Urban manufacturing has an image problem. As Foundries of the Future explains, many ask themselves: “Why would any city want dirty factories, tough jobs and poor air quality when far cleaner and more prosperous sources of income were available?”
Those in favour of urban manufacturing counter: producing locally will cut transport emissions, drive innovation, and lead to the creation of a circular economy.
While neither side is entirely wrong, the reality is a little more complex. Urban manufacturing can be both detrimental and beneficial to our environment. Grey and green. To understand how, we took a closer look at the manufacturing process and identified environmental problems as well as potential solutions.
Manufacturing Sustainability
To get a better picture of the problems and solutions, let’s examine the individual steps of the (prototypical) manufacturing process one by one:
Before manufacturers can start making goods, they often have to acquire materials they can’t produce themselves. For instance, a clothing manufacturer might buy threads, buttons, and zippers from other companies. So, what’s the deal?
The Cities of Making Case study report: London Borough of Haringey has shown that many urban manufacturers import materials from abroad. In fact, in the studied area, almost three-quarters of material inputs were sourced from overseas. The two main reasons for this are price and availability. Local materials are often more expensive – if they are available at all.
Since inputs travel a long way to their final destination, transport emissions are high. Additionally, foreign items are at times more difficult to trace back, and the environmental standards to which they have been produced often remain unknown.
Sourcing materials locally is the way to go. But how if it is so much more expensive? One solution could be granting tax breaks to companies who buy locally. This would benefit companies, local material producers, and the environment (as carbon emissions would be cut significantly).
Now that we have got our materials, let’s start producing. There are many aspects to consider when looking at the production process, but let’s pay particular attention to companies’ energy use. Machinery requires a lot of energy. If it is not sourced sustainably, it can negatively impact the environment.
In the Cities of Making Case study report: London Borough of Haringey, the companies studied hardly rely on renewable sources of energy. Much rather, they resort to electricity, gas, and diesel – be it out of habit, due to price difference, or the way machinery works.
The issue with this is straightforward: non-renewable sources of energy are associated with air pollution, climate change, water pollution, and other detrimental phenomena.
To protect the environment, manufacturers need to move to greener energy sources. Switching to renewables would significantly cut emissions and costs. Additionally, companies could rely on energy metres to monitor their consumption and see how much each device consumes. This would allow them to make adequate changes and save energy where possible. Lastly, why not introduce new energy plants to an area, such as anaerobic digestion facilities? Such facilities use organic waste to generate heat, biogas, and electricity. This is a particularly attractive solution in industrial areas e.g., where a lot of food is produced.
Production is done. Now the finished products need to be delivered. Which means of transport do urban manufacturers turn to? And, speaking of transport, how do employees get to the workplace?
Urban manufacturers use various means of transport to distribute their products. Ships, trains, couriers, HGVs, vans, and cars are common. Using the road network is the go-to option for many.
Employees go by public transport, cycle, or – if they live close enough – walk. Still, using the car remains popular too, especially among silver-haired workers. One manufacturer in Haringey explains: “Our employees are sort of older, the largest age group would be between 40 and 50, and they rely on their cars. The younger, 30 to 40, use public transport and 20- to 30-year-old staff use bicycles.”
The strong reliance on the road network and cars damages our environment. Transport needs to be optimised to minimise emissions, or we need to convince people to change the modes they choose.
Sounds lovely, but how can we make it happen? There are several solutions. For small- and medium-scale manufacturers living workspaces might be an option. As they would be living and working in the same space, they would not have to travel to their workplace and, thus, save on commuting times, emissions, and traffic. Larger companies may benefit from clustering. Putting similar activities in the same area would allow for various material inputs and outputs as well as products to be delivered/collected together. An added plus: logistic costs may decrease. Big or small, all companies would also benefit from greater availability of new modes of transport, such as electric vans and HGVs.
Once materials have been sourced, turned into finished products, and delivered to customers, we are left with one thing: waste. For instance, clothing manufacturers will have several offcuts, flawed products, or unused materials from the last season. What do we do with that?
It is not unusual for urban industrial areas to be net importers of waste. Whatever is left at the end of production is (mostly) disposed of via private waste contractors. Sometimes, companies don’t even know what happens to their waste after putting it into bins. Recycling rates are low.
The general lack of knowledge around recycling, waste treatment paths, and the circular economy is detrimental to our environment. However, even if manufacturers wanted to segregate and use their waste efficiently, it is not always possible. Companies often lack the time to change their waste streams, don’t have the necessary infrastructure, or are held back by high costs. For instance, a beer manufacturer explains that “their waste could be used for farms and biofuel processors; the main barriers preventing this include lack of market, lack of infrastructure and their output being too small to be collected, so it would probably result in them paying a collection charge”.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Solutions are available. An attractive one is promoting industrial symbiosis. One company’s waste may be another’s material input. To find such overlaps, an online platform could be created. The platform could provide an inventory of materials needed and waste produced in the city. To make an exchange even more attractive, companies buying waste from others should not be taxed on it. Lastly, repair and up- or recycling are also viable solutions.
What’s More…
Apart from making the manufacturing process greener, wider change is needed. We require general environmental standards for urban industrial trades; however, confronting companies with new guidelines and expecting them to adapt is not vital. They need to be included in the entire process. Make the transition transparent. Provide guidance, e.g., by nominating a Curator who explains new requirements and helps companies find solutions. Making urban manufacturing more sustainable should not be a blame game but a just transition.
Green Urban Manufacturing in a Nutshell
Despite its many environmental challenges, urban manufacturing can contribute to a green future. It can tackle climate change, drive innovation, and lead to the creation of a circular economy. It all boils down to sourcing materials locally, relying on renewable energy, reducing transport emissions, and making use of companies’ waste.