Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.

Headline

Collections JR Europe decision delayed

Comment

Jennie I managed LA collections in a past life (indeed we often spoke at the time, to mutual benefit) and I'm personally fully supportive of councils and the conflicting budgetary priorities they currently face. But surely weight-based league tables and the like should be considered old hat; that more councils co-mingle than not doesn't necessarily justify its fundamental existence, nor its further proliferation simply on the basis that WDF end-of-year validation somehow satiates resident satisfaction via the inevitable surveys - "we're still on track", "we've doubled", "we've halved", etc - that's how it rolls to a certain extent, after all - regardless of the needs of the wider supply chain. Councils would be canny to look at the future benefits that maximising long-term material quality can bring them in terms of revenue benefit, carbon offsetting, lower price volatility, lower supply chain risks, potential wider employment benefits and reduced pressure from external drivers. Regardless of the Judicial Review outcome I'm convinced that budgetary forecasting will be the primary benefit to councils of entering into 7-10 year MRF contracts, which is fundamnentally wrong (but not necessarily their sole fault). Surely you cannot argue against CRR's right to make its case? It's either ultimately upheld or not (well, eventually one would hope...) on the basis of myriad factors and eventualities throughout the entire supply chain, and hopefully on the basis of long-term 'circular economy' principles, not just the perceived needs of councils.

Posted date

24 January, 2013

Posted time

5:29 pm

required
required
required
Headline

Collections JR Europe decision delayed

Comment

Jennie I managed LA collections in a past life (indeed we often spoke at the time, to mutual benefit) and I'm personally fully supportive of councils and the conflicting budgetary priorities they currently face. But surely weight-based league tables and the like should be considered old hat; that more councils co-mingle than not doesn't necessarily justify its fundamental existence, nor its further proliferation simply on the basis that WDF end-of-year validation somehow satiates resident satisfaction via the inevitable surveys - "we're still on track", "we've doubled", "we've halved", etc - that's how it rolls to a certain extent, after all - regardless of the needs of the wider supply chain. Councils would be canny to look at the future benefits that maximising long-term material quality can bring them in terms of revenue benefit, carbon offsetting, lower price volatility, lower supply chain risks, potential wider employment benefits and reduced pressure from external drivers. Regardless of the Judicial Review outcome I'm convinced that budgetary forecasting will be the primary benefit to councils of entering into 7-10 year MRF contracts, which is fundamnentally wrong (but not necessarily their sole fault). Surely you cannot argue against CRR's right to make its case? It's either ultimately upheld or not (well, eventually one would hope...) on the basis of myriad factors and eventualities throughout the entire supply chain, and hopefully on the basis of long-term 'circular economy' principles, not just the perceived needs of councils.

Posted date

24 January, 2013

Posted time

5:29 pm

required
required
required
required