Waste not, want not

The UK furniture industry is becoming increasingly mindful of the environmental impact of waste product – but what of its looming economic impact? As fresh legislation promises to catalyse the diversion of goods away from landfill and towards recycling and reuse, Furniture News asks the experts how businesses can get ahead of the circular economy curve …

According to a 2018/19 report by The North London Waste Authority, 22 million pieces of furniture are discarded each year in the UK, the majority of which goes directly to landfill. Climate action NGO WRAP estimates this to be the annual fate of 670,000 tonnes of furniture – much of it reusable.

These are just two of the headlines atop a (literally) mounting environmental crisis, and while the data varies from source to source, the numbers are astronomical – especially given the nation’s dwindling capacity to dispose of such volumes. Sometimes it takes a glimpse of a sofa or mattress at the dump, or fly-tipped by the side of a road, to make one start to appreciate the sheer amount of space these goods might occupy in such numbers.

Government legislation is making headway to prevent the most egregious approaches – this year, a ban on the disposal of upholstery containing POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) in general waste or landfill sites came into force, and extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for mattresses and cabinet furniture are not far off.

At the same time, new routes to recycling and reuse are emerging. Rather than awaiting the impact of such legislation, and driven by a passion to create change sooner rather than later, various specialists are working to deliver fresh, rewarding solutions, which complement the well-documented efforts of the trade’s more progressive manufacturers.

This month, Furniture News asked several of the industry’s experts to share their thoughts on the UK’s furniture disposal and reuse directions.

Nick Oettinger is the CEO of The Furniture Recycling (TFR) Group, a sustainable mattress recycling specialist whose stated aim is to divert 100% of mattresses from UK landfill. TFR Group works with businesses such as bed retailers and local authorities to recycle and repurpose mattress materials, creating a circular economy for mattresses and their component parts.

Tom Williams is the National Bed Federation’s (NBF) sustainability and circular economy lead. Notably, he looks after the NBF Pledge for Our Planet, which encourages the bed industry to become even more sustainable. He spends much of his time helping members to implement the pledge’s requirements, guiding them towards more circular operating processes.

Paul Beckett is the director of Bye Bye Bed, which focuses on the manual deconstruction of mattresses, maximising their reuse potential rather than seeing them shredded. Paul’s experience in the fillings sector enables him to assess the individual components and grade them, with poor-condition materials diverted to re-processors, and the better ones used in the company’s own products (branded Reborn).

Paul says he’s focused on increasing the ‘real rate’ recovery from its current 14%, closing the circularity gap, creating a closed-loop recycling process and reducing the emissions, power and resource in the reprocessing of usable materials – while offering consumers a product at a reduced price, and without the environmental impact of a brand-new one made from virgin raw materials.

“Re-processors were already at a near-full capacity on many of the separated components,” says Paul. “Considering that there are currently over 7 million mattresses still going to landfill, and a ban on mattresses entering landfill is imminent, the mattress recycling industry would simply be forced into landfilling separated components, rather than the industry landfilling complete mattresses. This would inevitably force recyclers to either close, or to raise the traditional mattress recycling gate fee to cover the disposal cost.”

Finally there is Daniel Hague, the commercial director of ClearCycle, a ‘recommerce’ provider focused on furniture, mattresses and other largeitem categories, that works with some of the UK’s leading retailers to offer a tailored refurbishment and resale solution for problem stock (primarily consumer returns, overstock, and stock that may have failed QC checks).

We asked each member of the panel to share their take on the UK’s furniture waste problem, the implications of incoming legislation, and the challenges (and benefits) of better processes …

HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THE UK'S FURNITURE WASTE PROBLEM?

Nick Oettinger: The UK’s furniture waste problem is substantial, with many household products ending up in landfill each year. More specifically, 8.5 million mattresses are thrown away per year, which equates to 300,000 tonnes of materials that we need to find a home for.

Tom Williams: According to our End of Life report, in 2020 approximately 6.4 million mattresses were disposed of, less than 25% of which were sent for recycling. Furniture and mattresses are always going to be an issue due to their nature as a bulky waste. Without practical, coherent collection and a disposal process in place, it does become a ‘problem’ waste. When you also factor in the existence of POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutant) in these items, it adds an extra layer of complexity to their disposal.

The movement towards better-designed products is happening, but this is a future solution, and it doesn’t solve the issue now.

Paul Beckett: There are 22 million pieces of furniture discarded each year, 7 million of which are mattresses.

The UK measures 2,610,198,835,200ft2. Should we just carry on filling it? What do we really think will happen if we do? What will happen when every square foot is full from our throwaway, ‘not our problem’ attitude?

Oakdene Hollins’ End Of Life Mattress Report [2020] highlights some staggering and shameful figures that none of us should be proud of. The thought of it being unlikely that we will not achieve a 75% diversion from landfill before 2028 is embarrassing. The fact that this includes mattresses that are shredded and waste materials sent for EfW makes it worse still, and the diabolical figure of a ‘real rate’ of materials recovered at only 14% should be an incentive enough for us all to do what is right, both morally and ethically.

The planet needs solutions, not problems. Creating a circular economy is just part of a longterm solution. It reduces the need to take materials from the earth to make products in the first place, decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources.

The cost to ethically recycle a mattress is the issue. Based on an average landfill charge and an average weight of a mattress, it would cost approximately £3.25 to landfill a mattress. An average mattress recycling gate fee is approximately £5. Which would you choose if you were responsible for disposing of a large quantity each year and you didn’t have to consider the longer-term environmental effects?

Now, the answer isn’t to raise the price of landfilling – it is to reduce the cost to ethically recycle. But how can that be done when overheads are on the increase, when consumables are on the rise and therefore employees are in genuine need for more money?

Our world-first circular economy solution allows us to offset a recycling gate fee against the price of our sustainably manufactured end-product. The cost to recycle a mattress is absorbed and still offers the consumer a product that is, in many cases, far cheaper than one manufactured from virgin raw materials. It’s simply a win-win.

Daniel Hague: Did you know that online furniture sales attract a typical return rate of 11%? Too often, retailers dismiss these as of little to no value. They are treated as waste, with a significant amount of goods ending up in landfill.

Our mission at ClearCycle is not only to help retailers achieve the most value from these goods, but to find the most efficient way for this item to be reused – either by being refurbished and resold or donated to worthy causes. In certain cases, we do break down goods to component level to ensure maximum use – but this is always a last resort, given the significant level of resources required. Where possible, we always want to find pre-loved items their forever home.

CAN YOU OUTLINE HOW NEW/INCOMING LEGISLATION IS SET TO CHANGE THE PICTURE?

Nick Oettinger: As it stands, there is no extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme for furniture, however we are aware that it is something the Government is looking into (with mattresses initially and then wider furniture). This will ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account when designing products, ensuring that recycling and reproduction are at the forefront of the design stage.

Tom Williams: We anticipate that EPR will be introduced to cover our industry, so we are working to that end. Whilst we are unsure as to how this will look in reality, we are working to ensure that our members’ views are put across and that any scheme implemented works for everyone. We would rather lead in the development of a coherent system, than have it dictated to our members in a way that is impractical.

We also anticipate the potential for POPs legislation to be applied to mattresses too, but we hope that the issues currently facing the recently introduced legislation will be ironed out before it is extended.

Paul Beckett: There is not only a legal obligation but a moral obligation to ensure that a re-manufactured and recycled product is clean and hygienically safe. The effectiveness of the current BS 1425 Cleanliness of Fillings and Stuffings for Bedding, Upholstery and Other Domestic Articles is questionable to some degree, and was a major factor in our R&D before launching our sustainable manufacturing brand. Fortunately, our experience allowed us to find ways to go above and beyond the current legal obligations, and this gave us the confidence that our solution was a long-term one – one that would not cause too much concern if the BS 1425 regs were amended in times to come.

Our due diligence ensured that the chemistry behind our products did not use brominated flame retardants (BFRs) that are restricted under REACH or the Stockholm Convention (targeting persistent organic pollutants, or POPs).

As a manufacturer using materials we have retrieved from end-of-life mattresses without a known original manufacturer source, we therefore must test as would a manufacturer of each such raw material. By doing so we have then created our own bespoke ‘Reborn’ raw material to manufacture a finished product from these tested and compliant materials. This was/is a huge and costly exercise, but one that we feel is necessary to give assurance and compliance to UK legislation, guidance and advisory notifications. Testing twofold – as a manufacturer of both the raw material and the finished product – allows us to ensure we are manufacturing a consistent endproduct, and one that is legally comparable to the next.

Daniel Hague: The new upholstery disposal legislation is long overdue and will have a significant impact on the industry – especially for retailers who do not always have the facilities and resources to process upholstery products into their component parts.

ClearCycle produces little waste, as our aim is always to refurbish and resell. However, when an item is beyond economic repair – and it does happen, despite the skills of our engineers! – we partner with specialist companies who reclaim and recycle over 96%, with the remainder sent for energy recovery.

ASIDE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAT COME WITH BETTER PROCESSES, WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE FINANCIAL GAINS?

Nick Oettinger: EPR will ensure that recycling processes are kept in mind during the design stage of each product, which will be financially beneficial as it creates a circular economy in which the materials from products can be reused, and therefore maintain their value. If higher-quality products are used in furniture production, the products will maintain a higher value in the long term, as it reduces the requirement to constantly source new materials to produce new products.

Tom Williams: Better disposal and recycling processes have the potential to open up more routes for recycled materials, making the furniture industry more circular. Greater circularity can reduce costs, as fewer virgin materials are required. A better system would also guarantee a good, consistent supply of recycled materials, potentially moving disposal from being a cost to an income.

Paul Beckett: Free mattress disposal for all. Council clean-up costs reduced, offer consumers a product of the same integrity and legal compliance but at a fraction of the cost.

Daniel Hague: With ClearCycle, items can go on to have a second life – or even a third – and our competitive price points, warranties, and after-care open desirable brands to new markets, as well as encouraging existing customer loyalty.

We can collaborate with companies to develop buyback schemes and rental models – not only do these put a green tick in a box, but they demonstrate the retailer’s belief in the longevity of their goods, as well as giving customers the flexibility to remain on-trend. This kind of thinking moves past a simple one-off transaction and towards a long-lasting customer relationship that benefits the buyer, the retailer, and the planet.

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE IN DELIVERING CHANGE? PRACTICALITY, COST, COMMUNICATION, OR SOMETHING ELSE?

Nick Oettinger: The main barrier to achieving a high level of mattress recycling in the UK is the cost. Mattresses are made up of low-value products that are mechanically fixed together, which creates a high cost when it comes to separation and segregation.

In order to deliver change, we have introduced a new automated dismantling line which will reduce the cost of recycling by limiting the labour required to dismantle the products. Likewise, our compression system will also reduce the cost of transporting mattresses five-fold, by shrinking the size of mattresses and increasing capacity for transportation.

Tom Williams: I think that a lack of joined-up thinking and execution is one of the biggest barriers in delivering any change, especially in this area. Everyone recognises that there is a need to do something, but often everyone rushes off to do their own thing. Whilst this might be justified under the banner of competition, the issues are universal, and having multiple potential solutions to the problem will only hinder any progress. Like the saying goes, if you want to go fast, go alone, if you want to go far, go together – this is where organisations like the NBF play a crucial role.

Paul Beckett: Acceptance. We all must accept that we cannot continue in our historical throwaway culture. We all must accept that greenwashing our way out of doing what is right is not acceptable. We all must accept that merely scratching at the surface is not going to fix the problem.

We all must accept that we have a moral and ethical duty to protect the planet that we all live upon. We all must accept that we have contributed and are partly to blame for the current situation. We all must accept that we cannot continue to manufacture products without considering their end destination.

Regarding communication, awareness and education, we must: raise awareness and give solid assurances that old does not necessarily mean dirty or damaged; raise awareness that a re-manufactured product is possibly available at a fraction of the price and a tiny fraction of the ecological impact; promote the benefits both environmentally and financially of a re-manufactured product; and offer assurance that a circular product will in fact be beneficial to the industry.

This acceptance and awareness will naturally grow the re-manufacturing sector, and this in turn will allow for the cost of the mattress recycling gate fee to be absorbed. This will bring the average £5 per mattress gate fee to less than the average £3.75 landfill fee, giving everyone the opportunity to recycle ethically and save financially.

Imagine the day when mattress recycling is a free service to all, removing any consideration of fly-tipping or adding burden to local authority services …

Daniel Hague: With circularity and sustainability becoming familiar words across the industry, there has been a real push to develop ‘greener’ furniture. There has been a shift toward more sustainable pieces, but as these are sold at a premium, they are not always accessible to all markets. Even though ‘conscious consumerism’ has seen customers becoming more mindful of the environmental impact of their buying choices, many still depend on fast furniture to furnish their homes, and we know that, at the root, there is a cost issue when it comes to shopping green.

At ClearCycle, we open up quality brands and furniture to a demographic who may not usually be able to afford them, as well as supporting the circular economy by keeping items in use.