Measuring Resource Efficiency and Resource Effectiveness in Manufacturing

To identify and analyse existing resource efficiency and resource effectiveness measures and indicators (REMIs); identify gaps and develop a new indicator of ‘operational resource effectiveness’ (OREft) suitable for manufacturing units. Research methodology consist of 3 stages: gap Identification, development and testing. Through review of academic literature, 40 REMIs are identified and analysed. A survey of manufacturers is carried out to validate the hypothesis and seek inputs on the development of the new indicator. The proposed indicator is tested by comparing OREft index of two manufacturing units with each other, with resource intensity per unit (RIPU), waste intensity per unit (WIPU) and with 4 other REMIs. Analysis of 40 REMIs clearly points towards the absence of a hypothesised REMI. 78% of manufacturers surveyed in north England substantiate the hypothesis. Inverse correlation established between the proposed OREft indicator, RIPU, WIPU and other comparisons is likely to validate the output generated by the proposed indicator. Testing of this indicator is limited to two dissimilar manufacturing units that shared data. The proposed indicator is useful for comparing the operational resource effectiveness of individual factories over a period as well as with other factories. RIPU and WIPU captured in this indicator also represent operational resource efficiency that can be used to initiate improvement action. Inclusion of both, the resource consumption and the waste generation along with discount/multiplying factors that capture the circularity aspects is likely to be the distinguishing feature of this indicator

Clarifying the disagreements on various reuse options: Repair, recondition, refurbish and remanufacture

Earth’s natural resources are finite. To be environmentally sustainable, it may not only be necessary to use them ‘efficiently’ but also ‘effectively’. While we consider ‘repair’, ‘recondition’, ‘refurbish’ and ‘remanufacture’ to be ‘reuse’ options, not all researchers agree. Also, there is lack of clarity between the different options that are likely to be challenging for both; the policy makers who formulate policies aimed to encourage ‘reuse’ of ‘waste’ products and for decision makers to initiate appropriate action for recovering ‘reusable resources’ from ‘waste streams’. This dichotomy could result into more ‘waste’ to landfill. A systematic analysis of peer reviewed literature is conducted to understand inconsistencies and/or lack of clarity that exist between the definitions or descriptions of identified `reuse’ options. This article proposes a ‘hierarchy of reuse options’ that plots the relative positions of identified ‘reuse’ options vis-à-vis five variables, namely work content, energy requirement, cost, performance and warranty. Recommendations are made on how to incentivise original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to ‘remanufacture’. Finally, an alternative ‘Type II Resource Effective Close-loop Model’ is suggested and a conceptual ‘Type II/2 Model of Resource Flows’ that is restricted to the use of environmentally benign and renewable resources is introduced. These suggestions are likely to help decision makers to prioritise between ‘reuse’ options, drive resource effectiveness and also environmental sustainability

Post-consumer plastic packaging waste in England: Assessing the yield of multiple collection-recycling schemes

The European Commission (EC) recently introduced a ‘Circular Economy Package’, setting ambitious recycling targets and identifying waste plastics as a priority sector where major improvements are necessary. Here, the authors explain how different collection modalities affect the quantity and quality of recycling, using recent empirical data on household (HH) post-consumer plastic packaging waste (PCPP) collected for recycling in the devolved administration of England over the quarterly period July-September 2014. Three main collection schemes, as currently implemented in England, were taken into account: (i) kerbside collection (KS), (ii) household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) (also known as ‘civic amenity sites’), and (iii) bring sites/banks (BSs). The results indicated that: (a) the contribution of KS collection scheme in recovering packaging plastics is higher than HWRCs and BBs, with respective percentages by weight (wt%) 90%, 9% and 1%; (b) alternate weekly collection (AWC) of plastic recyclables in wheeled bins, when collected commingled, demonstrated higher yield in KS collection; (c) only a small percentage (16%) of the total amount of post-consumer plastics collected in the examined period (141 kt) was finally sent to reprocessors (22 kt); (c) nearly a third of Local Authorities (LAs) reported insufficient or poor data; and (d) the most abundant fractions of plastics that finally reached the reprocessors were mixed plastic bottles and mixed plastics

Development of a project-oriented and transnational master course for training the engineering competencies

Mobility, multi-locality, and transnational migration are current social developments among the population of the European Union. European society is becoming increasingly characterized by intercultural and cross-border interactions between citizens. This development is observable already within the activities of European companies. Cross-border project work between productions sites as well as transnational cooperation is essential for ensuring the competitiveness of the continent. These social developments in society and companies lead to new requirements for working in the European Union. Teaching and learning in higher education needs to adapt to these developments. Young engineers graduating from universities must be capable of working in international teams. In their future career, they will have to be able to work with colleagues, suppliers, and customers from different cultural backgrounds and in different countries, master the challenges of virtual cooperation in specific engineering tasks and within international value chains. As a result, new and innovative teaching and learning concepts in higher education must provide the competencies for transnational teamwork in the curriculum of tomorrow’s engineers in order to ensure a competitive advantage in their future careers