Inherited Waste in England - An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours that result in the deposition of waste on those who cannot influence its source

THE ONE PLANET MBA
MBA 2013/2014
Declaration
I confirm that this dissertation is my own work. I confirm that I have read and understood the
University regulations on plagiarism* and I have properly acknowledged the work of others that I
have included in this dissertation.
Full name: Sandra Norval
ID Number: 022179
Signature:
Title of Dissertation:
Inherited waste in England
An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate
behaviours that result in the deposition of waste on those who
cannot influence its source
Date: September 19th 2014
*Plagiarism is the use of material from books, articles, the internet, lecture notes, other
students’ work, or other sources without proper acknowledgement. Plagiarism is seen as a
form of cheating and, as such, is penalized by examiners according to their extent and
gravity.

2
THE ONE PLANET MBA
The One Planet MBA
Inherited waste in England
An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours
that result in the deposition of waste on those who cannot influence its
source
Submitted by
Sandra Norval
To the University of Exeter as a Dissertation towards the degree of
One Planet MBA
I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that
no material is included for which a degree has previously been conferred upon me.
Signature:
Date: September 19
th
2014
Word count: 13169
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business
Administration

3
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Acknowledgements
My first thanks go to One Planet MBA Director, Professor Nicolas Forsans, who has built on the
foundations created by his predecessor Dr Malcolm Kirkup to whom I am also grateful. Both
Directors believed in me and my passion to bring change to the way business is done, I now feel
equipped to do so.
Whilst I can’t name any of them, my thanks to every respondent or correspondent, your voices are
all represented here and I am truly grateful.
I am indebted to my fantastic dissertation supervisor Ward Crawford, who helped me keep on track
when the going got tough. He knew that delivering a dissertation that served a purpose in the real
world matters to me and gave me the direction, encouragement and support I needed in just the
right measures at just the right moments and has been an inspiring lecturer too. Thank you!
I can’t put into words how grateful I am to all of the lecturers and administration team for the One
Planet MBA. I have been truly inspired by discussions with Morgen Witzel, Stephen Jollands,
Jonathan Gosling, Sally and Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud… I can’t list them all but I am a changed
woman since we began, it is because of you and I thank you. Julie Hargreaves is the font of all
knowledge and always has a smile to help you along.
A huge thank you goes to my generous sponsors, Southern Railway Ltd, who enabled me to take
part in the One Planet MBA and inspired this research. I am most grateful to former Managing
Director, Chris Burchell, who enabled me to test what I learnt as I went along, current Managing
Director, David Scorey, who supported my application to join the One Planet MBA and had the
vision to work with me as I began my development. Thanks also to James Burt and Colin Morris
who helped me nurture my talents and believed in my potential all the way.
I am forever grateful to all my colleagues on the One Planet MBA, whose friendship and support
was critical, and a special note to all the Executive One Planet MBAs, only you know the
challenges of this journey as I do, I’ve learnt so much from you.
To Jason Brooker and Kevin Bayley, my dear friends and colleagues who gave moral support
whenever I needed it and have helped me to make change happen at Southern. I hope I get to
support you on this journey one day soon!
And most of all, much love and deep gratitude to Sue Norval, my mum who has seen all the ups
and downs, been equally surrounded by all my books and papers but manages to keep life normal
while I research how we can change the world. I wish I could say this is the end, but we both know
this is just the beginning!

4
THE ONE PLANET MBA
1 Table of Contents
1 Table of Contents 4
2 Table of Figures 5
3 Abstract 6
4 Introduction 7
4.1 Aim 10
4.2 Objectives 10
4.3 Research Questions 10
5 Literature Review 11
5.1 Global context 11
5.2 European context 14
5.3 The UK context 21
6 Methodology 25
6.1 Choosing the circulation list 28
6.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology 29
7 Presentation and Analysis of Findings 31
7.1 Model One – Current waste infrastructure 36
7.2 Model Two – Current organisational context 39
7.3 Model Three – Worked example: The linear model of the
coffee cup 42
7.3.1 Model Three Question One – The cup 42
7.3.2 Model Three Question Two – The other elements of
beverages 44
7.4 Model Four – Worked example: Circularising the coffee cup 46
7.5 Model Five – Worked example: A closer look at the servitised
model 49
7.6 Model Six – Worked example: Going deeper into the servitised
model 51
7.7 Open comments 54
7.8 Summary of findings 57
8 Conclusions and Recommendations 58
9 References 60
10 Appendices
10.1 Appendix A – The Questionnaire 66
10.2 Appendix B – Anonymised comments 74

5
THE ONE PLANET MBA
2 Table of Figures
Figure 1 The Waste Hierarchy 14
Figure 2 The Packaging Regulations Responsibility Allocation 15
Figure 3 The Linear Economy and The Circular Economy 17
Figure 4 Nature’s Principles 19
Figure 5 Life’s Principles Design Lens 19
Figure 6 Response Rate Summary 31
Figure 7 Summary of Responses and Cross Reference 32
Figure 8 Table of responses 33
Figure 9 Table of nil responses 34
Figure 10 Commentary Summary 35
Figure 11 Scoring Summary (Average by Group) 35
Figure 12 Model 1 – Current waste infrastructure 36
Figure 13 Model 1 scoring comparison graphs 38
Figure 14 Model 2 – Current organisational context 39
Figure 16 Model 3 – The linear model of the coffee cup 42
Figure 17 Model 3 Question 1 scoring comparison graphs 43
Figure 18 Model 3 Question 2 scoring comparison graphs 45
Figure 19 Model 4 – Circularising the coffee cup 46
Figure 21 Model 5 – A closer look at the servitised model 49
Figure 23 Model 6 – Going deeper into the servitised model 51

6
THE ONE PLANET MBA
3 Abstract
Inherited Waste refers to materials that have originated from sources that are
distant from the final point of disposal, which is often bins in public spaces.
The Waste Hierarchy has been a mainstay of our society’s waste management
principles for decades, yet we still deem it acceptable to focus on recycling as a
solution, which is a lesser solution near the bottom of the model, rather than divert
attention to circular models which focus on commoditising products to eliminate
waste, the top of the hierarchy.
There is potential to examine such models to eradicate inherited waste, which
represents a significant cost to organisations which have no influence over the
source.
This research explores the policy framework which enables the current working
methods and presents the possibility that this model could be challenged with
innovative new methods.
Drawing commentary from individuals involved in the cycle of inherited waste
directly or indirectly, it has emerged that there is less faith in the current framework
delivering the necessary change than there is in the potential that new thinking
could bring.
The findings confirm that there is a financial burden on those inheriting the waste
which is unlikely to be suitably addressed by the producers within the current
context. Further research is recommended to identify the opportunities fully with
potential for the entrepreneurial innovator to rise to the challenge.

7
THE ONE PLANET MBA
4 Introduction
The waste industry is evolving. As the realities of climate change and resource
scarcity move from barely understood academic thought to generally accepted
principles driving global markets, the influences behind these developments are
coming from a wide variety of sources.
Europe exerts a strong influence on the environmental legislation framework in the
UK; particularly relevant to the waste industry is the European Waste Framework
Directive which requires a progressive move from disposal of waste to landfill,
through recovery opportunities including Energy from Waste and recycling, up to
reduction and eventually elimination of waste. (European Commission, 2008)
In the UK legislation has a strong influence, partly designed to manage types of
waste stream to ensure environmental damage is prevented as seen in the
Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (United Kingdom
Parliament, 2005) and partly to change behaviour.
The International Standard BS EN ISO 14001 requires organisations that wish to
meet the standard to commit to preventing pollution and reducing harmful impacts
on the environment as well as encouraging positive impacts. (British Standards
Institution, 2004)
In addition non-governmental organisations such as the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation are pioneering research into new methods for reducing waste and how
to make them mainstream effectively and efficiently. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2012, 2013 and 2014)
Within this context each organisation will also have their own governance
structures from parent companies, investors, insurers, suppliers and customers.
Further they may encounter increasing pressure from other stakeholders who
have no obvious direct connection with the business including Greenpeace or
WWF who may identify impacts way beyond their operational boundaries. An

8
THE ONE PLANET MBA
example of this is the increasing amount of plastic waste found in the ocean which
would seem to be far beyond the control of the producer of the plastic. (5 Gyres,
2014)
Despite such a confusing array of influences upon them organisations must
identify the best methods for managing their waste output to:
• Meet legislative requirements for a wide variety of waste streams
• Ensure compliance with other requirements such as corporate governance
mechanisms from internal and external sources
• Reduce operational costs through waste reduction
• Demonstrate their implementation of the Waste Hierarchy
• Maintain a good reputation by managing their environmental impacts
In order to establish control over this process the organisation must create a
boundary to the system over which they have a direct influence. This may mean
limits are set by their own activities or perhaps by the financial boundaries of
activities.
This dissertation aims to explore these boundaries and whether opportunities
become limited by the framework that is currently in place.
As Head of Environment for Southern Railway Ltd I have identified that almost all
waste collected from stations and the train cleaning operations at Train Care
depots is inherited from our customers and our tenants. Despite the fact that we
have not directly produced the waste, we are still required to ensure we recycle as
much as possible and manage the waste in line with the Waste Hierarchy. We
embrace this responsibility and are not seeking to avoid it. Currently we are
achieving a recycling rate at both stations and depots of 80%, with the stations
alone now achieving 90% as we have engaged with our tenants to improve food
separation and have even diverted 100% of waste from landfill at most stations
(Norval, 2014a).

9
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Inevitably this has led to some cost reductions, although we have also observed a
gradual increase in volumes which has offset this benefit. As a result, we are
paying an average of £40k per month for the removal of passenger waste (Norval,
2014a). To reduce this cost we must now consider whether we have options for
stimulating behaviour change within the supply chain of this major and highly
variable waste stream and have committed to do so in our Environment Strategy
(Norval, 2013) with guidance for staff in our Waste Manual (Norval, 2014b).
It is also possible that other organisations inheriting waste in this way could benefit
from this research as I intend to explore what opportunities there might be for
turning the waste stream into a resource stream, what the blocks and barriers are
and where there is an innovation space for new ways of working by presenting
some suggested models to stimulate responses and encourage fresh thought
processes from some waste industry and sustainability professionals. The aim and
objectives for this research and the research questions to be addressed are
designed to address this and my conclusion will therefore present limitations
created by the current framework from the perspective of inherited waste and
potential for further research and innovation opportunities in this context.

10
THE ONE PLANET MBA
4.1 Aim
To explore the implications of the Waste Framework Directive and current policies,
which result in inherited waste, how they affect organisational or process choices
by companies at the end of the chain who must pay to dispose of it and investigate
whether inherited waste could be eradicated or become an inherited resource.
4.2 Objectives
The objectives for this research are:
1 To explore the nuances of the policy framework from the viewpoint of
those at the end of the chain, who must pay to dispose of inherited
waste.
2 To map the supply chain of examples of the waste to identify where
opportunities exist.
3 To test how the policy framework is being interpreted by waste
producers.
4 To map the existing waste management infrastructure to appreciate
available options.
5 To align the three aspects to consider what possibilities are revealed,
leading to further research opportunities to develop change potential.
4.3 Research Questions
The questions this research seeks to explore are:
1 How is the waste management infrastructure set up in England?
2 Are there opportunities within the current framework for smaller, non-
producer organisations to participate in the Hierarchy in a more
meaningful and cost effective or cost reductive way?
3 Who gains from the current framework and how can this balance be
redressed?
4 How does the Waste Framework Directive apply in this context?

11
THE ONE PLANET MBA
5 Literature Review
The literature review process has incorporated a wide range of documents
covering the theoretical aspects of turning waste into resource as well as the
current political and legislative framework.
As I read my aim was to keep a viewpoint of organisations which are handling
waste streams which are largely inherited from other sources. I was looking for
perspectives which:
• Created limitations in how the waste could be managed once received
• Limited responsibility of those producing the waste leaving no doubt that the
waste would be generated at some point in a life cycle
• Encouraged behavioural changes within the UK society or prevented such
change
• Created path dependencies which might undermine a change in behaviour
With these perspectives in mind I could start to explore the current mindset with
which organisations operate in order to identify aspects that have led to the current
inevitability of waste arriving in organisations such as Southern and the
expectation that we will simply deal with it as required by law.
As an employee of Southern it was easy for me to want to challenge this position
and seek a solution, however, it soon became clear that there are many
constraints on the management of waste and employment of new methods
5.1 Global context
Beginning with the global context, numerous documents from United Nations
organisations describe resource efficiency as a critical factor to becoming more
sustainable and creating a Green Economy (UNEP, 2011a and 2012a) seeing this
as a clear business case that will deliver returns (UNEP, 2012c), including
references to the carbon footprint of product lifecycles (UNEP, 2007 and 2011b).

12
THE ONE PLANET MBA
This was included in the Rio20+ report as critical to the global Carbon Reduction
agenda alongside the direct energy reduction and decarbonisation policies as it is
expected to make significant contributions through reduction or removal of
embedded carbons at all stages of product life cycles (UNEP, 2013)
In attempts to pave the way to governments and organisations adopting new
models utilising resource efficiency in planning and development policy, numerous
tools and guides have been compiled (UNEP, 2008a, 2008b and 2012b), aimed at
sharing best practice between governments. Different mechanisms have been
used to provide detailed resource kits (UNEP and UNIDO, 2010) and to develop a
long term context through youth engagement, on the principle that teenagers will
soon join and influence organisations. (UNEP and UNESCO, 2006)
More recently the focus has narrowed to driving a change in policy making,
intended to enable a decoupling of resource use from economic growth. (UNEP,
2011e) This is a shift from consumption to reuse of materials and has received a
great deal of attention with several UNEP publications during 2011, focusing on
decoupling, with the Visions for Change publications supported by a range of
specific country papers giving clear case studies. (UNEP, 2011c and 2011d)
This was followed up with a Global Outlook on resource consumption which clearly
pushes a localised agenda for creating the shift towards more sustainable models.
(UNEP and ICLEI 2012)
The pre Rio20+ publication of the Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2013
(UN Global Compact, 2013) was not well regarded amongst sustainability
professionals. The report showed disappointingly slow progress towards even
those targets which had been set and there was little reassurance that this would
be addressed in a meaningful way.
This is a bewildering array of information for policy makers to absorb and convert
into their local context and whilst I recognise an attempt to seek solutions that
cross the boundaries of disciplines there is limited evidence to show how that shift
in thinking is happening at scale. As a result, I feel that at the present time much of

13
THE ONE PLANET MBA
this material can only be viewed in an aspirational context. That is to say that my
interpretation of the overarching outcome of these publications is that participants
collected views can be summarised as a strong desire to achieve a resource
efficient, inter-connected and fair society, which utilises market mechanisms to
benefit all. The reality behind that is that some of the participating countries can
demonstrate cases in which this has partly been achieved, but these are still
unusual and discussion continues as it is not yet fully understood how to make
such projects the norm.
In addition to the publications driven by the United Nations and their associates, I
have given consideration to the Living Planet Reports (WWF 2012 and 2013).
These reports demonstrate how our economic and social development is
interacting with the global ecosystem with largely detrimental impacts on fisheries,
forestries, water cycles and all forms of life on the planet. As these resources are
the basis of our entire society this is a significant concern and these reports
demonstrate little meaningful progress since the original publication of major works
such as Our Common Future (Brundtland, 2009).
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has attempted to
translate the challenges we face into a business context with its Vision 2050,
incorporating the preservation of natural resources into potential business models
(WBCSD, 2010) and has published the ORBITS model, aimed at helping business
to translate information into useable measures to drive the necessary change
(WBCSD, undated). The use of such models, however, clearly needs significant
resource to purely compile and analyse data, which during constrained economic
periods is a challenge. This narrows potential use to the largest organisations as
they are the most likely to be able to finance such work. The later publication,
Changing Pace, (WBCSD, 2012) attempts to connect the idea that a new
approach is needed in business, but as with the UN works leaves the reader
feeling that these are little more than aspirations at this point in time.
In conclusion, for the purpose of this research the thinking that is presented by the
publications of global organisations can be used to inspire change but this must be
tempered by local policy and legislation frameworks.

14
THE ONE PLANET MBA
5.2 European context
At the European level, the context is set by the Waste Framework Directive, or
WFD (European Union, 2008).
Figure 1 The Waste Hierarchy Norval, Southern Railway Waste Manual (2014)
This hierarchy recognises that there are connections with other policies, such as
energy but places this link fairly low in the overall model. The aim is to encourage
waste producers to work their way up the hierarchy until they have eliminated as
much waste as possible. It should be noted that the focus is very clearly on the
producer, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle that is applied in all European
environmental legislation (European Union, 2008).
Viewing this concept from the position of an organisation inheriting waste it
becomes clear that there is little direct intention for tackling waste volumes from
this perspective.
The core assumption of this legislation is that the producer will do all they can to
reduce the volume of waste at source. This is further reflected in the Packaging
Regulations which is European legislation which has been ratified in UK law.
(United Kingdom Parliament. 2007, 2008 and 2010)

15
THE ONE PLANET MBA
This legislation aims to identify who has created waste at each stage of
production. The theory is that by charging them for the packaging they create,
funding is generated to invest into systems which are then provided for recovering
and recycling those materials. It allocates a theoretical 0% production to the end
user. The end user or consumer, however, must then dispose of the packaging
and the legislation assumes that they must pay for its removal.
Even if the waste is placed into a public bin, in theory the cost of waste disposal is
tied up in the cost of provision of the bin, provision of the facility in which the bin is
placed (for example, a park) and this is relayed to the end user as part of either a
ticket price on commercial premises or through Council Tax on municipal
premises. The provider of the bin, the inheritee, is not represented in the model at
all and the cost relay is purely an accounting exercise absorbed into operational
costs.
Ultimately this system means that the producer absolves their responsibility legally
as soon as the product is shipped out of their premises. This also reflects the point
where the waste is shipped out of their organisational system boundaries.
Figure 2 The Packaging Regulations Responsibility Allocation Kite Environmental Services (2014)
In some cases this may occur early in the process, for example if the filling and
packing element is contracted out. Responsible businesses will work with the sub

16
THE ONE PLANET MBA
contractor to develop ways to reduce waste but some may relinquish control at
that point as they are legally allowed to do so.
For the organisation at the end of the chain arranging collection and disposal, this
provides a major limitation on the potential to use the Waste Hierarchy.
For an organisation such as Southern, the non-fleet related waste is mainly
inherited from customers and tenants, so opportunities for waste reduction are
severely limited by the current framework. As this is a highly visible element of the
overall waste stream there is increasing pressure from the community to recycle
as much waste as possible, however, this is not the intention of the hierarchy as
set at the European level, yet legally Southern is required to demonstrate that the
hierarchy has been applied.
The conclusion, therefore, is that under the current framework inherited waste is a
cost which is inflicted on the recipient of the waste and must simply be borne, with
little opportunity to reduce or negate the expense under the current system.
Note that this is partly in conflict with the aspirations of the global Non-
Governmental Organisations, which seek greater collaboration between
organisations to create more circularity in the flow of resources but as far as
inherited waste goes, with this framework, recycling is the limit of what can be
achieved at present.
A further conclusion is that The Waste Hierarchy model is not intended to drive
behaviour change from those at the end of the waste supply chain as much as it is
intended to change behaviours in production, strongly represented by the
‘Producer responsibility’ approach.
Beyond the legislative context, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has carried out
extensive research on creating a Circular Economy.

17
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Figure 3 The Linear Economy and The Circular Economy Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012)
The three reports Towards the Circular Economy Volumes 1-3 (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2012, 2013 and 2014) demonstrate that a serious shift in thinking is
necessary to achieve fundamental changes in corporate and individual
behaviours.
Many businesses are actively working towards such a shift with in-depth case
studies available for companies including InterfaceFLOR, Desso, Coca-Cola and
many more, however, there is a strong bias towards projects with fiscal paybacks
to the host organisation. It is clearly recognised by these companies that there is
value in waste but the case studies prove that they generally wish to ensure that
the value is returned to their organisation.
This is perhaps unsurprising if viewed through the lens of Smith’s Invisible Hand
(Smith, 2008). In other words, adapting Smith’s famous phrase, it is not through
the benevolence of the waste producers that we can expect to achieve a circular
economy but through their regard to their own interests, that is to say, they will
seek to reduce their own costs and thus increase their own profit margins by
reducing waste.

18
THE ONE PLANET MBA
This is further supported with evidence provided in the work of Anderson in which
he clearly demonstrates benefits to InterfaceFLOR through various environmental
initiatives including waste elimination and the adoption of more circular models
(Anderson, 2009). Anderson regularly alludes to the work of Hawken (2010) who
explains that we are currently operating beyond our ecological boundaries and that
the application of ecosystem thinking to business enables the development of
efficiencies and more circular business models.
Whilst I have found no direct evidence that this is a factor that has driven the
current framework I am led to an observation that potentially the ‘polluter pays’
principle will only drive waste reductions where the polluter gains by reducing that
cost, or other associated costs.
When viewed from the inherited waste perspective this offers little comfort as the
producer is driven to use practices such as ‘lightweighting’ of packaging, which
reduces the quality of the material for recycling, or to use alternative materials
which may also be of less value for recycling. In turn this offers less residual value
to the organisation inheriting the waste, leading to a further observation that there
is little incentive in the current framework for the producer to provide quality
recyclates as part of their supply chain.
The Circular Economy is based on modeling systems of nutrient and resource
cycling, returning them to the start of the process or to nature where possible. The
work of Biomimicry 3.8, of which Benyus (1997) is a founder, provides a model
that shows ‘life creates conditions conducive to life’ along with a range of other
‘Nature’s Principles’ which contribute to this thinking (Biomimicry for Creative
Innovation, n.d.). This is the foundation of the Life’s Principles Design Lens which
is intended to help organisations to create more circular models. (Biomimicry 3.8,
2014)

19
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Figure 4 Nature’s Principles BCI Tomorrow’s Natural Business (Undated)
Figure 5 Life’s Principles Design Lens Biomimicry 3.8 (2014)
This is built on by Hutchins in his vision of a new business structure (2012). He
argues that with changes in the way communications are managed in
organisations along with new technologies, new working methods and a change in
employee mindsets already being observed, the ‘Firm of the Future’ will be a much
more nebulous structure based on networking and knowledge rather than
hierarchy. This is supported by the work of Sukhdev (2012) who sees that a strong
shift in the way that Corporations will be working by 2020 is necessary if we are to
avoid, or at least minimise the predicted impacts of climate change, resource
scarcity and the resultant economic crises that are likely.

20
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Whilst a great deal of research is being carried out on the Circular Economy, from
the viewpoint of inherited waste it is of limited use in its current format. Possibilities
emerge if inspiration is taken from Hawken, Hutchins and Sukhdev but it is
important to remember that these are untested ideas.
Deutz et al (2009b) argue that eco-design is a critical foundation to sustainable
waste management and the two concepts are interrelated. This paper shows that
to determine the innovation space for design the parameters must be identified
and the field of potential gradually narrowed to define the final possibilities. In
terms of inherited waste, therefore, it would be useful to inspire new thinking with
the preparation of some potential models working in a collaborative and
sustainable framework, the aim of which would be to encourage further
suggestions to begin to define the innovation space.
Deutz in 2009(a) explained that Industrial Ecology aims to break out of the system
boundaries defined by organisations whereas Ecological Modernisation in industry
uses the inspiration of ecological thinking but works within system boundaries.
Using this idea for inherited waste, therefore, it would be useful to assess whether
the use of an Industrial Ecology approach to challenge the issue could be inspired
by presenting some potential theoretical models which break out of organisational
boundaries to prompt commentary.
It may, therefore, be possible to create a circular model for inherited waste
streams, requiring the crossing of several organisational boundaries. This would
break them out of the current framework which focuses on organisations taking
direct responsibility for the waste they produce and manage, paying off their part in
the waste that leaves their control. Only the largest organisations would currently
consider working beyond these perceived boundaries and even then, only if there
is a cost benefit to them.
Further, I conclude that circular models for inherited waste may be useful to
provoke reaction and generate comment but would require further research
beyond the scope of this dissertation to assess the level of feasibility in terms of

21
THE ONE PLANET MBA
economics and carbon footprint as well as potential for adoption by the public and
participating organisations.
5.3 The UK context
Whilst the Waste Hierarchy model partially covers the UK context as it is European
legislation ratified in UK law, there are other aspects to be considered.
Several government departments have produced materials to give guidance on
the application of European legislation and its translation into UK policy but the
most relevant to the inherited waste issue are those issued by the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Where variances apply, I have
focused on the policies as they apply to England as Southern rail is purely an
English company.
Defra has carried out a review of the waste policy, with the first publications in
2011 (Defra, 2011a-c) and findings continuing to emerge. The focus at the start of
this process was the initial implementation of the Waste Hierarchy and the
intention was to further progress this work. The Guidance on applying the Waste
Hierarchy document (Defra, 2011c) states that using waste as feedstock for
energy production is an environmentally preferable option to some recycling
options from a carbon perspective. This is in conflict with the intentions of the
Waste Hierarchy and does not take into account that this method involves the
destruction of the resources. In the same year Defra published outcomes of
research into collaboration opportunities (Defra, 2011a) which were largely at a
national scale and also did not favour recovery, waste prevention and reduction
options higher up the Hierarchy. This leads to the conclusion that at that time the
need to generate energy from waste as an energy security measure influenced the
actions being proposed at government level.
As further reports and supporting papers have emerged this appears to be
changing.

22
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Defra issued a paper that reviewed the definition of waste (Defra, 2012), a debate
that is continually revisited as an enabler for behaviour change. This paper shows
that there is support for waste that is produced by one organisation to become a
resource for another. This is very important because it means that it is possible for
different requirements to apply to organisations when taking materials from others.
In the long term this could help to reduce one of the key barriers to entry to the
waste industry for new projects.
In 2013 Defra published a suite of related documents summarising the review and
demonstrating a shift of emphasis to waste prevention. (Defra 2011a-i) The
‘Prevention is Better than Cure’ policy (Defra, 2013a) still includes an element of
energy security but now recognises that there is a need to preserve resources
where possible. The summary report (Defra, 2013i) reads as a collation of existing
mechanisms for resource recovery including areas such as second hand markets
and recycling programmes, however, the full policy document (Defra, 2013c) sets
the programme up to 2017/18 and firmly places the onus of responsibility onto the
private sector for trade waste and the public sector for domestic waste. The
emphasis, remains on the producers and clearly is designed to target the largest
producers.
My conclusion from these papers is that policy is driving large producers to act
with a burden of responsibility designed to change their behaviours, however, a
gap remains for those inheriting waste as the legislative focus encourages non-
circular processes with little incentive for organisations to act in ways which do not
impact their profit margin directly.
The government funded an organisation called the Waste and Resources Action
Programme, (WRAP). This funding has now been cut significantly but the
organisation continues the work using alternative funding sources. As a result
there is a wealth of material available which includes academic research with
specific industries through to resources to encourage a standardisation of labeling
for recycling facilities.

23
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Whilst some of the resources, such as the 2013 report ‘Overview of Waste in the
UK Hospitality and Food Service Sector’ (WRAP, 2013) relate directly to the food
and beverage industry, which is the source of the majority of inherited waste at
Southern, the emphasis is on the producer and the biggest returns at national
scale in terms of finance, carbon and volume to landfill. From the viewpoint of
those inheriting waste this has very little useful information, other than further
confirming the earlier conclusion that organisational self interest drives decision
making.
WRAP’s 2007 report on the capacity of Municipal Solid Waste Mixed Recycling
Facilities is now largely out of date as a range of new installations have been
commissioned by waste operators, so is disregarded for the purpose of this
research.
Matsueda and Nagase (2012) demonstrate that despite the influence of the
Packaging Regulations in the UK market, economic mechanisms have led to a
decrease in landfill rates but at a slower rate than predicted due to increases in the
volume of packaging in circulation. They also demonstrate that paradoxically
increasing landfill tax actually leads to an increase in landfill waste.
In the context of this research I further note on this point that the onus of landfill
tax for primary packaging falls on those inheriting the waste, not the producer,
therefore, increasing landfill tax in this respect is not an incentive for reducing final
product packaging, merely for reducing production waste as far as the producer is
concerned.
Amienyo et al (2012) demonstrate that packaging represents between 49% and
79% of the life cycle environmental impact of carbonated beverages, of this 90% is
attributed to primary packaging, the element that is inherited from passengers in
rail, whilst some secondary packaging is inherited from on station tenants.
Therefore, a circular model for beverage packaging would lead to a significant life
cycle impact reduction as well as reducing the level of inherited waste.

24
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Following the Literature Review a number of key issues have emerged as
important when considering inherited waste.
Policy and legislation appear to be strong driving factors in decision making for
infrastructure, process planning and management of waste produced.
Whilst the concept of a circular economy is well documented with possible
approaches being designed at an aspirational level, application does not seem to
be well advanced, despite strong models developed by notable exceptions at an
international level, such as InterfaceFLOR (Anderson, 2009).
It is possible that the level of potential for a circular economy in the UK is shaped
by the policy and legislation framework as well as limitations in the available
infrastructure.
The desire to implement new approaches for waste management seems to be
driven by a range of factors including economics, business models and even
reputation, but these factors generally focus inwardly to the singular organisation.
When looking at this from the perspective of inherited waste the challenge is
greater. Organisations at the end of the chain have no option but to pay to dispose
of the waste responsibly and using the traditional approach of looking inwardly it is
decided that there is little scope for change as this would require development of
relationships with producing organisations which are numerous and external to the
inheritee’s sphere of current influence.
The area of research for this paper is around the potential for applying existing
ideas and models in a new context, or for identifying new models, rather than an
inward focus on volumes or cost directly. This suggested that qualitative research
at this stage would be most appropriate with potential for future studies to
investigate volume and cost scenarios if useful models were identified.

25
THE ONE PLANET MBA
6 Methodology
The Literature Review revealed that the concept of ‘inherited waste’ has not been
explored in research previously and is not considered a priority in policy
frameworks. As a result it was important to communicate the concept clearly and
clarify the issues it presents.
To ensure that fresh ideas could be collected whilst assessing thoughts around
existing ideas a method to assess and draw out discussion was needed. The
options considered included face to face interviews with a narrow, controlled
sample, widely circulated anonymous questionnaires to an uncontrolled sample,
compilation of a suggested model for comment or a combination of some of these
options.
To ensure that this new subject area could be easily communicated it was
determined that the use of models based on existing theories (ie a visual
presentation) along with written descriptions (ie a theoretical presentation) enabled
scenarios to be presented clearly, taking into account different personality types
that may be represented within the audience.
The need to enable comparison in responses, given the timescale involved was
also a consideration so it was deemed important that some boundaries were
created but with scope to build on answers in a more discursive way.
Because the research is being carried out by someone involved in the process and
known to be an influential character, it was decided that interview techniques
might lead to potential bias as discussion could emerge rather than direct
answers. The use of a structured questionnaire with a set scoring system would
eliminate this risk, circulated by email to ensure that all contact was controlled and
responses not influenced in any way.
This approach alone would provide a limited set of responses and would not have
enabled the respondent to voice their own opinions which did not fully meet the

26
THE ONE PLANET MBA
aim of exploring the issues and the opportunities around them. In order to address
this space needed to be provided and the respondent encouraged to provide free
commentary around the subject.
The circulation needed to be directed to individuals who had understanding of the
issues in some form, this included waste professionals, sustainability professionals
and students, rail professionals, food and beverage professionals and individuals
who would use public transport and purchase items that might generate waste that
would be inherited.
These considerations led me to determine that the format for the research needed
to be semi-structured qualitative research. To achieve this the questionnaire
required:
• Presentation of some demonstration models with structured questions
relating to the context they might be found in
• Set questions for each model with a scoring system to enable comparison
• Space for each model to enable free comment
• Space for general free comment
• A selected sample with potential for additional inidividuals to be included if
they suited the listed range of experience.
The questionnaire used the title ‘Opportunities for inherited waste’ with the
intention that this would start to give the term early exposure and begin to embed it
in the reader’s mind.
It was important to assume that the reader may not have considered inherited
waste as a concept previously, so the introduction explains how the research
concept was developed and how the researcher is connected to the issue. The
challenge is set up as an exploration from the introduction, with clear statements
that the intention is to provoke discussion to enable the generation of new ideas to
promote the potential for circularisation of waste and creation of a shift towards
resource management.

27
THE ONE PLANET MBA
A key outcome is identified at this point that ‘it would be useful to identify where
the space for innovation lies as an enabler for further research in the future.’
A further statement was made that ‘the questions aim to provoke thought and
encourage your input to the research with the presented models as a stimulus for
you to react to’ with the intention that this would further encourage open
discussion.
In order to manage the responses ethically and encourage open and honest
contributions it was decided that all responses would be treated confidentially and
anonymised for the final dissertation, although information would be requested to
enable an assessment of what background responses were from.
The questionnaire was intended for circulation to selected participants in the waste
industry, the rail industry and the sustainability profession. To capture the thoughts
of the ‘users’ of the waste produced the questionnaire was also sent to a small
number of public transport users, recognising that many of the main circulation list
were also public transport users.
In the course of my role with Southern I have found that the basic concept of
inherited waste, ie that there are sections of the market which must handle waste
imposed on them by external processes, is not something which has previously
been discussed formally or broadly. This means that to enable such discussions
would be a positive outcome from this research, with the potential to reveal
possible new avenues for developing ways to turn inherited ‘waste’ into inherited
‘resource’. Ongoing discussion of the issue is a desirable possibility but not a
specific aim of the research as it cannot be quantified prior to the finalisation of the
results.
The aim of this research is to understand what options currently exist for change,
therefore no further explanation of the options offered were provided on the
questionnaire, although it was made clear, within the email that the questionnaire
was attached to, that respondents could seek further detail if they wished to and
full contact details were provided.

28
THE ONE PLANET MBA
To enable the introduction of new ideas and more detailed commentary on the
models and the concept of inherited waste and circularity, each question was
provided with space for open comment along with a final section for free
commentary to be added. It was made clear in the text that the respondent was
encouraged to speak freely and the results would be anonymised to further
encourage honesty in responses.
The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. The anonymised comments are
presented in Appendix B and are transcribed exactly as presented to ensure that
there is no risk of bias. The scoring results for each model are presented in
Section 7 Presentation and Analysis of Findings.
All questionnaires will be retained for one year and can be made available for
review.
6.1 Choosing the circulation list
It was important that the circulation list would generate a range of responses.
Whilst the issue of inherited waste was identified in the rail industry, it is not
isolated to that sector alone. It was also recognised that tackling the issue would
need understanding of the full waste industry framework and the path that the
waste takes to reach the inheritee. Ultimately this could become a supply chain of
‘inherited resource’, therefore it was decided that the circulation list should include
people from the rail industry, the waste industry, academia with an interest in
waste and sustainability, the public sector, manufacturers and those contracting
with manufacturers on tackling waste issues and a small number of public
transport users. A list of fifty-four people was selected and the questionnaire was
emailed with records of responses held, including whether respondents had left
the role, were on holiday, or had made contact prior to submitting the final
response.
The responses were then collated with the details provided for analysis and all
comments from the actual response logged. Copies of separate communications

29
THE ONE PLANET MBA
were also held on file and referred to where appropriate but treated as separate
discussions from the actual questionnaire responses.
To assess the validity of the circulation list an analysis was carried out of the
relationship to the researcher, with the following results:
5 were rail industry colleagues
7 were colleagues from the One Planet MBA
36 were selected from the researcher’s wider network and most have only met the
researcher personally once or twice
6 were not known to the researcher personally
Once all responses had been received all respondents were allocated a reference
number. References were then also allocated to the list of nil responses for
analysis purposes only.
6.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology
The following were identified strengths:
The circulation list was strong, with representation of all the identified sectors as
listed above. This was drawn from the researchers network, enabling assessment
of credentials to ensure that responses had validity in the field of research, or
where the respondents were generalists, this could be noted in the final collation of
findings. A small number of additional questionnaires were sent to contacts of
individuals on the original list as they had specific interest in the area of research.
The responses were treated in exactly the same way as the original list.
The models compiled were based on recognised models, using existing processes
in real settings, although genericised and anonymised to enable free sharing and
open discussion.
The breadth of sources considered in preparation of the questionnaire was
sufficient to capture a range of new thinking in the field of waste and resource

30
THE ONE PLANET MBA
management with sufficient academic thought to ensure that the process was
useful.
Sufficient encouragement was provided to generate open comment with useful
input received from the start of the response process.
The following were identified weaknesses:
The timing of the questionnaire coincided with the summer holiday season, which
may have contributed to a lower level of response than could have been achieved,
although 46% return rate was actually achieved. This could have been improved
by adjusting the timing, but preparing the models took longer than planned and the
deadline would not have been met if any further delay had been allowed.
Presentation of a scenario may have influenced thinking more than anticipated in
some cases. Whilst the text encouraged free thinking, for those not already in the
industry ideas may have become directed by the presented process although it is
difficult to predict whether an unguided questionnaire would have produced a
stronger result.
Presenting the questionnaire to a selected list, rather than an open audience may
have limited the potential for response. The intention of selecting a list of
respondents was to ensure good quality of responses, which may have been
compromised in an open response scenario. This may have been improved if
more time had been available for seeking alternative respondents where replies
were not received.

31
THE ONE PLANET MBA
7 Presentation and Analysis of Findings
In order to generate a useful analysis of results a range of groupings were
identified. These were: Rail, Waste, Sustainability, Food, Councils, Public
Transport Users. It should be noted that these groupings were not intended to
stereotype the respondents and it was important to recognise that in many
instances there were crossovers, for example, an individual could be a
sustainability professional working in a council but with expertise in waste.
As the research is qualitative the range of expertise is deemed more relevant than
the overall number in each group, therefore all types of expertise identified were
noted. This means that the numbers shown in each line of the table below reflect
the overall group ie, of the 54, 41 individuals worked in sustainability, but some of
those would also reflect in the 12 individuals with specialisms in waste.
The percentage return reflects the responses within each grouping, with the
overall result of a 46% return. Of the 54 questionnaires sent out, 25 responses
were received.
Figure 6 Response Rate Summary
The table below provides a cross reference within the groupings, to reflect where
the crossovers were. For example of the 41 sustainability professionals contacted,
3 work in rail, 10 in waste, 1 in food, 5 in councils and 33 are public transport
users. Of those, 15 responded and the groupings can then be seen. All groupings
are shown in blue.

32
THE ONE PLANET MBA
The pink section shows the relationship to the researcher, so of the 41
sustainability professionals, 3 are rail industry colleagues, 4 are One Planet MBA
colleagues, 30 are from the researcher’s wider network and 4 are not known to the
researcher personally.

Figure 7 Summary of Responses and Cross Reference
The following table shows the groupings, roles and industry types of the
individuals who responded which shows a useful range of expertise has presented
input into the research although there is scope for a deeper level of research to be
carried out drawing on the findings of this process.

33
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Figure 8 Table of responses
The nil responses were also analysed in the same way, to assess whether there
was a particular bias resulting from the loss of their potential input. It should be
noted that some of the individuals could well be working in a context which
prevented them from participating, some were away during the research period
and some had moved on since the first contact was made. The risk of bias is
regarded as represented in the selection process and no assumptions are made
about reasons for any nil responses.

34
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Due to the spread of the responses received no strong bias has been identified
and in fact is perhaps actually slightly more balanced.
Figure 9 Table of nil responses
To assess whether respondents felt encouraged to speak freely an analysis was
carried out of the number of comments received. In all 47 comments were
received from 19 of the respondents (76%). There was a variation in whether
individuals chose to comment on the models, the free comment page or both, but
the results indicate that potential to comment was not inhibited.

35
THE ONE PLANET MBA

Figure 10 Commentary Summary

The summary of responses is shown below, reflected as averages within the
allocated groups and as an overall average. These results are shown in the Model
analysis sections (7.1 to 7.6). This table shows there are some similarities
between groups on some questions, however, Sustainability is a large group
therefore similarities with the overall results must be expected.
There are also some clear results at either end of the scale which indicates that
individual responses have to some extent reflected a strength of feeling which
provides an element of confidence in the validity of the responses.

Figure 11 Scoring Summary (Average by Group)

36
THE ONE PLANET MBA
7.1 Model One – Current waste infrastructure
Figure 12 Model 1 – Current waste infrastructure
The description given in the questionnaire was:
‘Below is a generic model of the nature of the current waste industry infrastructure. It represents
the boundaries of councils, public waste amenity sites and private waste amenity sites. It does not
represent individual organisations in any way and aims to show the complexity of the current
infrastructure.
County, District and Borough Councils have responsibility for ensuring Municipal Waste is
managed effectively. A range of Amenity Sites are provided, sometimes crossing political
boundaries. Often the Amenity Sites are contracted to private businesses. Waste from those sites
and from trade collections through business contracts are transported to privately owned facilities
for treatment of waste. These include Mixed Recycling Facilities, Energy from Waste Incinerators,
Anaerobic Digesters and Landfill Sites. Responsibility for managing Landfill Sites continues until all
materials have degraded and land is no longer contaminated, which may be decades and may
include remediation programmes.’
The aim of this model, which was genericised, was to show the complexity of the
waste industry in the UK. There are multiple organisations working within any
given area. The extent of this model is the County Council level (the blue area)
and within that county there may be numerous District and Borough councils,

37
THE ONE PLANET MBA
represented by the circles. Within those boundaries, which do often overlap, there
will be a range of Amenity and Waste Management sites, performing a range of
functions. Some of these will be operated by Direct Labour for councils, some will
be contracted out to private operators and some will be wholly owned by private
operators, licensed to take waste from others.
Each of these sites is strictly regulated and there is a strong industry culture
whereby knowledge of the complexity is retained within the industry and is not
easily accessible to those outside it. As a result, although not directly stated in the
questionnaire, this model represents the public face of the industry as it might be
perceived from someone external to it.
The question relating to the model was:
‘Considering the model above:
The waste industry is made up of private companies and councils with varying types of agreement
and a variety of drivers for their infrastructure investment choices. To what extent do you feel that
this infrastructure is driven by the following? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely: Policy
requirements, Legislation, Private competition, Public need, Other.’
The aim of this question was to begin to understand how the respondents perceive
the framework as this is the underlying context in which all waste operators work.
It was expected that views would differ depending on the background of the
respondent.
The results are shown overleaf:

38
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Figure 13 Model 1 scoring comparison graphs
There is a strong feeling that the framework is driven by policy and legislation, with
only the food responses favouring policy over legislation. The private competition
element showed most strongly from the waste group, who are actually the
beneficiaries of that competition. Public Transport Users also showed strongly,
although this may be a reflection of the group size, which is much larger than the
waste group. Interestingly there was a much lower score for public need, indicating
that respondents feel that public need does not determine what waste services are
provided. The Public Transport User grouping shows the lowest score alongside
Sustainability and Food professionals, possibly indicating that there is a feeling
that needs aren’t being met.
In the comments, one respondent noted that historical infrastructure decisions
could limit options and that economic factors influence decisions strongly as
organisations opt for cost minimisation projects, not necessarily resource efficient
ones. The same respondent also noted that legislation is unlikely to be passed if
there is a perceived risk to the incumbent party’s political position. Another
respondent suggested ‘nimbyism’ presents a limitation here.

39
THE ONE PLANET MBA
7.2 Model Two – Current organisational context
Figure 14 Model 2 – Current organisational context
‘The model below is intended to show the current organisational context and aims to show the
relationships between those producing and those handling waste.
All organisations are governed by legislation which defines how waste types must be managed and
this leads to governance structures within industries and organisations to ensure compliance. The
County, District, and Borough Councils procure services within this framework to manage domestic
waste and may opt to manage some trade waste. The vast majority of trade waste is managed
through contracts between numerous waste producers across the private commercial sector. In
addition there may be multiple projects working with reuse, reconditioning and recirculation of
unwanted materials. Most waste producers and community projects working on reducing waste
operate unilaterally with little collaboration.’
The aim of this model was to show the organisational structure of all the
influencers on the waste industry. The governing structure is the political and
legislative context, which is driven by the European Union, the UK government
and those organisations tasked with enforcing legislation such as Defra and the
Environment Agency. At a local level domestic waste is managed by County,
District and Borough Councils often through contracts with private sector
operators. Trade or commercial waste is managed by private sector operators
County, District and Borough Councils
Legislation and governance
Waste Operators (Domestic)
Waste ProducersWaste Producers
Waste Producers
Waste Producers
Waste Producers
Waste ProducersWaste Producers
Waste Producers
Waste Producers
Waste Operators (Commercial)
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Projects

40
THE ONE PLANET MBA
through contracts with Waste Producers and a range of projects and social
enterprises exist, although currently in the minority, often testing new models and
methodologies. The model was intended to show that there are numerous waste
producers who currently operate unilaterally.
The question relating to this model was:
‘Considering the model above:
Currently the legislation and policy framework places responsibility for waste on the producer
focusing on recycling and waste reduction at source. To what extent do you feel that this
framework encourages behaviour change for the following opportunities? Scoring 1 for not at all to
5 for completely: Ability to recycle, Converting ‘waste’ to ‘resource’ through value
recovery, Reusable packaging, Waste eradication, Circular economy, Collaborative community
projects for waste management (eg shared trade recycling hub), Other.’

The aim of this question was to begin to explore whether the organisational
structure is perceived as a barrier to adopting different working models. Is it simply
accepted that this framework is just the way it is, or are there aspirations for
change that currently aren’t being met? This would only succeed if respondents
did comment freely as encouraged.
The ability to recycle is becoming embedded in our society yet the results indicate
that respondents across the full range feel there is scope for improvement with a

41
THE ONE PLANET MBA
mid range score. The respondents from Rail strongly feel that the current
framework enables the conversion of waste to resource, however, given the
working relationship with the researcher and the success of current behaviour
change programmes within the Go-Ahead Group, this may be a biased, but
encouraging result. The other research groups are more aligned with a less
optimistic view, particularly in Food.
Opinions around reusable packaging are much more pessimistic with most groups
scoring 2, Food, which is the group most likely to influence packaging waste in this
context scoring 1. Waste scored 3 bringing the overall score up to 3. Bearing in
mind that the onus is on users to bring reusable packaging this score is believable,
but represents the potential for the largest change.
Scores for waste eradication are similarly pessimistic in the current framework,
with Councils showing the highest score here. The results do not include any
major producers as they did not respond, however, some consultancy in that field
is represented yet the score is still low.
Potential for Circular Economy and collaborative projects in the current framework
produced the same scoring pattern, with Rail and Waste representing the more
optimistic groups here.
These results demonstrate a lack of confidence that the current organisational
framework can deliver the changes needed to move beyond recycling, bearing in
mind that recycling is relatively low in the Waste Hierarchy this is a finding that
gives some concern.
One respondent commented that the responsibility of the producer is not sufficient
to ensure recycling as often the end of chain opportunities do not appear to be
provided. Another noted that some producers are diverting waste by redesignating
it as ‘by-product’ but there is little progress in most other areas at a corporate
level. It was also pointed out that CEO pride, customer expectation, one-
upmanship also all have roles to play beyond legislation.

42
THE ONE PLANET MBA
7.3 Model Three – Worked example: The linear model of the coffee cup
Following on from the assessment of the context the industry works in, the
research moved on to a worked example, still intending to provoke discussion.
Figure 16 Model 3 – The linear model of the coffee cup
‘Below is a model that aims to demonstrate the linear life cycle of a disposable coffee cup, from its
production through to its disposal.
Paper cups, lined with plastics are produced from a combination of raw and recycled materials.
This requires wood and oil, energy and paper pulp as well as labour. The cups require packaging
and transport to wholesalers before reaching coffee shops. In use the cups are filled using teas,
coffees, coffee beans, milk, sugar etc and plastic lids, cardboard cuffs and plastic stirrers are also
used. The used cup, lid, cuff, and stirrer are placed in waste bins, which may or may not be
recycled. At best, the materials may become feedstock for another process but are unlikely to be
reused directly as another coffee cup.’
This model, based on the models presented in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation
documents (2012, 2013 and 2014) depicts the current lifecycle of a genericised
disposable coffee cup from production through to disposal.
7.3.1 – Model Three Question One – The cup
There were two questions relating to this model. The first was:
‘With the current legislative and policy framework responsibility for the waste produced in this
model is passed on to those responsible for the bin in which it is left. Focusing on the cup itself, not
Dry Mixed
Recycling
Production Transport Use Litter Dispose/reclaim
Cup Manufacturer
Coffee
Shops
Collector eg Parks Waste operator
Current Linear Model

43
THE ONE PLANET MBA
other elements of waste from the beverage it contained, consider this model and what
opportunities are available to prevent this waste stream. To what extent do you feel that this
framework could be changed in the following ways? Score 1 for not at all to 5 for completely:
Improve recyclability of the cup, Encourage people to bring a reusable cup, Create a servitised
circular model, Other.’
This question asked the respondent to focus on the coffee cup only, to prompt
them to narrow thinking to one specific aspect of inherited waste whilst still
working within the current frameworks.
Figure 17 Model 3 Question 1 scoring comparison graphs
Bearing in mind the changes listed in the question are presented within the current
framework, Rail and Waste were the most optimistic that improving the
recyclability of the cup was completely feasible. This remains at the lower end of
the hierarchy, so still represents a minimal aspiration. Food were less convinced
that this is achievable.
Interestingly, despite their experience, the Rail group felt that encouraging people
to bring reusable cups is a realistic option, as did Waste, Sustainability and the
Public Transport Users, however, this is not currently commonplace. This

44
THE ONE PLANET MBA
suggests there is potential for running programmes to encourage this type of
change for a relatively ‘quick win’.
Rail, Waste and particularly the Food group believe creating a servitised circular
model could be feasible in the current framework, but Sustainability and Public
Transport are less confident of this and Councils even less so.
The comments provided suggested both financial incentives and disincentives to
the consumer to encourage behaviour change. There is a strong recognition that
the servitised model, in this framework would place a heavy burden on the coffee
shops. Comments also strongly revert to variations on the recycling theme despite
various words in the questionnaire designed to encourage fresh thinking.
This leads to a conclusion that there may be a path dependency emerging which
is possibly curbing free thought and steering possible models towards variations
on existing themes.
7.3.2 – Model Three Question Two – The other elements of beverages
The second question was:
‘Focusing on the other elements of the beverage within the cup to what extent do you feel that this
framework could be changed? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely: More composting of tea
bags/coffee grouts, Seek new ways to dispense sugar/stirrers etc, Influence behaviour eg give up
sugar means less waste, Other.’
For this question the aim was to begin to broaden thinking, still associated with the
first concept but to demonstrate using one stream the associated waste elements
that arise and to provoke thoughts around these and potential opportunities whilst
still working within the current frameworks.

45
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Figure 18 Model 3 Question 2 scoring comparison graphs
All groups see potential for more composting within the current framework and
seeking new ways for dispensing stirrers, sugars etc also scores highly with Rail,
who were very optimistic that this is a way forward and Councils less so. The most
interesting results on this question, and the most emotive was the suggestion of
giving up sugar! Scoring very low in many groups, the comments also reflected
that this type of programme can lead to negative responses as people react and
an example was given of the negative response to Jimmy Carter’s energy saving
drive in the 1970’s. More recently, the public reaction to the change of legislation
around vacuum cleaner power has been negative despite significant
improvements in efficiency meaning the power is probably not needed. (Vidal,
2014)
This suggests that progress is more likely to be made with a positive suggestion
such as ‘bring your own cup’ as opposed to ‘we don’t give out disposable cups any
more’.
Hygiene is also commented on as a factor, which could add to the cost of new
recirculation and dispensing methods.

46
THE ONE PLANET MBA
7.4 Model Four – Worked example: Circularising the coffee cup
Figure 19 Model 4 – Circularising the coffee cup
‘The model below presents a possible circular scenario using the coffee cup, based on tenant
coffee shops on stations as an example. This type of model may not be limited to this scenario and
you may observe limitations. Please comment on these on the open response section.
This model shows the top level of a potential circular model.
In this scenario the cup itself would need to be designed using recyclable materials to enable a
range of cycles.
In production waste materials are reused in processes. This retains materials within the producing
organisation.
The recyclable cup is collected at coffee shops to be returned to the producing organisation for
cleaning or recycling. This means that relationships need to be developed between the coffee
shops and the producer of the cups.
Alternative bins are provided at sites such as stations and high streets to collect cups that are
taken away from coffee shops. These bins are taken to sorting sites, with potential to create new
jobs but requiring the development of several new relationships.
It is inevitable that some cups will end up in standard litter bins, removing them from the cycle.’
This model, also based on models presented in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation
publications (2012, 2013 and 2014) was designed using the researcher’s
experience of the tenant coffee shops, the processes associated with their supply
chain and the waste produced by them and their customers.
Cup
Production
Process
residue
Cups
collected at
coffee shops
Litter
Sorting
Site
Potential for
local jobs,
value in
collected
material etc
Potential circular model

47
THE ONE PLANET MBA
The model seeks to provoke discussion around the conceptual level of
circularising the coffee cup including the suggestion that the sorting aspect of the
system could generate potential for local jobs and divert the value within collected
materials to a new part of the cycle. The model also recognises that there would
be some losses of cups from the cycle.
The question relating to this model was:
‘Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an
approach is feasible in principle? Scoring 1 for not at all to 5 for completely: With current service
providers, With new projects or collaborations, With a new type of provider, Other.’
The intention was to introduce the new concept of a circular model to the
respondent, preparing them for the next two models, which entered into greater
degrees of detail of potential models. This was intended to provoke thoughts
around the complexity of such a shift, set in the context of the previously
presented frameworks. With this phased development of the concept it was
anticipated that respondents would offer differing views of the framework and
potential for change depending on their position in relation to the industry.

48
THE ONE PLANET MBA
The results for this model prove interesting because they show that there is little
belief that the existing framework can enable a truly circular model. With the
suggestion of new collaborations and new providers this completely changes with
the Food respondents the most positive. The comments show that the concept is
understood, however, there is an assumption that the coffee shops must purchase
the cups and potentially bear any loss. There is also still a strong leaning towards
providing incentives to encourage people to switch. This suggests an expectation
that there will remain a choice between disposable cups and the circular model.
One comment suggests a return to china mugs, which in the context would
introduce safety risks and the same respondent also did not feel that a circular
model could work. Another refers to the Olympics model, which despite being on a
series of static sites still resorted to compostable cups, essentially remaining within
the disposal level of the hierarchy. This would be useful to research further to
ascertain why a more circular model wasn’t used, or indeed, to what extent it was
considered.
On the whole these responses do, however, reflect a good degree of positivity
about the potential for a new model to be introduced. Whilst the model presented
focuses on the cup itself, there is potential for wider research around circularising
the whole range of products connected with transit related beverages but this may
need to be led on a disruption basis – ie, there seems to be an expectation that
the current providers could deliver the needed change, but perhaps there is a
need for a major disruptor to enter the market.

49
THE ONE PLANET MBA
7.5 Model Five – Worked example: A closer look at the servitised model
Figure 21 Model 5 – A closer look at the servitised model
‘The model below represents a possible scenario for a servitised model for a reusable coffee cup.
This type of model may not be limited to this scenario and you may observe limitations. Please
comment on these on the open response section.
This model shows the various phases that would be required for a potential servitised model for
reusable coffee cups.
In this scenario a bin would need to be designed to collect cups and lids and allow remaining
beverages to drain out.
The bin would need emptying, sorting and cleaning.
Clean cups would need to be packaged and redistributed to the coffee shops and reused.’
This model, purely aspirational, was intended to begin to demonstrate the
complexity of attempting to circularise a process. It introduces additional
processes which, although not specifically mentioned on the questionnaire, also
import additional cost. This was intended to stimulate discussion and thoughts
around how such changes and the resulting costs might impact on the existing
systems and to begin to flush out initial thoughts of where opportunities for
innovation might lie.

50
THE ONE PLANET MBA
The question related to the model was:
Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an
It was anticipated that responses would vary depending on the respondents
relationship to the waste industry and in some cases might be the first time that
the complexity of a circular model had been considered. Others would be
expected to have strong opinions if already working in the field.
The first point of interest here is that the overall level of confidence within the
current framework to enable this type of change increased. Food dropped to 2 but
Councils and Public Transport Users increased to 3 while Rail, Waste and
Sustainability remained unchanged.
This may indicate that with more clarity around what such a model would look like
confidence improves. At present most materials presented include conceptual

51
THE ONE PLANET MBA
circular models, such as those presented by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation
(2012, 2013, 2014) but it can be difficult to relate those to real world situations
without some consideration.
Many of the comments on this model mentioned the cost element, however, there
was a range of discursive elements which began to break down the challenges
seen with early ideas for possible solutions. The real challenge with the model
would be in identifying where the value sits. In designing it inspiration was taken
from the InterfaceFLOR model for servitisation of carpet tiles (Anderson, 2009). It
is accepted that the model itself is flawed but with positive feedback and
recognition that there may be scope to design new business models, there is a
clear route for further research into this area. For example, a useful research
question would be ‘Could a business or social enterprise feasibly be created to
manage the service of cup provision?’
7.6 Model Six – Worked example: Going deeper into the servitised model
Figure 23 Model 6 – Going deeper into the servitised model

52
THE ONE PLANET MBA
‘The model below represents a more detailed look at a possible scenario for a servitised model for
a reusable coffee cup. This element considers the sorting of waste from reusable elements. This
type of model may not be limited to this scenario and you may observe limitations. Please
comment on these on the open response section.
This model looks at the complexities of a servitised circular model, taking into account the
additional aspects that would need to be addressed.
Collecting bins need a process for collection, sorting and cleaning. This would need creation of an
organisation to manage this process, capable of creating appropriate relationships.
A further process would be needed for dealing with breakages and to return the materials to the
production process.
The clean cups, once packed would re-enter the distribution loop, which may utilise existing
mechanisms.
Finally an element of consumer behaviour change would be required which could be challenging.’
This model begins to break the process of the circular model down into much more
detail. It starts to reveal that the model could involve numerous organisations and
has life cycle considerations of its own. For example, does the logistics process
introduce deeper waste and carbon issues?
The question related to the model was:
‘Considering this model within the current legislative and policy context do you feel that such an
The model was presented on face value with no expansion on anticipated issues
to allow for potential that respondents would present unlimited thoughts around
this and perhaps even thoughts of potential alternatives or solutions.

53
THE ONE PLANET MBA
The respondent’s belief that the current framework could support this model drops
back to 2 for this more detailed model. All responses return to the scores shown in
Model 4 with the exception of Councils who remain more positive at 3.
Despite the realities of this complex model confidence that new projects or new
providers could deliver it remain high. The Food score for projects and
collaborations drops slightly to four but the overall score remains unchanged
whereas the scores for new providers are exactly the same.
Within the comments, one respondent observes that there is a challenge in the
management of the collected cups in that cleanliness throughout the process may
not meet consumer’s expectations, even if cleaning achieves approved levels. The
customer perception may be very different. Another notes that the problem of
different places of purchase, consumption and disposal present a challenge and a
solution for disposal ‘on the go’ would need to be found. Consideration for how this
would work with any incentives/disincentives is needed as this would need to be
sufficient for a consumer to want to find the right collecting bin for disposal.

54
THE ONE PLANET MBA
This positivity both in scores and in the willingness to go into detail in the
comments, confirms the suggestion for future research made in Model 5 that there
is scope to analyse in depth the feasibility of a new model provider, giving
consideration to
• How could relationships be built?
• What design challenges would there be?
• What would the logistics challenges be?
• How would the hygiene aspects be managed?
• And, particularly, what would the value chain for the servitised cup look
like?
As this only addresses one inherited waste stream, there is further potential for
similar models for other waste streams such as sugar dispensing, coffee grouts
and tea bags etc.
7.7 Open comments
Fifteen respondents entered comments on the open comments section, of those 9
had not commented elsewhere in the questionnaire. The number and depth of
comments suggests that there was a genuine interest in the subject matter and a
strong desire for change, even at the lower levels of the hierarchy.
An emerging challenge is that the existing mindset is a limiting factor to thinking
about new models, as one respondent said, most organisations have accepted
that recycling is profitable, but lack of understanding is slowing this change. They
also suggest lethargy is an issue, leading to their conclusion that new providers
and collaborations are needed.
The types of jobs that would be created is raised as a possible concern. The
response refers to the model clearly showing someone sorting cups, however, in
reality this entry level role may not be the only role created, if entire organisations
become necessary these would be additional jobs of all organisational levels,
forming part of the emerging green economy. Potentially these roles might lend

55
THE ONE PLANET MBA
themselves well to being led by social enterprises or local community
organisations and could present creative employment options such as job share
opportunities. It is interesting, though, that in contrast it is currently deemed
acceptable to have low paid roles to handle other people’s waste and the
collective mindset seems to identify that we will not move away from this in the
near future.
Hygiene is mentioned again as an important risk factor, which has guidance and
legislation available to consider how this might determine operational choices.
One respondent observes that revenue is a key driver for business decision
making but also notes that it is not frameworks and policy that drive change, but
people. They go on to say that it just needs someone to think out of the box, even
within the current framework.
A suggestion is made that the final model could be set up as a trial project and a
Life Cycle Assessment carried out to analyse carbon aspects as well as costs.
This is a very useful comment, and I would also suggest that as part of the further
research this could analyse the process from a full resource life cycle perspective,
as opposed to the product itself, perhaps using a Natural Capital model (Hawken
et al, 2010).
Respondent 10 adds a useful comment that many of the coffee shops in public
places are franchises, so local staff have little input on the process. This actually
leads to a level of detachment from the issues and would need to be considered in
the suggested further research into the feasibility of circular models as it would
impact on the value chain if there is a lack of care about another organisation’s
commodity.
An incentive scheme suggested by respondent 11, a Public Transport User, is
very reminiscent of reward mechanisms seen in video gaming, with levels
achieved and the potential for bonuses along the way. This precise method would
mean a scheme would need some form of attachment to the coffee shop but in
theory could actually be developed and applied to a wide range of servitised

56
THE ONE PLANET MBA
commodities, not just the cup. With the emergence of various loyalty and swipe
card technologies and chips that can be inserted into packaging, for instance,
points could be collected in numerous ways and held centrally potentially actually
negating the need for them to be connected to a particular brand.
The issue is reframed in another comment: “Difficult conundrum - a low value
material with high volumes in a commoditised sector where brand is key.” The
respondent goes on to say that customer perception is that the cup itself is low
value and has no qualms about disposing of it. Redesigning the cup to feel higher
value might change that. In a similar vein, another comment points out that to a
business with turnover of multi-millions there is little incentive to change unless
there is a risk to their status, which again, suggests a little disruption may be
necessary to drive a big change. One respondent refers to a ‘ground zero’
approach being brought by new entrants.
Reporting on use of cups and possibly taxing them is suggested, which retains a
connection with the dispenser. In this context the biggest incentive for change is
the bottom line. Thinking in terms of circularity, this raises the question, could it be
feasible to commoditise the cup through a separate organisation, but incentivise its
use through a tax mechanism via the coffee shop to the customer? This would
mean the coffee shop doesn’t bear the cost but the consumer has a disincentive
encouraging them to opt for the untaxed cup. This could be an avenue of research
for a financial researcher but would lead to very complex measurement
mechanisms along the lines of VAT processes, which suggests at this stage that
the original suggestion is the most practical. The potential on a broader scale,
could be for the mechanism to be used for a range of waste types to drive a
movement towards circularity.
Some links to reports on new projects were given, however, these focus on
recycling and composting, still low in the hierarchy and relatively unchallenging to
the existing framework.
The value chain emerges again here, with one respondent suggesting that the
cost of cleaning and collecting cups would be more than the production of the

57
THE ONE PLANET MBA
disposable cup, however, this does not consider the full chain. In a new model, the
number of cups produced (assuming the model was working efficiently) should be
less, but material cost higher. The logistics of collection and cleaning would be the
main cost and may well offset the production cost in the long term. It becomes
clear that the value chain assessment is critical to assessing the feasibility of a
project, but a high initial investment would be needed, a barrier to new entrants.
(Porter, 2011)
Interestingly, none of the respondents picked up on the fact that servitising the cup
would mean it is no longer a waste item, thus removing many of the barriers to
entry that exist for recycling and refurbishment schemes, which potentially leaves
a clear path for new entrants to exploit if a suitable model can be created that
meets hygiene, quality and ease of use expectations.
7.8 Summary of findings
Overall the level of response was sufficient to gain some useful insight into issues
with inherited waste. The need for change is perhaps unlikely to be taken up
directly by most large organisations as the impacts do not affect them, however,
this presents an opportunity for entrepreneurs to explore potential for new models,
subject to further research as detailed in the conclusion.
It was clear, from the number of comments provided that the respondents felt they
could respond with honesty and many comments were candid as a result.
The challenge of inherited waste will not be tackled unless those affected by it take
up the opportunity with the potential for large savings for the organisations
concerned.

58
THE ONE PLANET MBA
8 Conclusions and Recommendations
Generally the response to this research has been very positive. The concept of
inherited waste has been raised with a range of industry professionals and
highlighted as an issue that is not being dealt with. There is a great deal of interest
in the potential to create a circular model for cups particularly, but this is
translatable to other types of inherited waste and there is scope for the issue to be
investigated much more deeply.
Several key points have emerged including confirmation that there is a general
assumption that the producers will drive the change. Whilst this is true of waste
from which they see a cost impact, there is little incentive to focus on other
aspects of the waste they are not legally responsible for at the end of the chain.
Even when presented with ideas, many revert to projects to improve recycling,
rather than projects to eradicate waste. From comments, it is clear that there is a
feeling that the suggested change is too difficult within the current context. At
present the waste operators have much to gain from the system in place,
legislation focuses on the producers, leaving them with the opportunity to absolve
themselves of the responsibility for the waste they pass on.
This leaves two possible courses of action.
Either the policy framework needs to change to push all producers into taking
actions further up the Waste Hierarchy, or disruptive innovators need to step into
the innovation space. The models presented generated interest but the general
response was that it is not currently economically viable, however, the responses
show a lack of belief that policy and legislation will achieve the necessary change
and that the infrastructure in place doesn’t enable change as much as it should.
If no-one acts, we could see an impasse in which organisations continue to spend
increasing amounts on more creative ways to just recycle other people’s waste,

59
THE ONE PLANET MBA
ultimately pushing up their own costs and impacting their bottom line in ways
which drive them to save costs in other areas of their business.
The Environmental Audit Committee published their report on ‘Growing a circular
economy: Ending the throwaway society’ in July 2014. One comment on the
Packaging Regulations says why would any single producer invest in improving
recyclability of their product if the benefit is to other players in the market.
This corroborates the findings of my research, and in conclusion I recommend a
focus on seeking new models that bypass the disposable mindset completely. A
detailed study should be carried out to consider the potential for a new model to be
created using circular methodology to address, as a working example, the
dispensing of cups and associated commodities for beverage sales, to incorporate
• Life Cycle Assessment based on a Natural Capital approach,
• The potential for job creation with social benefit in mind
• Addressing the question ‘Could a business or social enterprise feasibly be
created to manage the service of cup provision and other inherited wastes?’
• Further financial research to address the question ‘Could it be feasible to
commoditise the cup through a separate organisation, but incentivise its
use through a tax mechanism via the coffee shop to the customer?’

60
THE ONE PLANET MBA
9 References
5 Gyres (2014) 5 Gyres For a Planet Free of Plastic Pollution. Available at:
http://5gyres.org (Accessed: 10th
August 2014)
Amienyo, D., Gujba, H., Stichnothe, H. and Azapagic, A., (2012) ‘Life cycle
environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks’, International Journal for Life
Cycle Assessment, 18, 77-92. [Online]. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0459-y (Accessed: 21 April 2014)
Anderson, R. (2009) Confessions of a Radical Industrialist. London: Random
House Business Books
Benyus, J. M. (1997) Biomimicry. New York: Quill
Biomimicry 3.8 (2014) Life’s Principles. Available at:
http://biomimicry.net/about/biomimicry/biomimicry-designlens/lifes-principles/
(Accessed 28 July 2014)
Biomimicry for Creative Innovation (Undated) Tomorrow’s Natural Business.
Missoula: Biomimicry for Creative Innovation
British Standards Institution. (2004) BS EN ISO 14001: Environmental
Management Systems - specification with guidance for use. London: British
Standards Institution.
Brundtland, G. H. (2009) Our Common Future The full text of the report of the
World Commission on Environment and Development. London: Oxford University
Press
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2011a)
Collaborative Waste, Resources and Sustainable Consumption Evidence
Programme. London: The National Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2011b)
Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011. London: The National
Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2011c)
Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy. London: The National Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2012)
Guidance on the legal definition of waste and its application. London: The National
Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013a)
Prevention is better than cure: The role of waste prevention in moving to a more
resource efficient economy. London: The National Archives

61
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013b)
Quality Action Plan – Proposals to promote high quality recycling of dry recyclates.
London: The National Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013c)
Waste and Resources Evidence, Plan Policy Portfolio: Climate, Waste and
Atmosphere, Policy Area within portfolio: Waste Programme 2013/14 – 2017/18.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013d)
Waste Management Plan for England. London: The National Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013e)
Waste Prevention Programme for England – Evaluation of Annex IV measures.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013f)
Waste Prevention Programme for England – Household waste prevention in action
– examples from across England. London: The National Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013g)
Waste Prevention Programme for England – Overview of Evidence – A rationale
for waste prevention in England. London: The National Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013h)
Waste Prevention Programme for England – Priority Areas. London: The National
Archives
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Great Britain. (2013i)
Waste Prevention Programme – Summary of existing measures. London: The
National Archives
Deutz, P. (2009a) ‘Producer responsibility in a sustainable development context:
ecological modernization or industrial ecology?’, The Geographic Journal, Vol 175,
No 4, December 2009, 274-285. [Online]. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2009.00330.x (Accessed: 2 January 2014)
Deutz, P., and Frostick, Lynne E. (2009b) ‘Reconciling policy, practice and
theorisations of waste management - Editorial’, The Geographic Journal, Vol 175,
No 4, December 2009, 247-250. [Online]. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2009.00338.x (Accessed: 2 January 2014)
European Union. (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives OJ
L312/3 Brussels: European Union
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Towards the Circular Economy Volume 1
Economic and Business Rationale for an accelerated transition. Cowes: Ellen
MacArthur Foundation

62
THE ONE PLANET MBA
Opportunities for the Consumer Goods Sector. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur
Foundation
Accelerating the Scale-Up Across Global Supply Chains. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur
Foundation
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2014) Ellen MacArthur Foundation Rethink the
Future. Available at: http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org (Accessed 10
August 2014)
Environmental Audit Committee (2014) Growing a circular economy: Ending the
throwaway society – Third report of session 2014/15. London: House of Commons
Hawken, P. (2010) The Ecology of Commerce Revised edition. New York: Harper
Business
Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B., and Lovins, L.H. (2010) Natural Capitalism 10th
Anniversary Edition. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd
Hutchins, G. (2012) The Nature of Business. Totnes: Green Books Ltd
Kite Environmental Services (2014) The Packaging Regulations. Coventry: Kite
Environmental Services Ltd
Matsueda, N. and Nagase, Y. (2012) ‘An economic analysis of the Packaging
Waste Recovery Note System in the UK’, Resource and Energy Economics, 34,
669-679. [Online]. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.06.001
(Accessed: 21 April 2014)
Norval (2013) Southern Railway Environment Strategy (Not publicly published,
internal document)
Norval (2014a) Southern Railway Environment Update Period 1 2014. (Not
publicly published, internal report)
Norval (2014b) Southern Railway Waste Manual (Not publicly published, internal
document)
Porter, M.E. (2011) ‘The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy.’ In
Harvard Business Review (ed.) HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Strategy. Boston:
Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, pp. 39-76.
Smith, A. (2008) The Invisible Hand. London: Penguin Books Ltd
Sukhdev, P. (2012) Corporation 2020. Washington: Island Press
United Kingdom Parliament, Great Britain. (2005) The Hazardous Waste (England
and Wales) Regulations 2005: Elizabeth II. London: The Stationery Office

Inherited Waste in England - An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours that result in the deposition of waste on those who cannot influence its source

Inherited Waste in England - An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours that result in the deposition of waste on those who cannot influence its source

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Inherited Waste in England - An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours that result in the deposition of waste on those who cannot influence its source

Similar to Inherited Waste in England - An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours that result in the deposition of waste on those who cannot influence its source (20)

Inherited Waste in England - An exploration of the policy framework surrounding corporate behaviours that result in the deposition of waste on those who cannot influence its source