Recycling quality vs quantity

What is the issue?

How do we get as many people as possible to recycle, whilst maintaining the quality of the end product? When something is collected for recycling, it changes from being one person's waste to someone else's raw material. Those that make the recyclate into something new require a reliable level of purity in raw materials. But this can cause conflict as those responsible for collecting the recyclate often have differing priorities.

On the one hand, local authorities collecting recycling rightly focus on providing a simple and convenient system for their residents. On the other, reprocessors complain that the material they receive contains contaminants, such as the wrong materials or non-recyclable waste.

There are three good reasons to increase the quality of recyclate collected in the UK.

There is a demand for it from reprocessors.
Higher quality recyclate is more likely to be turned into higher quality products.
There is a greater chance it will be recycled in the UK, supporting the local economy and insulating industry from global fluctuations and unpredictable future quality demands.

The quality of recyclate generally comes down to how you collect it and how well you explain the collection system to residents. Schemes that require householders to sort materials into different containers generally have much higher quality outputs. But some local authorities consider this method impractical, particularly in urban or built-up areas where living space is at a premium.

Pressure from central government targets to collect as much recycling as possible, regardless of quality, and higher up-front costs of source-separate systems are key considerations. Although recent WRAP reports suggest in current market conditions, kerbside sort schemes show lower costs – net of income from material sales - than single stream co-mingled schemes.

So there are drivers for councils to choose cheaper, more convenient systems where materials are collected together and sorted later at a materials recovery facility (MRF). Of course this convenience comes at a cost - namely to the quality of materials recovered, despite some operators of modern MRFs now claiming that their separation can lead to equally high quality materials.

What should be done?

We believe in the need to increase the quality of recyclate and recommend that councils choose source separated collections whenever possible or two stream co-mingled collections which keep paper separate from containers have similar net costs to kerbside sort schemes.

But we also stress the importance of taking a holistic view of the product cycle, including the added value of quality recyclate, when assessing costs.

Reprocessors also need to recognise that, in some cases, comingled recycling is simply more practical and, despite its lower quality outputs, is better than nothing at all.

Central government should encourage the collection of quality recyclate through incentives and well-thought out targets. A simple tonnage-based system successfully produced the step change in recycling that we have seen in this country over the last few years, but the emphasis now needs to be on quality, not just quantity.

All players need to realise that poor quality recycling is everyone's problem and traditional boundaries of responsibility have to be re-evaluated. Those responsible for collection, usually local authorities, should look beyond the transfer station to the long-term markets for their recyclate. Reprocessors should take responsibility for their raw material before it reaches them by reaching out to the public and being proactive about helping councils target contamination hotspots with effective communications. They should also think a stage before the consumer and work with designers and manufacturers to ease separation and recyclability of products.

Only by taking joint responsibility will we be able to ensure UK recycling rates continue to grow and move closer to a genuine closed-loop economy.

Back to our views