Business Case. Sustainable Cutlery in Federation University Cafeterias JACINTA RICHARDSON SCSUS 1000 Sustainability Practice

Transcription

1 2017 Business Case Sustainable Cutlery in Federation University Cafeterias JACINTA RICHARDSON SCSUS 1000 Sustainability Practice

2 Executive Summary This business case is intended for consideration by the Federation University Sustainability Committee. It provides an argument against the continued use of disposable plastic cutlery at Federation University cafeterias. The ultimate goal is to lessen the University s environmental impact by reducing the amount of plastic waste directed to landfill. Federation University adds to environmental pollution by contributing significant amounts of singleuse plastic cutlery items to landfill via campus cafeterias. FSC Certified Birchwood cutlery is a renewable, biodegradable and non-toxic alternative that can be introduced at Mt Helen and Gippsland campuses at a cost of less than $600 per annum. It is a low-risk, cost effective solution that is in keeping with the sustainability goals of the University. Introduction In 2016, Federation University s Mt Helen campus cafeteria dispensed 23,000 pieces of single-use plastic cutlery. While exact figures were unable to be obtained for the Gippsland campus, usage was estimated at approximately 7900 items; approximately one third of Mt Helen usage (Nigel Watene, personal communication, 30 March 2017). Based on carton sizes, this equates to over 28.5m³ of plastic cutlery entering landfill via the University s general waste every year. The Issue Plastic cutlery typically consists of a combination of polypropylene and polystyrene (Bernier 2011). While polypropylene is readily recyclable, many Australian councils lack the facilities to process polystyrene, including both the City of Ballart and the Latrobe City councils where waste is processed for the Mt Helen and Gippsland campuses. Additionally, the size and shape of plastic cutlery prevents sorting by conventional recycling machines. Therefore, disposable cutlery intended for recycling facilities is diverted to landfill (Gray 2016, cited in Potter 2016). Plastic waste persists for hundreds of years (Bernier 2011), leaching toxic chemicals into the environment (Ahmad & Bajahlan 2007) and acting as an attractant to other chemical pollutants (Hardesty and Wilcox 2015). Plastic often makes its way from landfill into the ocean where it poisons and entangles marine life (CSIRO n.d.) and carries chemicals into the food chain via ingestion (Hardesty and Wilcox 2015). According to the Boomerang Alliance (n.d., cited in Plastic Free Sea 2016), Australia contributes 130,000 tonnes of plastic to the ocean every year, the majority of which is disposable or single-use plastic (Jambeck et al 2015). Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 1

3 Alternatives The four most commonly available alternatives to plastic cutlery are discussed below. Stainless Steel As the only reusable option, stainless steel cutlery is the clear stand out in terms of reducing material resource consumption and contribution to landfill. It can also be recycled at the end of its useful life. However, the potential for product loss due to theft is a consideration (Dale Boucher, personal communication, 23 March 2017). Additionally, there are ongoing environmental and economic costs associated with water, detergent and energy required for cleaning. Increased staff input is also required to gather and process dirty cutlery. Bioplastic Bioplastics are produced from renewable plant-based sources such as corn starch or sugar cane (Creative Mechanisms 2016). 100% bioplastic products are commercially compostable, meaning they will biodegrade effectively in a commercial composting facility (Green Plastics 2012). However, there are currently few commercial facilities available in Australia. Products with less than 100% bioplastic content are typically a combination of plant-based and conventional plastics. They are not compostable or recyclable and end up in landfill. While bioplastics create less greenhouse gases during manufacture than regular plastics (Lamb 2008), consume less energy to produce (Momani 2009, cited in Goldsberry 2015) and are generally inert in landfill (Energy Alternatives India 2012), there is current debate over their overall environmental benefit when taking into account the land and water consumption and pesticide use required to produce the base product (Gironi and Piemonte 2011). FSC Certified Birchwood Birchwood cutlery is produced from plantation-grown Birch trees (Eco-gecko Products 2013). Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification ensures that the trees are sustainably harvested and managed (Forest Stewardship Council 2017). Birchwood completely biodegrades in landfill with no toxic residue. Unlike bioplastic cutlery which requires the optimal composting conditions provided by a commercial facility, Birchwood will biodegrade effectively in a home composting system. (BioPak 2017). Bamboo Bamboo is a fast-growing renewable resource that biodegrades and leaves no toxic residue (Prendergast 2017). Unfortunately, readily available, cost-effective options in the quantities required appear to be limited to smaller items such as skewers, stirrers and chopsticks. A table summarising the environmental characteristics of each of the alternatives can be viewed in Appendix 1. Preferred alternative The preferred alternative is FSC Certified birchwood cutlery. It has sound environmental benefits and is readily available. It is also the cheapest of the four options investigated and can be introduced with no additional input from staff and no behaviour change required from consumers. The only identified downside is that it is largely produced in China. However, the majority of alternatives are also produced in China, as is the plastic cutlery currently used, suggesting that non-local supply may be unavoidable at this stage. Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 2

4 Cost Benefits Economic Federation University currently purchases plastic cutlery for Mt Helen at a price of $15.00 per 1000 pieces, regardless of item (Nigel Watene, personal communication, 22 March 2017). In a desk top analysis of 11 suppliers, the most cost effective for birchwood cutlery was BioPak. BioPak specialises in environmentally friendly products and appears to have a strong commitment to environmental and social responsibility. A change to BioPak birchwood cutlery will cost Federation University less than $600 per annum and the caterer at Gippsland less than $200 per annum (Table 1). This is an extremely small outlay given the environmental and social benefits. Table 1. Current vs potential costings based on 2016 usage and BioPak pricing*. Item Number Current $ per 1000 (plastic) Current total ($) Bio Pak $ per 1000 (Birchwood) Bio Pak total ($) Difference ($) Mt Helen Forks Knives Sporks Teaspoons Total Gippsland ^ Forks Knives Sporks n/a Teaspoons Total * Obtained directly from BioPak public website. May be lower under negotiation. ^ Estimated based on Mt Helen costs and usage. Environmental A change to birchwood cutlery will replace over 28m³ of toxic landfill with non-toxic, biodegradable landfill each year. In addition, the product is obtained from a renewable resource and avoids the input of chemicals associated with plastic production (Rossi & Blake 2014). Social Supporting a change to more sustainable cutlery is in line with Federation University s Sustainability Strategy which aims to integrate environmental responsibility into all aspects of the University s activities and to minimise our environmental footprint (University of Ballarat, n.d., p. 1). If combined with a plastics awareness campaign, the project also provides the opportunity to educate staff and students of the negative impacts of plastic use. In addition, research shows that nearly 80% of consumers prefer to support organisations who strive to reduce their environmental impact (Trent 2011). Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 3

5 Implementation Plan Phase Action Objective Timeline Phase 1 Present business case to Sustainability Obtain Committee endorsement for Committee Meeting August 2017 Project Validation Committee further action Phase 2 In-house Support Discuss project with Manager Conference and Catering Services (Mt Helen) Identify potential barriers to implementation Gain support for project Committee Meeting November 2017 Phase 3 Supply Planning Phase 4 Caterer Support Phase 5 Value adding Phase 6 Implementation Phase 7 Review Contact potential suppliers Initiate discussions with Gippsland catering contractor Engage Student Sustainability Society Introduce new product Launch awareness campaign Obtain feedback from Manager Conference and Catering Services (Mt Helen) and catering contractor Gippsland Obtain product sample Confirm supply capacity Establish price Inform caterer of preferences and motivations Gain support for project Gain student assistance with planning and developing a plastics awareness campaign Cease use of plastic cutlery Raise awareness of impacts of disposable plastic Promote Fed Uni s commitment to sustainability Review product performance Identify supply issues Committee Meeting November 2017 Committee Meeting November 2017 End of 2017 Academic Year Orientation Week 2018 Committee Meeting May 2018 Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 4

6 Risk Assessment The qualitative risk matrix used to inform the risk assessment can be found in Appendix 2. Risk Who may be impacted? Likelihood Consequence Risk Rating before controls Control Measures Likelihood after controls Consequence after controls Risk Rating after controls Increased cost of cutlery leads to catering budget overspend The university D 3 Medium Negotiate lowest possible price with potential suppliers Monitor budget closely to assess impact E 2 Low Caterer at Gippsland refuses to adopt alternative The university Cafeteria patrons C 2 Medium Present benefits of change to existing caterer Familiarise caterer with Fed Uni sustainability policy and goals Incorporate sustainable cutlery into future contracts D 2 Low Birchwood product proves to be unsuitable e.g. not strong enough, poorly shaped Cafeteria patrons C 2 Medium Obtain product sample prior to purchase Review product a few months following introduction C 2 Medium Required amounts are unable to sourced Purchasing team C 2 Medium Consider supply by more than one supplier D 2 Low Continuity of supply is unable to be maintained by selected supplier Purchasing team Cafeteria patrons C 2 Medium Discuss ability to meet supply with potential suppliers prior to selection Identify back up supplier D 2 Low Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 5

7 Risk Who may be impacted? Likelihood Consequence Risk Rating before controls Control Measures Likelihood after controls Consequence after controls Risk Rating after controls Potential change of supplier for some items damages relationship with existing supplier Purchasing team The university D 2 Low Inform existing supplier of Fed Uni s sustainability policy and goals Provide existing supplier with the opportunity to match supply and cost offered by other suppliers D 2 Low Cafeteria patrons do not support the change of cutlery Cafeteria patrons Cafeterias D 2 Low Deliver a plastics awareness campaign as part of introduction process Review new product performance a few months following introduction E 2 Low Conclusion The plastic cutlery currently used in Federation University cafeterias is associated with negative environmental consequences. FSC Certified birchwood cutlery provides a simple, cost-effective alternative. With very little effort, risk and economic outlay, a changeover to birchwood cutlery will reduce the University s ecological footprint, support the University s sustainability goals and provide an opportunity for furthering sustainability awareness. Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 6

8 References Ahmad, M & Bajahlan, A 2007, Leaching of styrene and other aromatic compounds in drinking water from PS bottles, Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 19, no. 4, pp Bernier, A 2011, Living the life of a plastic fork, CREST Sustainability. Available from [22 March 2017]. BioPak 2017, Wooden cutlery & chopsticks. Available from: [22 March 2017]. Creative Mechanisms 2016, Everything you need to know about Polylactic Acid (PLA). Available from: [22 March 2017]. CSIRO, n.d., Identifying and understanding the sources of marine debris, CSIRO: Oceans and Atmosphere. Available from [22 March 2017]. Eco-gecko Products Inc 2013, Wooden cutlery and palm leaf plates by eco-gecko. Available from: [14 April 2017]. Energy Alternatives India 2012, FAQ s on bioplastics. Available from: [13 April 2017]. Far East Victoria Landcare 2014, Introduction to Risk, PowerPoint Presentation, FEVL, Orbost. Forest Stewardship Council 2017, 10 Reasons to choose FSC. Available from: [16 April 2017]. Gironi, F & Piemonte, V 2011, Life cycle assessment of polylactic acid and polyethylene terephthalate bottles for drinking water, Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, vol. 30, no. 3, pp Goldsberry, C 2015, Can producing bioplastics actually increase greenhouse gas emissions?, Plastics Today: Community for Plastics Professionals. Available from [13 April 2017]. Green Plastics 2012, The difference between degradable, biodegradable and compostable, Green Plastics. Available from [22 March 2017]. Hardesty, BD & Wilcox, C 2015, Eight million tonnes of plastic are going into the ocean each year, The Conversation. Available from: [22 March 2017]. Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 7

9 Jambeck, JR, Geyer, R, Wilcox, C, Siegler, TR, Perryman, M, Andrady, A, Narayan, R and Law, KL 2015, Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, vol. 347, no. 6223, pp Lamb, R 2008, What is corn plastic? HowStuffWorks: Science. Available from [13 April 2017]. Plastic Free Sea 2016, Plastics Fact Sheet, Plastic Free Sea. Available from [22 March 2017]. Potter, A 2016, Tis the season to make waste, Choice. Available from: [7 March 2017]. Prendergast, K 2017, Bamboo: the eco-friendly, climate-change mitigation material of the future!, Australian Wildlife, vol. 1/2017, pp Rossi, MS & Blake, A 2014, The Plastics Scorecard: Evaluating the Chemical Footprint of Plastics Version 1.0, Clean Production Action. Available from [22 March 2017]. Trent, N 2011, Ending Take out Waste, WholeFoods Magazine Blog, blog post, 24 January 24. Available from: [22 March 2017]. University of Ballarat n.d., Terms of Reference, Sustainability Committee, Federation University. Available from: data/assets/pdf_file/0011/106004/committee-terms-ofreference.pdf. [22 March 2017]. Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 8

10 Appendix 1. Cutlery options - summary of environmental attributes. Product Renewable Resource Reusable Recyclable Compostable (commercial) Compostable (home) Toxic residue Locally produced (Australia) Stainless Steel No Yes Yes No No No Yes Bioplastic 100% Yes No No *Yes No No No Bioplastic <100% Partly No No No No Yes No Birchwood Yes No No Yes Yes No No Bamboo Yes No No Yes Yes No No *Currently no facilities available Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 9

11 Appendix 2. Qualitative Risk Matrix LIKELIHOOD Level Likelihood Description A Almost certain Is expected to occur in most circumstances (greater than 75% chance) B Likely Will probably occur in most circumstances (50% - 75% chance) C Possible Might occur at some time (up to 50% chance) D Unlikely Could occur but only rarely E Rare Could occur, but probably never will CONSEQUENCE Level Consequence Description 1 Insignificant No injuries, low financial loss, negligible impact on operation 2 Minor First aid treatment, moderate financial loss, minor disruption to operation 3 Moderate Medical treatment required, high financial loss, moderate impact on operation 4 Major Extensive injuries, major financial loss, significant consequences for Fed Uni, major disruption to operation 5 Critical Fatality, extensive financial loss, threatens continuity or viability of operation RISK RATING (LIKELIHOOD X CONSEQUENCE) Consequence Likelihood 1 Insignificant 2 Minor 3 Moderate 4 Major 5 Extreme A Almost Certain M H H E E B Likely M M H H E C Possible L M H H H D Unlikely L L M M H E Rare L L M M H Legend Risk Rating/Risk Priority L Low Risk, manage via routine procedures, proceed with activity Medium Risk, corrective action may be required, proceed with activity, preferably M reduce risk H High Risk, immediate action required, halt activity until risk reduced E Extreme Risk, immediate action required, abandon activity or halt until risk reduced (Far East Victoria Landcare 2014) Jacinta Richardson Sustainability Business Case 10