Barriers to performance

There are several important barriers that influence ESEs ability to perform that have not yet been mentioned. This section shall address each of these issues before assessing ESEs overall strengths and limitations. There were three core themes that interconnected with ESEs performance, these related to competition and commercial viability, government policy and

69

regulation and wider interest and engagement. Each of these themes shall be discussed in the following paragraphs.

The first issue could be thought of as a triangular relationship, with three interrelated factors, namely, commercial viability, cost or price and scale. There were opportunities that were not commercially viable for ESEs to pursue due to working at a smaller scale and the higher costs involved in offering a better quality product. In some instances, this meant that ESEs were less able to compete on price. For example, one ESE described that one of his aims when setting up the company was to have a small mill to process their own yarn, however, he had not been able to achieve this goal, as it was not commercially viable, he explained, “to do so with a small turnover of yarn that we would have, its expensive not just the setting up of it but running a small mill is expensive” and when asked whether there was anything he would change to be able to compete more, he stated;

[our competitiors] are working with vast quantities of wool and yarn compared to us and therefore the processing costs of theirs is much less and therefore the final product is less. We can’t afford to charge less than we do, so that’s really the only way that you could change things, is if you were on a much bigger scale – Company B.

Similarly, another ESE described having difficultly recycling certain products, in this example he talks about struggling to recycle printers;

They’ve got so many working parts of plastic and metal, that to physically have someone standing there breaking down a printer, will take more than a day erm and the component parts are worth what, £10. So there’s assets and ways of recycling that don’t suit small businesses that need bigger players – Company M.

Another interesting example was given by an ESE who was working on an innovative energy project, enthusiastically, the participant explained how the ESE had got through the first stage which was proving the project was possible technologically. The second stage, the participant explained, was seeing whether it was financially feasible, she explains;

Currently the cost of gas is so low that you just cannot make the figures back up. So there is a question… in a world where you're not really paying the true cost of energy, um, is it ever going to be possible? Particularly on heat which is a massive area in terms of our carbon footprint, that’s always going to be a massive barrier to overcome – Company F.

70

The second barrier to ESEs performance was government policy and regulation. This was by far the most commonly mentioned issue. Central to this was the costs or lack of financial incentives provided by the government. For example, several participants mentioned the fact that there was no tax incentive for ESEs. Other participants felt there should be differential or no VAT on recycled products to encourage more people to sell recycled products and more people to buy them as the price would be cheaper. Agricultural subsidies were also a considerable concern which several participants felt strongly disregarded small scale farmers.

There were also changes in government policy, such as cuts in subsidies for the solar industry, which had had negative repercussions for ESEs. For example, for one ESE their main source of work had been with solar developers, therefore, the cuts in subsidies had resulted in less work for the company. In another instance, the ESE described that their original business model was “developed for very different times…it was reliant on…a few different tariffs for income and ... a different level of... support for community energy from a government level and, it’s just not there anymore” (Company F). Both ESEs were uncertain about how they would go forward.

Heavy regulation and bureaucracy also impeded ESEs ability to achieve their goals, as one participant’s comment emphasized, “in the environmental world, you’ll find that there’s permits needed for pretty much everything, and as a small business, that’s a real challenge”

(Company Q). The T11 license, which is a license to repair broken equipment was a commonly cited issue.

I think its £800 a year for what they call a t11 license… that’s the license you need just for the privilege of being able to repair broken equipment, that’s all the license entitles us to and it’s one thing that does concern me, hang on why are we putting a license on these guys who are trying to recycle kit, surely it should be on the people scraping the equipment rather than those trying to rework it – Company M.

During another interview, the participant felt frustrated at being captured by regulations that he felt were “sensible” but “over the top”. He gives an example of needing an abstractors license when putting in a hydro scheme, “the license is to take water from the watercourse, this was because farmers took water from the water course to feed it to their cows”, the hydro scheme was however consumptive he explains, “but the regulations weren’t built for non-consumptive abstraction” (Company G).

71

The final factor that was a hindrance was wider interest and understanding. For example, one ESE described a frustration with consumer attitudes.

We’re trying to provide something that’s been upcycled and we’re up against people comparing that with very cheap production systems for new products…people often think if I buy something new its gonna be better which is not always the case – Company D.

Another challenge revolved around communicating the issues ESEs were trying to address. For example, one ESE stated “we lead probably more with the community angle…rather than, oh my gosh we’ve got to stop the problem of food waste because it’s the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions”, because they found it did not resonate with people (Company P).

Similarly, another participant emphasised difficulty in communicating environmental issues, using phrases such as “it’s promoting a solution without banging on about it I suppose”, and

“it gets very overtly political which then might put people off” (Company H).

72