Eleven years, published unedited
Including 2017, when the diversion rate fell to 91% because we accepted a load we should have refused. Keeping that in is the only reason the other ten years mean anything.
- Sheet
- 45
- Revision
- 2026-10
- Scale
- 1:1
- Drawn at
- Peoria IL
| Year | Diversion | Containers handled | What defined the year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 97% | 41,200 | Best year on both diversion and water. Zero whole containers landfilled. | Read → |
| 2024 | 96% | 38,700 | Serialisation rolled out across the whole yard. | On request |
| 2023 | 95% | 36,100 | Standing lanes formalised; free pickup introduced on qualifying loads. | On request |
| 2022 | 95% | 33,400 | Circular Tote Standard published with dated commitments. | On request |
| 2021 | 95% | 31,900 | Granulator installed; HDPE handled in house instead of brokered. | On request |
| 2020 | 94% | 35,600 | Sanitiser demand year. Six-day weeks for nine months. | On request |
| 2019 | 94% | 28,300 | Phone line removed; everything moved to writing. | On request |
| 2018 | 93% | 26,000 | Fabrication shop opened, repurpose path formally added to the ladder. | On request |
| 2017 | 91% | 23,800 | The bad year. A contaminated load we should have refused. Intake rules rewritten. | On request |
| 2016 | 93% | 21,400 | First fleet pooling customer. | On request |
| 2015 | 92% | 18,900 | First published report. Rebottling line in its first full year. | On request |
Diversion is calculated on containers that physically left the yard in the reporting year, by mass. Stock held in inventory counts as nothing, which is the conservative treatment.
Eight tables and one apology section
- Throughput by path: reuse, rebottle, repurpose, recycle, licensed disposal.
- Diversion calculation with the worksheet, not just the percentage.
- Water: total used, recovered, fresh make-up, and sludge volume manifested out.
- CO₂e avoided with the factors and the arithmetic shown.
- Material outputs: regrind tonnage and grade, steel bale weights, wood fibre.
- Residual stream: what we could not divert and why, itemised.
- Commitments from the circular standard with current performance against each.
- What we got wrong, in plain language, with what changed as a result.
Want a specific year?
Reports before 2025 are available on request as PDFs. Put the year in the message field and we will email it.
The series in one table
| Year | Containers | Diversion | Reused/rebuilt | Recycled | Fresh water/wash | Whole units landfilled |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 18,900 | 92% | 71% | 21% | 6.8 gal | 0 |
| 2016 | 21,400 | 93% | 72% | 21% | 6.4 gal | 0 |
| 2017 | 23,800 | 91% | 70% | 21% | 6.1 gal | 0 |
| 2018 | 26,000 | 93% | 73% | 20% | 5.8 gal | 0 |
| 2019 | 28,300 | 94% | 74% | 20% | 5.2 gal | 0 |
| 2020 | 35,600 | 94% | 75% | 19% | 5.0 gal | 0 |
| 2021 | 31,900 | 95% | 76% | 19% | 4.7 gal | 0 |
| 2022 | 33,400 | 95% | 76% | 19% | 4.5 gal | 0 |
| 2023 | 36,100 | 95% | 76% | 19% | 4.4 gal | 0 |
| 2024 | 38,700 | 96% | 78% | 18% | 4.2 gal | 0 |
| 2025 | 41,200 | 97% | 79% | 12% | 4.1 gal | 0 |
- The 2020 anomaly is volume, not performance — sanitiser demand pushed throughput up 26% while the rate held.
- 2021 is where the granulator went in, which is why recycling visibility improved rather than recycling volume.
- The 2025 drop in the recycled share reflects repurposing absorbing containers that would previously have been ground up.
- Water per wash has fallen every single year since the loop went in. It is the only metric with no reversals.
Five questions to ask of anybody's sustainability numbers
- Are you counting intake or output? Counting what arrived flatters the figure by whatever is sitting in stock. We count what left.
- By mass or by unit? Mass is harder to game. A thousand light components diverted does not offset one heavy stream landfilled.
- Is the methodology published, or just the percentage? A figure without a worksheet is a figure somebody rounded.
- Is the residual itemised? Ours has four lines totalling 12.8 tons. If a report has no residual at all, it is not counting something.
- Is there a bad year in the archive? Eleven consecutive years including 2017 at 91% is the only reason 97% is believable.
Why are older reports not on the site as PDFs?
Because almost nobody downloaded them and the ones who did asked us questions anyway. Ask for the year and we email it the same day.
Has any figure ever been restated?
Once. Serialisation in 2024 corrected our own diversion number downward by about a point and a half, because counting by record is stricter than counting by tonnage estimate. We published the correction and the reason.
Do the reports cover customer emissions?
No. They cover what happens inside our gate plus the avoided manufacturing of containers we did not cause to be built. Your freight, your product and the container's life after you are outside the boundary, and we state that.
Can I get the raw data?
The worksheets, yes, through the audit packet. The underlying serial-level records stay with us for seven years and can be examined on site.