Waste: A Game of Snakes and Ladders? : Engineering
The word 'complexity' best describes the engineering waste stream with products often made from thousands of parts and dozens of materials. So it is perhaps to be expected that the engineering sector is slow to translate awareness of waste issues into practice.
This is reflected in the fact that while seven in ten (70 per cent) are aware of their waste spend and two in three (67 per cent) believe that they can reduce the amount of waste, few actually have plans in place to tackle spend or output. A total of 38 per cent of engineering companies currently operate a waste minimisation programme - fewer than in any other sector - and of the rest only 39 per cent are planning to implement a programme.
Of those companies with a waste minimisation programme, energy saving is the top priority, but they also place greater emphasis on process change (81 per cent), packaging change (76 per cent) and product redesign (73 per cent) than other industries giving some indication of the potential for 'beginning of pipe' solutions in this sector.
While fewer than half of companies (47 per cent) currently run a formal environmental management system, half the remainder plan to do so. So it is evident that companies are beginning to examine operations within an environmental framework - further demonstrated in our survey by the fact that many engineering companies are aiming for environmental systems as a priority, in preference to gaining the Quality Standard.
As far as recycling is concerned, engineering companies perform well in recovering those materials that have traditionally been key to their businesses, such as ferrous metals (94 per cent), non-ferrous metals (90 per cent) and oils (83 per cent), but less well in recycling materials that are relatively new to the industry such as plastics (25 per cent).
Biffa believes that the cost of recovering plastic, glass and textiles, for example, in a traditionally metal-based industry has meant that recycling has not been a viable economic proposition, so these have been diverted to landfill. The increasing use and potential value of these materials coupled with rising landfill costs make this an issue which needs to be readdressed.
Packaging issues have already been tackled; in fact the sector pioneered packaging minimisation with specially moulded packaging, which is then returned to the components manufacturer for reuse. However, the real solution certainly lies in product redesign and process change, where waste disposal is an integral part of the equation. With vast amounts of capital tied up in fixed manufacturing production lines, processes cannot be allowed to become ineffective due to the ensuing waste costs.
Working with the waste industry, the engineering sector would be able to develop means of incorporating recyclability and recovery into the product design, by reducing the number of materials, by avoiding incompatible mixtures and by developing disassembly as an inherent feature of the product. So, engineering for dismantling is set to be the process for the future. Indeed, this is already happening with the recent EC directive on batteries, which requires manufacturers to mark batteries and ensure that they can be readily removed from appliances.
The diversity of material in this sector means that integrated waste management schemes are required to review process change, introduce solutions to close the recycling loop and finally dispose of any remaining materials in a legal and cost-efficient manner.
Collaboration between manufacturers and component suppliers will certainly be key to effective waste management as responsibility is a thorny problem in this sector. This was reflected in the fact that while over half (55 per cent) of companies realised that Take Back Liability might impact on their businesses, 76 per cent were confused as to its implications. One explanation is that most engineering companies are involved in the manufacture of components rather than the finished product and there is confusion about who does the 'taking back'.
Surprisingly, waste control is still not seen as an area for competitive edge by this sector - for example, only 12 per cent monitor competitors' waste practices. But change at grass roots level has the potential to release competitive edge, which at the moment is literally being 'wasted'.
The survey interviewed manufacturers of metal goods, office machinery/data processing, motor vehicles, parts and other transport equipment, and mechanical, electrical, electronic and instrument engineers. Companies were interviewed to ensure a fair distribution by size and geography; however, there are significantly more instrument engineers and office machinery manufacturers in the South, whereas the motor industry and parts manufacturers are biased towards the Midlands and North.
MAIN FINDINGS
- Fewer than two in five (38 percent) operate a waste minimisation programme
- Over three-quarters (76per cent) currently have BS 5750
- Two-thirds (67 per cent) believe the tonnage of waste will fall
- Over a half (55 per cent) believe that Take Back Liability is relevant to their businesses, but this drops to a quarter (23 per cent) of small companies.
INDUSTRY FACTS
The engineering industry . . .
- was worth £131 billion in 1993
- accounted for £56 billion in exports
- employs 1.73 million people
- accounts for 8.5
Legislation
- Take Back for high environmental impact products (acid batteries oil)
- EC Reclassification of special wastes (oils/hydro-carbons, solvents, cleaning materials & adhesives)
Process Change
- Disassembly designed as an inherent feature of products
- Scale disassembly systems rather than scrapyard techniques
- Ecolabelling
- Producer Take Back Liability (plastics & ICER initiatives for electrical & electronic goods)
- Component design on weight/energy/strength/balance
Environmental Effects
- Landfill diversion
- Conservation of natural resources
