Written so a customer can audit us against them, with the current number next to the target. Nothing on this page is scheduled for 2050.
Not a reduction target — a floor. If a container cannot be reused, rebuilt or repurposed, it is separated into HDPE, steel and wood fibre, and each stream goes to a named processor.
The remaining three percent is gasket rubber, label adhesive and wash sludge. Each has a dated replacement plan: adhesive-free placards in 2027, recyclable gasket compounds in 2028, sludge-to-fuel partnership in 2029.
Open-loop washing uses sixty. Only the final rinse gets potable water; everything upstream runs on the recovery loop through separation and two stages of filtration.
Laser-etched internal ID plus a QR placard. Last contents, wash cycles, repairs, grade history and release decisions all live against the serial for seven years.
This is the commitment that costs us money. Grinding a container is faster and simpler than washing, inspecting and re-releasing it. We hold the ratio deliberately.
2017 was 91% because we accepted a load we should have refused. The write-up stays in the archive. A sustainability figure you only publish when it flatters you is an advertisement.
Four customers have run some version of this audit on site: two chemical blenders, a food manufacturer and one municipal purchasing department. Two of them changed their own specifications afterwards. We will host yours on any weekday morning.
Put 'audit packet' in the message field with your reporting period and we will send the methodology, the worksheets and the mill tickets.
| Document | Covers | Proves | Retention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wash bay cycle logs | Any date range you name | Commitment 03 — water per container | 7 years |
| Granulator feed weights | Monthly | Commitments 01 and 02 — nothing landfilled whole | 7 years |
| Outbound regrind sales records | Monthly | The material actually went to a moulder | 7 years |
| Steel bale tickets | Per load | Cages reached a mill, not a hole | 7 years |
| Serial histories | Any container we sold you | Commitment 04 — traceability | 7 years |
| Diversion worksheet | Any quarter | The arithmetic behind the percentage | Published annually |
| Residual manifests | Per shipment | What we could not divert, and where it went | 7 years |
| Throughput by path | Annual | Commitment 05 — reuse outranks recycling | Published annually |
| # | Commitment | Metric | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | No whole container landfilled | Units landfilled whole | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0, permanently |
| 02 | Diversion to 99% | Material diverted | 95% | 96% | 97% | 99% by 2029 |
| 03 | Fresh water under 5 gal | Per washed container | 4.4 | 4.2 | 4.1 | Under 5, every year |
| 04 | Traceable history | Containers serialised | 42% | 100% | 100% | Maintained |
| 05 | Reuse outranks recycling | Reused or rebuilt share | 76% | 78% | 79% | Above 75% every year |
| 06 | Publish the bad years | Consecutive reports | 9 | 10 | 11 | Every year, unedited |
It gets reported as a miss with the reason, the way 2017 was. There is no mechanism for quietly retiring a commitment, which is the only thing that makes the other five worth reading.
Because grinding a container is faster and simpler than washing, inspecting and re-releasing it. Holding reuse above 75% of throughput is a deliberate constraint on our own efficiency.
It depends entirely on three consumables — filter media, gasket rubber and label adhesive — and we have dated plans for two of the three. Filter media is the honest gap and the reason we say 2029 rather than next year.
Yes, and three municipal customers already do. It is written to be citable — each commitment has a metric, a current number and a date.