Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 782e786www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Note from the field

Sustainability Victoria: influencing resource use, towards zerowaste and sustainable production and consumption

Simon Clay, Diana Gibson, Jon Ward*

Business and Industry Team, Sustainability Victoria, Australia

Accepted 21 June 2006

Available online 15 September 2006

Abstract

Sustainability Victoria is a State Government agency working with Victorians to use resources more sustainably and to reduce the everydayenvironmental impacts of communities and business. Sustainability Victoria was formed by the Victorian Government from EcoRecycle Victoriaand the Sustainable Energy Authority, in October 2005.

This paper discusses Victoria’s past successes with recycling and cleaner production, the lessons learnt from these programs and how Sus-tainability Victoria is stimulating behaviour change across the production and consumption cycle through the establishment of innovative part-nerships, towards the goal of high factor improvements in resource efficiency.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainability Victoria; Systems of production and consumption; Cleaner production; Life cycle thinking; Eco-design; Innovation; Resource efficiency;

Government support programs

1. Progress in closing material cycles

Victoria has a State population of just under 5 millionpeople and a total waste generation rate in 2004/2005 of 9.9million tonnes corresponding to an average rate of waste gen-eration of approximately 1980 kg per person per year fromboth municipal and industrial sources. This is typical of otherhigh consumption States.

The past 10 years have seen Victorians make a significantbehavioural shift to recycling and resource recovery in boththe home and the workplace, moving away from the disposaleconomy. In 2004/2005, the percentage of the total wastestream which was recycled reached 55% and amounted to5.4 million tonnes of recovered resources [1] (Fig. 1).

In 2005, the Victorian Government approved a strategy forVictoria to move towards zero waste and achieve a 75%

* Corresponding author. Level 2, 478 Albert Street East Melbourne, Victoria

3002, Australia.

E-mail address: Jon.ward@sustainability.vic.gov.au (J. Ward).

0959-6526/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.021

overall recycling rate and an annual reduction in total wastegeneration of 1.5 million tonnes by 2013.

This historic and continuing community engagement inrecycling has had significant economic benefits. The NationalPackaging Covenant funded study on the benefits of kerbsiderecycling in Australia [2] shows that the net benefit of recy-cling approximately 400,000 tonnes of kerbside materials inVictoria amounts to roughly $72 million dollars, out of the es-timated $266 million net national benefit. Studies supportingthe development of Victoria’s Towards Zero Waste Strategy[3], further indicate that the annual net benefit of raising recy-cling rates to 75% amounts to $500 million per year, derivedfrom the recovery of embodied value, greenhouse reductionsand other avoided environmental costs.

Despite this significant and successful trend, these recy-cling data are not an entirely satisfactory statistic. While thesteady increase in recycling has taken us closer to closed ma-terial cycles, total resource use and total waste generation con-tinue to grow under the opposing influences of economicgrowth, efficiency gains and importantly, consumption trends.Ultimately recycling more and more of an ever-expanding

783S. Clay et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 782e786

waste stream is neither a sustainable nor an economic alterna-tive to using fewer resources in the first place in a leanereconomy.

Business has been at the forefront of the State’s recyclingefforts, achieving a 60% diversion rate, but this achievementin waste management has not resulted in progress up the wastehierarchy to less waste and cleaner methods of production.

2. Progress in cleaner production

A study conducted by the Victorian Department of Innova-tion, Industry and Regional Development, DIIRD, as part of itscommitment to improving the performance of the food sectorin 2000 [4], demonstrates that the cost of waste disposal asa percentage of total manufacturing cost is typically around0.5% across a range of food companies, whereas resourcecosts are more typically 50e60% of manufacturing costs(Figs. 2 and 3).

These data are consistent with Australian Bureau of Statis-tics reports [5], which show that the cost of material inputs as

Landfilled municipalsolid waste

Landfilled solidindustrial waste

Recycled material

0

2

4

6

8

1019

93-9

4

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

Milli

on to

nnes

waste generation

Fig. 1. Solid waste generation, Victoria 1993e1994 to 2003e2004.

a percentage of turnover ranged from 29 to 51% across 10 in-dustry sectors, with an average figure of 42% of total turnoverspent on material purchases.

The implications of these data are fairly clear, that virginresource intensities and utilization are the economic driverfor waste management programs and yet business has focusedmore attention, for less economic return, on achieving high re-cycling rates.

Sustainability Victoria’s experience working with businessover the past 10 years suggested a number of reasons forthis observed focus on recycling over leaner or cleanerproduction.

(a) Waste management is often under the control of staff sep-arated from manufacturing or process improvement wherethey can more easily influence diversion of waste fromlandfill than waste reduction.

(b) Recycling has achieved a high community profile and in-vestment from the waste management industry and thiscreates a demand effect on industrial waste which satisfiescorporate environmental expectations.

(c) Business does not see the bottom line impact of resourceslost as waste due to accounting deficiencies or more sim-ply that they don’t measure resource efficiencies in pro-duction in a transparent manner.

In 2004 we offered support grants to business to measure ma-terials efficiency. This was seen as an alternative to engagingbusiness in full cleaner production programs. Our hypothesiswas that companies often didn’t have access to good informationon materials efficiency and that as material purchase costs rep-resent a significant cost to business, better information wouldclearly expose the need for action. We considered that compa-nies had the knowledge and resources to make improvementsonce the need was demonstrated and that there had been anover emphasis in previous support programs on the developmentof tools to show how to improve performance without establish-ing the case why this was worthwhile.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Australian MeanCompany OCompany NCompany MCompany LCompany KCompany JCompany I

Company HCompany GCompany FCompany ECompany DCompany CCompany BCompany A

Fig. 2. Waste disposal as a percentage of total manufacturing cost.

784 S. Clay et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 782e786

0 20 40 60 80 100

UK Mean

UK Best

Australian Mean

Company O

Company N

Company M

Company K

Company J

Company I

Company H

Company G

Company F

Company E

Company D

Company C

Company B

Company A

Fig. 3. Raw materials as a percentage of total manufacturing cost.

The overall results of this program showed that 12 of the com-panies that participated in the 2004 program quantified materialscosts of over $23 million per annum associated with raw mate-rial losses from part or all of their site operations. This was as-sociated with a total of 12,500 tonnes of waste which cost thebusinesses $950,000 in disposal cost. In these examples the ratioof the value of wasted resources to the cost of waste disposal was23 to 1. Some examples from the program show how access toimproved data has resulted in fairly rapid improvements in ma-terials efficiency.

A car component manufacturer identified losses of 15%based on the theoretical conversion in the Bill of Materials.These losses represented $A1.4 million pa in material pur-chase costs and this has subsequently been reduced to 8%, sav-ing $750,000 pa.

A regional food processor measured its materials effi-ciency at 93.5%, with an associated raw materials lossof $665,000 pa. As a direct result of the measurement, changeshave been implemented which have increased the efficiency to96.5% with associated savings of $A305,000 pa.

A confectionery manufacturer measured its overall ma-terials efficiency at 91%. A further evaluation of 3 of its 7 pro-duction lines identified 600 tpa in process waste that could beeliminated. Eliminating this waste would reduce productionlosses by 20% and result in significant raw material and labourcost savings over $1 million.

Quick wins from these 12 case studies amounted to $1.2million of recovered resource value.

3. Progressing to sustainable consumption and production

The examples above demonstrate that business has a signif-icant capacity to realise cleaner production outcomes once theopportunities within a particular resource stream have been

clearly identified. These examples also show that opportunitiesfor high factor improvement in resource efficiencies are verylimited if our programs are narrowly constrained to the exist-ing production process. Typically 5e10%, compared to theminimum Factor 4e10 (75e90%) which is commonly quotedas the goal for sustainable resource utilization [6]. Howeverlimited data from this program indicates that the efficiencyimprovement opportunities across supply chains are moresignificant. Measurement by two adjacent companies in anautomotive supply chain showed that only 50% of the materialpurchased by firm 1 ended in the product sold by firm 2.

There is now a global recognition that consumption relatedresource use is outpacing efficiency gains made through pro-grams such as cleaner production and general productivity[7]. This is also clearly shown in Victoria’s waste outcomesgiven in Fig. 1. As up to 60% of the life cycle impact of a prod-uct is determined at the design stage [8], the high factorimprovements in resource efficiency needed to outpace con-sumption, have to be found in the expanded production andconsumption system and through innovative service arrange-ments replacing products in some cases [9e11].

The production and consumption system is a series of rela-tionships between designers, suppliers, producers, retailers,consumers and end of life managers. This is shown in Fig. 4as a simple cyclic relationship although in practice it is muchmore complex in respect of the flow of information and mate-rials. Sustainable consumption and production (SCP) is the de-livery of the greatest utility from this system at the lowestresource utilization. This recognises that production and con-sumption is linked and that a systems solution is required.

The challenge of stimulating innovation in the productionand consumption system and the lack of life cycle thinkingin business and the community are one and the same andthis sets a clear objective for future behaviour change pro-grams in the business sector.

785S. Clay et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 782e786

While considerable effort and funding support both in Aus-tralia and overseas have been directed at cleaner production inmanufacturing, there has been comparatively little emphasison life cycle management and design for sustainability. Theflow of information within the productioneconsumption systembreaks down at almost every step, between manufacturing andsuppliers, between consumers and brand owners and betweendesigners and manufacturers. This leads to less than optimal out-comes. The United Nations Environment Program/SETAC, LifeCycle Initiative is program recently launched in 2002 to start tochange the relationships of stakeholders within the productioneconsumption system [12] and Sustainability Victoria has beenone of the early supporters of this program.

Our strategy over the past 2 years has been to broaden ourprograms by building new relationships and engage stake-holders in broader systems thinking. The major focus of thiswork has been on the design sector which plays a criticalrole in the resource use in the SCP system and yet has beenpoorly informed and empowered to take up design for sustain-ability principles.

4. Partnerships in sustainable design

Where design for environment has been applied to productsit has either been for compliance or as an environment add-onto capture potential competitive advantage in the marketplace.Rarely has it been as an integral part of the design brief at theoutset. Recognising this, the Design Institute of Australia(DIA) with Sustainability Victoria and Centre for Design atthe RMIT University Melbourne has been working closelywith designers and industry to move forward with sustainabledesign.

During 2004 a set of guidelines was developed in conjunc-tion with the DIA and RMIT as well as small number of prac-tising industrial designers [13,14]. To develop the guidelines,designers were asked to rethink a product to concept stage us-ing one or a combination of four DfE strategies.

, Design efficiency e keeping the consumption of resourcesto a minimum by avoiding unnecessary components, light-weighting and eliminating disposable components.

Fig. 4. Simple description for the production consumption system.

, Design safety e avoiding toxic or hazardous components inthe product or its manufacture.

, Cyclic design e closing the loop and designing for recy-cling by choice of materials and ease of disassembly.

, Designed communications e ensuring that product relatedmessages are relevant, informative and encourage responsi-ble purchasing.

An example from one of the projects conducted under thisprogram shows how design innovation can reduce product im-pacts. Designer Stephen Mushin set out to design a practical,retro-fitable, self-powered bike light.

Mapping the life cycle showed that the most significant im-pacts of existing equipment were in manufacture and disposalof batteries to landfill, followed by manufacture of electroniccomponentry which is resource intensive and uses toxic sub-stances. The strategy was to improve functionality and dura-bility of the bike light, aiming for 100% recyclability whiledesigning out environmental and waste impacts includingtoxic substances.

The design concept uses a flywheel e a 100% mechanicaldevice e to generate power. Once speed is built up the flywheelmaintains motion even when the bike slows or stops. This designremoves the need for batteries and removes environmentalimpacts from manufacture of electronic componentry (Fig. 5).

The project also identified the major drivers for design forsustainability strategies to be taken up in the SCP system.These were the following:

(a) designers confident and informed about the opportunitiesand benefits;

(b) simple D4S and life cycle thinking tools available fordesigners;

(c) enlightened brand owners;(d) consumer demand through awareness and labelling; and(e) regulatory pressure such as the European WEEE and

RoHS requirements [15].

One of the major outcomes of the project with the DesignInstitute of Australia has been progress on the development

Fig. 5. Bike light concept design e mechanical flywheel generator.

786 S. Clay et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 782e786

of simple life cycle thinking tools which enable designers toidentify opportunities without going through a full LCA pro-cess. The tools are now being developed into training materialsfor use and publication.

Bringing brand owners into the product life cycle process isalso critical for success and product stewardship provides thislink. One of the initiatives undertaken from 2003 to achievethis engagement was through the establishment of the Paint-back� partnership between retailer Bunnings Warehouse, Blue-Scope Steel, Dulux (paint brand owners), EcoRecycle Victoriaand the Steel Can Recycling Council. It is estimated that thereis over 12 kg of paint per household in storage in Australiaand much of this eventually finishes up in landfill [16].

The partnership objectives were to identify and shape thepath forward in delivering a sustainable method for collectingunwanted paint and paint cans throughout Victoria and Aus-tralia and to return all valuable resources to the market. Thepilot phase was a one-month in-store collection program forunwanted paint and paint packaging. The pilot collected 42tonnes of unwanted post-consumer paint and paint packaging.Innovation driven by this collection program resulted in thedevelopment of a world first, remanufactured, 50% recycledFence Finish and over 12,000 l of this has been remarketedand sold from the trial. The partnership continues to work atmaking this a sustainable take-back and remanufacture pro-gram (Fig. 6).

5. Conclusion

Moving towards sustainable consumption and production isa system innovation program and not primarily about improv-

Fig. 6. Victorian environment Minister John Thwaites launches the first 50%

recycled paint product in 2004.

ing efficiencies in supply, manufacture or distribution in isola-tion. This presents new challenges and opportunities forgovernment agencies charged with facilitating progress to-wards sustainability.

Sustainability Victoria has focused on building new part-nerships with designers, and brand owners, however, furtheropportunities exist in supplieremanufacturer relationshipsand engaging consumer choice.

Sustainability Victoria is also working with the United Na-tions Environment Program through the Life Cycle Initiativeand was Chair of the First Asia Pacific Roundtable for Sustain-able Consumption & Production held Melbourne in October2005 (6 APRSCP). The Roundtable Communique can befound on www.sustainability.vic.gov.au.

This is an emerging program, which has yet to reach thetipping point where business can see the potential of life cyclethinking and the opportunity to take a share of the new econ-omy. In the mean time, government action to foster relation-ships and facilitate progress is critically important.

References

[1] <www.sustainability.vic.gov.au>.

[2] National Packaging Covenant Council NPCC. Independent survey of

Kerbside recycling in Australia, www.packcoun.com.au; 2001.

[3] SKM Triple bottom line assessment e an examination of the economic,

environmental and social costs and benefits of strategic waste manage-

ment options. Final Report for EcoRecycle Victoria. June 2003.

[4] Department of State and Regional Development DSRD (Vic). Environ-

mental Best Practice Benchmarking Report. 2000.

[5] Australian Bureau of Statistics. Information paper: availability of statis-

tics related to manufacturing, catalogue number 8205.0, Canberra; 1997.

[6] Lovins A, Lovins H, Weizsacker E. Factor four-doubling wealth and

halving resource use. UK: Earthscan Publications; 1998.

[7] UNEP. Sustainable consumption e a global status report. Division of

Technology, Industry and EconomicseProduction and Consumption

Branch; 2002.

[8] Gertaskis J, Lewis H, Ryan C. A guide to EcoDesign. Centre for Design

at RMIT: RMIT University; 1996.

[9] Oxford Commission. Sustainable consumption report. Oxford: Mansfield

College; April 2004.

[10] UNEP. Product service systems and sustainability. Paris: DTIE Produc-

tion and Consumption Branch; 2002.

[11] Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Changing patterns e

UK government framework for sustainable consumption and production

2003.

[12] <www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/lcinitiative/background.http>.

[13] Design Institute of Australia. Design for environment and product inno-

vation e practice notes 2004. PN 026 (Issue A) Design e General.

[14] <www.ecorecycle.vic.gov.au/www/html/904-design-for-environment.asp>.

[15] <http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/weee_index.htm>.

[16] Australian Paint Manufacturers Federation. Retail paint & paint cans

disposal and recovery national survey for the 2003 year. Nolan-ITU;

May 2004.