Department of Technology Management and Economics 
Division of Supply and Operations Management 
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 
Gothenburg, Sweden 2016 
Report No. E2016:012 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Reducing Paper Waste to Improve  
Resource Efficiency at a Swedish Printing 
and Packaging Company 
 
Master’s thesis in the Master Degree Program Quality and Operations Management 
 

MADELEINE LUNDBERG 
CASPER MANNE WALLIN 



 

 

REPORT NO. E2016:012 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Reducing Paper Waste to Improve Resource 
Efficiency at a Swedish Printing and Packaging 

Company 
 
 

MADELEINE LUNDBERG 
CASPER MANNE WALLIN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Department of Technology Management and Economics 

CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 
Göteborg, Sweden 2016 



 

 

Reducing Paper Waste to Improve Resource Efficiency at a Swedish Printing and 
Packaging Company 
 
MADELEINE LUNDBERG 
CASPER MANNE WALLIN  
 
 
© MADELEINE LUNDBERG & CASPER MANNE WALLIN, 2016 
 
 
Report No. E2016:012 
Department of Technology Management and Economics 
Chalmers University of Technology 
SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden 
Telephone + 46 (0) 31-722 1000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chalmers Reproservice 
Göteborg, Sweden 2016 
 
 
  



 

 

Abstract 
The printing industry faces pressures to increase efficiency and reduce cost due to global 
overcapacity and rising costs of raw material. At the same time increased legislative and cus-
tomer demands to lower the environmental impact of industry activities has created a need for 
printers to better their sustainable practices. Increasing resource efficiency and reducing 
waste has therefore become an important aspect to consider for printers wanting to maintain 
their market position in an increasingly competitive environment.  
 
In the printing industry discarded paper is one of the largest sources of waste and is associat-
ed with substantial costs and environmental impact. Finding ways to reduce paper waste can 
therefore present opportunities for printers wanting to become more efficient, engage in more 
sustainable production and lower costs. Based on this, the purpose of this thesis is to map the 
current paper waste situation at a Swedish printing and packaging company, investigate its 
causes and suggest an approach for how paper waste can be reduced at the company. The re-
search strategy of this thesis combines both qualitative and quantitative methods including 
observations, interviews, production data analysis, and production measurements.  
 
The findings reveal that a majority of the paper waste at the company originates from the cut-
ting and offset printing departments. Approximately 42 % of the total generated paper waste 
originated from the cutting department, and at least 24 % originated from the offset printing 
department. It was however also found that the potential to reduce paper waste exists in all 
investigated production steps. Causes of paper waste differ between departments and waste 
types but main factors influencing paper waste include:  a lacking focus on waste reduction, 
missing accountability for waste generation, a mindset where waste is seen as a necessary and 
integral part of production, and a difficulty of accurately assessing the paper needed through-
out production due to lack of process measurements and accurate production data. It was also 
found that current imposition practices in combination with using mainly two sheet sizes, in-
efficient inventory control practices, and lacking housekeeping practices affects the genera-
tion of paper waste largely. 
 
From the findings it is concluded that reducing paper waste is a complex and cross-functional 
endeavor which requires continuous efforts if real improvements are to be realized and sus-
tained. Reducing paper waste must become prioritized within the organization and the view 
of paper waste as necessary altered. Accountability for waste generation should be estab-
lished, and the environmental strategy and goals anchored in daily shop-floor operations. Ac-
curate production data needs to be made available so that the production process can be 
monitored and controlled, and continuous improvements enabled. Common reduction tech-
niques such as reusing wasted paper and improving inventory control practices should also be 
explored.  
 
 
  



 

 

Acknowledgement 
This Master’s thesis has been conducted as part of the examination from the Master’s pro-
gram Quality and Operations Management at Chalmers University of Technology. The thesis 
was initiated by the case company and performed during the autumn of 2015 and early spring 
of 2016 on their behalf. 
 
We would like to thank the employees at the company who have been involved in this thesis 
for their support and willingness to share opinions and precious information. Without their 
valuable contribution this project would not have been possible.  
 
Furthermore we would like to give a special thanks to our supervisor at the case company and 
our supervisor at Chalmers Peter Almström for their valuable feedback, interesting discus-
sions and advice which has guided us throughout this process. 
 
  



 

 

Glossary 
Words that are fundamental for the understanding of this thesis and specific for the printing 
industry are defined below. The Swedish equivalent of the word is presented in italics when 
applicable. 
 
Gross number of sheets The estimated number of sheets needed to complete an or-

der. The gross number of sheets is calculated to cover antic-
ipated make-ready spoilage and include the net number of 
sheets. Bruttoark. 

 
Net number of sheets The number of sheets required to produce the ordered 

amount of copies and to cover spoilage and faults in post-
printing operations. Nettoark.  

 
Make-ready sheets  Sample sheets needed to set-up printing presses to reach 

and maintain a high quality of print throughout the printing 
process. Inställningsark.  

 
Overs  Additional copies of printed materials than ordered pro-

duced to allow for set-up operations and faults during the 
printing and finishing processes. Överexemplar.   

 
Imposition The process of arranging individual pages in final printing 

position on a press sheet. Utskjutning. 
 
Offset printing An indirect printing technique where an intermediate sur-

face (a rubber blanket) is used to transfer ink from printing 
plates onto the printing surface. Offsettryck. 

 
Sheet fed offset printing An offset printing technique where printing is done on in-

dividual sheets of paper as they are fed to the press one at a 
time. Arkoffset. 

 
Pagination  Sequenced page numbering. Paginering.  
 
Signature A sheet on which several pages has been printed, which has 

been folded so that pages are arranged into their proper 
numbered sequence and thereby make up a section of a 
book.  

  



 

 

 
Table of Contents 

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1!
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1!
1.2 Purpose............................................................................................................................ 2!
1.3 Problem analysis and research questions .................................................................... 2!
1.4 Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 3!

2. Theoretical framework ................................................................................... 4!
2.1 Waste Management ....................................................................................................... 4!

2.1.1 Waste Minimization, Pollution Prevention and Cleaner production ................. 5!
2.2 Waste Reduction Audits .............................................................................................. 12!

2.2.1 Planning and organization ................................................................................... 14!
2.2.2 Assessment ............................................................................................................. 15!
2.2.3 Feasibility Analysis ............................................................................................... 18!
2.2.4 Implementation ..................................................................................................... 19!

2.3 Continuous improvements and employee commitment ........................................... 21!
3. Method ........................................................................................................... 23!

3.1 Research strategy, approach and design ................................................................... 23!
3.2 Research methods and data collection ....................................................................... 24!

3.2.1 Literature study .................................................................................................... 24!
3.2.2 Participant observations ....................................................................................... 25!
3.2.3 Interviews ............................................................................................................... 25!
3.2.4 Reviewing existing sources of information ......................................................... 26!
3.2.5 In-process measurements and calculations ........................................................ 27!

3.3 Research process .......................................................................................................... 27!
3.4 Quality of research ....................................................................................................... 29!
3.5 Ethics ............................................................................................................................. 31!

4. Results of the empirical study ...................................................................... 33!
4.1 Company presentation ................................................................................................ 33!
4.2 Current waste management practices ........................................................................ 34!
4.3 Main operations influencing paper waste .................................................................. 35!

4.3.1 Paper purchasing, inventory management and material handling .................. 36!
4.3.2 Production process ................................................................................................ 39!

4.4 Identified problems with manual reporting .............................................................. 49!
4.4.1 Paper consumption ............................................................................................... 49!
4.4.2 Imprints ................................................................................................................. 50!
4.4.3 Bindery ................................................................................................................... 52!
4.4.4 Procurement .......................................................................................................... 52!

4.5 Quantification of paper waste ..................................................................................... 53!
4.5.1 Choice of measurement period ............................................................................ 53!
4.5.2 Quantifying input material .................................................................................. 53!
4.5.3 Quantifying paper waste in production .............................................................. 54!
4.5.4 Results .................................................................................................................... 56!



 

 

5. Discussion ...................................................................................................... 60!
5.1 Current waste management focus .............................................................................. 60!
5.2 Effects of only having a high level paper waste performance indicator ................. 60!
5.3 Establishing accountability through performance indicators ................................. 61!
5.4 Effects of reporting practices and the importance of reliable data ......................... 62!
5.5 Identified housekeeping improvements ..................................................................... 63!
5.6 Possible input material changes .................................................................................. 64!
5.7 Reusing paper waste .................................................................................................... 64!
5.8 Sales and customers impact on environmental performances ................................. 65!
5.9 Mindset, attitudes and change .................................................................................... 65!
5.10 Other reduction alternatives ..................................................................................... 66!
5.11 Continuous improvements ........................................................................................ 67!

6. Recommendations ......................................................................................... 68!
7. Discussion of quality of research, results and future suggestions ............ 71!
8. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 73!
9. References ...................................................................................................... 75!
Appendix I: Measurement form for paper waste .......................................... 78!
Appendix II: Measurement form for surplus paper ..................................... 79!
 
 
 



 

 

Figure 1. The EUs Waste Management Hierarchy .................................................................... 4!
Figure 2. Source reduction methods .......................................................................................... 7!
Figure 3. Generic steps of a WMOA framework. .................................................................... 13!
Figure 4. The waste minimization assessment procedure ........................................................ 21!
Figure 5. The effect of delegating responsibility and authority. .............................................. 22!
Figure 6. The company’s organizational chart ........................................................................ 33!
Figure 7. Decision-making process for surplus paper. ............................................................ 38!
Figure 8. Generic offset printing process. ................................................................................ 40!
Figure 9. Production layout ...................................................................................................... 40!
Figure 10. Process chart for Offset printing ............................................................................. 43!
Figure 11. Make-ready percentages of total imprints per press for 15 consecutive weeks ..... 43!
Figure 12. Process map for the cutting department ................................................................. 45!
Figure 13. Process map for the folding department ................................................................. 46!
Figure 14. Process map for the Adhesive binding department. ............................................... 47!
Figure 15. Process map for the Wire stitching department ...................................................... 48!
Figure 16. Paper consumption reporting .................................................................................. 50!
Figure 17. Reported paper consumption compared to reported imprints. ............................... 51!
Figure 18. Difference between press imprints and manually reported figures ........................ 52!
Figure 19. Paper waste quantities including calculated cutting and trimming waste .............. 57!
 
Table 1. Generally accepted definitions of Waste Minimization, Pollution Prevention and 

Cleaner Production. ............................................................................................................ 6!
Table 2. Commonly used criteria when evaluating the technical feasibility of a waste 

minimization option ......................................................................................................... 18!
Table 3. The literature review process ..................................................................................... 24!
Table 4. Paper waste levels from January 2015 until November 2015. .................................. 35!
Table 5. Main findings from reliability assessment ................................................................. 55!
Table 6. Results from the measurement period excluding calculated cutting waste ............... 57!
 
Equation 1. Paper waste ........................................................................................................... 34!
 
 



 

 1 

1. Introduction  
In this section the background, purpose, limitations, problem analysis and research questions 
of the thesis are presented.  

1.1 Background 
During the past two decades sustainability performance has become an increasingly im-
portant component of companies’ competitiveness, due to increased stringent environmental 
policies, the link between environmental performance and long-term cost reduction, and the 
fulfillment of regulatory requirements (Despeisse et al., 2012). However, much of today’s 
natural resources are used in an unsustainable manner and end up as waste. Using excess raw 
materials, poor resource utilization, scrap parts and outdated materials all contribute to organ-
izations waste streams and take a toll on both the environment and the finances of a company 
(Franchetti, 2009). To tackle these problems and approach sustainable development, waste 
management practices have been developed (El-Haggar, 2007). Waste management activities 
can include the collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste, as well as monitor-
ing and regulating the production process to prevent waste generation and to support reuse 
and recycling (OECD, 2003). The environmental performance of a process is influenced by 
five factors: input material, technology, execution of the process, the product and waste and 
emissions (Nilson et al., 2007). Corresponding actions to reduce wastes are therefore changes 
or substitutions of input material, technology and product changes or modifications, good op-
erating practices, and recycling activities (Nilson et al., 2007).  
 
In the printing industry pressures to adopt more sustainable practices have become increas-
ingly important because of, among other things, customer and legislative demands to lower 
the environmental impact of its activities (Thompson, 2014). Today printers face pressures to 
reduce costs due to worldwide overcapacity and rising costs of raw material and energy 
(Thompson, 2014). Waste management has therefore become one of, if not the biggest envi-
ronmental issue facing organizations within the printing industry today (Thornhill, 2014). By 
using resources more efficiently and reducing wastes, printing companies can increase their 
chance of maintaining their position in an increasingly fierce market environment (Envi-
rowise, 2004).  
 
The case company is a Swedish printing and packaging company in great need of reducing 
the amount of paper wasted in their operations. At present, there are high costs associated 
with the generated paper waste, indicated by substantial differences between the amounts of 
purchased raw material compared with the amount of paper utilized in the final products. Pa-
per accounts for approximately 30% of production costs, and on average 35% of purchased 
raw material is scrapped. Furthermore, during the first ten months of 2015, paper waste ac-
counted for 70% of the total quantity of waste generated by the company. Given the large 
amount of waste and its associated costs, efforts to minimize the paper waste and increase 
process efficiency have become issues discussed by top management. Reductions of paper 
waste levels can have a significant financial impact for the company and will also benefit 



 

 2 

their ecological footprint and sustainability performance. However, at present there exists no 
detailed or comprehensive view over the paper waste situation. Therefore, the efforts needed 
to mitigate the generation of paper waste and where they need to be focused are currently un-
known.  

1.2 Purpose 
The purpose of this thesis is to give a detailed view over the case company’s paper waste sit-
uation, identify its causes and to propose future efforts to reduce paper waste quantities.  

1.3 Problem analysis and research questions 
To keep track of paper waste, the company has established a performance indicator that puts 
the amount of paper retrieved by their recycling partner in relation to the amount of pur-
chased paper on a month-by-month basis. The paper waste performance indicator paints a 
general picture of the current situation but misses to convey more specific information about 
where and how much paper waste is generated in different steps of production. The lack of 
detailed information about waste quantities and waste streams makes paper waste a difficult 
issue to handle, and has given rise to an internally divided view of the importance of the top-
ic. To be able to better work with decreasing paper waste and build consensus in the matter, 
there is a need to determine where paper waste originates in the production system, and to 
identify which paper waste types that contribute largely to the total waste stream, in order to 
know where efforts should be focused. The first question to guide the research is therefore: 
  
1) Where in the production process is paper waste generated and what are the main waste 
types that contribute to the paper waste stream? 
 
Understanding where paper waste is generated and which the main paper waste types are is 
important, but without understanding why paper waste is generated real improvements are 
difficult to realize. An awareness of what causes paper waste is a prerequisite to tackle the 
problem at the source and to generate solutions that can be sustained in the long-term. Cur-
rently a comprehensive view of what causes paper waste does not exist. In some areas of pro-
duction, causes of paper waste are better understood than in others but the subject needs to be 
investigated further to get a complete picture. Therefore the second research question is:  
 
2) What are the main causes of paper waste generation at the company? 

 
When the current paper waste situation at the company is better understood, the newly ac-
quired knowledge can be used to guide future waste reducing efforts. Suggestions on actions 
required to proceed with the paper waste problematic will therefore be given. The third re-
search question is consequently:  
 
3) What actions need to be taken by the company in order to reduce current paper waste 
quantities? 



 

 3 

1.4 Delimitations 
This thesis will focus only on the paper waste generated at the case company and therefore 
exclude other types of wastes generated when printing such as inks, scrap metal and chemi-
cals.  
 
The company has several production sites in Sweden, however due to resource and time con-
straints, this thesis is limited to focus on only one of the production plants. Furthermore it fo-
cuses only on paper waste generated in offset production and the bindery since the bulk of the 
paper waste is generated within these departments, thereby excluding paper waste from digi-
tal printing. Moreover, packaging paper and office paper will not be considered in this thesis 
as these paper types differ from the paper used in offset production and the bindery, and 
therefore do not generate the same type of waste.   
 
Industrial waste includes all solid, liquid and gaseous waste generated from the production of 
goods (Shen, 1995). However as this study is focused on the solid waste generation of paper, 
the theoretical review has focused on solid waste reductions, and therefore methods of reduc-
ing liquid or gaseous wastes will not be thoroughly discussed throughout the report. Further-
more, since factors such as machine park, production layout and product design are seen as 
given, technology and product changes will not be suggested as means to reduce waste. 
Therefore, waste reduction alternatives connected to product and technology changes have 
been excluded from the study. Lastly, the actual implementation of improvements will not be 
part of the thesis, however improvement suggestions and how these can be sustained will be 
discussed.  
 
 
  



 

 4 

2. Theoretical framework  
In this section the theoretical framework of the study will be presented. First theory on waste 
management and related practices will be introduced, followed by the presentation of general 
frameworks for assessing waste reduction opportunities in production. 

2.1 Waste Management  
Waste management is an umbrella expression incorporating all activities needed to manage 
waste, from conception to final disposal. Waste management activities can include, as previ-
ously mentioned, the collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste, as well as 
monitoring and regulating the production process to prevent waste generation and to support 
reuse and recycling (OECD, 2003). Waste management methods vary significantly across 
organizations, countries, regions and sectors (Davidson, 2013), as individual waste manage-
ment methods are not capable of handling all types of waste in a sustainable way (Davidson, 
2013; McDougall et al., 2008). When exploring different waste management methods the 
waste management hierarchy can be used as a guide since it classifies waste management op-
tions according to their desirability (Nilson et al., 2007). The hierarchy indicates a preferred 
order of action to reduce and manage waste in terms of their environmental impact and sus-
tainability (Davidson, 2013). Different versions of the waste management hierarchy exist, but 
all share fundamental characteristics and convey the same essence (Davidson, 2013; UNEP, 
2013; El-Haggar, 2007). In 2008 the European Union (EU) adopted a five-step version of the 
waste management hierarchy acting as the cornerstone of the Waste Framework Directive. 
The directive guides waste legislation and policy within all member states in the EU, and re-
quires member states to adopt national waste management plans and waste prevention pro-
grams based on the hierarchy (EU, 2008). Figure 1 depicts the EUs version of the waste man-
agement hierarchy.  
 

Figure 1. The EUs Waste Management Hierarchy (EU, 2008). 

A rigid use of the waste management hierarchies is not recommended, instead they should be 
regarded as guiding references or frameworks to identify sustainable waste management op-
tions (Price and Joseph, 2000). The most sustainable solutions are therefore not provided for 
all particular waste streams by the hierarchies (McDougall et al., 2008). Instead environmen-
tal, economical and social effects of options need to be evaluated altogether for specific waste 
streams in order to find optimal solutions (McDougall et al., 2008).  
 

Prevention!

Preparing for reuse!

Recycle!
Recovery!

Disposal!



 

 5 

Actions preventing the generation of waste and pollution are preferred and highest prioritized 
among waste management options (UNEP, 2013). Prevention is the most effective way to 
eliminate waste (Davidson, 2013), and represents the most efficient and sustainable use of 
resources (EU, 2012). The underlying rationale being that if waste is not generated in the first 
place, the associated problems do not need to be managed at all. Prevention, which is also 
known as source reduction, includes all efforts to reduce waste quantities, harmful or toxic 
substances, and the negative effects of waste on the environment and human health (EU, 
2008; EPA, 2015a). Furthermore, it includes the reuse of material or products, and/or the ex-
tension of a product's lifespan (EU, 2008; EPA, 2015a). The activities must however take 
place before a substance, material or product has become waste (EU, 2008; EPA, 2015a). 
Next in the hierarchy is preparing for reuse, which entails operations or practices that check, 
clean or repair products or components that have already become waste into being re-usable 
without requiring any further pre-processing operations (EU, 2008). Recycling is the third 
preferred action in the waste management hierarchy and encompasses the reprocessing of 
wastes into new substances or products, which are to be reused either on-site or off-site (EU, 
2012).  
 
When none of the more sustainable methods of the hierarchy are possible, recovery of energy 
is the next preferred alternative. This level in the hierarchies includes waste-to-energy meth-
ods where energy is recovered from materials through for example incineration (EU, 2012). 
The least preferred action in the waste hierarchies is disposal, either in landfills or incinera-
tion without energy recovery (UNEP, 2013; EU, 2012). Disposal is to be considered a last 
resort for waste when no preceding options in the hierarchy are feasible (UNEP, 2013).  

2.1.1 Waste Minimization, Pollution Prevention and Cleaner production  
Closely tied to the waste hierarchy, and important methods of waste management, are the 
concepts of Waste Minimization (WM), Pollution Prevention (P2) and Cleaner Production 
(CP). It is generally acknowledged that the strategies encompasses, more or less, the first, se-
cond and third levels of the waste management hierarchy. The methods represents a shift in 
focus from the traditional practices of pollution control i.e. treatment and disposal of generat-
ed waste, to prevention of wastes i.e. source reduction (Shen, 1995). The fundamental view 
of the strategies is that avoiding waste generation is often more cost-effective and sustainable 
than traditional practices of controlling and disposing of waste after its generation (Khor et 
al., 2007). Consequently, these methods of waste management concentrate on the prevention 
of waste being created, thereby reflecting a proactive approach towards waste management. 
However, this does not imply that pollution or waste control practices will never be required, 
but that at least the dependence on such solutions are decreased (UNEP/DEPA, 2000). The 
specific definitions of the different concepts are presented in table 1, but they can all be 
broadly defined as practices which reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants and wastes 
at the source (Khor et al., 2007). EPA’s definition of P2 excludes recycling and reuse of re-
covered material used as input to other processes than those the material was originally in-
tended for, while WM and CP commonly include these practices. However, other authors 
have chosen to include all recycling and reuse activities as P2 practices, as such efforts also 



 

 6 

entail a reduction in waste material quantities (Bishop, 2000; Khor et al., 2007). The broader 
adaptation of P2, which includes recycling and reuse, is adopted throughout this report.  
 

Table 1. Generally accepted definitions of Waste Minimization, Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production. 

Waste minimization has been defined in EPA’s report to Congress in 1986 as: “The reduction, to 
the extent feasible, of hazardous waste that is generated or subsequently treated, stored, or dis-
posed of. It includes any source reduction or recycling activity undertaken by a generator that re-
sults in either: (1) the reduction of total volume or quantity of hazardous waste or (2) the reduction 
of toxicity of hazardous waste, or both, so long as the reduction is consistent with the goal of mini-
mizing present and future threats to human health and the environment.” (EPA, 1988, p. 2). 

EPA has defined pollution Prevention as: “the use of material, processes, or practices that reduce 
or eliminate the creation of pollutants or wastes at the source. It includes practices that reduce the 
use of hazardous materials, energy, water or other resources and practices that protect natural re-
sources through conservation or more efficient use” (Bishop, 2000, p. 11).  

Cleaner Production was defined by UNEP in 1990 as: “The continuous application of an integrated 
environmental strategy to processes, products and services to increase efficiency and reduce risks 
to humans and the environment” (Tsai et al., 2015, p.60).  

 
  



 

 7 

Waste reduction techniques 
Waste reductions can be achieved by utilizing different reduction techniques, and the ones 
applied in industry today can be broadly categorized into source reduction and recycling 
techniques (Shadiya et al., 2012). In line with the logic of the waste hierarchy WM, P2 and 
CP advocates that waste management practices should be elevated to the higher levels in-
cluded in the concepts (Crittenden and Kolaczkowski, 1995). Thereby, when evaluating im-
provement options source reduction practices should be explored first, and then followed by 
recycling alternatives (Smith, 2004). Source reduction entails changes to either a product or a 
process that reduces the volume or toxicity of waste (EPA, 1992). Common source reduction 
methods are presented in figure 2. Input material changes and improved operating practices 
will be described further below, but product and technology changes will not as these have 
been excluded from the study, as motivated in chapter 1.3.  
 

Figure 2. Source reduction methods (EPA, 1992, p.6) 
 
Input material changes reduces waste from entering, or avoids the generation of waste within 
the manufacturing process (Smith, 2004) and entails substituting or purifying input material 
(Crittenden and Kolaczkowski, 1995; EPA, 1988), see figure 2. Examples of practices are 
reducing the toxicity of waste by switching to less toxic solvents, or to use more efficient in-
puts to processes so that less material or energy is used during manufacturing (Shen, 1995). 
Customers can also largely affect the choice of input material. A strategy to reduce waste can 

Source reduction

Process changes

Input material changes
- Material purification
- Substitution of less 

toxic materials

Technology changes
- Layout changes
- Increased automation
- Improved operating 

practices
- Improved equipment
- New technology

Improved operating 
practices

- Operating and 
maintenance 
procedures

- Management practices
- Stream segregation
- Material handling 

improvements
- Production scheduling
- Inventory control
- Training
- Waste segregation

Product changes
- Design for less 

environmental impact
- Increase product life



 

 8 

therefore be to provide customers with information and pricing signals, which encourage de-
cisions that reduce environmental impact (Franchetti, 2009). This is important as customer 
choices and specifications often can affect the environmental performance of a production 
process to a significant extent (Franchetti, 2009).  
 
Good operating practices are, simply explained, techniques that optimize raw material con-
sumption in the production process (Hunt, 1991). This category of source reduction tech-
niques relates to changes in procedures and organizational aspect of operations, and is institu-
tionalized through better plant management or improved housekeeping practices (Cheremis-
inoff and Ferrante, 2013). Typically these measures can be implemented at a lower cost and 
quicker than other source reduction techniques (EPA, 1992), through for example procedural 
instructions in production, maintenance, storage and material handling (El-Haggar, 2007).  
 
A common initial prevention activity is to conduct an environmental assessment (Shen, 
1995). Assessments are useful tools for diagnosing how a facility can minimize wastes; it en-
ables companies to effectively target areas with great improvement potentials as it helps to 
identify where and how much waste is generated in specific steps of the process (Shen, 
1995). A detailed description of an environmental assessment will be presented in chapter 
2.2.2. 
 
By deploying good practices in relation to material handling and storage, great improvements 
can often be made (Shen, 1995). Improvements to material purchasing, receiving, inventory 
and handling practices can decrease the amounts of expired, leftover or unneeded material, 
and/or accidental generations of wastes that occur (Khor et al., 2007). Examples of good in-
ventory control practices are “Just-in-time” (JIT) procurement, which entails purchasing what 
is needed, when it is needed and in the right amount; and to track material consumption, 
through e.g. barcoding, which enables procurement quantities to be limited as information on 
stored material is known (Weinrach, 2001).  
 
Improving management practices in order to minimize waste can entail the implementation of 
a reduction program at an executive level aimed at holding department and plant managers 
accountable for reporting on quantities of wastes from their respective departments (Chere-
misinoff and Ferrante, 2013). It is important to establish accountability for waste generation 
if changes are to be made (Franchetti, 2009). However, it is also important to create incen-
tives for reductions (Franchetti, 2009). Incentive programs towards quantity reductions are in 
themselves not classified as source reduction methods, but as increased awareness can result 
from such efforts waste reductions may be obtained (Cheremisinoff and Ferrante, 2013).  
 
The generation of waste can also be affected by training programs, which for example can 
address storage procedures; reporting, housekeeping and material management practices 
(Shen, 1995); waste segregations; and how to use equipment properly (Cheremisinoff and 
Ferrante, 2013). Awareness and employee training programs are important factors to reach 
full potential of waste reduction efforts, as for example people with process knowledge often 
generate the best improvement ideas (Weinrach, 2001).  



 

 9 

 
Other operating practices that reduce waste are preventive maintenance programs and im-
proved production scheduling (EPA, 1992). Maintenance programs that focus on preventive 
actions can decrease the generation of waste caused by equipment failure (Hunt, 1991), and 
prevent the occurrence of leaks and spills or other accidental generations of wastes (Khor et 
al., 2007). Improvements in production scheduling can reduce equipment cleaning and setup 
material used between batches or production runs (Hunt, 1991).  
 
The segregation of waste and waste streams is also an important factor to consider, as such 
practices can increase the recyclability and reusability of waste, and thereby improve envi-
ronmental performance (Cheremisinoff and Ferrante, 2013). Collection and sorting practices 
can have a significant impact on the economic and environmental performance of the entire 
waste management system (Davidson, 2013). The practices of recycling and reusing waste 
material as input for the same process, or for other processes or uses within the same facility, 
is preferred over off-site recycling alternatives (Vanatta, 2000). On-site recycling and reuse 
can even be regarded as a source reduction technique (Vanatta, 2000). Two types of equip-
ment are usually needed for the effective management of waste: collection equipment for the 
gathering of waste and processing equipment for reducing the volume of waste material and 
for storage (CCME, 1996). Furthermore, larger organizations often require external waste 
service providers, which transports the waste off-site for either recycling, recovery and/or 
disposal (Davidson, 2013).  
 
Within the printing industry the practices mentioned above are often used, such as improved 
housekeeping practices and inventory control practices, to prevent and reduce waste genera-
tion (AEBN, 2003; WMRC, 1997). However, more specific recommendations for reducing 
paper waste within lithographic printing include:  
 
● Using both sides of make-ready sheets (AEBN, 2003; WMRC, 1997).  
● Efficient and effective scheduling, such as running similar jobs after each other, as 

this reduces make-ready and changeover spill (WMRC, 1997). 
● Improving accuracy of counting methods to reduce excess quantities printed to ac-

commodate inaccuracies (WMRC, 1997). 
● Designing layouts to fit sheet sizes in order reduce paper waste in cutting and binding 

operations (WMRC, 1997).  
● Reusing waste paper (WMRC, 1997).  
● Using scrap paper for press setup (Franchetti, 2009).  
● Waste accounting; collect accurate data on waste from each source/press, establish 

accountability, provide incentives for reduction, and provide feedback on waste re-
duction performances to employees (WMRC, 1997). 

● Storing paper in the right conditions and properly conditioning paper to pressroom 
temperature and humidity (WMRC, 1997).  

● Set up goals for make-ready sheets and regularly track and compare make-ready 
waste figures to the set goals to minimize waste (City of Tulsa, 2007). 

 



 

 10 

Benefits of waste reductions 
There are several benefits that can be obtained from the implementation of WM, P2 and CP 
strategies and techniques, including direct economic and environmental benefits (Crittenden 
and Kolaczkowski, 1995; EPA, 1988; Franchetti, 2009; Shen, 1995; UNEP/DEPA, 2000). 
Waste represents both energy and material resource losses, and can be an indication of ineffi-
cient and unsustainable production processes (Staniskis and Stasiskiene, 2005). Waste man-
agement efforts can therefore provide direct economic benefits, as reducing the amount of 
waste produced commonly coincides with increased efficiency, productivity and profitability 
(Weinrach, 2001). Cost savings are derived from the avoidance of waste hauling and han-
dling activities, less purchased material, and revenues obtained from the sale of recyclables 
(Franchetti, 2009; Visvanathan, 2007; EPA, 1992; UNEP, 1991).  
 
Waste minimizations also provides several environmental benefits as it decreases the need to 
harvest new material, saves energy, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and waste quantities 
that needs to be recycled, recovered or disposed (EPA, 2015b). Furthermore, recycling prac-
tices also result in less waste in landfills and the conservation of energy and natural resources 
(Franchetti, 2009; Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002). Waste management efforts can also as-
sist in the achievement and improvement of regulatory requirements and therefore reduce the 
regulatory burden and risk of receiving fines (Crittenden and Kolaczkowski, 1995; Cheremis-
inoff, 2003; EPA, 1992), thereby reducing environmental liability risks (EPA, 1988; Fran-
chetti, 2009; Shen, 1995; UNEP/DEPA, 2000).  
 
Besides economic, environmental and liability risk benefits, personal and social benefits of 
stakeholder can be obtained (Franchetti, 2009; UNEP/DEPA, 2000). The well being of em-
ployees can increase as cleaner facilities often results from reduction activities, moreover 
helping the environment can provide personal satisfaction for stakeholder (Franchetti, 2009). 
Furthermore, the application of sustainable practices can improve corporate image and attract 
new environmentally conscious customers, employees and partners who share the same val-
ues (Franchetti, 2009).  
 
Barriers to waste reduction efforts 
The main potential barriers that can hinder the implementation of waste reduction activities 
and efforts are economic, regulatory, technical and cultural aspects (Crittenden and Kolacz-
kowski, 1995). Waste reduction efforts often provide benefits in the long-term, and as envi-
ronmental activities seldom have clear-cut budgets set aside, competing for funding with oth-
er projects that provide short-term benefits presents an obstacle (Sharma, 2001). If larger 
monetary investments are needed, the less tangible benefits of reduction efforts should be in-
cluded when assessing economical feasibility, such as allocating waste disposal and handling 
costs to specific operations (Crittenden and Kolaczkowski, 1995). Regulatory barriers might 
seem unlikely as waste minimization efforts should decrease the environmental burden, but 
undertaking process changes may involve alterations to licenses or other regulatory approvals 
(Crittenden and Kolaczkowski, 1995). However, since one of the main goals of waste man-
agement initiatives is to benefit the environment, these barriers are often relatively easy to 



 

 11 

overcome by working with regulatory bodies during planning processes (Crittenden and Ko-
laczkowski, 1995). 
 
A lack of sufficient process and engineering knowledge of production techniques are great 
technical obstacles to successful waste reduction implementations and efforts (Crittenden and 
Kolaczkowski, 1995; Visvanathan, 2007). Inevitably there are risks involved when changes 
are made to industrial processes, thus it is common that concerns regarding the risk of affect-
ing the quality of the product and/or customer acceptance arises (Crittenden and Kolaczkow-
ski, 1995). Production personnel and other stakeholders can therefore easily turn down new 
procedures due the risks associated with process changes if the improvement facilitator lacks 
sufficient knowledge of the process (Sharma, 2001). Furthermore, as production stoppages 
and new bottlenecks can arise, process changes should always be pilot tested and the feasibil-
ity and efficiency of changes assessed (Crittenden and Kolaczkowski, 1995).  
  
The greatest challenges when implementing waste reduction techniques are however often 
cultural and connected to organizational resistance (Sharma, 2001). In a study performed by 
the AEBN (2003), it was concluded that reduction improvements and process efficiency re-
quires management change, as resistance to change was identified as the main obstacle for 
improving waste management practices within printing companies. Attitudinal changes in 
directors, managers and employees are often crucial in order to obtain the most from reduc-
tion methodologies (UNEP/DEPA, 2000). Resistance to change can arise for several different 
reasons such as lack of senior management commitment, insufficient awareness of corporate 
goals and objectives, poor internal communication, inadequate training, inflexible organiza-
tional structures and bureaucracy (Crittenden and Kolaczkowski, 1995). Moreover, as people 
disconnected from the production floor often set environmental programs or strategies, and 
employees connected to production mostly focus on keeping the manufacturing line up and 
running, making process changes to benefit the environment are often neglected (Sharma, 
2001). In a benchmarking study performed within the Australian printing industry (AEBN, 
2003) it was concluded that senior management support and commitment down the manage-
ment chain are crucial for waste management improvements to be realized. Furthermore, in 
many organisations environmental concerns are often combined with environmental regula-
tions, and as regulations often are prioritized higher due to the risk of receiving a notice of 
violation, other environmental concerns are often overlooked (Sharma, 2001). Therefore it is 
important to clearly define and incorporate environmental responsibilities into job descrip-
tions in order for environmental efforts to not be disregarded and for waste management pro-
grams to reach their full potential (Sharma, 2001).  
  



 

 12 

2.2 Waste Reduction Audits  
A waste reduction audit is a methodology that helps to identify areas of inefficient resource 
consumptions and poor management of waste within an organization (UNEP/DEPA, 2000), 
and provides a solid foundation for a practical and successful implementation of a waste re-
duction program (Khor et al., 2007). Understanding how, why and where wastes are generat-
ed in the production process is a prerequisite for effectively preventing or reducing industrial 
wastes (UNEP, 1991). Knowing where wastes originate and problems arise in the process en-
ables areas to be identified where waste reduction and cost saving is possible (UNEP, 1991). 
Therefore, an integral part of many waste reduction programs or strategies is to perform a 
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment (WMOA), also referred to as a Pollution Pre-
vention Opportunity Assessment, Cleaner Production Assessment, solid waste assessment, 
waste-minimization audit or green audit (EPA, 1988; UNEP, 1991; Van Berkel, 1994; Mul-
holland and Dyer, 2001; Sharma, 2001; Franchetti, 2009; Visvanathan, 2007). 
  
A WMOA is a systematic framework used to identify waste minimization opportunities, and 
is often presented as a structured step-by-step program with intermediate milestones (Sharma, 
2001) and can be a starting point for investigating pollution issues at any facility (Avşar and 
Demirer, 2008). A WMOA generates a comprehensive understanding of a facility’s processes 
and wastes, identifies waste reduction opportunities and evaluates the feasibility of their im-
plementation (Sharma, 2001). The rationale behind WMOA procedures is that accurate in-
formation about the origins and sources of waste is a prerequisite for effective waste reduc-
tion (UNEP, 1991). Once the sources are identified the most effective options for avoiding 
and reducing wastes can be identified (UNEP, 1991). The WMOA procedure involves meas-
uring, observing and recording data, and incorporates collecting and analyzing waste samples 
(UNEP, 1991). The assessment procedure can be performed on different levels depending on 
its purpose; on a regional level it can point out problematic industries; on plant level wastes 
can be tied to specific processes; and on process level, root causes and exact origins of wastes 
can be identified (UNEP, 1991).  
  



 

 13 

Over the years, a number of generic qualitative frameworks describing how to conduct a 
WMOA have been developed. Authors include the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA, 1988; EPA, 1992), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 
1991), Khor et. al (2007), Visvanathan (2007), and Franchetti (2009). The frameworks pre-
sent similar qualitative evaluation programs aimed at identifying waste minimization oppor-
tunities at industrial scale (Musee et al., 2007), and share key characteristics. Despite differ-
ences in terminology and structures between the WMOA frameworks Van Berkel (1994), 
Van Berkel et al. (1997), and Sharma (2001) argue that many of the frameworks describe the 
same generic process, and can therefore be represented by the four-step procedure originally 
developed by the EPA (1988). Figure 3 depicts the main activities of the above-mentioned 
generic frameworks categorized into these four phases. In the following chapter the phases 
are explained in greater detail.  

Figure 3. Generic steps of a WMOA framework. Adapted from EPA (1988), UNEP (1991), Visvanathan (2007) and 
Franchetti (2009). 

 

Planning and Organization Phase 
• Gain management support for waste minimization project 
• Establish project team 
• Set focus and scope of project 
• Identify overall project goals 

 

Assessment Phase 
• Pre-assessment 

o Collect baseline facility and process information 
o Conduct plant walk-through 
o Generate process flow-diagrams 

 
• Assessment 

o Determine process inputs & outputs 
o Derive material balance 
o Generate waste minimization options 
o Conduct preliminary screening of options  

 

Feasibility Analysis Phase 
• Conduct technical, environmental and economical evaluation of 

options 
• Select and prioritize options for implementation 

 

Implementation Phase 
• Design waste reduction action plan 
• Justify projects to management and obtain funding 
• Install necessary equipment and implement procedures 
• Evaluate performance of implemented alternatives  

 



 

 14 

2.2.1 Planning and organization 
The first step of a WMOA is to thoroughly prepare the organization for the audit exercise so 
that it is carried out within budget and time, and with as little interference to normal plant ac-
tivities as possible (Visvanathan, 2007). Main undertakings in this phase include forming a 
project team, gaining management support and commitment and defining scope and goals of 
the audit (EPA, 1988; UNEP, 1991). A prerequisite for a successful WMOA is that top man-
agement shows support for the project and that employees are involved and made aware of 
the initiative (Visvanathan, 2007). Top management should establish a formal commitment 
throughout the organization, and waste minimization should be communicated to be an im-
portant focus of the company (EPA, 1988). This can be done by releasing a formal policy 
statement or a memo that highlights the importance of the new waste minimization initiative 
and encourages staff to take part and contribute (Franchetti, 2009). Using bonuses, prizes and 
other forms of recognition are common ways to raise motivation and participation among 
employees (EPA, 1988). Using posters to inform about the pollution scenario at the company, 
and about the benefits, objectives and goals of the waste minimization initiative can also help 
boost staff interest and involvement (Visvanathan, 2007). 
  
Another key element in the preparatory work for a waste audit is forming a team responsible 
for all subsequent WMOA work (Visvanathan, 2007). The team can range from a few people 
with contributions from employees in a small factory, to many people including environmen-
tal specialists, production employees and technical staff, all depending on size and complexi-
ty of the process that will be studied (UNEP, 1991). The EPA (1988) suggests that at least 
two people should be involved in the team to obtain a variety of perspectives and viewpoints. 
For the team to have a higher degree of authority in the organization and swifter communica-
tion with management, the team leader should be in a managing position (Franchetti, 2009). 
  
Before undertaking the actual auditing process the scope and focus of the audit needs to be 
established (Franchetti, 2009). The scope and focus depend on the main objectives and goals 
of the waste audit (UNEP, 1991). If the scope is not aligned with the goals of the waste min-
imization project, audit efforts may go to waste (Visvanathan, 2007). The purpose of having 
project goals and objectives is to provide specific direction for the audit and they should 
therefore be measurable, realistic and achievable (Visvanathan, 2007). Also, if the project 
objectives are not clear and precise enough, there is a risk that they merely become vague and 
generalized improvement slogans, unable to provide the direction needed (Franchetti, 2009).  
 
Audit objectives often stem from determining the major problems and wastes associated with 
the specific production process (UNEP, 1991). Objectives may for example include minimiz-
ing raw material losses and reducing wastes for which disposal costs are high or for which 
regulations exist (UNEP, 1991). Other common waste audit objectives are to reduce toxic and 
hazardous wastes and to improve operational health and safety (Visvanathan, 2007). An audit 
can have the objective to look at waste minimization as a whole and therefore focus on a 
complete production process, or in other cases the main concern might be a specific waste 
stream, motivating a more narrow focus on specific unit operations (UNEP, 1991). The audit 



 

 15 

frameworks provide general guidelines for identifying waste reduction opportunities and 
should therefore be altered to fit the specific needs of a company or situation (UNEP, 1991). 

2.2.2 Assessment 
The purpose of the assessment phase is to get a detailed understanding of facility operations 
and waste streams, and to identify and screen waste minimization options (EPA, 1988). Gen-
erating such a comprehensive understanding requires the collection and compiling of baseline 
information from a wide variety of sources, sometimes ranging over the entire cross-section 
of the facility (Visvanathan, 2007). A commonly suggested first step in this phase is therefore 
to review existing process and facility data such as process flow diagrams, operating manu-
als, raw material invoices, purchasing and inventory logs, and recycling records (UNEP, 
1991; EPA, 1988). Examining existing organizational records regarding processes, operations 
and waste management practices provides the team with important background information, 
helps them determine areas of interest and may reveal opportunities to minimize wastes 
(EPA, 1988). Useful sources of information for this step are organizational data, material and 
product data, raw material and logistic consumption data, process data, environmental data, 
management data, financial data and industry data (Visvanathan, 2007).  
  
Facility Walk Through 
An important part of generating baseline information is to conduct a thorough walkthrough of 
the entire manufacturing plant so that a true picture of all processing operations and their in-
terrelationships can be had (UNEP, 1991). The walkthrough should follow the material flow 
through the facility, from storage of raw material to the storage of final products, without 
skipping any process step (Visvanathan, 2007). During the plant tour, team members should 
examine all production activities, and key figures and facts so that nothing is overlooked, as 
even trivial observations may be useful at a later stage (Visvanathan, 2007). This includes 
taking detailed notes of observations and discussions; sketching process layouts, material 
flows and site plans; and consulting plant employees about normal operating conditions 
(UNEP, 1991). Conversations with production staff may reveal important information regard-
ing actual operating procedures, waste discharge points, unplanned wastes such as spills, and 
process problems (UNEP, 1991). 
  
Constructing Process Flow Diagrams 
A crucial step in gaining detailed insight into the production processes is constructing process 
flow diagrams, through which important process steps are visualized, and sources of waste 
generation identified (Franchetti, 2009; UNEP, 1991; Visvanathan, 2007; EPA, 1988). The 
purpose of the process flow diagram is to help the audit team fully comprehend the business 
processes and capabilities of the production site so that well-grounded alternatives to mini-
mize waste may be developed (Franchetti, 2009). A process flow diagram visually represents 
the workflow of a process or an entire operation, and is made up of a set of activities that 
transform well-defined inputs to outputs (Franchetti, 2009). The diagram should be founded 
on baseline data collected through a plant tour and existing records review, and should con-
tain information from the unit operations relevant to the project (Visvanathan, 2007). The de-
tail level required to achieve the project objectives is important to consider when constructing 



 

 16 

a process flow diagram (UNEP, 1991). The less detailed or the larger the audit becomes, cru-
cial information tends to become oversimplified or be lacking altogether in the process flow 
diagram, undermining its purpose (UNEP, 1991).   
  
Generating a material balance 
Next a detailed account of inputs and outputs for target processes should be determined so 
that waste streams, their composition, and previously unknown material losses can be quanti-
fied (Franchetti, 2009; EPA, 1988; UNEP, 1991; Visvanathan, 2007). Proposed methods to 
achieve abovementioned goals include generating a material balance (EPA, 1988; UNEP, 
1991; Visvanathan, 2007) or conducting a facility waste sort (Franchetti, 2009). Both meth-
ods entail similar data collection methods and share the ultimate goal of generating a base of 
information from which waste minimization options can be identified (Franchetti, 2009; 
UNEP, 1991; Visvanathan, 2007; EPA, 1988). 
  
Generating a material balance to characterize waste streams can require great effort but often 
results in a more detailed picture of the waste situation (EPA, 1988), and highlights areas of 
concern where e.g. information is inaccurate or lacking (Visvanathan, 2007). Moreover, a 
material balance helps focus waste minimization activities and provides a baseline for meas-
uring performance (EPA, 1988). Generating a material balance starts by determining and 
quantifying inputs such as raw materials, chemicals, air and water to the processes and each 
unit operation (UNEP, 1991). A first step in doing so is to study raw material purchasing rec-
ords and to examine storage and material handling operations. This to get an understanding of 
the net input to the process as raw material losses often arise from storage and handling prac-
tices (UNEP, 1991).  Raw material consumption rates of the relevant unit operations should 
also be determined, which may require taking measurements and making observations in 
production and deriving average consumption figures (UNEP, 1991).  
 
The second half of a material balance entails quantifying process outputs. Outputs include 
products and by-products, as well as solid and liquid wastes, including those which may need 
to be transported off-site for treatment and disposal (Visvanathan, 2007). Quantifying outputs 
often entails reviewing company records of products and wastes sent off-site, and measuring 
production rates over a period of time (UNEP, 1991).  
 
The material balance is generated by comparing input figures with output figures. Ideally 
they should equal each other, but this is rarely the case in practice (Visvanathan, 2007). Ar-
riving at an accurate material balance requires refining collected data and being aware of fac-
tors that could over- or underestimate waste streams (Visvanathan, 2007). A significant mate-
rial imbalance can point to potential material losses or waste discharges, but can also be a re-
sult of measurement errors or overlooked material flows (UNEP, 1991). To obtain a satisfac-
tory material balance some data collection activities may need to be repeated, and unit opera-
tions re-examined (UNEP, 1991). Reviewing and complementing collected data may be cru-
cial in obtaining an accurate and comprehensive picture of the material flows, which is a pre-
requisite for a successful waste audit and waste reduction action plan (UNEP, 1991).  
 



 

 17 

Identify Waste Minimization Options 
The material balance helps describe the nature of wastes and material flows in the production 
process, and can help identify areas of concern, sources of wastes and areas of unexplained 
losses (UNEP, 1991). With the information from the material balance and site inspection as 
foundation, possible ways to minimize waste in the assessed area can be identified (Visvana-
than, 2007). An effective way to generate waste minimization alternatives is to use brain-
storming or other group decision techniques in an environment which encourages creativity 
and independent thinking (EPA, 1988). Discussing with plant engineers and operators, 
equipment manufacturers, trade associations, and environmental consultants, as well as 
benchmarking and using literature may also provide the team with valuable input for creating 
alternatives (Franchetti, 2009). The process of conceiving waste minimization alternatives 
should follow the waste management hierarchy discussed in chapter 2.1 so that options pre-
venting waste generation are explored first (EPA, 1988).  
 
Waste minimization options can be divided into two categories depending on their require-
ments in terms of effort, time and financial resources: obvious measures, and long-term 
measures (Visvanathan, 2007). Obvious waste-reduction measures are cheap and quick to 
implement and require little effort. They are simple adjustments that may increase efficiency, 
and often target unnecessary material losses (UNEP, 1991). These obvious options can in-
clude improved management techniques and tightening up housekeeping procedures 
(Visvanathan, 2007) such as those for ordering, receiving, handling and storing materials 
(UNEP, 1991). However, certain waste problems may require more than simple procedural 
changes and improved housekeeping practices to solve. In these cases implementing long-
term reduction options involving significant modifications to, for example, production pro-
cesses, equipment, technology, and raw material types may be necessary (UNEP, 1991).  
 
Screening Waste Minimization Alternatives 
In a successful WMOA many waste minimization alternatives will be identified (EPA, 1988). 
Evaluating the economical and technical feasibility of all alternatives would be very costly 
and time consuming, which is why a quick screening procedure is put in place to identify op-
tions with the highest potential to minimize waste and reduce costs (Franchetti, 2009). 
Screening procedures can range from an informal evaluation where the assessment team se-
lects the best alternatives based on group discussions, to more formal quantitative methods 
such as the weighted sum method (EPA, 1988) and the House of Quality (Franchetti, 2009). 
An informal evaluation works best when only a few minimization options have been generat-
ed, and quantitative methods are recommended when a large number of alternatives exist 
(EPA, 1988).  To be effective, a screening procedure should consider the main implications 
of each generated option, including the expected reduction of waste and raw material con-
sumption, cost and ease of implementation, and impact on employee moral (Franchetti, 
2009). The result from the screening procedure indicates which options are suitable for a 
more thorough feasibility analysis (EPA, 1988).  



 

 18 

2.2.3 Feasibility Analysis 
When waste reduction opportunities have been screened and prioritized the remaining alter-
natives need to be further evaluated and ranked based on their economical and environmental 
impact, and technological feasibility (EPA, 1988). In this step it is important to consider the 
main objectives and goals of the project, and to which extent the waste minimization options 
will fulfill them (Franchetti, 2009). Evaluating some options may require substantial analysis 
and may include reaching out to vendors for additional equipment information or analyzing 
market trends for recyclable commodities (Franchetti, 2009). The advantages of other waste 
minimization options may be more obvious and require little analysis to identify, in which 
case they can be ready for implementation without rigorous evaluation efforts (EPA, 1988). 
Such options can for example be procedural and housekeeping changes that require small in-
vestments and can be implemented quickly (EPA, 1992).  
 
Technical Evaluation 
Technical feasibility concerns assessing if the required resources to implement a waste mini-
mization option exist within the organization, or if they can be reasonably acquired (Fran-
chetti, 2007). This includes investigating the option’s compatibility with current operating 
procedures, employee skill level, quality requirements and its general impact on the produc-
tion processes (Visvanathan, 2007). During a technical evaluation both production require-
ments and facility constraints need to be taken into account (Franchetti, 2007). Common cri-
teria used to evaluate the technical feasibility of a waste minimization option are listed in ta-
ble 2. Major changes to equipment, processes or materials often require large capital expendi-
tures, and may impact production rates and product quality (EPA, 1992). Options requiring 
such changes therefore need to be evaluated more thoroughly (Franchetti, 2007).  To ensure 
an options viability and acceptance all affected groups should contribute to the evaluation 
(EPA, 1988). This may include consulting people from production, purchasing, and mainte-
nance, but can also include talking to customers to verify their requirements (EPA, 1992). All 
substantial changes should be piloted and tested before full scale implementation and integra-
tion with current production setup is undertaken (Visvanathan, 2007).  If an option is deemed 
impractical or does not meet the technical requirements of the organization after a technical 
evaluation, it should be dropped from further consideration (EPA, 1988). 
 

Table 2. Commonly used criteria when evaluating the technical feasibility of a waste minimization option. Adapted 
from Franchetti (2007) and EPA (1998). 

 Technical evaluation criteria 

● Available space in facility 
● Effect on production schedule 
● Effect on worker safety 
● Effect on product quality 
● Compatibility with operating proce-

dures, workflow, material handling 
and production rates 

 

● Implementation time 
● Required skills and knowledge 
● Additional labor, training and educa-

tion requirements 
● Utility requirements 
● Impact on product marketing 
● Available services from vendor 



 

 19 

 
Environmental Evaluation 
An environmental evaluation entails comparing pros and cons of each waste minimization 
alternative with regards to the environment. In some cases the environmental benefit of an 
option is obvious, but sometimes the reduction of one waste may generate other problems re-
sulting in an overall environmental disadvantage (UNEP, 1991). Therefore, many aspects of 
the environmental impact of an option should be considered before its implementation. This 
may include conducting life cycle assessments, gathering information on raw material extrac-
tion and transportation, and treatment of any unavoidable waste (EPA, 1992). Other things to 
consider are:  how the option affects volume and contamination of wastes; if it changes tox-
icity, degradability or treatability of wastes; and whether it uses more or less non-renewable 
resources and energy than current options (UNEP, 1991). Usually the environmental benefits 
of housekeeping and direct efficiency improvements are straightforward and easy to assess, 
while the effects of options involving process, product or raw material changes are more dif-
ficult to evaluate and need more thorough analysis (EPA, 1992).  
 
Economical Evaluation 
Another essential criteria to assess is the economic feasibility of the waste reduction options. 
This involves calculating the capital, operation and maintenance costs associated with each 
option, and the estimated savings and revenues they are expected to generate (Visvanathan, 
2007). The goal is to compare the financial effects of implementing the waste reduction op-
tions with the existing situation and to determine if the new option makes economical sense 
(UNEP, 1991). Determining the economic viability of reduction alternatives commonly in-
cludes the use of traditional financial performance indicators such as payback period, net pre-
sent value and internal rate of return (Franchetti, 2007). However, more holistic evaluation 
methods which capture the direct, indirect and less-tangible environmental costs and benefits 
that traditional accounting procedures miss can also be used (EPA, 1992). Such methods in-
clude Total Cost Assessment, which describes internal costs and savings, and includes envi-
ronmental criteria; and Life Cycle Costing, which considers all internal and external costs 
associated with the entire life cycle of a product, process or activity (EPA, 2001).  

2.2.4 Implementation 
The last phase of the audit includes the implementation of selected options, and ensuring that 
the results are continuously monitored (UNEP/DEPA, 2000). When the waste reduction op-
tions have been evaluated, the remaining viable alternatives should provide the basis for a 
waste reduction action plan (UNEP, 1991).  The plan gives a detailed description of how each 
minimization alternative will be implemented and includes an implementation timeline, nec-
essary site preparations and operational activities required for a successful execution (Fran-
chetti, 2007). The effectiveness of the implemented options should also be evaluated, typical 
indicators used are for example reductions in wastes and resource consumption per unit pro-
duction (UNEP/DEPA, 2000). Therefore, periodic monitoring is required to determine 
whether positive changes are occurring and whether the company is progressing toward its 
targets (UNEP/DEPA, 2000). When options have been identified and implemented, these 
needs to be evaluated to see if the desired results were obtained, if so the appropriate steps to 



 

 20 

secure the gains should be taken (Bergman and Klefsjö, 2010). Improvements needs to be 
consolidated through for example standardization i.e. introduction of new standard proce-
dures (Bergman and Klefsjö, 2010).  
 
Another part of the implementation phase is to get support for the implementation from top 
management and to secure funding for the suggested alternatives. This may require necessary 
project investments to be comprehensively justified, and additional data to be gathered and 
presented in order to convince key decision-makers (EPA, 1992). It is recommended that the 
reduction options be implemented slowly and consistently in stages so that employees have 
time to adjust to the changes (UNEP, 1991), and the impact on production processes and fi-
nances can be kept low (Visvanathan, 2007).  
 
By comparing the initial goals of the implemented options to their actual performance, an 
evaluation of their effectiveness can be made (EPA, 1988). If goals are not met or perfor-
mances are worse than expected, the options may require modifications or rework (Franchet-
ti, 2007). To keep employees motivated and involved in the changes, training program and 
reward systems can be put in place (UNEP, 1991). Ensuring that information about upcoming 
changes and their underlying reasons has been clearly communicated may also reduce work-
force resistance and increase their buy-in to the projects (Franchetti, 2007).  
  



 

 21 

2.3 Continuous improvements and employee commitment 
WM, P2 and CP programs should be seen as continuing rather than one-time efforts, and 
should therefore be periodically repeated (EPA, 1988; Visvanathan, 2007). The continuous 
application of an integrated environmental strategy is crucial in order to approach sustainabil-
ity and minimize wastes (de Ron, 1998). The assessment frameworks recommend that the 
audit process should be repeated after identified improvements have been implemented (EPA, 
1988), see figure 4. Furthermore, sustained improvements are best achieved if they become a 
part of the management culture through a formal organizational environmental management 
system, as such a system provides a decision-making structure and action plan to support 
continuous improvements (UNEP/DEPA, 2000). If an organization already deploys an envi-
ronmental management system, reduction assessments can be an effective tool for focusing 
attention on specific environmental problems, otherwise the assessment can provide the base 
for an environmental management system (UNEP/DEPA, 2000).  
 

Figure 4. The waste minimization assessment procedure adopted from EPA (1990, p.2). 
 
Furthermore, if reduction programs are to be implemented, there is often a need for cultural 
changes in order to gain support for the implementation, such as ensuring employee participa-
tion and cross-functional integration (Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000). Empowering employees in 
combination with using team-based approaches helps to generate ideas and improvements, 

Planning and Organisation

Assessment phase

Feasibility analysis phase

Implementation

The recognized need to 
minimize waste

Successfully Implemented Waste 
Minimization Projects

Repeat the process

Select new assessment 
targets and revaluate 
previous operation



 

 22 

and cross-functional integrations ensures that changes in one part of the organization does not 
negatively affect other parts (Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000). Employee participation, commit-
ment and motivation can be obtained through the delegation of responsibility and authority 
(Bergman and Klefsjö, 2010), see figure 5. Communication also plays an essential role here, 
if workers are given the chance to do a good job and given recognition after performing well, 
employee commitment can be obtained (Bergman and Klefsjö, 2010). Removing obstacles 
for participations is also important in order to create conditions for employee participation, 
organizations therefore need to facilitate opportunities for all employees to participate in de-
cision-making processes and improvement work (Bergman and Klefsjö, 2010).  
 
 

 
Figure 5. The effect of delegating responsibility and authority (Bergman and Klefsjö, 2010, p. 47). 

  



 

 23 

3. Method  
In this chapter the applied research strategy, research design and research approach will be 
presented. The qualitative and quantitative research methods used and the process of the 
study will also be described. Moreover, how the gathered data has been analyzed, how a high 
quality of research can be assured and ethical considerations are also addressed.  

3.1 Research strategy, approach and design   
A research strategy concerns the general orientation of research and the way it is to be con-
ducted (Bryman and Bell, 2011). In the area of business research two primary research strate-
gies exist: qualitative and quantitative. A qualitative research strategy is characterized by 
having a strong focus on words rather than quantifications in gathering and analyzing data 
(Bryman and Bell, 2011). A quantitative research strategy on the other hand empathizes em-
pirical investigations and is primarily concerned with the collection and analysis of numerical 
data (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The two strategies are however not incompatible and can be 
united in a so-called mixed methods research strategy (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Bryman and 
Bell (2011) propose that mixed methods research is suitable when a quantitative or qualita-
tive method alone will not generate the data needed. Dubois and Gadde (2014) argue that 
when undertaking case research a mixed methods strategy is recommended. This to fully be 
able to understand the complex reality of the studied case as “[…] no single approach can 
capture reality in all its aspects” (Dubois and Gadde, 2014, p.1282). Since this research in-
corporates the quantification of paper waste as well as the generation of an in-depth under-
standing of the waste situation at the company, both qualitative and quantitative research 
methods have been applied and a mixed methods research strategy adopted. The goal of em-
ploying both quantitative and qualitative methods have been to provide a more comprehen-
sive picture of the complex organizational issues that waste management involves.  
  
A single case study research design has been applied during this master thesis. This type of 
research design entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case, such as a single 
organization, location, person or event (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This thesis will focus on 
analyzing the specifics and complexities of the main process at a single production site with 
the hope of generating new theoretical and practical insights to the area of waste management 
at the company. Through a comprehensive and detailed description of the single case, the 
findings of the study can hopefully be useful not only for the production site in focus but for 
other production units within the same organization or even by other business within the 
printing industry. Several authors underline the benefits of engaging in a single-case study, 
arguing that the in-depth understanding of complex structures, rich background descriptions 
and contexts which can be obtained through a single-case study often out-weigh what is lost 
in generalizability and comparative insights (Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Dyer and Wilkins, 
1991; Peattie, 2001; Weick, 2007).  
  
The abductive research approach of ‘systematic combining’ developed by Dubois and Gadde 
(2002) have been deployed in this thesis. The authors describe systematic combining as “[…] 
a process where theoretical framework, empirical fieldwork, and case analysis evolve simul-



 

 24 

taneously […]” (Dubois and Gadde, 2002, p.554). The authors further argue that by constant-
ly alternating between different types of research activities and between empirical investiga-
tions and theory, a deeper understanding of both theory and empirical phenomena can be had 
(Dubois and Gadde, 2002). Systematic combining was deemed suitable for this study as it 
was necessary to alternate between empirical fieldwork and case analysis in order to find log-
ical next steps. Furthermore, developing the theoretical framework in combination with the 
empirical study and analysis, made the study more efficient as it takes time to gain access to 
organizational resources.  

3.2 Research methods and data collection 
Both qualitative and quantitative methods have been used, and information extracted from 
both primary and secondary sources. Qualitative information was mainly collected through 
interviews and observations, while quantitative information was extracted from company da-
tabases and collected through measurements performed in production. A review of literature 
has also been conducted throughout the study with the goal to provide relevant topic 
knowledge and help frame the research process. The research methods and how they have 
been used in this study is presented in further detail below.   

3.2.1 Literature study  
A literature study has been performed throughout the course of this thesis to gain deeper 
knowledge within the areas of waste management and waste auditing, to guide the research 
design, and to direct the collection and analysis of data. A literature review aims at building 
an analytical framework and to gain insight into relevant research available within the studied 
topic (Cronin et al., 2008). A review of relevant literature informs researchers on how to col-
lect data and supports an informed way to analyze the data through the development of a the-
oretical and analytical framework (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The approach for the literature 
review followed Cronin et al’s. (2008) five steps of a literature review process, and is pre-
sented in table 3. 
 

Table 3. The literature review process (Cronin et al., 2008) 

Selecting a review topic The literature search was guided by the purpose and the research 
questions formulated for the study. The main topics of the litera-
ture review have therefore been waste management, waste mini-
mization, pollution prevention, cleaner production and waste au-
diting or assessment procedures.  

Searching the literature Relevant literature has mainly been found through searches in the 
Chalmers University of Technology’s library online databases 
and Google Scholar, through combinations of keywords such as 
´waste minimization´, ´waste management´, ´cleaner production´, 
´sustainable production´, ´pollution prevention´ and ´waste au-
dit/assessment´. Snowball sampling has been used, which entails 



 

 25 

back-tracing reference lists to find new sources of information, to 
identify more relevant articles and guide the literature review 
forward (Bryman and Bell, 2011) 

Gathering, reading and 
analyzing the literature 

An initial browse of gathered literature was always conducted in 
order to deem if the material should be further reviewed or not. 
Relevant literature was then reviewed in a more systematic and 
critical way so that it could be analyzed and summarized.  

Writing the review The theory of waste management and its underlying concepts was 
briefly presented, along with waste minimization, pollution pre-
vention, cleaner production and the benefits and barriers connect-
ed to such initiatives. Then waste audits have been reviewed and 
key characteristics of different audit approaches summarized.    

References All references used in this paper can be found in the reference 
list.  

 

3.2.2 Participant observations  
During most parts of the project the researchers have been working from the company site 
and have engaged almost daily in observations of the production system and working proce-
dures. The observations were conducted in an overt manner and the role of the researchers 
has been as participant-as-observer. This entails that the researchers have been involved in 
regular interactions with employees at the company and participated in daily activities (Bry-
man and Bell, 2011). Initial observations helped build knowledge about organizational cul-
ture, current state of the paper waste situation and the daily operations and activities at the 
company. Throughout the study observations were also used to complement and validate al-
ready collected information, and to gain a deeper understanding of subjects of interest. Notes 
were taken during the project to document observations, as it is risky to rely on the human 
memory alone (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The notes included summaries of events and behav-
ior and also reflections from the researcher (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Both researchers have 
taken notes individually during the course of the project, which have included both objective 
and subjective impressions and understandings. A shared journal has also been kept through-
out the project to be able to backtrack the research process and document findings.  

3.2.3 Interviews 
To gain a deeper insight into the paper waste problematic, qualitative interviews have been 
held with employees from different departments and from different levels of the organiza-
tional hierarchy at the case company. Interviews were conducted with quality and environ-
mental managers; directors of the bindery, offset printing and logistics; production foremen, 
planners and operators; logistics personnel; the production controller; and personnel from the 
recycling partner. Conversations were also held with employees from other departments such 
as sales and economy, however these were spontaneous and occurred due to the fact that the 



 

 26 

researchers were immersed in the company setting, and can rather be seen as part of the par-
ticipant observation.  
 
Throughout the project both unstructured and semi-structured interviews were held, depend-
ing on the intent and depth of the interview. The purpose of the interviews shifted on a case-
by-case basis, depending on where in the research process the interview occurred. The un-
structured interviews tended to very similar to a normal conversation, although a predefined 
topic or question had been prepared by the researchers. The researchers were involved in day-
to-day activities at the company and interviews were held ad-hoc. Semi-structured interviews 
were conducted in cases when the goal was to obtain a deeper understanding of specific prob-
lems or areas connected to the paper waste problematic. All interviews have been held face-
to-face, where one of the researchers conducted the interview while the other took notes. 
Notes were taken in order to not only capture what was said but also to capture the attitude 
and viewpoints of the interviewee. Qualitative interviewing i.e. unstructured and semi-
structured interviewing, were chosen as it provides a degree of flexibility during interviews 
and is an effective way to capture knowledge and experiences of the interviewees (Bryman 
and Bell, 2011).  
 
How people contributing with information to the study are chosen are important aspects to 
consider when interviewing (Denscombe, 2009). In this study interview objects were chosen 
through the use of three selection methods; convenience sampling, snowball sampling and 
subjective sampling. Convenience sampling entails that suitable interview subjects are select-
ed based on convenient accessibility and proximity; the subjects are chosen because they are 
easy to recruit (Denscombe, 2009). Snowball sampling implies that respondents recommend 
other suitable interviewees with the information, experience or knowledge needed (Bryman 
and Bell, 2011; Denscombe, 2009). Subjective sampling entails that the researcher chooses 
the person he or she believes to be appropriate for the interview and therefore handpicks in-
terviewees (Denscombe, 2009). 

3.2.4 Reviewing existing sources of information  
Reviewing existing quantitative data can be used to complement information collected from 
interviews and observations (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Both existing qualitative and quantita-
tive data was explored including organizational charts, stock balances, purchasing records, 
recycling invoices, compiled production figures, standard operating procedures and internal 
reports. This secondary data was used to gain an in-depth understanding of current operating 
performance and production quantities, and to verify primary data. The existing data was col-
lected from the company and their recycling partner.  
  
Some aspects should be considered when existing data is used:  the data should be fairly re-
cent, current conditions should be the same as when the data was collected, and how and 
when the data was collected should be known (George et al., 2005). Current operating condi-
tions at the company have been in place since the beginning of 2015, therefore secondary 
quantitative data generated earlier than 2015 has not been considered in this study.  
 



 

 27 

A thorough attempt to analyze the trustworthiness and accuracy of the secondary data was 
made by assessing how it had been collected and comparing it to other available sources of 
data. Issues with the quality of some secondary data were found, making it unable to serve its 
initial purpose. However, these previously unknown issues gave new insights and provided a 
deeper understanding of the current situation. 

3.2.5 In-process measurements and calculations 
To be able to estimate the amount of paper waste produced in the studied parts of production, 
specific input, output and process data had to be manually collected, measured and compiled. 
The objective of the data collection was to derive a preliminary material balance with focus 
on paper and paper waste in production. The goal was to investigate what happens to the pa-
per in production by quantifying process inputs and outputs, so that causes of paper waste 
could be identified and main areas of concern pointed out. A measurement plan was generat-
ed explaining how paper usage and paper waste would be calculated and quantified, who 
would do the required measuring, and during what period of time data would be collected. 
The important aspects of the measurement plan are presented and explain in section 4.3 in 
conjunction with the results.  

3.3 Research process 
The theoretical framework, empirical fieldwork, and case analysis have evolved simultane-
ously throughout the project. However in the description of the research process below the 
literature study will not be included as it is explained in detail in chapter 3.2.1 instead. The 
research process has been greatly influenced by the waste audit frameworks presented and 
discussed in chapter 2.2. However, to enhance the relevance and usefulness of the frame-
works they have been adapted to fit the objectives, limitations and context of this specific 
case study. The research process can be broadly divided into three parts or phases, described 
below.  
 
Phase I: Framing the thesis and launching the project  
The first part of the project was influenced by the main characteristics found in the planning 
and organization phase in waste audit frameworks, such as defining scope and goals, gaining 
management support and forming a project team (EPA, 1988; UNEP, 1991).  
 
To start the project, the scope and focus of the study needed to be established, and the project 
team assembled. The thesis was launched by the authors being provided with an initial broad 
problem description, describing the need to investigate and improve the company’s paper 
waste situation at large. However, the scope of the problem was broad and needed to be nar-
rowed down. Through reviewing literature and internal company documents, conducting 
semi-structured interviews, internal facility walkthroughs and consultations with both the 
company supervisor and the university supervisor, the complexity and size of the task and 
production system was understood. These insights made it possible to narrow down the scope 
of the project and select an appropriate focus. The refined scope was set to solely include two 
main areas of the production site, and the refined aim to map, quantify and investigate causes 



 

 28 

for paper waste in these areas. The purpose, problem formulation, research questions and the 
limitations of the project could therefore be formulated and set. It was also determined that 
the two authors, under the supervision of the company head of quality and with the help of 
site employees, would constitute the core project team conducting the study. The goal of the 
project was set to include an increased understanding of the current state in terms of quantify-
ing waste streams, and to gain insights into problem and potential improvement areas within 
the production process.   
 
The thesis was initiated by the head of quality and environment in collaboration with the 
CEO in an attempt to understand why such large quantities of paper were being wasted each 
year, and if something could be done about it. The importance of these questions had also 
gained support and commitment from top management and employees with the company be-
fore the project launch. Thus sufficient management support had already been established in 
the beginning of the project, thereby creating a good foundation for the project. As previously 
mentioned, gaining management support is a prerequisite for successful waste audits (EPA, 
1988; UNEP, 1991) 
 
Phase II: Assessing the current state and identifying improvements 
The next part of the research process was predominantly based on the main features of the 
assessment phase in waste audit frameworks. The purpose of the assessment phase, as men-
tioned above, is to get a detailed understanding of facility operations and waste streams, and 
to identify and screen waste minimization options (EPA, 1988). Therefore, making it a suita-
ble approach for answering both research question 1 and 2: Where in the production process 
is paper waste generated and what are the main waste types that contribute to the paper 
waste stream? and What are the main causes of paper waste generation at the company?. 
The main characteristics and activities of the assessment phase have influenced how data has 
been collected, organized and analyzed in this phase of the project. Moreover, a selection of 
the seven quality control tools and the seven management tools as described by Bergman and 
Klefsjö (2010) have also been applied in order to gather, structure, visualize and analyze data.  
 
In the beginning of the project, and throughout the research process, existing process and fa-
cility data has been reviewed. The review included: previously conducted internal studies on 
reducing paper waste, purchasing records, paper recycling records, production records, pro-
cess maps, checklists (manuals for production and operating practices), and non-conformance 
and rework reports.  
 
After an initial review of internal records and documents, a facility walkthrough was con-
ducted so that a true picture of the manufacturing process could be obtained, and not solely 
be based on information found in the business system. The walkthrough followed the material 
flow through the facility, from paper delivery to the finial shipping of products. By asking 
questions to production staff members the process steps were further explained and infor-
mation on actual operating and handoff procedures, paper waste streams and categories were 
collected. Furthermore, potential causes of waste stream and operators views and attitudes 
regarding paper waste were also registered. Notes were taken during the walkthrough, which 



 

 29 

were used in combination with operating manuals/production checklists to create process 
flow diagrams covering the main production steps. All process maps were verified both by 
operators and managers knowledgeable of the processes.  
 
The next step was to generate a material balance, i.e. a detailed account of inputs and outputs 
for target processes, so that waste streams, their composition, and previously unknown mate-
rial losses could be quantified (Franchetti, 2009; EPA, 1988; UNEP, 1991, Visvanathan, 
2007). It was not possible to rely only on existing process and facility data such as production 
and purchasing records when generating a material balance, instead complementary data 
needed to be collected. Complementary information was therefore gathered through observa-
tions in production, interviews, collecting purchasing and production metrics, and by measur-
ing paper waste in production. This provided a more detailed picture of the paper waste situa-
tion and highlighted several areas where information was inaccurate or even missing. Due to 
missing and inaccurate information a detailed material balance could not be created. Even 
though a detailed and complete material balance could not be generated, waste minimization 
options could still be identified within the production process. These options were then eval-
uated according to the waste minimization hierarchy and other factors such as ease of imple-
mentation, which concluded the second phase of the research process.  
 
Phase III: Write thesis and develop recommendations  
The third phase of research process focused on documenting the learnings and findings 
gained during the course of the project, and writing up the report. This so that the case com-
pany can acquire the knowledge that have been built during the project and use these insights 
when continuing the quest of reducing paper waste. Phase three constituted the last part of the 
project and aimed at answering research question three: What actions need to be taken by the 
company in order to reduce current paper waste quantities?. 

3.4 Quality of research  
Assessing the quality of research is a somewhat complicated endeavor in a mixed-methods 
study due to the distinct nature of qualitative and quantitative methods. To ensure a high 
quality of mixed methods research, both qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria need 
to be considered. Commonly used assessment criteria for qualitative methods are: credibility, 
transferability, dependability and confirmability (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Curry and Nunez-
Smith, 2015). Each qualitative assessment criterion has an equivalent criterion suitable for 
evaluating quantitative research (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The four corresponding appraisal 
criteria for quantitative research are: internal and external validity, reliability and objectivity 
(Bryman and Bell, 2011; Curry and Nunez-Smi