Cleanzine

01/08/2024

A couple of days ago my family visited Bocketts Farm Park in Leatherhead – the award-winning, working family farm that really warrants a couple of days rather than just one, since there’s so much on offer. While I thoroughly recommend this animal petting farm, I don’t feel quite the same warmth towards some of the visitors, who clearly don’t see the need to retrieve and bin dropped toilet and hand tissue – as my pictures show. There’s simply no excuse!
With it being the hottest day of the year, staff were having to pull out all the stops to keep everything running smoothly and they did a great job so in my view deserved more support than ever. We didn’t see any spillages or rubbish lying around and we wondered whether this was because of the many children-engaging recycling and general rubbish bins dotted around the place. Why is it that this excellent impression changed when we had a look around the washroom?
The farm had excellent educational signage on good handwashing and drying practices along with how to dispose of different types of rubbish. And as public washrooms go, this one was well looked after, with no unflushed loos or seats that had been dripped on or smeared prior to any of my family’s visits – so well done general public on that score! But why spoil a good thing by littering? Farms such as this one aren’t just fun days out, they’re places in which our little ones learn a great deal about farming practices and the various animals. Surely a responsible parent should extend this learning experience to the washroom, showing those that at this stage still emulate them, how to behave responsibly? This means not only making a point of picking up their own dropped tissue AND EXPLAINING WHY AS THEY'RE DOING SO, but also instructing their charges to do the same. If we teach children when they’re very small, how to look after our environment and respect the cleaning staff, they’re more likely to influence their less savvy peers and carry their good work into adulthood, don’t you think?

25/07/2024

I know I had a grumble about the issues earlier this year, but reading the Environment Agency’s newly published annual report this week, on our water companies’ failings - and in particular with regard to sewage leaks, has got me all riled up again. For while the report shows an improvement in some ratings under the Environmental Performance Assessment system, the majority of companies have “continued to underperform” (now that’s an understatement if ever I heard one!). Bearing in mind that the Agency is employing more compliance inspectors, which means that the likelihood of fines for companies not making the grade has increased, I wonder just how dilapidated our supply and treatment facilities have become if those responsible for them haven’t managed to make the required improvements in order to avoid being taken to task. As I said previously, they shouldn’t be making the payouts to shareholders that they are, if money needs to be spent on upgrades – which it clearly does!

The number of serious pollution incidents increased from 44 in 2022 to 47 in 2023, while total pollution incidents from sewerage and water supply assets increased to 2,174 - the second consecutive annual increase and highest number recorded since 2019. Further, compliance with numeric permit conditions for discharging treated wastewater isn’t improving, with 45 sites found to be non-compliant. It’s just not good enough, is it?

Despite the huge numbers of sewerage pollution incidents recorded, since 2015 the Agency has only secured 63 prosecutions against water companies, securing fines of over £151 million. In 2023 the Agency concluded four prosecutions against four water companies, with fines of more than £6.7 million. It’s not the money we want though, is it? It’s clear, uncontaminated drinking water and sewage dealt with as it should be, rather than it being left to spoil our waterways and coastline, before spreading overseas.

Only Severn Trent Water is doing the right thing by the general public. Anglian, Southern, Thames and Yorkshire have shown little or no sign of improvement. These companies have a responsibility not only to those of us living in the UK but to tourists visiting our shores and even those who never set foot here but who may perhaps be bathing in their own countries’ waters that have been contaminated by our sewage. What’s going on is unacceptable.

The full report is available to read at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications

11/07/2024

I daresay that often these days, like me, you can’t believe what you’re reading. I had this experience yet again this week upon learning that a couple had been fined £1,200 between them (£600 each) for clearing up waste that had been discarded locally over a long period of time, and which was attracting animal scavengers, then bagging it up for eventual collection by their local authority’s refuse collectors. In my opinion the pair were saving Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s street cleaners a job that should have been kept on top of in the first place. The rubbish shouldn’t have been left there - either by the litter louts or the local council whose job it is, ultimately, to clean it up. But to fine the party that chose to look after the local environment, really does beggar belief, don’t you think? Now, Veronika Mike and Zoltan Pinter have vowed not to clean up other people’s rubbish ever again, even if it’s attracting rats. Frankly I can’t blame them. Their public spiritedness has given them a real slap in the face, in my view.
I gather that one of the receptacles they’d used to collect and store some of the rubbish, was a box that had Mr Pinter’s name on it. They’d left in a random bin that’s used by the general community locally rather than individual residents, but someone had removed it. This led to an illegal dumping notice for 'failing to transfer household waste to an authorised authority'.
Yes, I get that there are laws in place, but surely with a bit of savvy, this could all have been sorted out amicably? And what about ‘failing to keep our streets clean’, when this is a service that should be covered by our council tax? The couple and their neighbours claim that during the bin collection rounds, the refuse collectors only collect the bins and don’t bother picking up any rubbish they see lying around – something I’ve noticed in my own area, too. It’s well known that discarded rubbish attracts further rubbish, so it pays to deal with it immediately.
Despite the pair having written to the Council explaining the situation and asking for the charges to be dropped – a letter that was also signed by several neighbours – nothing has changed. Sadly, while Mr Pinter was able to pay his fine immediately, Ms Mike – a regular volunteer litter-picker - couldn’t do so, and has now has to set up a GoFundMe crowdfunder in the hope of gaining some financial support. I’m really hoping that enough money’s collected to cover the fine in its entirety.

04/07/2024

I've carried out something of an experiment over the past couple of weeks, by sharing a link to a picture of a toilet cubicle containing a sanitary bin, alongside the caption: 'UK's largest railway puts bins for boys in every male toilet on its network' and gauging people's responses. It's been interesting... Most, at first glance, felt that having sanitary bins in men's cubicles is an expensive and pointless exercise which will adversely affect train ticket prices. Also, that their installation has come about as part of the 'woke agenda', with the recent push for gender fluidity and all that it brings, fuelling the perceived need for virtue-signalling. Some were really angry.

When I explained that the bins weren't designed for men who have periods, but for the 1-in-3 aged over 65 who suffer from incontinence, they all softened. The majority were shocked to learn the extent of incontinence issues while some asked why bins aren't mandatory for all men's cubicles everywhere. I had a chat with John Austen about it, venturing that it would have been less costly and perhaps more acceptable to the uninitiated to just place bins in the disabled facilities, but he pointed out that there's enough stigma - especially for men, about incontinence, without adding 'disabled' to the mix. He's right of course.

So congratulations to Govia Thameslink Railway - the UK's largest rail franchise, for supporting the campaign by Prostate Cancer UK by placing bins in all men's staff and customer toilets across its 11 county network! Bins can now be found in 495 men's toilet cubicles at 228 stations, offices and depots across the network, which operates Gatwick Express, Great Northern, Southern and Thameslink services. "We're keen to reduce the anxiety experienced by male colleagues and customers with urinary incontinence, and this small but significant step aims to enhance the comfort and dignity of those who may need these facilities," explains GTR. "What might be deemed as a minor improvement will make a real difference to many male customers and remove a significant barrier to travel." Quite right too! Prostate Cancer UK is calling for the installation of incontinence bins in every public toilet and business across the country, saying: "A man living with incontinence should be able to travel away from home without having to worry about whether he'll be able to get rid of his used pads." A campaign well worth supporting, in my view.

27/06/2024

Glastonbury Festival is on currently, which means that if previous years are anything to go by, come Monday our newspapers and social media platforms will be festooned with images of piles of rubbish and abandoned tents strewn across the fields. An ex-colleague told me that when attending another well-known festival which involved the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol, he and his group of friends would take a spare tent in which they would all urinate – with the occasional ‘accident’ - rather than queue for the loos. They’d leave it behind for the unwary volunteers to discover. He thought it was funny…

As some 250,000 tents go to landfill each Summer in the UK alone, I doubt all of these will have been used as ‘loo tents’, so it’s simply a case of festival-goers not being bothered to pack them up and lug them home. I accept that some tents may have broken beyond repair, but what’s to prevent the owners from taking them to a bin area, rather than leave them for someone else to dismantle and bin? This year though, things may be different…

I was delighted to learn that a sports equipment manufacturer called Decathlon has launched the ‘No tent left behind’ tent buy back scheme. Customers have until 13th September to return their eligible tents to Decathlon stores for trade-in. They’ll receive a gift card worth the full amount they spent on the tent, regardless of wear and tear – as long as it’s all there and hasn’t been damaged, stained or contaminated in any way (Loo tents not eligible then!). The tents will be refurbished, cleaned and resold via Decathlon's 'Second Life' resale platform. What a fabulous idea!

And as Decathalon has 2080 stores in 56 countries, I’m hoping that this isn’t just a UK initiative but one which stretches across the globe...

As well as the difference this scheme could make to our environment such as demand on landfill, it comes with other bonuses, freeing up storage space at home for example and allowing participants to camp in a new tent each year. It’s ideal too for growing families! Anyone who’s missed the dates for ‘No tent left behind’, or has bought a tent from a different range than that advertised in the scheme, can still sell back their tent and other old equipment, through Decathalon’s Buy Back scheme. What’s not to like about this initiative? Looking at the company’s website blurb, it’s committed to helping give everyone, everywhere, access to sport and the outdoors, while helping save the planet, making sports jackets out of old plastic bottles and repairing broken bikes for example. Brilliant!

Shop our quality outdoor gear and clothing for camping, hiking and more. Check out our bikes, puffer jackets, backpacks, tents, hiking boots, rain jackets, hiking pants, Merino, and more.

20/06/2024

Today's Cleanzine Leader by Editor Jan Hobbs:

Why are people so ignorant of the processes and products involved in cleaning? Why is cleaning rarely considered by anyone other than those in the industry? Tonight I'm heading to Stonehenge - the heart of Salisbury's World Heritage site and one of Europe's most well-known prehistoric monuments - to celebrate the Summer Solstice and perform with Shakti Sings choir within the stone circle. Following yesterday's ridiculous attempts by Just Stop Oil to promote its cause by spraying the Neolithic stones with orange paint, I fear that the vibe will be less of love and wonder and more of anger and frustration.

JSO tweeted that it was "just corn starch" and perhaps had the crime not been committed two days before the ancient site would be crammed with pilgrims, the paint could have been left for the rain to wash it away - we're certainly having enough of the stuff this year to make that a possibility! But English Heritage will want the Stones at their best and will no doubt have called in the cleaners who'll have had to use not only precious water but cleaning fluid and possibly powered equipment too. And the team will have had to get to the site which is in the middle of nowhere. I doubt they'll have used Shanks' Pony (walked) to transport all the equipment required to make everything pristine again. Further, the endangered lichens growing over the Stones are unlikely to have survived the attack - or perhaps the subsequent cleaning. JSO has hinted that this may just be the first ancient monument to come under attack, saying: "Supporters, along with citizens from Austria, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland, will join in resistance this Summer, if their own governments do not take meaningful action. Stone circles can be found in every part of Europe - showing how we've always co-operated across vast distances. We're building on that legacy."

Whatever your stance on the use of fossil fuels, I can't help believing that you'll agree with me that polluting our environment as JSO has done here, isn't going to attract supporters to its cause. Also that the vandals are dealt with severely enough to deter others from following suit. Perhaps JSO supporters ought to research how adversely their lives will be affected if oil and its by-products are no longer available. As one commenter tweeted: "All tech uses oil in its manufacturing processes. Manufactured clothing, glasses and lenses, medicines, food, books and paper, the Internet, you name it; oil is involved in it somewhere along the line."

13/06/2024

Bulgaria was, for several years and prior to Perestroika, the location of my late-season ski fix. Perfect snow, incredible value for money and wonderful people – many of whom became long-term friends. One thing I couldn’t get used to though was what went on in the washrooms – something I was reminded of following receipt of a link from a friend, to an article in one of today’s newspapers.

Back to Bulgaria though… the washrooms were always pristine. I never came across a dirty one although some of the cleaning equipment must have been difficult to work with – an old jumper wrapped around something on the end of a broom handle to form a mop, for example, which happened to have been put together by a friend’s mother, who worked her magic as a cleaner in one of the hotels in Borovets. There was always a washroom attendant in the facilities I went into, which is perhaps why there were never any nasty surprises for the users! But as well as being responsible for the cleaning, the attendant was there to ‘police’ the toilet tissue: two sheets or five, depending upon what you planned to do in the cubicle. Luckily my friends and I always carried our own so were never forced to divulge our intentions or find ourselves ‘caught short’ when it came to our toilet tissue rations.

The link my friend sent was to a Mail Online article, headed: “In a rush to flush: China installs timers above women's toilet cubicles at UNESCO site so fellow guests can tell how long they have been 'engaged'.” The article explains how the timers have been installed at the 1500-year-old Yungang Grottoes - ancient Buddhist temples carved into the rockface in northern China's Shanxi province, which attracted three million visitors in 2023. There’s a video of the timers in action, courtesy of the Xiaoxiang Morning Herald. The display shows ‘empty’ in green if the cubicle’s unoccupied while a red timer clocks up the minutes and seconds an occupied cubicle’s been in use. The timers have apparently been installed to cope with an increase in visitor numbers and alert the facility to any potential problems, but this doesn’t make sense to me. Are they there to shame users into hurrying up, I wonder? My view is that this is technology ‘gone too far’... a pointless exercise and a waste of money. If someone’s clocked up more time than anyone else, it would be foolish to guess that this means they’re about to vacate (if that’s the idea behind the timers). If there are long queues for the toilets, wouldn’t a better option be to build more? Or am I missing something here?

The 1500-year-old UNESCO World Heritage site, Yungang Grottoes in northern China have installed small timer screens above each toilet cubicle in the women's toilet.

06/06/2024

Must say that while checking over today’s news alerts I was gobsmacked to read this demonstrator’s sign, which suggests that the privatisation of cleaning and other support services will automatically increase the threat of hospital superbug infections. She was taking part in a rally, supported by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, at Ontario’s Etobicoke General Hospital against its plan to contract out 215 cleaning, portering, waste management and laundry services jobs. The story is that back in 2006, an outbreak of C. difficile at the state’s Sault Ste. Marie Hospital killed 10 patients directly and another eight indirectly, and that the hospital, which had privatised housekeeping services, was consequently forced to increase cleaning staff by 40% and institute a range of other measures. According to CUPE, which cites other examples too, management is making a similar mistake by privatising housekeeping and other services at Etobicoke, which it says will risk patient health & safety, increase hospital overcrowding and undermine infection control practices. Hmmmm…

CUPE claims that the “for-profit operator's motivation to maximise revenues will mean lower staffing levels, higher staff turnover and fractured teamwork between in-house staff and contracted out workers,” and that “contracting out hospital services such as cleaning is dangerous and unsafe and magnifies the risk of acquiring infections". It says that instead of contracting out "to cut costs," management should be investing resources in improving health & safety at a time when microbial resistance is causing higher rates of hospital acquired infections."

I agree with CUPE’s claim that appropriate staffing levels and rigorous infection control practices are key to maintaining good hygiene in healthcare settings, but not its claim that these are automatically compromised by privatisation. My view is that if you choose your contractor wisely, the resultant increased efficiency within the cleaning processes, superior buying power and investment in the best technology - along with ongoing staff training, can pave the way to cuts in staff numbers while improving cleaning & hygiene standards enormously… That reductions in staffing levels don’t always reflect a need to cut costs but can stem from a contractor’s specialist experience and all-round positive input. Where do you stand on this one?

30/05/2024

Two pieces we ran last week have been playing on my mind. Both referred to - but from different angles - the growing requirement for businesses to show they're doing all they can to become more sustainable, to beat the competition in observing ESG, (environmental, social & governance) issues and to pursue 'Net Zero'. I was born into an era when very little record keeping was expected of us, in comparison. A policeman, (as they were back then) would probably regale colleagues with the story of how he'd dragged the shoplifter along with his spoils back into the shop by his ear - a strong warning and enough humiliation, it was thought, to deter future attempts. Ensure he wasn't going to be accused of assault, harassment or worse, and be forced to fill out lengthy reports? No! Same with our teachers: "Janet worked hard to correct her screw-kick" from my swimming teacher could only have been about me. When my twins' reports arrived home it was obvious that their teachers were having to cut & paste lengthy, pre-written paragraphs into the designated spaces. I knew this, since several were duplicated in each daughter's report by teachers who taught different subjects. How long did that take them, with the need to ensure that it properly suited each situation, to avoid potential repercussions? And how accurate was it, in reality?

It's no secret that far too many important crimes aren't investigated and that many teachers have somehow, not only lost control but their mojo too. Recruiting folk to do these crucial jobs is proving ever more difficult, with hoops to jump through when it comes to following procedures to the letter and many hours a week spent filling out forms. Now I have to ask, is it becoming the same for businesses which are also having to show that they're doing the right thing by the environment along with adhering to legislation regarding diversity and equality? Is the time, effort and money spent on showing they're doing the right thing, having a detrimental effect on progress? Are we complicating things too much?

In last week's Cleanzine Phs Wastekit argued that being sustainable can help tackle rising business costs and I agree. As well as the obvious benefits regarding manufacturing, distribution and waste disposal once everything's been properly set up, it's already accepted that we prefer to do business with companies that go out of their way to care for the environment, so it's a bit of a no-brainer. Mitie, on the other hand, shared the results of its survey which showed that sustainability reporting is stupidly time-consuming and costing too much money for the majority of organisations and that this is hampering their efforts to improve sustainability. Your thoughts please?

23/05/2024

It was heartwarming today - on the day that the UK cleaning industry properly recognises and celebrates its key players - to read that over-18s working in the contract cleaning industry in Ireland are to receive a 60 cents above-minimum-wage hourly pay rise from 1st June. I know this isn't a great deal of money in the big scheme of things and particularly so during the current economic difficulties, but it should make something of a difference for those who so deserve to be earning far more than they do. What impressed me is that the press statement has singled out the contract cleaning sector, which in my view helps validate it and show that people are realising more and more, the crucial role cleaning plays in everyone's wellbeing - along with, of course, our need to retain trained-up and enthusiastic people within the industry and prevent them from being tempted away into higher paid roles elsewhere! Furthermore, the pay increase looks as if it's been determined as a result of a public consultation. There's more on the story further down the page and I'll be looking into how this has come about for a follow up in Cleanzine.

Yes - this morning I'm heading into London to help celebrate more of the cleaning industry's successes at the Kimberly-Clark Professional Golden Service Awards. I've been attending these Awards for some three decades and the excitement still hasn't waned after all that time - for me or apparently for everyone else who's been enjoying them for so many years. I'm looking forward to learning more about the winners and the facilities they're cleaning and discussing some of the problems they've had to overcome to achieve such excellence!

As members of the general public, we naturally expect our environment to be clean, but rarely do most people think about the work that goes into making it that way - unless of course something's clearly not clean and hygienic, which leads to a complaint. I wonder if those complaining ever stop to think that someone's hard toil is behind the fact that what they're complaining about isn't generally a problem? Or if they thank the cleaners who rush to rectify whatever's gone wrong?

21/05/2024

Time and cost spent on carbon reporting leading to decarbonisation delays

* Seven out of 10 (70%) sustainability leaders believe that the time and cost spent on reporting admin has driven decarbonisation delay as resource constraints are hampering action on sustainability goals
* Over half (55%) say that too much admin is involved in sustainability reporting with over a third (37%) looking to outsource it
* Sustainability leaders also say the volume of reporting is increasing pressure with two thirds (66%) now publishing an external sustainability report that is separate to their annual report, as well as reporting to external regulatory frameworks

Mitie has unveiled new survey findings revealing that the time and cost constraints from sustainability reporting are hampering progress towards sustainability goals for many organisations.

Over half (55%) of sustainability leaders surveyed agreed that sustainability reporting requires too much admin and over a third are considering outsourcing their reporting as they think is "a waste of time". Almost half (46%) felt that their organisation spends too much time on reporting and a similar number (45%) also said that too much money is spent on it. This is having a counterproductive approach as seven out of 10 (70%) said that the resources spent on reporting admin directly impacts their ability to action their sustainability strategy which is in turn delaying decarbonisation.

Specifically, three in 10 (32%) said they could better use these resources to develop their carbon reduction plans whereas others would spend it collaborating with others in their industry to drive forward progress to net zero (30%) and a similar amount (29%) would use it to invest in nature or biodiversity.

Almost a quarter (24%) would also look to put this resource to good use outside of decarbonisation and would instead focus on giving back to the community or strike up partnerships with charitable organisations if less time was spent on reporting.

Reporting volume reaches new heights…

Sustainability leaders recognised that part of the pressure on reporting is coming from sheer volume with two thirds (66%) of organisations now publishing an external sustainability report that is separate to their annual report as well as reporting to external regulatory frameworks. This rises to more than four in five (83%) of organisations that have more advanced strategies and have set and validated Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) emissions reduction targets, aligned with the Paris Agreement.

Over a quarter (26%) now count the Board and C-suite of their organisation amongst the stakeholders most likely to scrutinise their sustainability data with nearly nine out of 10 (88%) of organisations producing reports for them regularly. Two thirds (66%) do this at least once every three months.

Most have reporting software but would switch to save time and money…

In a bid to streamline reporting processes, four fifths (79%) have now invested in digital carbon reporting software. Yet the challenge of collecting data from multiple sources is still particularly laborious for over three in five (64%) respondents.

Almost half (46%) have developed their software in house but almost two fifths (38%) said they would switch to a new software provider if it would help them to save time with and over a third (35%) saying they would switch to save money.

Others said they would look elsewhere if there was a provider that could help them better prepare for upcoming legislation (27%) and almost a quarter (24%) would make the swap if they thought it would help them to make better decisions about their sustainability strategy, indicating appetite for expert advice and a full carbon reporting service rather than solely automation software.

Despite the intense nature of reporting, close to one fifth of respondents (17%) admitted they still rely solely on manual processes when it comes to reporting including Excel spreadsheets and hard copy. The cost to invest in software was cited as the biggest barrier to its adoption.

"Sustainability reporting has inadvertently become a burden for organisations,” warns Catherine Wheatley, head of data science and energy services, Mitie. “Our findings show that the time and resources dedicated to reporting are leading to a decarbonisation delay as time is spent on admin and problem solving rather than action and adding value to their organisation as intended.

"However, despite the challenges posed, it's encouraging to see senior stakeholders engaging with reporting, recognising its pivotal role in shaping business strategy. This helps to give sustainability leads the leverage to make a case for investment in the resources they require to support seamless reporting so they can stop stalling on sustainability and focus on the all-important action towards goals."

In March, Mitie launched its new managed carbon reporting and reduction service, 'Emissions Intelligence', in partnership with Salesforce to empower organisations to be more confident in their emissions reporting, improve their efficiency and increase the transparency of their progress towards net zero goals. As an experienced decarbonisation partner, Mitie works with customers including Lloyds Banking Group, Essex County Council and Vodafone to deliver their sustainability projects and work towards net zero.

The research surveyed 500 sustainability decision-makers from UK organisations and was carried out by Opinium between the 9th and 23rd February 2024.

www.mitie.com