low, with a high percentage of businesses utilising facilities

that are supposed to be restricted to households (p.8)

Evidence from other studies has suggested that a significant proportion of hospitality businesses use

household waste collection systems and this is especially the case for recycling streams in rural areas (p.8)

WRAP

This study deliberately excluded hospitality premises which did not pay for removal of their mixed (residual)

waste (see section 2.4.5) so we would expect to find lower levels of use of council services than reflected in the

hospitality sector as a whole. However, it seems likely that the fewer businesses use council services than the

literature review suggested.

Choice of the Catalyst database as a sampling frame

PEER REVIEWER

The choice of the Caterlyst database is a controversial one. While commercial databases and other data sources

such as local authority housing data for household wastes may be more up-to-date, they are not populated using

a standard method. For this reason, ONS data, even if considered less ‘accurate’ should have been used.

Information on company name, address, telephone number and sub sector data could have been mapped onto


the ONS database. At the very least, the views of ONS on what database was most appropriate should have

been sought formally. This is particularly important, given the decision to use the ONS data for estimating later in

the project.

The decision to use ONS data on the number of businesses for a given SIC code and geographic area

(presumably from the IDBR) is the correct one, as only data collected using a standardised methodology, can be

used for benchmarking and comparison. However, this further calls into question the decision to use the

Caterlyst database for the waste sampling/auditing phase of the project.

WRAP

The peer reviewer makes a valid point. Indeed, the choice of which database to use was finely balanced and

prompted much discussion within the advisory group. We chose to use Caterlyst for a number of reasons, the

most important being that it provided access to a much larger sample of business than ONS data (see section

2.4.1 on page 13). We accept that there are potential issues of discontinuity in subsequently using the ONS data

for scaling up the estimates. By way of explanation, we had originally intended to use Caterlyst data for scaling

up but as we progressed through the project it became clear that the data we were collecting would not form an

adequate basis for estimating total quantities of waste and instead we chose to use national survey data. It then

became necessary to use ONS data because that formed the basis for the national survey. This is a difficult issue

which all future studies will need to address; although ONS data appears to be the ‘gold standard’ there are

significant shortcomings for many sectors which may mean it cannot be used.

Use of GIS to assess the urban/rural spread

PEER REVIEWER

Section 2.5.2 on page 20 states:

Because the location of the businesses had to be within reasonable driving distance of the sorting sites, and

the sorting sites were all in urban areas, there were initial concerns that sampling just from a city centre

location may bias the data collected. To test whether these concerns were justified, Geographic Information

System (GIS) mapping was carried out that suggested a diverse range of urban and rural businesses could be

captured. A detailed example of such a map is provided in Appendix C.

The map provided in Appendix C simply shows the zones and the towns/settlements contained within them. It

does not provide any analysis which indicates that the zones constitute ‘a diverse range of urban and rural

businesses’.

WRAP

The peer reviewer is correct to say that no specific ‘analysis’ was carried out, but we deemed a visual

assessment to be sufficient for this purpose given local knowledge on the nature of the areas in the study. The

map provided in Appendix 3 provides a simple illustration of the geographic range of the settlements contained

within each of the different radius from the sorting locations. This was done to allow the visual identification of

the inclusion of both urban and rural businesses. For example, within a 40 mile radius of the sorting location,

businesses located in the main cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield would be included, as would

rural communities in the green belt in between, and those in the peak district between Manchester and Sheffield.

A more detailed visual assessment was undertaken to ensure that the zones highlighted captured a mixture of

diverse range of geographical locations which would be typically found across the UK.

Lack of information on sub-sampling methods

PEER REVIEWER

A range of statements in the report suggest that sub-sampling was carried out as part of the waste audits, but

there does not appear to be any explanation in the report of the methodology employed to obtain sub-samples.

On page 21, for example, the report states:

Throughout the waste audits, emphasis was placed on collecting as much residual waste as possible (p.21)


This suggests that on occasion, a sub-sample of residual was taken; however, the report does not set out how

this was carried out on-site. The report goes on to state:

Where practicably possible, all waste available for collection was collected, including co-mingled waste

destined for recycling. This was then transferred to one of the seven central waste sorting depots. It was not

possible to collect all of the waste presented due to a range of logistical issues and in some cases there

simply being no material to collect. The priority throughout the project was to ensure that, as a minimum, the

mixed residual waste was collected since this was the focus of the research.

Table 7 on page 23 sets out the number of samples by waste stream and the percentage, which clearly shows

that priority was given to residual wastes, with 118 samples out of 138 being 100% of the available material.

However, Chapter 2 is the methodology section, and the report needs to set out what methodology was chosen

to select wastes for sub-sampling and estimate the size of the sample as a percentage of the available materials.

WRAP

The peer reviewer makes a valid point and this section should have covered the approach to sub-sampling, albeit

that the approach was used rarely. We have added an explanation in section 2.5.3.3 on page 22. This explains

that the constraints of working on-site meant that an ad hoc approach to sub-sampling had to be taken involving

scooping as large a sample as practically possible from each container into a labelled hessian sack. We accept

that this may have introduced sampling bias, especially for heterogeneous waste streams such as residual waste,

which is precisely why the approach was restricted to premises where it was absolutely essential to take a sub-

sample. More formal sub-sampling techniques such as ‘coning and quartering’ were simply not available to us

because it would involve taking away the entire container – which companies were uncomfortable about – or

emptying the container in the car park – which would be unacceptable for health and safety reasons, even if

there was enough space.

Decision not to use the recycling data

PEER REVIEWER

Section 2.6 on page 27 states:

Given the emphasis of the research on the mixed waste stream, a relatively small number of samples were

taken of waste set out for recycling, so the decision was taken not to use recycling data from the waste

audits in any subsequent calculations.

This decision requires a rationale. From the figures in Table 6, it is clear that the numbers of samples taken for

recycling collections varied considerably. For example, Table PR1 below shows the sample numbers for paper

and card, and comingled, and the numbers of each which were 100% samples:

Table PR1. Material sample numbers and numbers of each which were 100% samples

Material No of samples No 100% sampled

Paper and card 54 30

Glass recycling 77 31

Comingled 23 17

These figures may be sufficient to provide a reasonable case for their inclusion in the composition calculations.

WRAP

Although the peer reviewer is correct that for some recycling streams the sample size is reasonably high, we

stand by our decision not to use these samples as the basis for estimation. This is because we believe that

national data, from Defra’s survey of industry and commerce, is a more reliable source of information. In

retrospect attempting to characterise both the recycling and residual waste streams was too ambitious for a

project that already provides many logistical challenges, and future studies should focus on one or the other.

The decision not to always sample all residual waste

PEER REVIEWER


Section 2.6.1 on page 28 states:

In cases where it was logistically impossible to take away all of the waste available, the approximate volume

of the sample was recorded at the site.

It then describes the use of a bulk density factor based on the waste collected, calculated by dividing the known

weight by the estimated volume to get kg per litre. This was the applied to the estimated volume of the

unsampled waste. The decision not to sample all residual wastes generates a need to provide two volume

estimates - total volume of wastes on-site and volume of sample wastes. Given that the report states that that

priority was given to residual wastes (and that this was agreed at the inception meeting), the potential for

inaccuracy and/or bias introduced by the sub-sampling of residual wastes needs to be balanced against the

resources required to sample 100% of all residual wastes.

An analysis of the figures for residual waste sampling in Table 7 on page 23 shows of the 138 samples taken,

118 were 100% sampled and another 9 were sampled between 40% and 100%, leaving only 11 sampled from

0% to 40%. Given that a decision was made not to include the other material types in the estimates, due to the

small number of samples, it appears from the data in Table 7 that a relatively insignificant reallocation of

resources would have allowed 100% sampling of residual wastes. This would have been a more optimum use of

project resources, and more importantly, a more robust methodology, as it does away with the need to carry out

volume estimates to estimate bulk densities.

WRAP

The peer reviewer’s comments are correct in principle – avoiding sub-sampling would provide more certainty in

the estimates. In total sub-samples of residual waste were taken for 18 businesses (excluding the two 0%s for

which no waste was presented). In all cases this was because the container was so large that it was impractical

to decant the contents into the back of a Luton-size van. It would, of course, have been possible to make

alternative arrangements such that the entire container was transported to a sorting site where the contents

could either have been sorted in full or a more reliable approach to sub-sampling taken, such as coning and

quartering. For this study we did not deem this necessary. However, it is a key learning point from the project

and it is likely that in future studies WRAP would require all waste to be sorted, or a more formalised approach to

sub-sampling taken.

Questioning the bulk density factors

PEER REVIEWER

In Section 5.5, Table 27, the report sets out the bulk densities derived from the study and compares these with

ESA/EA, explaining the much lower bulk densities derived from this study as compared to the ESA/EA figures as

being ‘almost certainly attributable to the fact that the ESA/EA data was taken from larger containers as they

arrived at treatment/disposal facilities whereas the waste from this study was typically from 1,100 litre containers

or less which had not been transported.’ This assertion requires supporting evidence as the explanation provided

is unlikely to account for the differences in the figures.

WRAP

While it is a fact that the containers in the ESA/EA study were larger, the conclusion drawn from this is

conjecture and there is no specific evidence to support it. The peer reviewer therefore makes a valid point and

we have changed the sentence in question to read “may be attributable to …”.

PEER REVIEWER

Following the worked example in Table 11, the study does set out the likely sources of error associated with the

approach, including:

Although applying the bulk density factor derived from the sampled waste to the unsampled waste in any

particular company is probably robust, there is evidence from the study that bulk densities varied quite

significantly between apparently similar establishments.

This certainly places a ‘question mark’ over the bulk density factors derived and applied in this study and further

emphasises that the decision to sub-sample the residual wastes may have introduced an unnecessary source of

potential inaccuracy. At the very least, the bulk density factors produced from the study should have been


reviewed prior to use – the inclusion of Table 27, setting out a comparison of this study and ESA/EA bulk

densities appears to be an afterthought – this analysis should have been carried out prior to deciding on the

methodology for collection of residual wastes. It is recommended that a small additional research project should

be carried out to benchmark the bulk density estimates produced in this study. Given the reservations expressed

above on the use of the bulk density factors, it is recommended that a sensitivity analysis be carried out to

evaluate the effects on assumptions on bulk density on the overall composition estimates.

Given the reservations set out above, it is agreed that the decision not use the waste audit alone to estimate UK

figures is likely to result in more robust and accurate estimates. The data sets chosen for the estimation of UK

hospitality mixed waste composition figures are the best combination available to ensure robust and transparent

estimates, with the proviso that, as recommended above, a sensitivity analysis is carried out to evaluate the

effects on assumptions on bulk density on the overall composition estimates.

WRAP

The factors were reviewed as part of the project and a decision was made to use them in preference to any

other set of density factors. Further, we stand by our decision to do so as we believe that using the bulk density

factors derived from this study for the purposes of scaling up any unsampled waste is the most appropriate

method. However, we do agree that there is scope for further investigation of bulk density factors and that the

sensitivity of using different factors should be tested. This is now beyond the scope of this study although had

we realised in advance that the factors would prove to be so different from published factors we would have built

an element into the work to do so.

Selecting the average amount of waste per company

The peer reviewer commented on an earlier version of the report in which the 2002/3 EA data had

been used for grossing up, prior to the release of the 2010 Defra data. The point made is also

relevant to the Defra data hence the comment has been retained.

PEER REVIEWER

The report describes a ‘provisional gross up’ based on the SEPA waste per business figures, which resulted in a

significantly larger total waste figure (approximately 65% higher) when compared to using averages from the EA

data set, as the basis for using EA data for all the UK nations. However, while demonstrating that the figures

would be larger, it does not provide any explanation or justification for assuming that the EA data is the more

accurate. If the EA figures are to be used as the basis for UK estimates, then a clear rational must be provided

which set out why the EA data set is considered to be the most accurate. It is recommended that an analysis be

carried out which investigates the reasons for the disparity between the EA and SEPA figures (an explanation is

provided in Section 2.7.4, however this does not provide supporting evidence).

WRAP

The main reasons for using the EA [Defra] data rather than the SEPA data was that unlike the SEPA study it had

been collected by face to face interviews rather than a postal/internet survey; it is thought that this approach

provides more comprehensive and reliable data although the peer reviewer is correct to state that there is no

evidence to support this assertion. We agree that it would be extremely useful to research the effect of

methodology (face to face versus postal/telephone/web) on estimates of industrial and commercial waste to

guide future decisions about which methods to use. This was outside the scope of this study.

Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates

PEER REVIEWER

The gross up methodology is in general a robust approach, with each step in the calculations transparently set

out. However, one key assumption may require further investigation. The study states:

Our assumption is that “other mixed waste” is the closest possible approximation to the mixed (residual)

waste which was sampled during the WRAP waste audits.

The waste audits used an adapted household waste classification system, which is an ad-hoc system developed

over many years in the UK, whereas the EA [Defra] dataset will have used the Substance Oriented Category


(SOC) list. The methodology for categorising wastes is different between both systems and the study has not

provided a rationale to support the assertion that ‘other mixed waste’ is the closest possible approximation to the

mixed (residual) waste which was sampled during the WRAP waste audits. The project team should have

consulted the EA to ascertain their views on the robustness of this assumption. It is recommended that this

assumption is further investigated via consultations with the EA and review of the relevant Eurostat guidance.

WRAP

The peer reviewer makes a valid point, and in reworking the figures using Defra 2010 data rather than EA

2002/3 data we did take the opportunity to consult with the consultants that carried out the study. They

confirmed that where waste was encountered in a mixed form it was coded as ‘other mixed waste’. We therefore

believe the use of this code is the most appropriate for this study.

Measurability of sources of error

PEER REVIEWER

The study (section 3.3 page 37) lists sources of error, described as likely to be significant but not measurable,

including respondent error (e.g. people remembering incorrectly), observation error (e.g. inaccuracies associated

with estimating how full a container is or its volume), estimation error (e.g. inaccuracies in bulk density factors or

in information about the size of the population) and representativity error (e.g. assuming that the sample taken

is representative of a whole year’s waste). It should be possible to measure the potential level of error of at least

some of these sources, through the use of sensitivity analysis, for example, as recommended above for the bulk

density factors.

WRAP

We agree that some of these sources of error are potentially capable of measurement; for example, it would be

possible to investigate the scale of respondent error through a tracking study, and observation error by sending

other teams to weigh and record waste quantities. It is also possible to assess the impact on estimates of some

of these sources of error through sensitivity analysis, as the peer reviewer remarks. This was not done as part of

this study and we accept that in future it would be good practice to do so. However, we do not believe that this

significantly affects the conclusions we have drawn.

Summary waste estimates for the UK hospitality sector

PEER REVIEWER

The study states (p.37) that:

the figures presented in this report should be taken as indicative of the nature and scale of waste produced

by the hospitality sector – our current best estimate

It is agreed that the figures should be best presented as indicative, however, the application of the additional

analyses recommended may make the claim that they constitute the current best estimate more robust.

WRAP

We agree and will undertake to do so in future studies.

Is a composition-led approach practicable?

PEER REVIEWER

A composition led approach may be practicable, however, the methodology set out in this study does not provide

a robust basis for concluding that it has been shown to be practicable.

WRAP

We disagree with the peer reviewer on this point, as evidenced by the following considerations: 1. Can it be done?

The fieldwork was delivered and data collected from more sites than originally planned and we showed

that existing techniques and equipment used for household waste composition audits could be adapted

for use with businesses.


2. Was it safe?

The fieldwork reported no health and safety incidents.

3. Could it be repeated?

A simple collection and sorting methodology was developed and executed which could be easily

repeated. Key learning points have been clearly documented in the report.

4. Did it add too much risk?

Risks of business participation are no different to any alternative approach. This approach worked

closely with individual businesses therefore reducing the risk of low quality data.

5. Did it provide useful information at a reasonable cost?

Yes, it provided an indication of national waste composition based on actual weights rather than visual

inspections. This was not previously known with any degree of reliability.

6. Is the approach scalable across all sectors?

Whilst it is practically scalable across all sectors, it would be more expensive and time consuming to

assess all sectors concurrently using this approach and therefore more economically viable to adopt this

approach for a single rather than multiple sectors.

If the project were to be repeated, there are some areas where improvements could be made, and these are set

out in the report (chapters 5 and 6).

Peer reviewer’s summary

The approach set out for scaling up is transparent and the data sets chosen are probably the best available. The

key areas potentially affecting accuracy/reliability are:

use of sub-sampling and bulk density conversion factors for mixed/residual wastes;

the assumption is that “other mixed waste” is the closest possible approximation to the mixed (residual)

waste which was sampled during the WRAP waste audits; and

the assumption that the EA [Defra] data is ‘best’ for the national estimates as it is based on on-site

audits rather than self-reported.

Recommendations have been made above which should enable a better understanding of the potential impacts

of these assumptions on the final estimates.

Estimating waste quantities and the composition of mixed waste streams is a complex, time-consuming and

costly area of applied research and trade-offs between costs and data quality are usually unavoidable. However,

the report writing and structure, in particular Section 2, makes the review of the report and analysis of its

findings particularly difficult, as it lacks transparency and a coherent structure.

A key conclusion to be drawn from this peer review is that the project team carrying out the work did not have a

coherent and complete methodology prior to commencing work. Examples include:

not having a finalised sampling methodology when recruiting businesses for the audit; and

not analysing the costs and benefits of residual/mixed waste sub-sampling vis-a-vis 100% sampling,

prior to applying the volume estimate/bulk density approach, even though mixed waste had been

agreed as a priority at the inception meeting.

This in turn has led to a report narrative and structure, which does not set out a logical step-by-step approach,

but which reflects the fact that the methodology changed as the project progressed. Given that, the waste

estimates for the UK hospitality sector generated from the study should be presented as indicative when being

used for policy and decision making, and efforts made to quantify the effects on the estimates of changes in the

key assumption areas described above.

Recommendations for additional research are summarised below.

A small additional research project should be carried out to benchmark the bulk density estimates

produced in this study.


A sensitivity analysis should be carried out to evaluate the effects on assumptions on bulk density on

the overall composition estimates.

An analysis should be carried out which investigates the reasons for the disparity between the EA

[Defra] and SEPA figures.

The assumption that ‘other mixed waste’ from the EA [Defra] dataset is the closest approximation to the

residual (mixed) sample category from the study in further investigated via consultations with the EA

[Defra] and review of the relevant Eurostat guidance.

WRAP’s response

We agree with the peer reviewer’s assessment of the potential weaknesses of the study. We would remind

readers of the exploratory nature of the work which meant that methods developed as we progressed and were

only finalised part-way through the project. As a result, we have learned a lot about how to carry out work of

this nature and will take forward the peer reviewer’s recommendations into any future research of this kind.

www.wrap.org.uk/hospitality