British Food Journal

Sustainable waste management in the food and drink industry

Margaret P. BatesPaul S. Phillips
Article information:
To cite this document:
Margaret P. BatesPaul S. Phillips, (1999),"Sustainable waste management in the food and drink industry",
British Food Journal, Vol. 101 Iss 8 pp. 580 - 589
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070709910288270
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 03 September 2016, At: 21:29 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3860 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1998),"Waste minimisation in the food and drink industry", Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 98 Iss 6 pp.
330-334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00346659810235260
(1982),"FOOD WASTAGE", Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 82 Iss 4 pp. 13-16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
eb058904
(1995),"Managing our wastes", Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 25-28 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09566169510078449

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:216788 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com

BFJ
101,8 Sustainable waste
management in the food and
drink industry
580 Margaret P. Bates and Paul S. Phillips
University College Northampton, Northampton, UK
Keywords Waste, Waste rates, Food industry, Sustainable development, Drinks industry
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

Abstract In moving towards sustainable wastes management, the UK Government has

adopted a wastes hierarchy. This hierarchy sets out clearly the priorities for sustainable resource
use and wastes management: it ought to be the guiding principle of private and public policy, with
the emphasis placed strongly on reducing the amount of raw material used. The House of
Commons Environment, Transport & Regional Affairs Committee has noted a pressing need to
promote wastes minimisation within industrial and commercial sectors and has recommended
the introduction of penalties and incentives to encourage industrial wastes minimisation. Despite
this, in the food and retailing sector only around 25 per cent of companies were found to operate
wastes minimisation programmes. This paper aims to demonstrate the benefits of wastes
minimisation, in both financial and environmental terms, for the food and drink sector. Large
multiprocess food and drink companies have found they can make annual savings of greater than
one per cent of turnover by implementing wastes minimisation strategies.

Introduction
In Less Waste, More Value (DETR, 1998a), the UK Government announced its
commitment to sustainable development involving the protection of the
environment and prudent use of natural resources. This has been developed
following The Earth Summit of 1992 where the UK Government gave a
political commitment to sustainable development and entered into a range of
agreements on this and environmental issues (Earth Summit, 1992). The
Government (DETR, 1998a) has stated that the control of wastes is essential for
a sustainable society. Waste has two main impacts on sustainability:
(1) the amount of waste we produce is a consequence of how efficiently we
use resources to produce goods; and
(2) once waste has been produced, dealing with it has an impact on the
environment.
Each component of society needs to move towards more sustainable wastes
management practices. The House of Commons (1998) has noted a pressing
need to promote wastes minimisation within industrial and commercial sectors
and recommends the introduction of penalties and incentives to encourage
industrial wastes minimisation.

What is waste?
In the UK, waste is defined as:
British Food Journal,
Vol. 101 No. 8, 1999, pp. 580-589.
. any substance which constitutes a scrap material or an effluent or other
# MCB University Press, 0007-070X surplus substances arising from the application of any process; and
 . any substance or article which requires to be disposed of as being Sustainable
broken, worn out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled, but does not waste
include a substance which is explosive (EPA, 1990). management
However, for the purposes of wastes minimisation, a more general definition
can be used, such as the consumption of resources for activities which do not
add value to the service which you render to your customers (Orr and Boss, 581
1996). The real cost of waste (March, 1998) can be divided into two categories,
the visible costs and the hidden costs. Visible costs include; solid and liquid
waste disposal, gaseous emissions, by-products production and hazardous/
special waste treatment. Hidden costs include; re-working of material, energy
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

inefficiency, processing inefficiency, unrealised production capacity, lost

revenue, reduced profits, potential liabilities and the purchase costs of
materials.

Waste management hierarchy

When waste producers are charged for the full environmental cost of their
waste, it becomes more cost-effective for them to reduce the amount of waste
they produce, or to recycle more of it (DETR, 1998a). This reduces the use of
primary resources. If these cannot be carried out then energy should be
recovered from the waste. It is only once these options have been exhausted
that waste should be disposed of. This system of options is known as the waste
management hierarchy and can be summarised (Allen, 1994; HMSO, 1994) as:
. Elimination ± total elimination of waste by radical process changes,
usually an unrealistic expectation.
. Reduction ± the main priority for sustainable waste management
involving the reduction or minimisation of waste at source.
. Reuse ± this involves putting objects back into use so they do not enter
the waste stream.
. Recovery ± the recovery of value or energy from waste materials, this
incorporates material recycling, composting and the recovery of energy
from waste.
. Disposal ± this is the least attractive waste management option, usually
landfill or incineration.
This hierarchy sets out clearly the priorities for sustainable resource use and
waste management: it ought to be the guiding principle of private and public
policy, with the emphasis placed strongly on reducing the amount of raw
material used (House of Commons, 1998).
In the recent consultation paper on waste (DETR, 1998a) the government has
announced seven key commitments including; substantial increases in
recycling and energy recovery, and a strong emphasis on wastes minimisation.
The aim of current wastes management strategies are to reduce the burden of
 BFJ wastes on the environment and so move further up the hierarchy towards
101,8 wastes reduction, and away from landfill, this was also the rationale behind the
introduction of the landfill tax.
The aim of sustainable wastes management is to achieve an optimum
overall balance between limiting the creation of wastes during production and
reusing wastes that are produced as possible raw materials for other
582 productive processes. This optimum is designed to minimise the impact of
wastes on the environment at a minimum total cost (Frosch, 1996).

What is waste minimisation?

Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

The Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme (ETBPP) defines

wastes minimisation as using ``management methods for systematically
reducing emissions to land, water and air'' (ETBPP, 1996a). The concept is a
relatively straightforward one; by using materials carefully so as to reduce the
generation of wastes, pollution is reduced, resources are conserved and hence
charges for disposal are minimised (Price, 1995). A wastes minimisation
programme for a given company would cover; raw material and ingredient use,
product loss, water consumption and effluent generation, paper and packaging,
factory and office consumables, energy consumption, all other solid, liquid and
gaseous wastes, and wasted effort (ETBPP, 1996a).
Minimisation is recognised by the UK Government as the best way to reduce
the impact of wastes on the environment (DETR, 1998a, House of Commons,
1998). It is also clear that in the industrial and commercial sectors businesses
must face the full cost implications of the wastes they produce in order to
encourage them to reduce waste production (DETR, 1998a).
Certain sections of the food and drink industry have well established waste
minimisation programmes. In a cross industry survey (Biffa, 1995), it was
found that 95 per cent of the brewing industry operated wastes minimisation
programmes (95 per cent also operated recycling programmes) compared with
only around 25 per cent of the food and retailing sector.
In April 1996, the ETBPP established a distinct programme for the food and
drink sector. This was done to stimulate the uptake of wastes minimisation, as
it was perceived to be too slow in this sector.

Why minimise waste?

Traditionally, most wastes from the food and drink industry has been
landfilled, or dewatered and then landfilled. However, landfill is becoming an
increasingly expensive route for this type of waste for several reasons:
. Reduced landfill void. Owing to the low cost, the dominant wastes
management option, for all wastes has historically been landfill.
However, by the year 2010 (Read et al., 1997) many regions in England
will be suffering from a shortage of landfill void. A reduction in the
availability of void space will also cause an increase in disposal charges.
 . Landfill tax. The landfill tax currently stands at £10 a tonne on Sustainable
biodegradable waste and is expected to rise in subsequent budgets waste
owing to the increase in pressure for ``green taxes'' (IWM, 1998). The management
landfill tax will have a particular impact on the food and drink industry
which, together with the tobacco industry, sends approximately 6
million tonnes of wastes to landfill each year (DETR, 1998b).
. Organic waste content of landfill. The European Draft Landfill Directive 583
states that the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to
landfill should be reduced, with 25 per cent diverted from landfill by
2010, 50 per cent by 2013 and 65 per cent by 2016 (Croner, 1998). Those
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

businesses producing organic wastes will have to use other, more

expensive, disposal methods e.g. incineration and composting if they do
not minimise their wastes.
There is a range of benefits for a company that operates a wastes minimisation
programme, these include environmental and legal, as well as financial.
Financial consideration is often the major factor that influences the
implementation of a wastes minimisation programme. The Leicester Wastes
Minimisation Initiative (Leicestershire County Council, 1995; Price, 1995) found
that the participating companies which had estimated their total wastes costs
at around £500,000 per annum found them to be closer to £13m per annum,
about 4.5 per cent of turnover. Johnston and Stokes (1995) found that savings
due to wastes minimisation, as a percentage of turnover, were higher in larger
companies. Large companies can often save over 1 per cent of turnover.
Financial benefits flow from good environmental practice. An ETBPP (1996c)
survey found that the major benefits reported by companies which have taken
steps to improve environmental performance are, after complying with
legislation, saving money, reducing waste and greater efficiency. Very often no
disadvantages are encountered at all, but, falsely, the cost of making
improvements is still perceived to be substantial. The survey (ETBPP, 1996c)
also found that most companies do not consider environmental issues have a
major effect on their profitability and over half the companies surveyed cited
financial constraints as preventing them from taking action.
Wastes minimisation issues are also a consideration for, and may be
incorporated into environmental management systems such as ISO 14001 and
EMAS. Larger companies are increasingly requiring their suppliers to register
with these or similar schemes (Price, 1995). Wastes minimisation can also help
raise the environmental image of a company on a local, national or
international level, so attracting green consumers.
The legal implications of wastes are likely to be increasingly important in
the future,with stricter emission and pollution control. Those companies with
wastes minimisation programmes are less likely to be prosecuted by regulators
and can benefit from reduced insurance premiums.
One of the most ubiquitous wastes to be dealt with is waste water, which is
generated by processes and their utility systems. Reducing waste water affects
 BFJ both effluent treatment and fresh water costs (Wang and Smith, 1994). The
101,8 meat processing industry generates large volumes of waste water and is
common to many countries. The waste water produced requires considerable
treatment before its release to the environment to prevent pollution (Johns,
1995). Slaughterhouses in particular generate large waste water volumes and
are frequently inefficient users of water. Several schemes have already been
584 implemented in slaughterhouses for the reuse of water, for non-potable uses,
within the plant, most of these involve no treatment of the water prior to its re-
use (Johns, 1995).
Reuse is, however, a lower stage of the wastes hierarchy and the trend is
now towards the choice of processes which reduce waste quantity and strength,
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

particularly improved blood recovery, dry paunch dumping and regulated

water use (Johns, 1995). New or improved ideas for the recovery of valuable by-
products from slaughterhouse or rendering plant waste waters have received
little attention, except for high quality water, protein, biogas and fertiliser
(Johns, 1995).
Research within the industry should be intensified to improve efficiency in
waste treatment, and to minimise waste in food processing and manufacturing
operations through advanced manufacturing practices as well as constructive
utilisation of what is unavoidable by bioconversion of by-products and waste
into edible food, feed or industrial chemicals. This will decrease environmental
loadings as a consequence of better integrated waste management (Kroyer,
1995).
An integrated approach to wastes minimisation can take many forms, for
example the proper design and application of process controllers is essential for
minimising both operating costs and out-of-specification waste products in
food processing operations (Haley and Mulvaney, 1995). A change in waste
handling technologies has led to many industrial food processing wastes, that
were once considered as having no economic value, now being reused and
recycled as animal feed.
For increased utilisation, it is necessary to separate the solid waste from the
liquid waste for potential reuse of both fractions (Orsat et. al., 1996). Merely
disposing of wastes is a loss of resource, disposed wastes contain a lot of
reusable substances of high value, these residual products can be transferred
into commercial products as either raw materials for secondary processes or as
ingredients for novel products (Laufenberg et. al., 1996). Numerous valuable
substances in food production are suitable for separation and recycling at the
end of their life cycle and the potato (starch) industry is a good example of this
in its utilisation of residual products (Laufenberg et. al., 1996).

How to minimise waste

The first stage in a wastes minimisation programme is a commitment to that
programme by the senior management of the company (Figure 1). It is at this
stage that overall objectives and strategies, with time scales, are specified. A
representative project team, from across the company, should be established to
 COMMITMENT TO ACTION Sustainable
waste
management
ORGANISATION FOR ACTION

585
AUDIT / REVIEW
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

FEEDBACK OPTIONS FOR

MONITORING & IMPROVEMENT
TARGETING

ACTIONS
Figure 1.
Waste minimisation
methodology (March,
DISSEMINATION 1998)

identify and investigate scope for improvement in all areas of the company's
activity. Base line information must be obtained from an initial audit and
review of all areas of operation. This will involve a process diagram, waste
stream identification, and quantification of waste streams and site utilities. It is
important to ensure adequate measuring or metering facilities as you cannot
properly manage what you do not or cannot monitor (March, 1998). Monitoring
and targeting software can be utilised to identify the costs associated with all
the inputs and outputs and identify any scope for improvement via greater
resource efficiency. Results and benefits of wastes minimisation strategies
should form the basis of further development within the company and be used
to encourage staff to get involved. Best practice also needs to be widely
disseminated externally to stimulate uptake of wastes minimisation across the
sector.

Case studies
There are many examples available of how companies within the food and
drink sector have saved money by implementing wastes minimisation
programmes (Table I). Savings would be expected to increase after the second
year of the project, e.g. after two years, the rate of savings for R.F. Brookes had
increased to £248,000 per annum.
 BFJ Evaluated Rate of
101,8 Approx. potential saving after
Type of No. of turnover savings one year
Company business employees (£m) (£000 p.a.) (£000 p.a.)

R.F. Brookes Chilled and frozen 650 38

convenience foods 470 50
586 Everards Brewery 120 35 70 19
Brewery
KP Foods Snack foods 900 65 272 100
Anglia Oils Edible oils 220 180 ± 25
Geest Pasta and 350 ± 132 372
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

Convenience bread products

Foods
Mauri Yeast manufacture 65 12 150 150
Table I. Products Ltd
Savings made by food H.J. Heinz Ltd Canned foods 1,800 500 ± 2,198
and drink companies J.W. Lees & Co Brewery 160 15 ± 314
implementing wastes
minimisation Source: ETBPP (1996a); March (1996)

Birds Eye Wall's Limited (March 1996)

The Birds Eye Walls site at Grimsby employs 1,500 people. The site produces
around 20,000 tonnes of fish fingers and 30,000 tonnes of oven-ready meals per
annum. The first phase of their project was the setting up of an environmental
management system by concentrating on the waste stream. This ensured
compliance with the company's environmental policy which is ``committed to
meeting the needs of customers and consumers in an environmentally sound
and sustainable manner, through continuous improvement in environmental
performance in all our activities''. Further phases involved reduced energy
consumption and water management.
Overall, liquid effluent was reduced by 30,000m3 with a potential reduction
of a further 45,000m3 which would result in total savings of £25,000 per
annum. A reduction of 1,880 tonnes of wastes to be disposed of off-site saved
£102,500 annually. A reduction in electricity consumption of 1,200,000kWh
produced savings of £30,995 per annum. These savings, together with a
£10,000 per annum saving in raw materials, combined to make a total of
£168,495 per annum.
These savings were achieved in several ways;
. using good housekeeping and maintenance to eliminate the majority of
air leaks from the compressed air system;
. reducing the tolerance of the air handling units by reprogramming the
main control panel; and
. using a spray ball to reduce the amounts of chemical used.
 Geest Convenience Foods (March 1996) Sustainable
Geest Convenience Foods is part of Geest plc. The Barton upon Humber site waste
was only four years old when the project was implemented. There are two management
operations at the site; production of pasta products which employs 200 people
and the bread product production which employs 150 people. The focus of this
project changed as it developed, and was also affected because the key project
champion changed during the lifetime of the project. 587
A reduction of 1,537 tonnes of waste to be disposed of off-site with potential
of a further 26 tonnes led to savings of £28,880 per annum, with potential extra
savings of another £7,464 per annum. Reductions in raw materials use led to
savings of £211,624 per annum. Potential reductions in electricity consumption
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

of 590,404kWh per annum and gas consumption of 227,250kWh per annum

were expected to lead to savings of £22,000 and £2,250 per annum respectively.
Other areas of potential savings were identified as ancillary materials (£99,355
per annum) and good housekeeping (£660 per annum).
These savings were achieved in several ways:
. a modification of the cut and butter machines, to prevent smearing of the
butter, reduced the rejection rate by 1per cent;
. improved planning control and batch scheduling achieved a 1.5 per cent
saving in flour usage;
. tighter controls and procedures eliminated a problem where operators
were losing a mix or batch by omitting an ingredient.

J.W. Lees and Company's Brewery (ETBPP, 1996b)

J.W. Lees and Company is a brewery based at Greengate, Manchester. The
wastes minimisation programme at the brewery centred around the reduction
of water consumption. The programme was divided into two projects, one
focused on wort cooling water reduction and the other on saving tank room
water.
A systematic approach to water minimisation was implemented in the tank
room. Initially, it was impossible to allocate consumption to specific activities
as there was only one meter on the incoming water supply. A new meter was
purchased, at a cost of £300, and installed by brewery staff. The theoretical
consumption for cleaning the various pieces of equipment was calculated and
the actual consumption was monitored. Operators were then closely
supervised, using controlled cleaning, and the water consumption was reduced
by 300m3 per week. It was found that the actual consumption still exceeded the
theoretical by approximately 250m3 per week, however, further investigation
identified faulty control valves to be responsible. Overall savings on tank room
water exceeded £650 per week.
The second project involved the reduction of wort cooling water, the reuse of
which is common in the brewing industry. At J.W. Lees, an overflow of ``excess''
hot liquor was known to occur on a regular basis. New meters were installed, at
a cost of £500, to monitor cold water use and liquor overflow. Staff then carried
out a study of brewing operations and timings of wort cooling operations to
 BFJ assess hot liquor availability. From this they were able to identify the optimum
101,8 time, so that a more efficient liquor recovery process would occur. Overflow
was almost totally eliminated after the new procedure was instigated. Savings
in water costs, effluent charges and energy costs amounted to £15,000 per year.

Summary
588 The case for wastes minimisation is well proven, both in financial and
environmental terms. However, there are still some barriers, mainly perceived
as financial considerations, to be overcome before the majority of companies
adopt this methodology. Likely changes in legislation may well help to
overcome some of these barriers. Trade and industry associations and groups
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

have a part to play in setting up networks to assist members of the sector in

implementing wastes minimisation programmes, training them in carrying out
these programmes, and informing them of the opportunities, funding and
advice available. Wastes minimisation programmes can be implemented with
little or no capital costs, unlike clean technology, which can be costly. Unlike
clean technology, the introduction of wastes minimisation programmes is not
limited by the availability of advanced, expensive technology, as most
measures are based on process efficiency. There is a wide range of
organisations that provide help and assistance to those interested in
implementing wastes minimisation strategies (see ``Useful contacts'').
The financial implications of wastes may have a greater impact on the food
and drink industry which produces a high proportion of organic wastes that
traditionally go to landfill. These wastes going to landfill will become
increasingly more expensive owing to the, probably increasing landfill tax,
and, when the European Landfill Directive is implemented, the need to find
alternative disposal routes. It is therefore vital that the food and drink industry
examines ways to minimise the wastes that they produce and then find
alternative uses for any that are produced before finally disposing of any
residues. Those companies that choose not to operate a wastes minimisation
programme may find that they lose custom to competitors making savings
through wastes minimisation and having a better public perception as being
environmentally friendly.

Useful contacts
. Environmental and Energy Helpline, Tel: 0800 585794, can provide free
expert advice, counselling visits, guides, videos, case studies and
contacts for local project clubs.
. Business Links, Tel: 0345 567765, a national network of local business
advice centres, can provide information on a wide range of topics
including the environment.
References
Allen, D.M. (1994), ``Waste minimisation and treatment: an overview of technologies'', Greener
Management International, Vol. 5, January, pp. 22-8.
Biffa (1995), Waste: a Game of Snakes and Ladders?, Biffa Waste Services, High Wycombe.
 Croner (1998), ``EC Landfill Directive agreement'', Croner Waste Management Briefing, Issue 68, Sustainable
p. 1.
DETR (1998a), Less Waste More Value. Consultation Paper on the Waste Strategy for England
waste
and Wales, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. management
DETR (1998b), Sustainable Business. Consultation Paper on Sustainable Development and
Business in the UK, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Earth Summit '92 (1992), The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio
de Janeiro 1992, Regency Press, ISBN 0-9520469-0-3. 589
EPA (1990), UK Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (Section 75), HMSO, London.
ETBPP (1996a), Saving Money Through Waste Minimisation: Raw Material Use. Environmental
Technology Best Practice Programme.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

ETBPP (1996b), Saving Money Through Waste Minimisation: Reducing Water Use,
Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme.
ETBPP (1996c), Attitudes and Barriers to Improved Environmental Performance, Environmental
Technology Best Practice Programme.
Frosch, R.A. (1996) ``Towards the end of waste: reflections on a new ecology of industry'',
Daedalus, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Haley, T.A. and Mulvaney, S.J. (1995) ``Advanced process control techniques for the food
industry'', Trends In Food Science & Technology, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 103-10
House of Commons (1998), Sustainable Waste Management: Environment, Transport and
Regional Affairs Committee, Sixth Report, Volume 1, HMSO, London.
HMSO (1994), Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy, HMSO, London, ISBN 0-10-124262-X.
IWM (1998) ``And after the budget...'', Wastes Management, April, p. 13.
Johns, M.R. (1995) ``Developments in waste water treatment in the meat processing industry: a
review'', Bioresource Technology, Vol. 54, pp. 203-16.
Johnston, N. and Stokes, A. (1995), Waste Minimisation and Cleaner Technology: an Assessment
of Motivation, Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology, London.
Kroyer, G.T. (1995) ``Impact of food processing on the environment ± an overview'', Food Science
and Technology - Lebensmittel - Wissenschaft & Technologie, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 547-52.
Laufenberg, G., Gruss, O. and Kunz, B. (1996), ``New concepts for the utilisation of residual
products from food industry prospects for the potato starch industry'', Starch-Starke, Vol.
48 No. 9, pp. 315-21.
Leicestershire County Council (1995), Leicestershire Waste Minimisation Initiative Project Report,
Leicestershire County Council, UK.
March (1996), Humber Forum Waste Minimisation Project. Final Report, July, March Consulting
Group, Manchester.
March (1998), Reducing Costs and Improving Environmental Performance through Waste
Minimisation `` The Aire & Calder Experience'', March Consulting Group, Manchester.
Orr and Boss (1996), Towards Zero Waste: 101 Waste-busting Tips, Orr and Boss, Alderly Edge.
Orsat, V., Raghavan, G.S.V. and Norris, E.R. (1996), ``Food-processing waste dewatering by
electro-osmosis'', Canadian Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 63-7.
Price, P. (1995), Waste Minimisation ± a Cross-industry Review of Current Practices and Trends,
Pearson Professional, Harlow.
Read, A.D., Phillips, P.S. and Murphy, A. (1997), ``English county councils and their agenda for
waste minimisation'', Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 20, pp. 277-94.
Wang, Y.P. and Smith, R. (1994), ``Waste water minimisation'', Chemical Engineering Science,
Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 981-1,006.
 This article has been cited by:

1. A. Fercoq, S. Lamouri, V. Carbone, A. Lelièvre, A.A. Lemieux. 2013. Combining lean and green in
manufacturing: a model of waste management. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 46:9, 117-122. [CrossRef]
2. Lisa T. Mattsson, Adam D. Read, Paul S. Phillips. 2010. A critical review of the largest Resource Efficiency
Club Programme in England (2005–2008): Key issues for designing and delivering cost effective policy
instruments in the light of Defra's Delivery Landscape Review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55:1,
1-10. [CrossRef]
3. Derk‐Jan HaverkampEnviron Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Harry BremmersBusiness
Administration Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands Onno OmtaEnviron Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2010. Stimulating
environmental management performance. British Food Journal 112:11, 1237-1251. [Abstract] [Full Text]
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

[PDF]
4. Willy Legrand, Philip Sloan, Claudia Simons-Kaufmann, Sarah Fleischer A review of restaurant sustainable
indicators 167-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
5. R. Darlington, T. Staikos, S. Rahimifard. 2009. Analytical methods for waste minimisation in the
convenience food industry. Waste Management 29:4, 1274-1281. [CrossRef]
6. G. Laufenberg, N. SchulzeA modular strategy for processing of fruit and vegetable wastes into value-added
products 286-353. [CrossRef]
7. Paul S. Phillips, Richard Barnes, Margaret P. Bates, Thomas Coskeran. 2006. A critical appraisal of an UK
county waste minimisation programme: The requirement for regional facilitated development of industrial
symbiosis/ecology. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 46:3, 242-264. [CrossRef]
8. Derk Somsen, Anthony Capelle, Johannes Tramper. 2004. Production yield analysis in the poultry
processing industry. Journal of Food Engineering 65:4, 479-487. [CrossRef]
9. Derk Somsen, Anthony Capelle, Johannes Tramper. 2004. Production yield analysis—a new systematic
method for improvement of raw material yield. Trends in Food Science & Technology 15:5, 267-275.
[CrossRef]
10. Janette Ackroyd, Ben Coulter, Paul S. Phillips, Adam D. Read. 2003. Business excellence through resource
efficiency (betre): An evaluation of the UKs highest recruiting, facilitated self-help waste minimisation
project. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38:4, 271-299. [CrossRef]
11. Paul S. Phillips, Paul Clarkson, Julie Adams, Adam D. Read, P. Chris Coggins. 2003. County waste
minimization programmes: a case study from Northamptonshire, UK. Sustainable Development 11:2,
103-118. [CrossRef]
12. Paul A. Clarkson, Julie C. Adams, Paul S. Phillips. 2002. Third generation waste minimisation clubs:
a case study of low cost clubs from Northamptonshire, UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 36:2,
107-134. [CrossRef]
13. Paul S Phillips, Kathy Holley, Margaret P Bates, Nigel P Freestone. 2002. Corby Waste Not: an appraisal
of the UK's largest holistic waste minimisation project. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 36:1, 1-31.
[CrossRef]
14. Derk Somsen, Anthony Capelle. 2002. Introduction to production yield analysis—a new tool for
improvement of raw material yield. Trends in Food Science & Technology 13:4, 136-145. [CrossRef]
 15. Stefan Henningsson, Ann Smith, Katherine Hyde. 2001. Minimizing material flows and utility use to
increase profitability in the food and drink industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology 12:2, 75-82.
[CrossRef]
16. Christopher P. Holt, Paul S. Phillips, Margaret P. Bates. 2000. Analysis of the role of waste minimisation
clubs in reducing industrial water demand in the UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 30:4, 315-331.
[CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)