Docstoc

Delivery Landscape Review

Document Sample
Delivery Landscape Review Powered By Docstoc
					Resource Efficiency
Delivery Landscape Review




March 2009
                                                       Version v1.0


Crown Copyright

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs             Information about this publication and copies are available from:
Nobel House
17 Smith Square                                                Business Resource Efficiency and Consumers
LONDON SW1P 3JR                                                Defra
                                                               Area 5C, Ergon House
Tel: 020 7238 6000                                             Horseferry Road
Website: www.defra.gov.uk                                      London
                                                               SW1A 2AL

© Crown copyright 2007                                         Tel: 0207 238 6000
Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests
with the Crown.



This document/publication is value added. If you wish to re-   This document is available on the Defra website.
use, please apply for a Click-Use Licence for value added
material at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/value-added-     PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT,
licence-information/index.htm                                  FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Alternatively applications can be sent to:
Office of Public Sector Information
Information Policy Team
St Clements House
2-16 Colegate
Norwich NR3 1BQ
Fax: 01603 723000
Email: HMSOlicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
                                                                                                                                   2
                                                      Version v1.0


Delivery Landscape Review
This document provides the evidence and analysis of the review of Defra‟s delivery landscape for resource efficiency support for
business customers, the public sector and other organisations. The document identifies a number of key issues within the
landscape, drills down further into the detail of options assessments and sets out strategic options and work-streams designed to
improve delivery.
The high level options assessment and identified work-stream details assume continuation of the existing policy framework whilst
nominally taking into account near-term potential landscape changes with the aim to ensure flexibility and resilience within the
delivery landscape. The assessment will need to be reviewed against any future significant changes to the overall policy mix.
The document is structured as follows:

  Section 1 Introduction                                            Section 6  Delivery bodies response to the DLR draft
                                                                               report
  Summary presentation of key findings and current                  Section 7 Outcomes and alignment of delivery bodies
                                                                               with Departmental strategic objectives
  change design:
                                                                    Section 8 Policy-delivery partnership
  Section 2 Summary analysis
                                                                    Section 9 Customer analysis
  Section 3 Strategic landscape rationalisation options
             and work-streams                                       Section 10 Delivery chain analysis


  Supporting analysis and evidence:                                 Annexes:
  Section 4 Delivery landscape: delivery bodies and                 Annex A      Criteria definitions for high level analysis
              programmes                                            Annex B      Long list of strategic options identified in the
  Section 5 Support to single businesses – responses                             draft DLR report
              from delivery bodies                                  Annex C      Delivery body delivery chains


NB - The review initially included the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust. Responsibility for these bodies – formerly with
Defra – is now with the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), which has a wider delivery landscape
which has not been considered as part of this review. In addition DECC are currently carrying out a number of consultations
which may have delivery implications. For these reasons DECC bodies are not addressed in this review
                                                                                                                                    3
                                                                     Version v1.0

1. Introduction
This section describes the background and scope of the Delivery Landscape Review

1.1. Background
Defra‟s overarching purpose is to “to secure a healthy environment in which we and future generations can prosper”. This is most clearly exemplified by the
need to tackle and adapt to the effects of climate change nationally and to contribute to international action, and to secure a healthy, resilient, productive and
diverse natural environment. Defra aims to secure these outcomes by developing a range of policies and measures across Government and by working in
partnership with its network of delivery partners to ensure effective implementation.
Central to achieving these domestic goals is reducing the environmental impact of people‟s lifestyles, the products that the economy produces and
consumes, and the waste produced in the UK. Defra encourages business, the public sector and consumers in making these changes by funding a range of
delivery programmes that provide resource efficiency support and advice. This “delivery landscape” has evolved over 15 years.
During Defra‟s 08/09 budgetary planning, the Management Board agreed that now was an appropriate point to review this landscape of delivery programmes
for providing such support and to assess whether it is still fit for purpose and the potential for improvements to delivery.


1.2. Delivery landscape review
This review aims to identify and assess options for reform of the delivery landscape for providing support to business, consumers and the public sector in the
drive to a low carbon, resource efficient future. It looks at responsibilities and relationships of the relevant delivery bodies to ensure that Defra can deliver a
coherent, effective and efficient offer to business, consumers and the public sector. It considers any apparent scope for rationalisation, sponsorship and
governance arrangements, and needs to be considered in the context of delivery of the Business Support Simplification Programme.


The review is focussed on the following delivery bodies and programmes:
 Waste and Resource Action Programme (Wrap) – sponsored by Defra;
 National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP) – sponsored by Defra;
 Envirowise – sponsored by Defra.


The review is also considering the work of the following programmes funded through Defra‟s former Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW)
Programme:
 Action Sustainability (AS) – sponsored by Defra;
 Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse (CRR) – sponsored by Defra;
 Construction Resources and Waste Platform (CRWP) – sponsored by Defra;
 BREW Centre for Local Authorities [note: not included in original scope] – sponsored by Defra;
The review also considers links with the work of Regional Development Agencies in supporting business resource efficiency.
                                                                                                                                                                  4
                                                                      Version v1.0

Introduction
Context
1.3 Context
There are two key policy drivers and initiatives that are considered in the context of this review.
Business Resource Efficiency and Waste Programme (BREW)
The BREW programme was established in 2005 to ensure that the Landfill Tax escalator would not only incentivise businesses to reduce the amount of
waste they send to landfill, but also to assist them in developing ways to achieve this. The programme was managed by Defra and over its three year life,
£284m was awarded to business resource efficiency activities by a range of Defra‟s delivery bodies and other organisations who put forward proposals for
pilot projects and other initiatives.
Defra‟s settlement in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 period (2008-11) no longer required the separate identification of a ring-fenced “BREW”
programme, distinct from other support for business resource efficiency provided by Defra through delivery bodies and from Regional Development Agencies.
In addition, against a backdrop of constrained Departmental budgets it was felt that the business community increasingly should understand the case for
integrating environmental and business objectives, with typically short pay-back periods for individual companies in implementing carbon reduction or
resource efficiency projects.
As a consequence, the decision was taken to discontinue BREW as a separate programme, and to review Defra‟s ongoing programmes through delivery
bodies to help businesses in their drive towards a lower carbon, more resource efficient economy. Over the CSR07 period, delivery bodies were advised that
their funding should focus on providing the necessary evidence to encourage businesses to change behaviour, rather than supporting individual businesses
for projects where the benefits came quickly through to the company bottom line. This move – to concentrate on developing the evidence base for improving
businesses‟ resource efficiency – was in line with Defra‟s wider strategy towards catalysing behaviour change for a low carbon Britain.
Business Support Simplification Programme (BSSP)
The Business Support Simplification Programme was announced in the 2006 Budget. BSSP is based on the principle that businesses find the plethora of
support schemes available confusing and, therefore, aims to streamline the number of business support interventions from more than 3,000 to less than 100
by 2010.
The key objectives for BSSP are to ensure that publicly-funded business support is:
 easier for businesses to understand and access;
 better value for public money;
 has a substantial and measurable impact in achieving economic and other public policy goals.
Business support includes: direct (rather than tax-based) support to a business, group of businesses, organisations or to people starting or considering
starting businesses - for example, free or subsidised advice, grants, reduced-interest loans, training and help with finding workspace.
Business Link is to be the primary access channel for business support and Regional Development Agencies are responsible for working with national and
regional partners in developing Regional Transitional Management Plans to drive delivery of BSSP at the regional level.
A portfolio of products under which business support is to be classified has been identified and this includes a product on „Improving your Resource
Efficiency‟ (previously „promoting resource efficiency and sustainable waste management‟). Defra is leading the development of this product with full
                                                                                                                                                    5
implementation by October 2009.
                                                                    Version v1.0

Introduction
Landscape changes and Approach
1.4 Landscape changes
There are two key changes to the landscape that are considered in the context of this review.
Creation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
During the course of the review, a machinery of Government change created DECC as the lead authority for energy and climate change policy. The main
implication is that CT and EST sponsorship and policy have transferred to DECC. The delivery landscape for DECC is wider than CT and EST and includes
for example, the regulator Ofgem. This review is consequently limited to Defra delivery bodies.


Economic slow-down
The UK has experienced the effects of a sharp global economic slow-down. These economic circumstances have lent weight to the need to consider
resilience and flexibility as key criteria in positioning the delivery landscape for the future.


1.5 Approach
The review analysis is based on desk-based research, customer insight data, and engagement with the key bodies and relevant stakeholders through a
series of structured interviews with key personnel, presentations by delivery bodies on the detail of their work, visits to site offices to observe customer
engagement, group workshops and written requests for information.
The draft review identified a number of key issues with the landscape and developed a range of possible options in response, in this final review document
these options are further detailed and the non-landscape rationalisation/ streamlining options are detailed as works-streams. The works-streams focus on the
options that came out as the most beneficial in initial cost/ benefit analysis.
The draft analysis has been discussed with delivery bodies; this has allowed them to respond, correct any errors, suggest how the options and works-streams
might be made to work, and/or propose alternatives. This engagement has allowed a further tuning of the options and work-streams ensuring practicality and
pragmatism remain in focus.
We have explored with delivery bodies our joint vision for the long term future of the landscape to ensure recommendations are future-proofed, providing an
appropriate level of certainty for delivery bodies‟ business planning but flexibility for the Government to ensure effective delivery against an evolving policy
landscape. For example as the Green Homes and Business Link services bed down and Government policy matures on how it intends to deliver a low carbon
Britain, the cost/benefit case may change and other options may need to be considered.




                                                                                                                                                               6
                                                                  Version v1.0

2. Summary analysis
This section provides a summary analysis and synthesis of the key issues facing the delivery landscape

2.1 Summary of analysis
Our delivery bodies are making a key contribution to Defra‟s objectives. But the landscape has evolved over time with missions changing by some delivery
bodies as they have developed their operations against a background of increasing policy focus on economy-wide carbon reduction. Additionally the
engagement between delivery bodies and Government has tended to take place on an individual basis.
We need to ensure that we have an effective, streamlined landscape of bodies able to take a strategic approach to delivery – generating the evidence-base,
investing in markets, influencing and driving demand.
In addition, we need to ensure integration with delivery of the Government‟s Business Support Simplification Programme (BSSP) under which the Business
Link network is to be the primary access channel for all publicly funded business support with a focus, initially at least, on smaller businesses. It is
acknowledged that this does not constrain direct access with national specialist delivery bodies by businesses, however, it does mean cooperation in cross
referrals with Business Link. BSSP also requires the transfer of generalist information, diagnostic and brokerage on resource efficiency to be embedded
within Business Link services.
Our analysis suggests that there are opportunities for improvement including:
 streamlining delivery bodies‟ engagement with SMEs, local government, key sectors (such as construction), and across the resource efficiency loop;
 aligning national and regional delivery/ coordination and ensuring coordinated consistent services between national programmes and RDAs;
 developing an integrated communications strategy and plans across the landscape to ensure consistent and coordinated messaging;
 improving the strategic policy/ delivery partnership and adopting a more robust, strategic approach to performance management.

The following slides describe the draft analysis:
 high level delivery chain
 functions of delivery bodies
 synthesis of key issues for the landscape
 key issues: political, economic, environmental, social and science & technology changes
 key findings (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats)
 high level risk analysis




                                                                                                                                                             7
                                                           Version v1.0

Summary analysis
High level delivery chain (from section 10.1)

                         EST                 EEPfH
DECC
                                                                                                               Consumers
                                             Salix                                             Local gov
Defra                    Carbon
                         Trust               Finance
                                                                                               Local gov-led
                                                                                               programmes      Communities
DfT
                                                                           Third               BREW centre
                         WRAP
                                                         Business                              for LAs
                                                                           sector orgs                         Third
CLG                                                     Business
                                                                                                               sector orgs
                                                                           Research
                         Envirowise                     membership                             Env
                                                        organisations      orgs / KTNs
                                                                                               consultants
BERR                                                    Energy                                                 SMEs
                                                                           Waterwise
                         NISP                           suppliers

                                                                  Intermediaries
DIUS                                                                                                           Large
                                                                                                               business
                         Action
                         Sustainability                                                   RDA-led
                                                                               RDAs
                        Construction Res                                                  programmes
                        & Waste Platform
Devolved                                                                        Gov       Business             Local gov /
Admins                   Centre for
                                                                                Offices   Links                pub sector
                         Reman & Reuse

                         Delivery bodies
                                                                                                               Gov depts

                                                       Manufacturing
                                                                       Market
                                                       Advisory
                                Regulators             Service         Trans Prog                                Customers
                         Env          Nat              Other gov funded bodies
  Scope of Review
                         Agency       England                                                                                8
                                                                                                               Version v1.0

Summary analysis
Delivery bodies have a range of functions (from section 10.2)

                                                                                                 Defra (and other Government departments)
                                                                                                                                                                                3
                                                                                                                                                                            2
                                                                                                                                                          Delivery Body 1
              (RDAs, local government, third sector, etc)




                                                                                                                          Policy input
                                                            (partnering, voluntary agreements,


                                                                                                            (policy development, expert opinion, etc)

                                                                                                                            Strategy
                                                                      facilitation, etc)




                                                                                                               (delivery approach, operations, etc)
   Partners




                                                                        Influencing




                                                                                                                           Evidence
                                                                                                         (research, customer insight, benchmarking, etc)

                                                                                                                          Investment
                                                                                                         (market making, capital investment, grants, etc)

                                                                                                                   Advice and information
                                                                                                       (awareness raising, training, helpline, website, etc)




                                                                                                               Customers
                                                                                                 (consumers, business, local government, etc)                                       9
                                                                                       Version v1.0

Summary analysis
Synthesis of key issues*: Streamlining the landscape
                                                                                                                                       Business awareness of information sources:
Many organisations active in this landscape
                                                                                                                                                                                                                83%
                                                                                                                                       Business Link
 Landscape delivery bodies work in a wider landscape of many public and private organisations providing
                                                                                                                                                                                                               82%
  support to consumers, business and the public sector. This means there are many opportunities and                                          DEFRA

  challenges in delivering an effective customer experience which converts awareness into action.                                      Environment                                                     72%
                                                                                                                                         Agency
Strategic approach to delivery                                                                                                                                                            55%
                                                                                                                                               RDAs

 Landscape delivery bodies are delivering a range of outcomes through a strategic approach focused on
                                                                                                                                                                                    47%
                                                                                                                                       Carbon Trust
  priority sectors and addressing market failures.
                                                                                                                                       Energy Saving                   30%
                                                                                                                                           Trust

                                                                                                                                                               15%
Delivery body services valued but businesses are more likely to contact other organisations first                                        Envirowise


 Business awareness of the landscape delivery bodies varies with sector/size. Local government and                                           WRAP
                                                                                                                                                               14%

  suppliers are often more trusted sources of information.                                                                                                6%                 Data source: Engaging Businesses on
                                                                                                                                               NISP
                                                                                                                                                                             Defra Issues. Unpublished Defra &
 SMEs tend to seek advice across energy, water, materials and waste; large businesses are more likely to                                                                    COI, July 2008: Sample size = 700

  seek specialist advice for each resource stream.
                                                                                                           Business use of information sources
 Most businesses have found delivery body services useful (though there is some indication that they want for environmental advice:
  more tailored, specific information and support).                                                                Local Authority                                                                         41%
 Delivery bodies need to ensure their advisors look for opportunities for improved cross referral promoting                                               Suppliers                           28%
  services available from other providers. Follow-up engagement is also important.
                                                                                                                                                       Business Link                          26%

                                                                                                                                        Accountants/other prof.                               26%
Potential for streamlining business services                                                                                                 Environment Agency                             24%
 Defra and its delivery bodies need to take holistic approach to deploying the overall landscape of services                                    Peers/colleagues                          23%
  in generating awareness and then creating and maintaining contact with customers.                                                                            DEFRA                    20%
 For business and public sector organisations, there do appear to be some gaps/overlaps in the services                                        Trade Association                      19%
  available from the landscape delivery bodies, specifically: for SMEs, local government, key sectors (e.g.
                                                                                                                                               Internet/websites                 11%
  construction), and across the resource efficiency loop.
                                                                                                                                                       Carbon Trust            9%
 60% of businesses that have received environmental advice or support think that some delivery bodies
  provide similar advice and support to each other. (Note: NISP does not provide such advice.)                                                                  RDAs         6%

                                                                                                                                                         Envirowise      5%
 25% of businesses believe it would be better for some bodies to be merged (this rises to 33% for those                                                                          Data source: Engaging Businesses
                                                                                                                                                                                  on Defra Issues. Unpublished Defra
  who have engaged through the BREW programme).                                                                                               Energy Saving Trust        4%       & COI, July 2008: Sample size = 700
* Key issues synthesis and analysis based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with policy, sponsors, delivery bodies                                                                          10
  and customers, and output from work-shops.
                                                                                                                                                               WRAP      4%
                                                                                       Version v1.0

Summary analysis
Synthesis of key issues*: National/ regional business support
Business Support Simplification Programme (BSSP) – national/regional integration
 BSSP aims to make it easier for companies to understand and access the full landscape of Government funded support.
 Regional Business Links managed by RDAs are to be the primary access route for businesses seeking support. Through a process of „information,
  diagnostic and brokerage‟, they are to assess and then direct a business to appropriate services.
 There are a range of different models deployed by RDAs to deliver business resource efficiency services including through Business Links but also
  other RDA-led support programmes.
 Defra is developing a resource efficiency BSSP „product‟ but there are number of questions about future operational working between national delivery
  bodies and RDA programmes/Business Links:
           o Business Link capacity to provide a comprehensive, expert diagnostic, assessment and brokerage service;
           o Aligning national and regional delivery/ coordination, sharing best practice, and ensuring coordinated, consistent, value for money services.
 RDAs are clearly well-placed to deliver greater coordination of delivery to SMEs at the sub-national/national interface through Business Links. Defra‟s
  BSSP process needs to manage the transition and ensure the right models, frameworks and funding are in place.


Defra’s policy on support for individual businesses
 Defra Ministers confirmed in the 08/09 budget allocations, the decision to phase out funding support to individual businesses as soon as possible (and
  certainly within the current CSR period), except where wider benefits arise beyond the individual business.
 Delivery bodies have been asked to set out how they intend to manage this withdrawal and come forward with innovative delivery approaches to
  minimise any risk to outcomes.
 Through this review process, Defra needs to ensure a consistent approach across the delivery landscape in the interpretation and implementation of
  this policy. This includes clarity on any evidence-based exceptions where delivery bodies can demonstrate the wider benefits of individual support and
  the value for money of such support against policy targets and outcomes, and the relationship with services to business provided by RDAs/Business
  Link ion the context of BSSP.




* Key issues synthesis and analysis based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with policy, sponsors, delivery bodies
  and customers, and output from work-shops.                                                                                                                 11
                                                                                       Version v1.0

Summary analysis
Synthesis of key issues*: Integrated communications
 Number of corporate and campaign brands operating in landscape
  Delivery bodies carry out activities that raise the awareness of their corporate brands and services. Amongst many closely related policy areas in
   addition to many other actors in the market creating brands and messages, there is potential for lack of coordination between delivery bodies‟ and Defra
   communications activities including alignment with the cross-government „Act on CO2‟ campaign and BSSP branding. There is also a need to manage
   alignment of communications objectives of Defra and devolved administrations.
  In a market where there are numerous competing messages from other sources, it is essential that Government and delivery bodies‟ communications
   activities are integrated, coherent and not in competition for customer attention on the same issues.
 Defra’s Landscape Panel has improved coordination but need integrated framework
  Defra‟s Landscape Communications Panel provides improved coordination of communications activities across the delivery network. This could be
   strengthened through an overarching strategic framework to ensure consistent messaging, deliver a coherent approach to brands/labelling, explain the
   benefits for consumers and business of engaging with this agenda (and risks of not engaging), and clarify the support available.


  Government corporate/campaign brands and product                                                                                     Estimated delivery body resources engaged in
  labels in resource efficiency and CO2 reduction areas                                                                                communications, marketing, etc:

                                                                                                                                                                   £m             FTEs

                                                                                                                                        WRAP                       4              24

                                                                                                                                        Envirowise                 2              7

                                                                                                                                        NISP                       0              2
                                                                                                                                                                        Data source: Delivery bodies




* Key issues synthesis and analysis based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with policy, sponsors, delivery bodies
  and customers, and output from work-shops.                                                                                                                                                           12
                                                                                       Version v1.0

Summary analysis
Synthesis of key issues*: Partnership in policy and delivery

 Strategic partnership between Defra and delivery bodies
  The expanding operations of delivery bodies and their dependence on Defra grant funding, can act to create competition with each other and has the
   potential to detract from opportunities for cooperation and partnership.
  There are multiple chief executives, corporate owners and customers in this landscape – an effective policy-delivery partnership depends on the
   strength of the relationship between these three key roles and the more complex, the more difficult it will be to maintain optimum effectiveness of that
   relationship.
  The Defra Renew policy cycle emphasises the importance of input to policy development by those involved in delivery – delivery bodies have an
   established role in advising on policy implementation.
  There are many good examples of joint-working between Defra and delivery bodies but there are opportunities for tapping the expertise of delivery
   partners even more effectively through an interchange strategy supporting increased cooperation on projects, secondments and knowledge transfer.
  Defra and its delivery bodies have developed a body of specialist research, data, and customer insight – more needs to be done to break down
   knowledge barriers between the organisations and ensure this evidence-base is shared to support delivery across the landscape.
  There is potential for Defra and delivery bodies to develop a deeper, shared understanding of the wider policy landscape and to work together with other
   Government departments and agencies to deliver common objectives.

 Strategic approach to governance and performance management
  Sponsorship of the bodies in the landscape is embedded in two board programmes - there
   is potential for improving the strategic oversight of planning, performance and monitoring
   of delivery across these programmes.
  The capacity and capability of the sponsorship function is key and the Defra teams need
                                                                                                                                               G7    SEO              HEO             EO
   to be able to draw on skills which meet the requirements for a strong strategic capability to
   set the policy agenda, monitor performance of delivery and establish stronger corporate
   systems including reporting against key performance indicators                                                           WRAP               0.3   0                0.9             0.3

  Delivery bodies are not applying a common methodology to the measurement of                                              Envirowise         0.3   0                0.7             0.2
   outcomes.
                                                                                                                            NISP               0.3   0                0               0

                                                                                                                            Env Agency         2     1                0.9             0.9
                                                                                                                            Natural Eng/JNCC   1     1                1               1
                                                                                                                                                         Data source: Defra delivery body Sponsors



* Key issues synthesis and analysis based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with policy, sponsors, delivery bodies
  and customers, and output from work-shops.                                                                                                                                                    13
                                                                  Version v1.0

Summary analysis
Synthesis of key potential future issues: Political, economic, environment, social, and S&T

                                                                Science &Technology
                                                    Speed of innovation (e.g. renewables/ bio-fuels/ CCS)
                                                    Future variance in new technology cost trajectories
                                                    Future variance in policy feasibility
                                                    Global IP and standards issues for technology transfer
                                                    Pace of new energy investment/ build
                                                    New evidence on climate change speed/ impacts



                  Social                                                                                                  Environment
    Global attitude shifts (globalisation                                                                         Shocks/ rates of change
     vs. protectionism)                                                                                            Food supply/ inflation
    Views re: food/ fuel/ energy costs                          Delivery Landscape:                               BRIC environmental policies
    Impacts of downturn                                        Resilience / Adaptability                          Agricultural trends/policies (e.g.
    Shifting global leadership patterns                                                                            global rise in meat consumption)
                                                               to potential future issues
    Reactions to energy security issues
    Transport patterns (road/ rail/ air)




                                             Political                                                   Economic
                          EU Carbon trading outcomes                                       Global economic outlook
                          Low Carbon strategies                                            Investment vs. cost-cutting balance
                          Climate Change Committee influences                              E/W capital shifts
                          Copenhagen outcomes                                              Employment/ migration
                          International conflicts (impacts on energy                       UK inward investment
                           prices)                                                          Progress of ETS
                          International political change                                   Oil price variabilities
                                                                                            Speed and timing of economic change




                                                                                                                                                         14
                                                                                      Version v1.0

Summary analysis
Delivery landscape: Key findings*
         Strengths
                                                                                                      Weaknesses
      Delivery bodies delivering a range of outcomes across Defra‟s DSOs.                            Challenge to coordinate with the rapidly evolving plethora of other organisations
                                                                                                       operating in the landscape particularly at local/regional level.
      Delivery bodies take strategic approach focussed on priority areas, addressing
       market failures and overcoming barriers.                                                       Delivery bodies with remits in closely related policy areas create some potential for
                                                                                                       overlap and customer confusion through perception of lack of clear differentiation
      Innovative approaches to delivery (international recognition).
                                                                                                      Potential for competition between delivery bodies for Defra funding (could also be
      Good levels of customer satisfaction with products and services.
                                                                                                       strength).
      Perceived as independent sources of information at arms length from Government.
                                                                                                      Large number of brands and product labels creates challenge for overarching
      Good examples of joint-working between delivery bodies and with Defra                           communications strategy
      Staff: committed, skilled and experienced resource .                                           Number of delivery bodies managed through separate bilateral relationships creates
                                                                                                       potential for inefficiencies between overall cross-policy requirements and delivery
      Knowledge: comprehensive evidence-base, customer data, expert analysis.
                                                                                                      Number of delivery bodies managed through separate bilateral relationships creates
      Defra Ministers committed to delivery on carbon reduction and resource efficiency.
                                                                                                       a challenge for consistent & coordinated approaches to business planning
                                                                                                       /evaluation
                                                                                                      Potential challenge in maintaining right balance between control of policy outcomes
                                                                                                       and independence of arms length delivery bodies

         Opportunities
                                                                                                        Threats
      Increased impact and efficiency through minimising overlap and more joint-working.             Negative impacts of global economic pressures on public finance
      Improved coordination between regional/national programmes through BSSP.                       New data from climate evidence requires recalibration of policy balance and
                                                                                                       interventions, challenging current delivery models
      Improved communications effort through joint coordinated communications strategy.
                                                                                                      Economic downturn impacts on demand for services in unpredictable ways
      Increased evidence-sharing and dissemination between delivery bodies and Defra
       (and wider).                                                                                   Demanding environmental targets across different policy areas create challenging
                                                                                                       delivery trade-offs when translated down to delivery outcomes.
      More partnerships with other organisations (third sector, local gov, trade assocs).
                                                                                                      Different policies may be delivered in similar ways by different bodies particularly for
      Potential for increased commercialisation of services as markets mature.
                                                                                                       closely related policies, creating a perceived lack of differentiation & potential
      International „export‟ of innovative delivery models.                                           customer confusion between bodies
      Improved strategic partnership on policy-delivery through implementation of Defra              In rapidly developing markets where market failure is diminishing, possible
       renew policy/PPM cycles & „deals‟ to ensure clarity of objectives and strategy.                 perception of unfair funding advantage to delivery bodies at the margins of potential
                                                                                                       private sector development
      Reorganise Defra sponsorship in line with Renew to maximise capacity/capability
                                                                                                      The potential for central policy departments to tap into & benefit from the skills and
      More joint projects and secondments between delivery bodies and Defra
                                                                                                       market intelligence of delivery partners is under-realised and under-utilised.
      Defra /delivery bodies working in partnership to influence OGDs/stakeholders
                                                                                                      New pressures and/or disruption on central Government departments impact on
      Delivery bodies engage central government depts on procurement/operations.                      existing policy/delivery interface



* Key findings based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with policy, sponsors, delivery bodies and customers, and output from work-shops.                                        15
                                                                                       Version v1.0

Summary analysis
Risks to delivery


                                                                                                                Risks
                                                                                    A                           A. Impacts of global economic pressures on public finance
                                                                                                                B. Economic downturn impacts on demand for services in
                     High




                                  B                           F                                                    unpredictable ways.
                                                                                                                C. Policy disruption impacts on delivery body strategy and ability
                                                                                                                   to deliver.
                                                                                                E               D. Number of delivery bodies managed through separate
                                                                                                                   bilateral relationships creates potential for inefficiencies &
                                                                                                                   possible duplication (customer impacts)
                                                                        C
Likelihood of risk




                              G                                                                                 E. Potential performance management issues (e.g.
                     Medium




                                                                                                                   inconsistencies) across arms length relationships results in
                                                             D                                 H                   sub-optimal cross-policy/delivery links.
                                                                                                                F. Sub-optimal Govt/delivery body objective/tasking links results
                                        J                                                                          in misaligned outcomes.
                                                                                                                G. Potentially diffuse messages (amongst depts. and others) on
                                                                                                                   climate change impact on delivery bodies‟ ability to focus
                                                                                                     K             influence.
                                                                                                                H. Potentially inconsistent messaging between delivery bodies
                     Low




                                                                                                                   results in customer confusion/apathy.
                                                               I
                                                                                                                I. Negative economic scenarios & future funding levels impact
                                                                                                                   on staff morale & delivery.
                                                                                                                J. Difference in Government objectives/priorities with devolved
                                                                                                                   administrations lead to misalignment across UK
                                  Low                   Medium                              High                K. Disruption leading to reduced outcomes creates
                                                                                                                   reputational/funding risks.
                                            Impact of risk


* Risk analysis based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with sponsors, and delivery bodies.                                                                       16
                                                                   Version v1.0

3. Strategic landscape options & work-streams
This section provides a summary of the strategic options and current work-streams for improving the delivery landscape and a high level assessment

3.1 Summary of strategic options and work-streams

Section 2 set out the issues that were found to be of importance within the delivery landscape. From these issues the DLR team developed key propositions
of high significance to the future of an efficient, effective and fit-for-purpose landscape:
 There is potential for streamlining the landscape to improve customer service, minimise overlap and deliver improved outcomes and value for money;
 We need to enable more effective integration between national and regional delivery/ coordination, aligned with and building on BSSP;
 We need to develop a more integrated approach to communications activities;
 We need to develop a more strategic policy-delivery partnership including more robust performance management.

Against these propositions the review team developed:
 a long list of strategic-level options to address the key issues and capitalise on any key opportunities the review found within the landscape (annex B sets
  out the detailed options). From the long list of options detailed in the draft DLR report, landscape rationalisation and streamlining options are further
  analysed in this section – the following two slides “streamlining the landscape: description” summarises these options, whilst options 4-7 are turned into
  work-streams; these also detailed in this section: the purpose, timescale, outcomes and work-streams progress updates;
 a set of criteria, with three different weighting scenarios, against which all options to change the landscape could be assessed to determine the option‟s
  desirability (annex A sets out the detailed criteria). The basis of the criteria is a cost/ benefit analysis against which options can be mapped.
Each identified and relevant option is assessed by the criteria against the three different weighting scenarios and awarded cost/ benefit scores.

The draft DLR report‟s indicative and high-level assessment and options mapping suggested that the following options offered the best cost/ benefit ratios:
 streamlining the number of Defra directly funded bodies to: WRAP and potentially NISP (option 1d).
 improving regional and national coordination and relationships through regional account management of local/ regional customers (option 3b).
 optimising communication across the delivery landscape through an integrated framework and strategy for delivery (option 4a).
 improving sponsorship capacity/ capability to ensure a more robust strategic partnership between Defra and its delivery bodies (option 5b).
 improving Defra‟s approach to performance management of delivery bodies (option 6).
 aligning funding for delivery bodies with the key Defra policy objectives (option 7a).

Of these options, option 1d, along with 1a and 1b for landscape rationalisation are further analysed and discussed in this section. Analysis also suggests:
 Former BREW funded pilot projects/ programmes combination into a merged resource efficiency delivery body to ensure a strategic approach and
   provide organisational and operational synergies;
 NISP‟s operational model is compatible and complimentary to the other delivery bodies and it would possible to achieve organisational and operational
   synergies through a virtual integration of NISP into a resource efficiency delivery body, the analysis is set-out in this section. How this would work in
   practice is the subject of follow-up/ implementation analysis work to be carried out after the landscape rationalisation option is agreed upon.

Works-streams additionally address the following issues highlighted in the draft DLR report:
 Improving regional/ national coordination of business support integration with the BSSP process to ensure the right models, frameworks and funding are
  in place to ensure effective regional/ national delivery;
 The performance improvement work-stream includes an analysis of outcomes and data-sharing.                                                            17
                                                                                         Version v1.0

   Strategic landscape options & work-streams
   Streamlining the landscape: Options description *
Options: Details in         Description                                   Pros                                        Cons
“Annex B”

1. Rationalise the          1a) 1 single delivery body                    •Clearer landscape picture for customers.   •Reluctance from DBs can be expected.
Number, Remit and           One DB provides all the services in           •Clearer funding picture for Defra .        •No current DB can provide all services.
Scope of Delivery           all service areas and to all customer         •Clear remit and scope for DB               •Re-organisation may require resources and will impact outcomes.
Bodies (DBs)                segments.
                            1b) 2 delivery bodies split by          •Far fewer national DBs engaging with same        • Reluctance from DBs can be expected.
                            energy and resource efficiency          customer.                                         •A single DB does not currently have the capability to deliver end-
                                                                    •Clearer landscape picture for customers.         to-end services for either scope.
                            1st DB provides all energy related      •Differences in energy and resource efficiency    •Unlikely equivalent IS capability could be rapidly developed cost-
                            services to all customer segments.      specialism accounted for.                         effectively without the intellectual property of NISP.
                            2nd DB provides all resource
                                                                    •Clearer funding picture for Defra.               •Re-organisation may require resources and will impact outcomes.
                            efficiency (non-energy) services to all
                            customer segments.                      •Clear synergies between DBs.                     •Customers will still need to go to more than one DB.
                                                                    •Clear remit and scope for DBs.
                            1d - A) Streamline the landscape to •Fewer national DBs engaging with same                •Question of capability and appetite of DBs to provide end-to-end
                            3 delivery bodies                   customer.                                             services for their prescribed service and customer face-off roles.
                            CT, EST, WRAP with clearer remits   •Clearer landscape picture for customers,             •Unless remaining DBs acquire capability from the other DBs, they
                            and lead responsibilities.          especially in resource efficiency.                    will have to increase or train resources to deliver the additional
                                                                •Most difference in specialisms accounted for.        scope.
                                                                •Clearer funding picture for Defra.                   •Re-organisation requires resources and will impact outcomes.
                                                                •Clear remit and scope for DBs.                       •Customers will still need to go to more than one DB.

                            1d - B) Streamline the landscape to •Fewer national DBs engaging with same                •Question of capability and appetite of DBs to provide end-to-end
                            4 delivery bodies                   customer.                                             services for their prescribed service and customer face-off roles.
                            CT, EST, WRAP and NISP with         •Some clarity of the landscape picture for            •Unless remaining DBs acquire capability from the other DBs, they
                            clearer remits and lead             customers.                                            will have to increase/r train resources to deliver the additional
                            responsibilities.                   •Difference in specialisms accounted for.             scope.
                                                                •Clearer funding picture for Defra.                   •Re-organisation requires resources and will impact outcomes.
                                                                •Clear remit and scope for DBs.                       •Customers will still need to go to more than one DB.
                                                                                                                      •Customers will still need to go to more than one DB for resource
                                                                                                                      efficiency services/ advice.
2. Allocate lead DBs        2). Streamline landscape service       •Clear remit and scope for DBs.                    •Increase in DB resource overhead for them to better understand
for service provision       delivery by maintain existing          •Delivery simplified with ascribed leads.          each other in order for them to „sell‟ each others‟ services and
and customer                landscape but allocating lead delivery •Less overlaps in service delivery.                coordinate multi-DB service delivery.
segments                    bodies in the provision of services
                            and interaction with the customers.
  * N.B. These initial analysis included CT and EST and are therefore included for completeness
                                                                                                                                                                                     18
                                                                                  Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Streamlining the landscape: Options description                                              (NB, CT & EST included for completeness, but not analysed)
                           Energy Saving                  Carbon Trust                    Wrap                            Envirowise                 ex-Brew Bodies                    NISP
                               Trust                                                                                                                  (AS, CRR, CRWP &
                                                                                                                                                     Brew Centre for LAs)

   Option: 1 a
                        Energy, Waste, Water, Materials
1 National DB           Consumers
covering all service    SMEs
areas and customer      Business
segments                Local Government
                        Public Sector



   Option: 1 b
                        Energy:                                                   Waste, Water, Materials:
2 National DBs each     Consumers                                                Consumers
covering all customer   SMEs                                                     SMEs
segments & split by:    Business                                                 Business
                        Local Government                                         Local Government
* Energy                Public Sector                                            Public Sector
* Resource Efficiency

   Option: 1 c
2 National DBs each     Consumers:                   Business, Local Government, Public Sector:
                        Energy                      Energy
covering all service    Waste                       Waste
areas & split by:       Water                       Water
* Consumers             Materials                   Materials
* Organisations

 Option: 1 d (A)        Energy, Water, Materials:    Energy:                      Water,                 Waste:            IS: Energy, Materials,
3 (EST, CT, Wrap)    Consumers                      Business                    Materials:             Consumers        Waste, Water:
                     [SMEs?]                        [SMEs?]                     SMEs                  SMEs             SMEs
focus on different                                   Local Government            Business              Business         Business
customer sectors and                                 Public Sector               Local Gov             Local Gov        Local Government
services areas       Green                                                        Public Sector         Public Sector
                     Homes
                        Service:
                        Consumers

 Option: 1 d (B)        Energy, Water, Materials:    Energy:                     Water,                 Waste:                                                               IS: Energy, Materials,
4 DBs (EST, CT,         Consumers                   Business                   Materials:             Consumers                                                           Waste, Water:
                                                     [SMEs?]                    SMEs                  SMEs                                                                SMEs
Wrap & NISP) focus      [SMEs?]                                                                                                                                             Business
                                                     Local Government           Business              Business
on different customer                                Public Sector              Local Gov             Local Gov                                                           Local Government
sectors and services    Green                                                    Public Sector         Public Sector
                        Homes
areas                   Service:
                        Consumers

 Current Status         Energy:       Green          Energy:                     Waste:            Materials:    Energy:        Waste, Water        Energy, Waste, Water &   Industrial symbiosis (IS):
Multiple DBs            Consumers    Homes          SMEs                       Consumers        SMEs         SMEs          & Materials:        Materials:               Energy, Materials, Waste,
                        SMEs         Service:       Business                   SMEs                                          SME                SMEs                    Water:
                                                                                                   Business     Business
                        Business     Consumers     Local Government           Business                                      Business           Business                SMEs
                                                                                                                 Local
                        Local                       Public Sector              Local                          Government                         Local Government        Business
                        Government                                               Government                                                         Public sector           Local Government
                                                                                                                                                                                                          19
                                                                      Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-streams: Summary
3.2. Work-stream: Summary

Improve RDA and National DB Coordination & Relationships with business customers
The Landscape Review is being progressed in parallel with the cross Government Business Support Simplification Programme (BSSP), Transformational
Government (TG) and against the backdrop of the Sub National Review. The combined aim is to simplify and improve the access to business support such
as that provided by the national deliverers, subject to this review, as well as at regional level. Part of this entails devolving more of the delivery functions to
regional and local level such as enhancing the role of Business Link as the main route for business to access such support. BSSP and TG both require a
transfer of business facing material from national delivery bodies to Business Link. This work-stream is exploring how best to achieve these various
requirements with minimum disruption to delivery and use by business.

Optimise communication functions across the landscape
We will build a stronger model of communications management into the delivery body landscape, post Review. Instead of delivery bodies formulating and
delivering communications programmes independent of Defra, we will write our central strategic communications requirements into the sponsorship
arrangements. This means that the public or business-facing communications programme of any given delivery body will be subjected to scrutiny and
challenge by communication specialists in Government, working alongside sponsors. Delivery bodies will be required to seek approval for their plans, which
will ensure a more integrated and coordinated communications programme from Government and the delivery landscape combined. It will also ensure wider
consolidation behind Government brands, particularly „Act On CO2‟. We recommend these communications principles as sound regardless of the structure of
the wider review, and that we should adopt them immediately to coincide with current business planning for 2009.

Increase sponsorship capacity to enable closer working with Policy
The aim is to ensure that the organisational arrangements for sponsorship of the delivery bodies are robust and effective in supporting the achievement of
the Department(s)‟ target outcomes. Sponsorship arrangements are a key element of the overall governance arrangements that exist between the
Department(s) and the delivery bodies; operating as the fulcrum between policy setting and the delivery of target policy outcomes. This work-stream is
examining the extent to which current sponsorship arrangements are coherent, efficient and effective in supporting the tasking and oversight of the delivery
bodies in achieving target outcomes; and will identify recommended sponsorship arrangements consistent with both the preferred option for rationalisation of
the landscape and with developing good practice .

Performance management improvement
The aim is to ensure a robust framework exists for ensuring that the delivery bodies are making appropriate and measurable contribution towards the
achievement of Departmental targets and agreed outcomes. Sound performance management framework and processes support a realistic assessment of
progress towards target outcomes and also support agility in the renewal of policy focus and planning of activities to fine-tune the achievement of target
outcomes. An important part of this is ensuring co-ordination between the business planning processes within the Department and in the delivery bodies;
through which annual work programs are identified and agreed and commitment to levels of performance based on the funding available is secured



                                                                                                                                                                      20
                                                                     Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-streams: Summary
Performance management improvement: Outcomes measurement approach
The outcomes measurement work-stream has been set up to establish standard methodologies for assessing the real-world outcomes of delivery body
activities, in response to acknowledged differences in the way in which each delivery body has so far reported outcomes to Defra. A short research contract
has been awarded which will identify suitable standards and methodologies for carrying out assessments of outcomes. These proposals were tested at a
workshop for stakeholders in January 2009. At the same time Defra will consider options for managing the assessments, with a view to reducing the overall
costs of the assessments whilst looking to improve their consistency, quality, relevance and independence.

Performance management improvement: Data sharing
This work-stream has been set up to work with delivery bodies to take forward improvements to evidence sharing and integration, in response to the widely
held view that we need to break down knowledge barriers between the organisations and ensure that the extensive body of specialist research, data and
customer insight held by delivery bodies is shared to support our delivery objectives. The initial review stage of this work is nearing completion and has
identified possible initiatives to improve information sharing in future. These options will be tested and developed further in collaboration with delivery bodies
but are likely to cover early sharing of research plans, better research dissemination, common statements on confidentiality agreements with businesses,
and scope for sharing commercial and proprietary data assets.

Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
Focus is on how the continuum of policy setting and direction though to delivery and back-again, and the achievement of target outcomes is best
coordinated, collaborated and aligned. The mechanisms by which policy teams are engaged with the delivery bodies learn from the experience on the
ground of the delivery bodies in renewing policy and influencing the activities of the delivery bodies in achieving target outcomes. Along with determining
how policy can best fund and take accountability of the subsequent delivery of the funded activities by delivery bodies, these are an essential element of
ensuring that the public money committed by the Department(s) is effectively targeted on optimising target outcomes; and that policy and delivery are
coordinated, collaborated and aligned in order to provide an, agile and well informed response to changing dynamics in the policy landscape. This work-
stream will examine the mechanisms through which greater alignment can be achieved in order to ensure outcome orientated delivery.




                                                                                                                                                                 21
                                                                   Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: National / regional integration
3.3. Work-stream: Improve RDA and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers

Description
This work-stream is about linking the landscape review with the requirements of the cross Government Business Support Simplification Programme (BSSP)
which is aimed at streamlining business support generally in which Business Link, via information, diagnostic and brokerage services, is to be the main route
for business users to access such support. It also involves taking account of the requirements of Transformational Government (TG) to migrate business
facing material from the various different Government websites to businesslink.gov. All of this being taken forward against the backdrop of the Sub National
Review and aim of devolving more of the delivery functions to regional and local level.

Approach
1. To explore with RDAs how best to integrate national and regional support to business building on the RDAs experience of piloting resource efficiency
   advice to business during 2007- 08 (reported October 2008);
2. To meet BSSP requirements by identifying and transferring to Business Links material developed and used by national delivery bodies that most closely
   provide business with information diagnostics and brokerage to business;
3. To link the TG requirement to migrate business facing web-based material from different Government websites to the national Business Link web
   (businesslink.gov) under 1) and 2).

Outputs
 Agreement on the role for Business Links in providing access to national and local business support;
 Agreement on the interface between regional and national delivery of business support on resource efficiency;
 Agreement of the migration of IDB to Business Link;
 Agreement on the branding and marketing arrangements for nationally delivered business support.

RDAs and their regional resource efficiency solution providers own and manage local customers on a case management basis; they bring in and coordinate
national DBs as and when they are required by customers or the RDAs. RDAs will have a framework agreement with national DBs (and other DBs) from
which they will choose a suitable candidate to deliver services.
National DBs no longer target regional customers but work with the RDAs to support these customers, build services and initiatives, markets etc that the
customers would benefit from. The RDAs coordinate work by the national DBs to provide customers with a seamless and coherent service covering all of
their needs from waste, water, materials and energy. All national customers will continue to be served as they currently are.

National DBs will work with RDAs to give them an understanding of their services and when to refer these to customers as well as when they should be
brought in. National DBs will continue their nationally based work of informing Government policy where this policy impact local customers. This solution can
be carried within 12-24 months.



                                                                                                                                                            22
                                                                   Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: National / regional integration
Pros
 Provides a customer centric service with a single „face-off‟ to customers with coordinated technical and specialists service delivery tuned to when the
   customer needs it.
 Splits regional and national service delivery resulting in a clearer landscape of who does what: streamlines the landscape through clearer remits and
   responsibilities.
 A clearer picture of the regional landscape for customers – fewer overlapping and competing messages.
 National DBs will be freed from having to deal directly with a large customer segment, freeing up resources to focus on their key national customer
   segments.
 Allows RDAs to better coordinate national DBs‟ input in regional service delivery; allows them to choose national or local DBs and opens the market to
   more service providers.
 Efficiency savings from more delineated service provision with fewer overlaps and redundancy.
 Little advance in sponsorship/ policy partnering, tracking performance, DB governance expected.

Cons
 Formalising coordination between RDAs and national DBs should result in DB support but this could be moderated by less control of local customer
  contacts.
 RDAs training burden (functions/roles of national DBs and when to refer them and when to bring national DBs in to see customers)
 National DBs may have less contact control with local customers.
 RDAs may require additional resources to undertake this coordination role.
 Potential compatibility issues between RDAs and national DBs on service type provision
 These cons result in a potentially low cost of adjustment.



The following two diagrams illustrate the linkages between the delivery bodies, while that on page 20 which represents work in progress maps the customer
journey mostly routing through Business Link and via information diagnostic and brokerage (IDB) triggering referrals to the most appropriate public or private
sector provider of support services.




                                                                                                                                                             23
                                                             Version v1.0

 Strategic landscape options & work-streams*
 Work-stream: National / regional integration: Linkages between the delivery bodies

                                                                                         Consumers



                                                                             National
                                                                            Businesses


                                                                              Central
                  Wrap
                                                                            Government

                                                                              Local
                                                                            Government

             Envirowise                                                        Public
                                                                               Sector




            Brew Bodies
                                                                   Regional                 SMEs
                                                                 Development
                                                                  Agencies

                                                             Regional DBs Case            Local Large
                 NISP                                        Manage all delivery to
                                                                                          Businesses
                                                             these customer segments



                  Direct service provision
                  Service provision through intermediaries




* N.B. This perspective predates the creation of DECC                                                   24
                                                                       Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: National / regional integration: Customer journey map

      Business                      Engagement                         Initial Contact                   Sub-national                           National
       Users                                                                                                Support                             Support
                                                                                 Regional                    One-to-One                        One-to-Many
                                                                                                             One-to-Many                        Evidence
                                                                                 Business
       Large                                                                     Networks                                                       Ex-Brew
                                               Cold                                                                                              Bodies
                                                                                                              Regional
                                              Calling                             RDA
                                                                                 setting                       Envision
                                                                                Priorities                     ENWORKS
                                                                                & targets                                                         NISP
                                             Marketing                                                          EMDA
                                                                                                                      REY

                                                                            On demand                           ...others?
      Medium
                                                                                             I                                                 Envirowise
                                                                                Business     D
                                                                                  Link       B

                                             W/shops                                                           Local
                                                                                Proactive
                                                                                                           Climate                               WRAP
                                                                                                           Change Agency

       Small                                                                                                    ?
                                                                                        LAs                             ?
                                                                                                                 ?
                                              Events                                                                                            NetRegs
                                                                                EA


                                                                                                                    Private Sector Support providers
    RDA influences, priorities and targets
    Referrals from EA, LAs, delivery bodies to Business Link
    Proactive direct contact by delivery bodies and Business Link to business
    Reactive direct contact by business to delivery bodies; Business Link and intermediaries and subsequent brokerage to sub-national and national delivery bodies
                                                                                                                                                                     25
                                                                  Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Communication landscape streamlining
3.4. Work-stream: Optimise communication functions across the landscape

Current Position
 Fragmented communications initiatives by all delivery bodies, with limited overarching input/management from Government sponsors or communications.
 Some use of the „ACT on CO2‟ vehicle within DB communications, but current focus is on own brands & reputations, limited strategic investment in
  linking to brand,limited incentive to take this forward proactively.
 Quarterly Landscape Panel marketing meetings involving EST, CT, WRAP, Encams, Envirowise, Environment Agency & Natural England (not NISP or
  ex-Brew bodies). Currently runs as an update on communications activity, but not specifically on „ACT on CO2„ and not a formal report on how they are
  investing Defra funds in communications.
 Informal liaison with delivery body sponsors within policy, no overarching joined up business planning across policy & communications.
 Little reporting from DBs on communications spend, activity or evaluation.

Top-line Recommendations
 Joining up sponsorship across policy & communications to provide a consistent brief to delivery bodies.
 Specific resource within CD to maintain routine engagement with delivery bodies to facilitate links/ updates with DB activities and Defra strategic
  direction, national communications priorities and advise on evaluation criteria.
 To incorporate a more formal requirement for DBs to identify strategies for using major investment in Government brands as vehicles to get their key
  messages out to the public.
 Delivery Bodies to present communications, plans consistent with Departmental strategy & priority communications drives in a standard template.
 Proposals to include costs and evaluation criteria on communications plans to joined-up policy & communications sponsorship team.
 Discussion required internally on how budget is broken down between programme budget & communications.

Impact on Delivery Bodies
 Clearer direction from Departments, consistent objectives.
 Facilitates methods of reporting, to highlight key successes & illustrate areas where they have added value.
 Rationalises messages & objectives for DBs, clarity on where their responsibilities begin and end in relation to communications.
 More opportunity to use high-profile campaign to get messages directly out to consumers.
 Less flexibility to manage budgets with only a top line plan signed off by Department.
 More work required to fit into new programme & report back in manner required by new sponsorship structure.
 More accountable for the work carried out communicating to the public/ externally.




                                                                                                                                                         26
                                                                 Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Communication landscape streamlining
Processes, Governance & Frequency
 Quarterly Landscape Marketing Panel:
       o chaired by Directors of Communications for Defra.
       o attended by communications leads in delivery bodies.
       o purpose – a forum for updating on communications activity by HM Government and by delivery bodies; identification of opportunities to cross-
           reference.

 Cross-Defra sponsorship teams
       o 6 weekly meetings to include Delivery Body; CD Landscape Manager; Head of Campaigns & Marketing and other CD reps as appropriate; Defra
           sponsor, lead policy official
       o purpose – regular engagement between individual delivery bodies and Defra to reinforce coordination of comms activity. DB‟s to present
           communications recommendations for approval; Defra to respond based on fit with policy and communication priorities.

 Routine contact with CD landscape manager, as appropriate.

What is required to make this work?
 Ministerial support.
 Clarity and consistency from Policy and Communications Directorates on our requirements.
 Support from budget holders and Departmental sponsors.
 Internal agreement on role definitions for Policy; Communications Directorate; Delivery Body Sponsors.

Timings
 Key milestones & implementation
       o Nov 08 - Jan 09: CD to identify sponsors and work with them on business plans currently being developed.
       o Nov 08 - March 09: Informal implementation of recommended system with proviso it will become formal from March 09 onwards.
      o March 09: Formal implementation of communications element of landscape review.
 To note:
       o We recommend these communications principles as sound regardless of structure of wider review.
       o This process will work most effectively if embarked upon in the spirit of shared endeavour and co-operation.
                                                                                                                                                        27
                                                                   Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Policy/ sponsorship capacity and coordination
3.5. Work-stream: Increase sponsorship capacity to enable closer working with Policy

Description
This work-stream focuses on the sponsorship arrangements that exist between Defra and the delivery bodies. At present separate sponsorship teams exist
for each of the delivery bodies except for WRAP and Envirowise where there is some commonality of staffing.

Sponsorship arrangements are a key element of the overall governance arrangements that exist between the Department(s) and the delivery bodies;
operating as the fulcrum between policy setting and the delivery of target policy outcomes. This work-stream is examining the extent to which current
sponsorship arrangements are coherent, efficient and effective in supporting the tasking and oversight of the delivery bodies in achieving target outcomes;
and will identify recommended sponsorship arrangements consistent with the preferred option for rationalisation of the landscape.

The creation of a single sponsorship team has been identified as the preferred solution for increasing capacity. The principal benefits of a single sponsorship
team remain the benchmark against which the options for future arrangements will be assessed.

This work-stream is closely related to both the work-stream on performance management improvement and the work-stream on mechanisms to align policy
and delivery. This is because effective, dynamic mechanisms for providing direction, tasking resources and ensuring performance are vital to the continuing,
successful alignment of delivery capabilities with target policy outcomes.

Approach
The approach to this work-stream has taken into account DLR findings, and additionally framed within the context of external reviews of how Defra operates
(e.g. the Capability Review and an ongoing NAO review of the BREW Programme) and the response Defra has made to such reviews in developing good
practice within the Department. Consequently this work-stream has included investigation of good practice sponsorship models currently operating in Defra,
together with consultation with all of the sponsorship teams of the delivery bodies. Further more, the analysis has taken into account feedback from delivery
bodies on the policy/ sponsorship options presented in the draft DLR report, see section 6.

The approach to completing this work-stream is in the following steps:
 Consultation with current sponsorship teams - examining roles, relationships, accountabilities, resourcing and capabilities;
 Review and analysis of current sponsorship structures – examining organisational landscape, overall resourcing and consistency of practice;
 Review of good practice – examining examples of good practice sponsorship within Defra together with guidance provided on good practice;
 Develop of work-stream options for future sponsorship structures - with a focus on high level processes, resourcing, capabilities and engagement;
 Testing of options – though consultation and workshops with current sponsorship teams and policy leads;
 Consultation and agreement on the preferred solution;
 Detailing of the recommended sponsorship structures together with an action plan for transition and implementation.



                                                                                                                                                              28
                                                                     Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Policy/ sponsorship capacity and coordination
Progress and Anticipated Timeline
To date consultation with the sponsorship teams for the delivery bodies has been undertaken, together with consultation with those involved in good practice
examples of sponsorship elsewhere within Defra.

Work is ongoing in finalising the analysis and developing the options for future sponsorship structures.

Final report and identification of the action plan for transition and implementation completed in January 2009, with implementation of the preferred solution
ongoing over the time-frame Feb – April 2009.

Outputs
The planned outputs form this work-stream includes an outline action plan for transition and implementation.

Assumptions and caveats
Given the recommendation at the interim stage of the DLR that the objectives in relation to capacity building are best served by the creation of a single
sponsorship team for the delivery bodies, the principle of the creation of a single sponsorship team has been retained. Consequently the options explored as
part of the work-stream will focus on levels of resourcing, organisation, role, accountabilities and the specific competencies that are required either within the
team(s) or easily accessible to the team(s).

Potential benefits
The potential benefits from a single sponsorship team identified at the interim stage of the DLR were:
 Synergies of a single team model resulting in greater efficiency;
 Better strategic oversight across the delivery landscape;
 Coherent, consistent and even-handed approach to interaction with the delivery bodies;
 A pooling of expanded skills sets and the ability to ensure specific capabilities are incorporated into the team.

The identification and testing of options is designed to ensure that these and other potential benefits are optimised whilst potential disadvantages of a single
team model are mitigated.




                                                                                                                                                                 29
                                                                   Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Performance management improvement
3.6. Work-stream: Performance management improvement
3.6.1 Performance management

Description
This work-stream focuses on how the performance of the delivery bodies is managed and how it can be improved. At present the arrangements for
performance management are specific to each delivery body and are administered by the sponsorship team responsible for that delivery body.

Performance management is an essential element of the process by which Defra funds bodies to support the achievement of Defra‟s target outcomes. The
framework and processes by which performance measures associated with policy objectives and target outcomes are identified, the information/ data that is
collected to demonstrate success against agreed performance measures, the dialogue with delivery bodies on performance and the reporting back to policy
owners on achievements are all part of a virtuous circle that allows for a realistic assessment of progress towards target outcomes and also supports agility
in the renewal of policy focus and planning of activities to fine-tune the achievement of target outcomes.

An important part of this is ensuring co-ordination between the business planning processes within Defra and in the delivery bodies through which annual
work programmes are identified and agreed together with commitment to levels of performance based on the funding available.

This work-stream is closely related to both the work-stream on increasing sponsorship capacity and the work-stream on mechanisms to align policy and
delivery as well as the work-stream on outcomes. This is because there should be a “golden thread” running through policy setting, identification of target
outcomes, performance management arrangements and the measurement and monitoring of outcomes, with the sponsorship team(s) playing a key role in
holding delivery bodies to account for outcomes from publicly funded programmes of work.

Approach
The approach to this work-stream has taken into account DLR findings, and additionally framed within the context of external review of how Defra operates
(e.g. the Capability Review and the ongoing NAO review of the BREW Programme) and the response Defra has made to such reviews in developing good
practice within the Department. Further more, the analysis has taken into account feedback from delivery bodies on the performance improvement options
presented in the draft DLR report, see section 6.

The approach to completing this work-stream is in the following steps:
 Consultation with current sponsorship teams - examining processes for performance management and how performance is monitored;
 Examination of Defra business planning processes – including any guidance provided to sponsorship teams to support the process;
 Dialogue with the outcomes and information sharing work-streams of the DLR in order to ensure completeness and coherence of approach;
 Review of performance information provided by the delivery bodies in respect of format, content and frequency;
 Analysis of business planning and performance management processes – cycle, coherence, clarity;
 Development of work-stream options for improved processes;
 Consultation on process options with stakeholders;
 Detailing of the recommended options for improving performance management together with an action plan for transition and implementation.
                                                                                                                                                              30
                                                                    Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Performance management improvement
Progress and Anticipated Timeline
To date the steps up to and including the review of performance information have been completed.

Work is ongoing in finalising the analysis and developing the options for improving performance management.

Final report and identification of the action plan for transition and implementation completed in January 2009, with implementation of the preferred solution
ongoing over the time-frame Feb – April 2009.

Outputs
The planned outputs form this work-stream are:
 An interim discussion paper on options for improving performance management (November 2008); and
 A final report including outline action plan for transition and implementation (January 2008).

Assumptions and caveats
Improvement in performance management has been identified as a core requirement whatever options are pursued in relation to the streamlining of the
delivery landscape.

Potential benefits
The potential benefit from improving performance management identified at the interim stage of the DLR were:
 A common, standard and agreed business planning framework driving better planning, performance measurement and management of delivery body
  progress against relevant performance measures, including target outcomes that are the focus of the outcomes work-stream.

The identification of and consultation on options for improving performance management is designed to ensure that the benefits that come with a common
process are achieved in a way that is not onerous to the delivery bodies and are both efficient and effective from the Defra perspective.




                                                                                                                                                                31
                                                                  Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Performance management improvement: Outcomes
3.6 Work-stream: Performance management improvement
3.6.2. Outcomes measurement approach

Description
The review noted good progress in standardising the metrics reported by the Delivery Bodies to Defra, but identified the need for more consistent
methodologies to be adopted when assessing outcomes. Defra has now commissioned independent research to establish the standards to be adopted and
will also conduct a review of the arrangements for ensuring that the standards are appropriately applied.

The outcome of the research will be a specification of agreed, common standards for reporting outcome assessments, which can be related directly to
Government targets and objectives. At the same time the review will consider alternative arrangements for managing the assessments.

At present each delivery body commissions its own research for the assessment of outcomes, some of which is carried out in-house but audited by third
parties. It should be possible to establish more streamlined arrangements, possibly by requiring one single contractor to assess outcomes across the whole
delivery landscape. If such an arrangement were adopted it should lead both to an improvement in the quality, consistency, relevance and independence of
the information reported to the Government, and also to a reduction in the overall costs of carrying out the assessments. However, the governance
arrangements will need to fit in with any wider reorganisation of the sponsorship and management of the delivery bodies.

Progress and Anticipated Timeline
 The research contract started at the beginning of November 2008, a literature review has been initiated but interviews with stakeholders have yet to be
   conducted.
 The research includes a workshop for stakeholders, to take place in the second week of January 2009.
 A final report is due from the contractors by the end of the third week in January.
 We therefore expect to have the specification of the standards accepted by stakeholders and documented and established before the end of the financial
   year, so that, if new governance arrangements were adopted at the same time, it would be possible for outcomes for 2009/10 to be reported on the new
   basis.




                                                                                                                                                             32
                                                                    Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Performance management improvement: Data sharing
3.6 Work-stream: Performance management improvement
3.6.3 Data sharing

Description
The Review highlighted the extensive body of specialist research, data and customer insight that has been developed by delivery bodies. There is a widely
held view that we need to break down knowledge barriers between the organisations and ensure that this evidence base is shared to support our delivery
objectives. This project has been set up to work with delivery bodies to take forward improvements to evidence sharing and integration. The objectives
are to identify the information assets which are owned, commissioned or used by delivery bodies, to review approaches to information and evidence
management, to identify and prioritise opportunities to improve data consistency or coherence and to make more cost-effective use of robust evidence
across the landscape, and to catalyse the introduction of new ways of working.

Approach
 Review current practice (seek information from delivery bodies and website review): Sept - Nov 2008;
 Develop work-stream options in collaboration with delivery bodies (seek further input to refine findings and evaluate options): Nov - Dec 2008;
 Recommend ways forward (final report of evidenced recommendations including management implications): January 2009.

Outputs
 Final report evaluating work-stream options and making recommendations on new information sharing initiatives;
 Agreements with individual delivery bodies for collaboration on particular new initiatives;
 New initiatives arising from this work could be led by individual delivery bodies or by the core sponsorship team and are likely to require a collaborative
  approach.

Benefits and Dis-benefits
 The overall benefit of the project will be to identify scope for better sharing of data, leading to more consistency in underlying evidence and better value
  from publicly funded research work. Costs and benefits of the individual options identified will be analysed in more detail as part of the project.

Progress
Information has been gathered from 4 of the 5 large delivery bodies and initial issues and options have been identified. These will be further refined using the
outstanding inputs from delivery bodies, other relevant bodies and Defra sponsor teams before being analysed at a workshop and explored further to the
stage of securing commitments from organisations on those initiatives that they are prepared to take a key role in.

The following slide sets out the early signals on the potential ways forward.




                                                                                                                                                                 33
                                                        Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Performance management improvement: Data sharing
Early signals on potential ways forward

         Options                          Scope for new initiatives

         1. Research coordination         Formalise mechanism for sharing research forward plans and making links at early stage in
                                          research process through regular meetings.

         2. Research dissemination        Development of a statement of shared principles on research dissemination, which could
                                          cover publication of reports as standard practice, good website provision, accessible report
                                          formats, potential use of a shared website.

         3. Confidentiality commitments   Development of a common confidentiality commitment which protects confidentiality but
                                          allows data to be shared across Government organisations.


         4. Events / calendar sharing     Further efforts to coordinate calendars at regional and national level, sharing information on
                                          leads, dates, audiences, topics, venues. Identifying shared messages and links with
                                          communications and marketing.

         5. Commercial data sources       Delivery bodies sourcing commercial data could consider at contract stage whether they
                                          may want to share any such data with other Government bodies and consider whether
                                          there is value in coordinating or varying contracts to allow this.


         6. Proprietary data              A further detailed exercise to collect information on proprietary data held to expose whether
                                          there is data that would be of use to others. To be useful, this would need to cover aspects
                                          such as exact format, source and age of data.

         7. Data demands on business      Investigate feasibility, demand, risks, benefits and costs etc of a shared architecture for
                                          collecting and storing data that is commonly requested from businesses.




                                                                                                                                           34
                                                                  Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
3.7. Work-stream: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration

Description
This work-stream focuses on how the continuum of policy setting and direction though to delivery and back-again, and the achievement of target outcomes is
best coordinated, collaborated and aligned. The mechanisms by which policy teams are engaged with the delivery bodies learn from the experience on the
ground of the delivery bodies in renewing policy and influencing the activities of the delivery bodies in achieving target outcomes. Along with determining
how policy can best fund and take accountability of the subsequent delivery of the funded activities by delivery bodies, these are an essential element of
ensuring that the public money committed by Departments is effectively targeted on optimising target outcomes; and that policy and delivery are aligned in
order to provide an agile and well informed response to changing dynamics in the policy landscape.

This work-stream is closely related to both the work-stream on increasing sponsorship capacity and the work-stream on improving performance
management as well as the work-stream on outcomes. This is because there should be a “golden thread” running through policy setting, identification of
target outcomes, performance management arrangements and the measurement and monitoring of outcomes, with policy teams fully engaged with delivery
bodies through sponsorship arrangements in driving the achievement of target outcomes.

Approach
The approach to this work-stream has been framed within the context of external review of how Defra operates (e.g. the Capability Review and the ongoing
NAO review of the former BREW Programme) and the response Defra has made to such review in developing good practice within the Department. Further
more, the analysis has taken into account feedback from delivery bodies on the performance improvement options presented in the draft DLR report, see
section 6.

The approach to completing this work-stream is in the following steps:
 Consultation with current sponsorship teams - examining how policy teams are currently engaged;
 Dialogue with the outcomes and information sharing work-streams of the DLR in order to ensure completeness and coherence of approach;
 Examination of how policy programme budgets are currently allocated and the involvement, ownership and accountability of policy owners/ teams in this
  process;
 Examination of how policy programme budgets are currently maintained and used by policy owners/ teams;
 Examination of how allocating policy programme budgets to policy owners/ teams could facilitate and inform better linkage between policy and delivery
  bodies, how this could work efficiently in practice, how the overall budget owner (Defra SROs) would ensure accountability, delivery bodies are not
  forgotten by policy owners/ teams, consistency and longevity of funding streams, and value for money;
 Consultation on good practice elsewhere in Defra in engaging policy teams and providing policy steer to the work of delivery bodies;
 Development of work-stream options for mechanisms to improve coordination, collaboration and alignment of policy and delivery;
 Consultation on options for mechanism for improving coordination, collaboration and alignment of policy and delivery with stakeholders;
 Detailing of the recommended option for improving coordination, collaboration and alignment together with an action plan for transition and
  implementation.

                                                                                                                                                          35
                                                                    Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
Progress and Anticipated Timeline
To date the steps up to and including consultation on good practice elsewhere in Defra has been completed. Work is ongoing in finalising the analysis and
developing the options for improving coordination, collaboration and alignment between policy and delivery.

Final report and identification of the action plan for transition and implementation completed in January 2009, with implementation of the preferred solution
ongoing over the time-frame Feb – April 2009.

Outputs
The planned outputs form this work-stream are:
 An interim discussion paper on work-stream options for improving coordination, collaboration and alignment of policy and delivery (November 2008); and
 A final report including outline action plan for transition and implementation (January 2008).

Assumptions and caveats
Improvement in mechanisms for coordination, collaboration and alignment of policy and delivery has been identified as a core requirement whatever options
are pursued in relation to the streamlining of the delivery landscape; as well as engaging policy teams and delivery bodies through the policy cycle.

Potential benefits
The potential benefits from improving mechanisms for coordination, collaboration and alignment of policy and delivery were identified at the interim stage of
the DLR as:
 A better service focus within delivery bodies together with clarity on remit/ role in relation to achievement of target outcomes and input to policy;
 Better understanding within policy teams on the delivery bodies that impact on their policy areas leading to better coordination of activities;
 Benefit/ outcome orientated delivery – linking delivery body outcomes with policy outcomes and Defra outcomes without leakage;
 Enables policy to decide on the direction of work, details of service provision as well as value for money and therefore which DB could provide the best
   service;
 Policy coordinates relevant [to them] service delivery across the landscape in line with their objectives and targets resulting in a more coherent and
   refined landscape.

The identification of and consultation on options for mechanisms to improve coordination, collaboration and alignment of policy and delivery is designed to
ensure that these benefits are achieved whilst preserving innovation within the delivery bodies; ensuring that policy teams provide steer whilst incorporating
the knowledge of the delivery bodies through the policy cycle so that policy remains agile in progressing towards target outcomes.




                                                                                                                                                                 36
                                                                   Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Work-stream: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
Strategic steer and horizon scanning mechanism interim proposal
A potential horizon scanning & strategic steer mechanism could follow the current Environment Agency one:

Defra provide the delivery bodies with a strategic steer via sponsor(s):
        o The DGs meets Defra directors in the landscape to discuss policy: together provide a strategic steer for their areas, priorities etc.
        o Sponsor(s) pulls together Defra cross-cutting themes e.g. regional issues, the Defra PSA requirements etc
         o Defra sponsor(s) provide this strategic steer to the delivery body(ies).
The delivery body(ies) horizon scanning team(s)/ function(s) use the Defra strategic steer and overlays a relevant and informed view on what the future
looks like: 5/10/20 year visions, strategies and a 3 year plan:
        o The delivery body(ies) inform their own relevant business units who develop the detailed view and plans.
The delivery body(ies) provide each Defra policy division the detailed plans for them to see, comment and critique: challenges the “what”, the ”how” and
the “when”:
         o Defra policy and the delivery body(ies) negotiate any changes at the detailed plan level.
The delivery body(ies) develop a corporate plan and feed back to Defra DGs and directors via the sponsor(s).
The DGs meets Defra directors to discuss the delivery body(ies) corporate plan and decide on any changes required – any changes are iterated with the
delivery bodies.
New in-year projects need Defra approval if spend is above an agreed and set limit.




                                                                                                                                                            37
                                                                    Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Strategic options: High level analysis
3.8 Strategic options: high level cost benefit analysis

3.8.1 Approach
The approach builds on the options analysis and asks each main delivery body to provide costs-benefits for each of the landscape rationalisation options
being considered. All analysis use the Defra funded 2008/2009 budgets as a base to estimate the costs and benefits for each landscape rationalisation
option.

Wrap have provided some high level data of basic merger costs (initial adjustment costs) and benefits (reduction in on-going operating costs) for some of the
options being considered. The DLR team reviewed these estimates and built on them by: identifying cost-benefit impacts of possible additional opportunities
and risks; and adding a further degree of granularity and assumptions based on an understanding of the cost structure of the organisations, discussions with
delivery bodies and experience of similar mergers:

 Single resource efficiency body: Consolidation was discussed with Wrap and NISP and the cost benefit analysis has been prepared on the basis of Wrap
  being the lead resource efficiency (i.e. non-energy) delivery body and assuming responsibility for the other resource efficiency delivery bodies under
  option 1B and option 1d (A). For Option 1d(B) Wrap is the lead resource efficiency delivery body working closely together with NISP that leads IS.

 Single energy efficiency body: Following the creation of DECC which has a new delivery landscape, and in view of a number of ongoing policy
  consultations which may have delivery implications, a single delivery body including CT and EST is not currently being considered as an outcome of the
  Defra review.

Programme rationalisation benefits
Identified benefits are limited to obvious areas of synergies and benefits-of-scale in largely back-office functions, marketing, PR, admin, some IT etc. The
DLR team acknowledge that most of the benefits resultant from the landscape rationalisation options will be delivered from synergies obtained from
rationalising and merging programmes of work amongst the delivery bodies: these benefits are not included in this report but should be considered to be
significant. Acknowledgement of approximate costs of obtaining these benefits have been included in the analysis.




                                                                                                                                                               38
                                                                      Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Strategic options: High level analysis
3.8.2 Defra landscapes
Defra Landscape:
The current 2008/09 Defra landscape funding is approximately £60m and comprises funding for programmes operating through WRAP, NISP, Envirowise,
CRR, CRWP, AS and the Brew Centre for Local Authorities. Of that funding:
 72% is provided to WRAP;
 12% to Envirowise;
 6% to NISP; and
 1% or less provided to the ex-BREW pilots and programmes.


The main roles of the different organisations in landscape can broadly be described as encompassing the following:
 Changing behaviour through a mix of information campaigns, incentives and assistance to organisations and individuals in their generation of greenhouse
  gases and their consumption of resources. The behaviour change is designed to take target audiences on a journey through awareness of the issues,
  interest in assisting in their resolution and ultimately taking action to improve their role in the overall situation;
 Providing accreditation of the standard of efficiency of products available in the market that have an impact on the consumption of resources;
 Encouraging and facilitating the introduction of standards (such as building regulations) that promote resource efficient approaches;
 Encouraging replacement of equipment with higher resource consumption standards through the provision of assisted funding;
 Nurturing the development and commercialisation of new technological solutions to resource efficiency and greenhouse gas generation.

As such the organisation necessary to support this, whilst not complex of itself, does need to carry a variety of technical skills that are functionally specific. In
addition there is a clear segmentation in the overall audience by citizens, organisations large and small and public sector bodies both as consumers of
resources in their own right and as advisers/funders of other users.




                                                                                                                                                                   39
                                                                    Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Strategic options: High level analysis
Therefore, in approaching organisation design in for each option we have adopted the following principles:
 Management: Within each option we are proposing a Chief Executive for each major business unit derived from existing organisations.
 Operations and Delivery: We have largely retained the existing organisations in the short-term pending further, more detailed discussions with the bodies
  about combining roles. The one exception to this is in the area of contact centre support. All organisations will have a degree of direct customer contact
  ranging from larger bodies with a network of regional contact centres to the smaller bodies where telephone contact is far less structured. In this case we
  have taken a view (that has to be confirmed as part of the detailed work) that a multi-channel, multi-tier approach to customer contact, with the integrated
  organisations, could offer benefit. The channels include telephone, email, web and face-to-face contact and the tiers would probably escalate through
  three levels with the first level providing generic support and basic information capture into the CRM system and would in turn be supported by a
  knowledge base. Subsequent layers would provide increasing specialisation with knowledge vested in the individual.
 Administration: This can cover a multitude of functions and capabilities so we have broadly left this as is
 Human Resources: Benchmarking suggests the average HR staff: Staff supported ratio is between 1:80 an 1:100. Large organisations, adopting a shared
  services approach to HR achieve significantly more than this. The size of the organisation(s) preclude assuming a very high ratio however, assuming the
  implementation of a modern HR system and an organisation model of a central HR organisation with limited local presence (that is provided partly
  through shared responsibilities) should mean that a ratio of 1:120/1:150 is achievable.
 Finance and Procurement: This area is more complex than HR, for example and the required organisation is a function of the type of business and how
  this impacts on the finance area. For the merged organisations we have assumed the adoption of a common system for each of the integrated models.
  The various businesses on the landscape are not complex ones. Costs are primarily staff, facilities, IT, marketing and telecommunications. Revenues are
  primarily derived from grants. These factors should help to a simple shared services model.
 Information and Communication Technology: In the medium to long term there ought to be the opportunity to drive down cost in these areas by adopting
  a common architecture and migrating to common platforms. In the short term the approach should be to analyse the existing technology estate across
  each if the integration options and then optimise the migration approach in accordance with end-of-life considerations. At the same time there would be a
  programme to identify the strategy for those areas where the systems will have a part to play in driving down costs (CRM, Finance and HR) so that these
  can be implemented in the near future.




                                                                                                                                                             40
                                                                   Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Strategic options: High level analysis
3.8.3 Option 1D analysis
The current landscape of the delivery bodies comprises the following organisations:
                           Organisation                    Location                                        Focus
                   WRAP                             Banbury                     Creating markets for re-cycled resources
                   NISP                             Birmingham                  Cross-industry resource efficiency
                   Envirowise                       Didcot                      Resource efficiency
                   Centre for Remanufacturing       Aylesbury                   Product reuse/remanufacturing and associated product
                   & Reuse                                                      service systems
                   Construction Resources &         Didcot                      Waste recycling
                   Waste Platform
                   Action Sustainability            London (Camden)             Sustainable use of resources through better procurement
                   BREW Centre for Local            Oxford                      Support for LA‟s in their efforts to improve business use of
                   Authorities                                                  resources and management of waste




Given this landscape, there are two basic approaches for achieving this option:
 The first, most obvious and carrying both the highest cost and the highest risk is to establish a single unitary organisation that amalgamates the delivery
   responsibilities of all of the pre-existing organisations and locates them in a single location;
 The second approach is to integrate them on a virtual basis and then to allow a natural, internally planned evolution designed to create benefit in an
   incremental way.

To mitigate risks to outcomes during transition, the second approach is assumed: the cost/ benefit analysis for Option 1D comprises of the following stages:
 Create an interim single headquarter function and organise the delivery bodies into the following groups or divisions:
        o Resource efficiency;
        o Support for innovation and new technologies;
        o Shared services (communication and marketing, IT, finance, HR, facilities, public relations and media, etc.).
 Continue to operate the existing bodies as per the current state, but develop and establish a migration plan based on creating a focus on delivery at each
   of those locations along the lines of existing services but with potential evolution paths to integrate functions and services;
 Establish a single permanent location, probably in an appropriate low cost area (timescales may depend on current lease agreements and get-out
   penalties), to operate as the shared services centre providing communication and marketing, IT, finance, HR, facilities, public relations and media, etc.
   services to all parts of the organisation on a shared and common infrastructure;
 Average headcount costs of £75k per FTE to cover salary and all on costs have been included in this figure;
 Headcount reductions are assumed to carry a redundancy/ re-assignment/ out-placement/ reorganisation cost of £24k per head.

                                                                                                                                                                41
                                                                    Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Strategic options: High level analysis
3.8.4 Option 1D analysis
The cost/benefit analysis for Option 1D is further divided into two sub-options:

(A) One body
(B) Two bodies comprising WRAP and NISP.


Option 1D – (A) One body
Defra landscape is comprised of WRAP with the other delivery bodies serving through them.

Adjustment Cost
 Approximate total adjustment costs is £2.5m (Year 1: £1.7m, Year 2: £0.8m) covering the following activities over the 2 year period:
       o Reorganisation costs;
       o Web integration/ knitting-together;
       o Central planning, organisation and oversight;
       o Defra central support.


Option 1D – (B) Two bodies
This option is as per Option 1D (A) but without taking costs or benefit associated with integration of NISP. Closer working between the single resource
efficiency body and NISP have not been estimated but will be minor in comparison with Option 1D (A).

Adjustment Cost
 Approximate total adjustment costs is £2.1m (Year 1: £1.5m, Year 2: £0.6m) covering the following activities over the 2 year period:
       o Reorganisation costs;
       o Telephony integration;
       o Finance and admin systems integration;
       o Web integration/ knitting-together;
       o Central planning, organisation and oversight;
       o Defra central support.




                                                                                                                                                          42
                                                                     Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Strategic options: High level analysis
3.8.5 At-risk outcomes analysis
Delivery bodies have identified the potential impact on their outcomes, though the somewhat speculative nature of such an exercise makes it difficult to
quantify the risks.

The approach to transition taken as well as the resources assumed to manage the transition will effectively mitigate much of the risks the delivery bodies
have noted. As is detailed under Option 1A in section 3.8.3, the incremental approach will build capability to change and absorb the detrimental affects of
change as it takes place.

3.8.6 Options analysis
All calculations are based on the assumption that the total UK landscape can be integrated for each option and the benefits to Defra are estimated pro rata
with funding plans. If this is not achieved then the benefits could be slightly less as there could be, multiple delivery body operational structures.

Discussions are continuing with the delivery bodies to explore the potential costs and benefits so it is reasonable to assume that the cost/benefit profile will
continue to evolve.

The next four slides sets out the costs-benefit analysis.




                                                                                                                                                                   43
                                                                                      Version v1.0

 Strategic landscape options & work-streams
 Strategic options: High level analysis*


Options (See “Annex A” for criteria        Time Line              Landscape     Better National Communications           Policy-Delivery   Buy-in   Efficiency        Benefits       Adjustment
                                           <12 Mth = 3  Points   Streamlined   & Regional      integrated across        Partnership &     from     Saving over 2      = -1 Point   Costs over
details)
                                           12-24 Mths = 2                      Coordination    Landscape                Better            DBs      years             = +1 Point    2 years
                                                                                                                         Governance &                = - 3%          (Internal/
                                           24-36Mths = 1                                                                                                             balanced/
                                                                                                                         Performance                = + 3%
                                           > 36 Mths = 0                                                                                                             External)
                                                                                                                         Management                 Baseline = £60m

 Weighting: Emphasis on Internal                    1                  3                2                   9                    10            8               2
 Optimisation and Streamlining (0-
 10)

 Weighting: Balanced                                3                  9                8                   4                     9            3               8
 Optimisation and Streamlining (0-
 10)

 Weighting: Emphasis on                             6                  10               9                   2                     4            1               10
 External Optimisation and
 Streamlining (0-10)
0. Business as Usual (-3 - +3)                               ▬             ▬                 ▬                      ▬                       Zero              27/ 18/ 21 Zero


1. Rationalise    d-A) 1 integrated                                                                                                       £5.7m             38/ 78/ 87 £2.5m
the Number,       DB covering all of                                                                                                                
Remit and         Defra‟s landscape
Scope of DBs      d-B) 2 DBs split by                                                                                                      £5.2m             35/ 69/ 77 £2.1m
 (-3 - +3)      service areas (IS                                                                                                                 
                  and Non-IS)

2. Allocate lead DBs for service                                                                                                   ▬        ~Modest           36/ 43/ 45 ~Modest
provision and customer segments
(-3 - +3)




* High level options analysis based on output from desk-research, discussions with sponsors, delivery bodies and output from work-shops.                                                     44
                                                                  Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Corporate status of delivery bodies and merger issues
3.9 Corporate status of delivery bodies and merger issues

3.9.1 Overview of merger issues
The table below sets out in summary key features of the corporate status of the delivery bodies in scope of the Review, including reference to any
Government interest held in the delivery body either in terms of Membership of the delivery body or through appointment to the Board of the delivery body.
The table also identified where other Government departments and the Devolved Administrations hold a similar interest. In addition to the delivery bodies
set out in the table below, Salix Finance, a private company limited by guarantee in which the Government does not hold an interest is indirectly grant
funded through the Carbon Trust.
                                                                                              Defra       OGD/DA           Defra             OGD/DA
  Delivery Body                                   Description                                 Membership Membership        Board Rep        Board Rep
  Grant Funded Programmes
                                                  Oxfordshire County Council is the grant
                                                  recipient on behalf of a consortium that
  BREW Centre for Local Authorities                                                             Government does not hold an interest in delivery body
                                                  also includes the Local Government
                                                  Association and NISP
                                                  Oakdene Hollins Ltd, a private company
  Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse                                                          Government does not hold an interest in delivery body
                                                  limited by shares, is the grant recipient
                                                  AEA Technologies plc, a public limited
                                                  company, is the grant recipient in
  Construction Resources and Waste Platform                                                     Government does not hold an interest in delivery body
                                                  partnership with BRE Ltd, a private
                                                  company limited by shares
                                                  Industrial Symbiosis, a private company
  Natonal Industrial Symbiosis Programme          limited by guarantee, is the grant            Government does not hold an interest in delivery body
                                                  recipient
  Contracted Programmes
                                                  AEA Technologies plc is the prime
                                                  contractor with Serco Ltd, a private
  Envirowise                                                                                    Government does not hold an interest in delivery body
                                                  company limited by shares, sub-
                                                  contracting to AEA
  Grant Funded Incorporated Entities
  Action Sustainability                           Community Interest Company                      N               N              N               N

  The Waste and Resources Action Programme Private Company Limited by Guarantee                   Y               Y              Y               N


                                                                                                                                                             45
                                                                    Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Corporate status of delivery bodies and merger issues
3.9.2 Determining future corporate status

As is demonstrated by the table above, there is wide variation in corporate status and the nature of the relationship each delivery body has with
Government. In relation to the grant funded incorporated entities, even where Government was involved in the creation of these entities (which is the case
in respect of WRAP) it has been the Government‟s objective to create entities that operate at arm‟s length from Government and are consequently
classified as not being part of the machinery of Government. Thus, the Government consciously sought a position where Government is unable to control
or direct these entities. Consequently, the Government does not have the power to order a merger of any of these four incorporated entities. Similarly, the
board of directors does not have the power to make such a decision. Merger is a decision that can only be taken by the members of each entity.

In relation to these incorporated entities, should merger be required as part of the streamlining of the delivery landscape, the collective task of Government,
including the devolved administrations where they hold an interest in the delivery body, will be to persuade sufficient the non-Government members of each
delivery body of an influential case for merger; in order to achieve a vote in favour of merger at a general meeting of the members. Thus, in relation to the
incorporated entity in which Government does hold an interest:

 WRAP: there are 6 Government members, a further 3 public sector members and 13 members that are either trade associations, professional bodies or
  community groups.

In the case of WRAP a majority of 75% is required to support mergers.

In relation to the programmes grant funded by Defra, the situation is quite different since they are not subject to a specific legal and regulatory environment
in the same way an incorporated entity is. This presents different challenges in respect of any form of merger that is sought in order to streamline the
delivery landscape. Funding is the key lever through which Government can influence such streamlining given that it does not hold an interest in the
incorporated entities that deliver these programmes; the most straightforward approach being to achieve a “virtual merger” through transfer of responsibility
for a programme of work to an existing grant funded incorporated entity.

This could also be the most straightforward solution for the only contracted programme, Envirowise, assuming this programme continued to the end of the
current contract.




                                                                                                                                                                  46
                                                                       Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Corporate status of delivery bodies and merger issues
3.9.3 Other organisational merger issues

As well as the organisational merger issues that relate to corporate status and the processes through which merger could be achieved, there are a number
of key issues that will need to be addressed in the event of any merger. These include:

 Brand ownership: this is only protected in relation to the Envirowise contract. Where incorporated entities merge then brands and any other registered
  trademarks should be transferred on merger. In other cases agreement may need to be reached on the use of brands and any other registered
  trademarks;

 Intellectual property rights and copyrights: these are only protected in relation to the Envirowise contract. Where incorporated entities merge these would
  form part of the assets transferred on merger. In other cases agreement would have to be reached in relation to the use of any assets for which the
  Government does not hold intellectual property rights or copyright;

 Information systems and information/ data: rights to these are only protected in relation to the Envirowise contract. Where incorporated entities merge
  these would form part of the assets transferred on merger. In other cases agreement would have to be reached in relation to the transfer of or access to
  these assets though, for example, some form of licensing agreement;

 Other assets and liabilities: steps will need to be taken for the transfer of other assets (e.g. property) and liabilities in the event of merger;

 Existing service contracts: where a contract exists for either the supply of services to the delivery body or by the delivery body these will need to be
  investigated in detail as part of the merger process and appropriate steps taken to novate or terminate;

 People: a working assumption should be that where merger necessitates a change in employer then TUPE will apply.

3.9.4 Process

In the event of merger being a necessary consequence of streamlining the delivery landscape, there are specific issues that will need to be addressed. Once
it has been determined how the delivery landscape will be streamlined, organisational merger issues will need to be a particular focus of the overall transition
and implementation plan if merger is to be successfully achieved in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; ensuring appropriate rights over the
use of assets post-merger to the appropriate delivery body.




                                                                                                                                                                47
                                                                      Version v1.0

 Strategic landscape options & work-streams
 Corporate status of delivery bodies and merger issues
The issues outlined above in relation to merger impact on the way in which any rationalisation of the delivery landscape is managed and on which is the best
option for streamlining. In this section the implications of the merger issues for each option and sub-options within each option (where applicable) are set out.
It is assumed that current patterns of service provision will be continued , at least in the short to medium term. This analysis is subject to further legal advice.

3.9.5 Application to Streamlining Options

Option 1 d
In relation to resource efficiency (waste, water and materials) Option 1d can be divided into 3 sub-options:
1d (i): full-merger;
1d (ii): NISP contract passed to WRAP;
1d (iii): “virtual” single organisation.

Option 1d (i) – Full merger
Full merger would result in the creation of a single entity as the delivery body for resource efficiency; either a new body or an existing body. In the case of an
existing body, it is assumed that the centre of such a body would be based on WRAP.

Full merger would require the assignment of the role of Authority in relation to the Envirowise contract delivered by AEA Technology plc to WRAP. This
would mean either maintaining current service provision through to the end of the contract or terminating the contract. At the end of the contract period:
WRAP in consultation with Defra would determine whether to re-tender for the services, provide the services in-house, cease to provide the services
included in the Envirowise contract or a hybrid of the above possibilities.
The issue of TUPE would need to be addressed should the services be re-tendered or if it is decided they will be provided in-house.
There are alternative options for effecting merger but assignment of Authority is both the most straightforward and manages issues such as TUPE in the
medium term.

NISP as part of a single resource efficiency delivery body: Merger of WRAP with Industrial Symbiosis Ltd (or an alternative vehicle within the International
Synergies Ltd such as NISP Ltd). The issue here is that Industrial Symbiosis Ltd is grant funded to deliver the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme
which is then delivered on its behalf by International Synergies Limited (the ultimate controlling party of Industrial Symbiosis Limited) via the wholly owned
subsidiary NISP Ltd. The situation is more complex in that the staff used to deliver the programme are employed by the parent company International
Synergies Ltd, which also owns the assets used to deliver the programme including IPR rather than the grant funded body.

Full merger would require the merger of WRAP (or a newly constituted subsidiary of WRAP) with Industrial Symbiosis Ltd (or an alternative vehicle within the
International Synergies Ltd group of companies such as NISP Ltd).




                                                                                                                                                                     48
                                                                     Version v1.0

Strategic landscape options & work-streams
Corporate status of delivery bodies and merger issues
Given that International Synergies Ltd is a private company limited by shares and, therefore, a commercial organisation in which the Government holds no
interest, it is likely that some form of consideration would be required in order to achieve an orderly merger (since in effect this would be an acquisition by
WRAP) . It would also need to be very clear which assets were included in the acquisition particularly in relation to IPR and information systems/ data and
there would also need to be clarity about which staff would transfer to WRAP as part of the acquisition under TUPE. Any merger would have to be through
negotiation and agreement with International Synergies Ltd.

Action Sustainability: The members of the community interest company would need to be in favour and agree the basis of any merger.

Un-incorporated bodies: Since they are unincorporated there cannot be a formal merger between them and WRAP. Merger would imply that the staff and
assets currently employed/ owned by other incorporated entities are transferred to WRAP or to newly incorporated subsidiaries of WRAP. In relation to the
Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse (delivered by Oakdene Hollins) & Construction Resources and Waste Platform (delivered by AEA Technology plc in
partnership with BRE Ltd), some form of consideration may be required in order to secure required IPR, branding etc. In addition it should be assumed
TUPE will apply to the staff employed by Oakdene Hollins, AEA Technology plc, BRE Limited and Oxfordshire County Council (in respect of the BREW
Centre for Local authorities) in currently providing the services in scope of the DLR.

Option 1d (ii): NISP contract passed to WRAP
Under Option 1d (ii) the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme would continue to be provided by Industrial Symbiosis Ltd, which would remain as a
separate entity. Under this sub-option, WRAP would take on responsibility for managing the delivery of the programme delivered by Industrial Symbiosis Ltd,
acting as a conduit for funding from Defra (in the same way the Carbon trust does in relation to Salix Finance). Consequently there would be no issues of
merger, though Defra may wish to consider how some of the issues in relation to information systems, data, branding etc. can be clarified as part of
continued support of the programme.

In relation to Envirowise, CRR, CRWP and the BREW Centre for Local Authorities this sub-option is as Option 1d(i).

Option 1d (iii): Virtual single organisation
This sub-option is an extension of Option 1d (ii) except that WRAP would take on responsibility for managing all of the programmes in scope, acting as a
conduit for funding. There are no merger issues in relation to merger of entities since all retain their current corporate status. However, as with Option 1d (ii),
the Defra may wish to consider how some of the issues in relation to information systems, data, branding etc. can be clarified as part of continued support of
the programme.

It would also be possible to implement option 1d(ii) or option 1d (iii) as part of this option, where the chosen lead delivery body acts as a conduit for funding
and manages delivery of the resource efficiency programmes that are not the subject of full merger.




                                                                                                                                                                    49
                                                                      Version v1.0

 Strategic landscape options & work-streams
 Corporate status of delivery bodies and merger issues : Conclusions
3.9.6 Conclusions

In relation to organisational merger issues, option 1d (iii) is the most straightforward since it does not call for a change in corporate status of any of the
delivery bodies. It creates a “virtual” single delivery body in relation to resource efficiency. Issues of TUPE, for example, are managed and the Government
could take the opportunity to strengthen arrangements in relation to other merger related issues, such as IPR, as part of the this option.

Other options do introduce greater levels of complexity in achieving merger, and will rely on the Government being able to influence where it does not have
the power to make unilateral decisions. However, such issues are not insurmountable barriers so all options remain viable; though the more complex options
in relation to merger will require greater planning, greater negotiation and a greater level of specialist resources (including legal support) to be successfully
achieved.

Analysis suggests that it will be possible to achieve organisational and operational synergies through merger. This includes NISP, since the delivery body‟s
operational model is compatible and complementary to the other delivery bodies and it would possible to achieve organisational and operational synergies
through an integration of NISP into a single resource efficiency delivery body, whether this be a virtual or a fully legally merged entity.




                                                                                                                                                                    50
                                                                    Version v1.0

 4. Delivery Landscape
 This section describes the key Defra delivery bodies and programmes analysed in the Review

4.1 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Defra is a UK Government Department and was established in 2001.
The Department leads on one key Public Service Agreements, which are key cross-government priorities:
Secure a healthy natural environment for everyone‟s well being, health and prosperity, now and in the future.
Defra also has nine Departmental Strategic Objectives which are used to manage performance:
A society that is adapting to the effects of climate change;
A healthy, resilient, productive and diverse natural environment;
Sustainable, low carbon and resource efficient patterns of consumption and production;
An economy and a society that are resilient to environmental risk;
Championing sustainable development;
A thriving farming and food sector with an improving net environmental impact;
A sustainable secure and healthy food supply;
Strong rural communities; and
A respected department delivering efficient and high quality services and outcomes.

The key Defra policy programmes that define the policy framework for the delivery landscape in this review include:
   national climate change and energy - making a full contribution, domestically and internationally, to addressing the long-term threats presented by
   climate change and unsustainable energy use, and to ensure adequate adaptation to the consequences which are already unavoidable;
   sustainable consumption and production - breaking the link between economic growth and environmental degradation and resource use through
   promoting and enabling more sustainable patterns of consumption and production;
   waste - managing our waste sustainably through less waste, more material recovery and energy from waste and much less landfill.
In addition to working with a range of partner organisations to deliver its outcomes, Defra also oversees delivery of a limited number of initiatives, including:
Coordinating marketing and communications activity around the Government‟s „Act on CO2„campaign – a joint initiative with DECC, BERR and DCLG;
UK Environmental Transformation Fund - a DECC fund to bring forward the demonstration and deployment of low carbon energy and energy efficiency
technologies, including the Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme and the Low Carbon Buildings Programmes;
Waste Infrastructure Development Programme - driving waste management solutions to help the UK meet legally binding targets of the EU Landfill Directive.
Key other Government departments in the delivery landscape include:
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC);
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR);
Communities and Local Government (CLG);
Department for Transport (DfT)
Department for Innovation, Universities and Science (DIUS);
Government Offices representing 11 Government Departments in the English regions.                                                                            51
                                                                    Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 Wrap
4.2 Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP)
WRAP was set up by Government in 2000 as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee to create markets for recycled resources, as part of the
implementation of the Waste Strategy 2000. In 2002, WRAP took on new responsibilities for household waste reduction, communications and local authority
support. WRAP aims to work in partnership to encourage and enable businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle
more things more often.
WRAP‟s strategic approach requires working across the resource efficiency loop, making it easy, efficient and economically sustainable to reduce waste and
recycle more, through:
waste prevention - the avoidance of waste and its minimisation, targeting consumers and businesses alike;
recycling and composting - increasing the collection materials for reprocessing, encouraging participation, and improving collection and sorting
mechanisms;
processing and manufacturing - securing greater investment and efficiency in reprocessing industries, and manufacturing products with more recycled
content;
procurement – promoting the procurement of materials and products with increased recycled content, or which result in less waste.
WRAP‟s Business Plan for 2008/09-10/11 set outs four priority objectives:
Collection systems - to increase the effectiveness of local authority collections so that national recycling targets can be achieved and to improve the
customer experience so that public support for recycling is expanded.
Quality of materials - to ensure that material is collected and sorted in such a way that it meets the quality requirements of end users (the UK reprocessing
sector and also overseas markets).
Food waste - to reduce the amount of food waste that is produced in the UK, develop collection schemes and reprocessing infrastructure to process food
waste, and develop end markets for the resulting digestate or compost.
Packaging - to reduce the environmental impact of packaging through minimisation, re-use and finding ways to recycle packaging that do enter the waste
stream.
WRAP offers a number of services to businesses in the recycling sector and businesses wishing to invest in recycling technology. WRAP is also working to
create a transparent market to make it as easy as possible to buy and sell recycled materials. Information on prices and innovations are available, and WRAP
is involved in producing independent standards for compost, paper and glass.
for businesses wishing to make investments in the recycling industry, WRAP‟s eQuip Programme can help business lease necessary equipment and will
guarantee the machinery‟s future residual value.
WRAP‟s Recycling Fund provides financial help to businesses in the recycling industry. Their Business Development Service provides recycling SMEs
support and guidance to help them get commercial funding. A separate fund, the Interim Manager Support Scheme, is available to businesses to hire a highly
skilled executive on a short term basis to help their business grow or develop.
WRAP‟s Intellectual Property Right scheme can help businesses identify and protect their processing technology or new recycled product

                                                                                                                                                                52
                                                                    Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 Wrap
 WRAP also offers services to investors, providing up-to-date information about the recycling sector and free listing services to couple investors and
  businesses.
The organisation expects to employ 224 FTEs in 2008/09. WRAP has a regional advisors in each English region, working with the RDA, regional delivery
bodies, and other national delivery bodies on resource efficiency. This is supported by regional coordinators to ensure that WRAP‟s strategy is communicated
to and coordinated with each region
WRAP‟s work in England is grant funded by Defra through core funding and the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. Funding also comes from the Devolved
Administrations, increasingly to fund regional specific programmes but also contributing to the UK-wide elements of the programme.
It is WRAP‟s intention to develop a strategy for supplementing its core income for activities agreed with Government sponsors with earned income from
advisory services and project development. This will focus on work that fits with WRAP‟s existing objectives and expertise, and will aim to generate no more
than 10% of its total income from a small number of significant projects.



 WRAP funding 2004/09 (£000)
              2004/05             2005/06         2006/07         2007/08          2008/09
 Defra        55,050              67,600          56,280          48,100           43,220
 BREW               -             4,000           9,220           13,720                 -
 Total        55,050              71,600          65,500          61,820           43,220
Data source: Wrap




                                                                                                                                                          53
                                                                   Version v1.0

Delivery landscape details
Envirowise
4.3 Envirowise
The Envirowise Programme was set up in 1994 as a BERR (then DTI) and Defra (then DoE) jointly funded contract to increase profitability and reduce the
environmental impact of UK businesses by providing advice and support on resource efficiency. Since 2006/07 Defra has solely funded and managed the
contract. Envirowise is currently delivered by AEA Technology Plc (AEA), and main partner subcontractor Serco TTI a business unit within Serco Limited.

Envirowise is a Government funded programme, which seeks to:
Improve resource efficiency in UK businesses through information and advice that helps business to reduce costs and the environmental impact arising from
resource use and waste generation, in support of Government‟s policies on Sustainable Production, Consumption and Waste;
Work in partnership with other business support service providers to simplify access for business to support services;
Co-ordinate with and add value to other resource efficiency programmes at national and regional levels.

Envirowise‟s goals in England for 2008/09 are that, for every £1 million spent, the programme will achieve attributed outcomes of:
£7.5 million of cost savings to industry and commerce;
33,000 tonnes of landfill diversion;
800,000 m3 of water savings;
28,000 tonnes of total carbon reduction (including embedded carbon).
Envirowise‟s aims for 2008/09 are to:
raise awareness amongst business of the opportunities and benefits from adopting more resource efficient practices;
increase media profile of resource efficiency benefits to business;
provide telephone advice line support;
provide a comprehensive and user friendly online information and guidance;
deliver sector and cross sector campaigns that provide businesses with information, advice and self help tools that address the needs of specific sectors and
resources. This includes case studies, guidance documents, measurement and performance toolkits and analysis, workshops and seminars - delivered online
and off line;
engage with regional service providers, stakeholders and local business fora that efficiently connects Envirowise support into local structures including the
Business Link information, diagnostic and brokerage service.

Envirowise aims to:
persuade businesses of the benefits of resource efficiency;
provide businesses with accurate, credible and action orientated advice;
provide better integrated advice and support provided to business through partnership working ensuring a „no wrong doors‟ outcome;
ensure outcome targets are being achieve through impact assessment;
ensure Envirowise‟s credibility as a recognised and valued provider of practical, independent and confidential advice is maintained and enhanced;
increasingly embed resource efficiency into every day business practises.

                                                                                                                                                           54
                                                                    Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 Envirowise
Envirowise uses the following approaches to report and monitor the programme performance:
 Annual attributed environmental and cost savings achieved by businesses;
 Levels of awareness and usage of the programme‟s services;
 Levels of satisfaction with the programme‟s services;
 Barriers to service take up.
The above may be commissioned in a single study or as separate pieces of research depending on programme activities and associated cost and
efficiency benefits as agreed with Defra in the annual delivery plan.

Defra‟s decision to withdraw from funding support to individual businesses and the significant reduction in budget in 08/09 has meant the removal of a
number of services provided by Envirowise including site visits, resource efficiency clubs and both general and targeted marketing campaigns. The
programme is now looking at how to bring together advice on a range of resource efficiency and waste issues from other delivery bodies and to become a
key resource for Business Links on all aspects of resource efficiency.

Envirowise‟s strategy for the future therefore includes the following elements:
 Streamlining the access by Business Links to specialist input on resource efficiency to strengthen their information, diagnostic and brokerage (IDB)
  function;
 Ensuring that resource efficiency is maintained as a priority in Business Link support services to their clients;
 Linking resource efficiency concerns into the wider advice provided by Business Link for example in relation to skills, business start-ups, etc;
 Ensuring that resource efficiency advice to business does not remain at the lowest common denominator level of waste management and recycling but
  drives better practice in business in order to meet national goals for sustainable consumption and production.

Envirowise has regional managers working with each of the RDAs to link Envirowise advice and information services to the priorities in regional strategies
and ensure regionally tailored services match local needs. Envirowise has been working with NISP and the Environment Agency as part of the team
delivering the sustainable development dialogue (SDD) circular economy pilot programme in China. Envirowise has links with similar business support
programmes in Spain, Australia and Chile. The current Envirowise contract was signed in April 2006 for an initial 2 years, with the option to extend up to a
further 3 years. Any changes to the contract have to be made through contract variations. Though Defra jointly procured the current contract with the
Devolved Administrations, they now have their own contracts and separate funding arrangements for delivery of the programme.

The managing contractors expect to deploy 59 to the programme in England in 2008/09. At Defra‟s request following the budget reduction at the start of
2008/09, Envirowise developed a model (Envirowise+) to commercialise some of the former Envirowise support services provided to individual companies.
Defra has not yet given the go ahead for this to be put into operation.
 Envirowise funding 2004/09 (£000)
                 2004/05         2005/06          2006/07           2007/08   2008/09
 Defra           2,704           2,292            -                 -         9,390
 BERR            2,704           1,250            -                 -         -
 BREW            -               12,000           15,898            18,885    -
 Total           5,408           15,542           15,898            18,885    9,390                                                                    55
                                                                                               Data source: Envirowise
                                                                     Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 NISP
4.4 National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP)
NISP was formally launched in 2005 and is managed by International Synergies Limited, a private company. NISP is grant funded by Defra to improve cross-
industry resource efficiency through industrial symbiosis networks. In 2007, NISP was also nominated to project manage a Defra funded Sustainable
Development Dialogue (SDD) circular economy pilot programme in China and has subsequently set up an industrial symbiosis pilot in Mexico also under the
SDD.
NISP aims to deliver resource efficiency and reduce consumption by alerting businesses to the opportunities available through the adoption of industrial
ecology thinking and more specifically industrial symbiosis. NISP‟s strategy is to engage traditionally separate industries and other organisations in a
collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water and/or by-products together with the shared use of
assets, logistics and expertise.
Services include:
a free independent facilitation service to catalyse collaborative opportunities, which is delivered on a regional basis through regional coordinators;
workshops that foster problem solving, innovation and knowledge transfer;
a web-based database of „stuff people have‟ and „stuff people want‟ to allow searches for synergies (this database is not directly available to individual
companies but covers location, composition and ownership of wastes and other resources)
company visits from experts to identify opportunities;
interactive training workshops to help consolidate participants‟ understanding of industrial symbiosis
NISPs focus for 2008/09–10/11 includes the following linked activities :
consolidate the UK‟s world lead in industrial symbiosis;
advance the UK‟s thinking and practice by introducing Regional Economic Development through Intelligence Based Industrial Symbiosis (a roadmap to a
sustainable low carbon economy based on an industrial ecology framework);
enhance the database of knowledge on wastes and other resources to assist Government policy at national and regional level, and additionally
demonstrate the value of NISP to Government Departments such as the MoD;
building on its already substantial inroads in tackling problematic and hazardous wastes;
stabilise the growing demand for the programme to operate within funding limits;
seek out (where beneficial) opportunities to work collaboratively with other delivery bodies.

The programme expects to employ 30 permanent FTEs in 2008/09. NISP is a national programme delivered at the regional level across all of the nine
English RDA regions in order to respond to regional business needs and the priorities in regional strategies. NISP also helped establish the BREW Centre for
Local Authorities (also grant funded by Defra) and contributes to their activities and management.




                                                                                                                                                              56
                                                              Version v1.0

  Delivery landscape details
  NISP
Between 2005/06 and 07/08, NISP was funded by Defra through the BREW Programme. Funding is also provided by the Scottish Government, the Welsh
Assembly Government and Invest Northern Ireland.

 NISP funding 2004/09 (£000)
               2004/05       2005/06         2006/07        2007/08        2008/09
 Defra         -             -               -              -              5,025
 BREW               -         2,675          5,700          8,250          -
 Total              -         2,675          5,700          8,250          5,025

Data source: NISP




                                                                                                                                                 57
                                                                   Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 Regional Development Agencies
4.5 Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)
England‟s Regional Development Agencies were first launched in 1999, with the London Development Agency following in 2000. Their aim is to spread
economic prosperity and opportunity in the nine regions of England. The RDAs do this through providing strategic direction for economic development,
ensuring regional needs and opportunities are taken into account.
RDAs are funded by a „Single Programme‟ from six Government departments – Defra‟s contribution for the CSR07 period is: £53m in 2008/09, £70.8m
in 09/10 and with funding for 10/11 yet to be confirmed. The RDAs‟ sponsorship framework sets out in broad terms how the RDAs should set their
objectives in light of the Regional Economic Performance Public Service Agreement which aims to: ''Improve the economic performance of all English
regions and reduce the gap in economic growth rates between regions.” The sponsorship framework includes a requirement to apply two cross-cutting
principles of sustainable development and economic opportunities for all to all their activities. However, RDAs are given the flexibility to develop
solutions to fit their own areas in the context of regional priorities as set out in Regional Economic Strategies.
In July 2007, the Government published its review of sub-national economic development and regeneration. The sub-national review was based upon
the principles of managing policy at the right spatial level, ensuring clarity of objectives, and enabling places to reach their potential. A key
recommendation of the review is the development, to be led by the RDA, of a single integrated strategy in each region that will bring together planning,
transport and housing priorities alongside economic objectives underpinned by sustainable development.
RDAs are therefore involved in a range of activities to promote resource efficiency including:
embedding business resource efficiency, including action on climate change adaptation and mitigation into Regional Economic Strategies and single
Regional Strategies;
identifying regional productivity, innovation and growth opportunities across all sectors, and particularly those with a strong regional presence in
relation to business resource efficiency, low carbon technologies, and environmental technologies;
exploring market opportunities for regional environmental goods and services, developing regional supply chains and demonstration projects for roll-
out to other regions.
Between 2005 and 2008, the RDAs received in the order of £1 million per year each from Defra to co-ordinate the BREW programme at the regional
level and for regionally specific projects. On the closure of the BREW programme in 2008/09, Defra decided that, consistent with the Business Support
Simplification Programme, the responsibility for regional delivery of support to businesses for improved resource efficiency would in future lie with
Business Link.
Business Link (BL) is now the Government‟s primary channel for all business support and under BSSP there will be a range of new roles for BL,
including:
information provision, targeted at key sectors and for a general business audience;
diagnosing businesses‟ needs for advice and support;
brokerage to the correct national and regional business support packages.



                                                                                                                                                           58
                                                                     Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 Regional Development Agencies
For resource efficiency support, BL advisors will therefore diagnose the needs of companies and broker to the correct package offered by national and
regional partner organisations. BL will need to work closely with national delivery bodies and programmes to deliver this service effectively and efficiently
so that the information is not duplicated and is the most up to date available. Further work is underway to ensure BL advisors are aware of the support
that is available from national programmes. Effective co-ordination, training and capacity building will be key to successful delivery.




                                                                                                                                                                59
                                                                     Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 Former BREW programmes / projects
4.6 Action Sustainability (AS)
Action Sustainability is a not for profit social enterprise registered as a Community Interest Company which was set up to support more sustainable
procurement. It promotes resource efficiency in UK organisations by encouraging them to adopt a sustainable procurement strategy and supports and
facilitates the Strategic Supply Chain Group (SSCG). Action Sustainability is grant funded by Defra to support the SSCG‟s plans to build capacity in
sustainable procurement, working with businesses to embed recommendations of the Sustainable Procurement National Action plan into their strategies
and within their supply chains.
Services include:
events and seminars to promote more sustainable procurement;
specialist expertise and services to public and private sector organisations interested in improving the impact of their supply chain on society;
research, case studies, support, training, benchmarking and consultancy.

4.7 Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse (CRR)
The Centre aims to stimulate markets for reused and remanufactured goods. It is managed by Oakdene Hollins Ltd and grant funded by Defra. The
Centre has a range of projects underway to raise the profile and generate supporting information for the remanufacturing industry.
Services include:
developing standards for remanufacturers and the sharing of information on opportunities;
research and development in product design and corporate clothing reuse, and developing carbon impact metrics;
promoting the benefits of reuse and remanufacture to interested parties.
Oakdene Hollins and Envirowise have begun investigating options for a merger, with the Centre remaining distinct, but funded and managed via
Envirowise. Decisions are on hold pending the Delivery Landscape Review.

4.8 Construction Resources and Waste Platform (CRWP)
The Construction Resources and Waste Platform is managed by AEA Technology and the Building Research Establishment (BRE), and is grant funded
by Defra. The main priority of CRWP is to ensure the construction industry has a say in how funds are allocated to improve their ability to be resource
efficient. It also aims to improve the understanding of the support available to the industry to help it become more resource efficient.
Services include:
events and workshops to promote sustainable waste management;
research, case studies, tools, surveys and other publications for the construction industry

 Former BREW funding 2004/09 (£000)
              2004/05       2005/06                2006/07         2007/08          2008/09
 AS           -             -                      219             430              300
 CRR          -             -                      224             700              500
 CRWP         -             -                      398             1,200            500             Data source: AS, CRR, CRWP
                                                                                                                                                          60
                                                                    Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 Other relevant bodies and programmes
4.9 BREW Centre for Local Authorities
The BREW Centre for Local Authorities provides support to local authorities working with their business communities to improve their management of
waste, recycle more and be more resource efficient. The BREW Centre is a consortium between the Local Government Association, NISP, Oxfordshire
County Council and the West Midlands Regional Assembly. It is grant funded by Defra and was established as a pilot project through the BREW
Programme.
The BREW Centre offers the following services:
funding for Local Authority Trailblazer projects which provide resource efficiency and waste reduction services or support to the local business community
case studies and guidance notes to raise awareness of successful business resource efficiency projects across England
networking events, designed to educate and enable local authority officers to understand and utilise the support available in their area and promoting a
move towards local resource management strategies
a conduit for other BREW Delivery Bodies such as Envirowise, NISP and the Carbon Trust to access local business communities via local authorities;
a website hosting demonstration project documents, case studies, guidance notes and toolkits to ensure local authorities are up to date
The Centre is also the delivery agent for Defra‟s “Zero Waste Places” initiative. Defra has agreed with the Centre that it can merge with NISP following a
consideration of alternative options for partnerships with other delivery bodies. A decision on the date for the merger has been delayed pending this review.
[Note: therefore, although the Centre was not formerly identified in the original scope of the review, it will be considered in the next phase]
4.10 Market Transformation Programme (MTP)
The Market Transformation Programme (MTP) supports the development and implementation of UK Government policy on sustainable products. MTP
underpins the product policy aspect of the framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production and aims to reduce the environmental impact of
products across the product life-cycle by:
collecting information – stock, sales, usage and resource consumption data is gathered on household and industrial products, such as televisions, fridges
and electrical motors;
building evidence – this information is used to model how products will evolve in the market place and to estimate future environmental impacts;
working with industry and other stakeholders – a common understanding is reached on how these impacts can be mitigated; action plans are agreed and
the measures implemented.
4.11 Environment Agency
The Environment Agency is a Non-Departmental Public Body of Defra. It was set up by Government under the Environment Act 1995. It currently has
around 12,000 staff across England and Wales with a budget of almost £900 million.
The Agency‟s remit includes:
working with industry to protect the environment and human health;
helping business use resources more efficiently - over half of the waste produced by business we regulate is not being put to other uses, including
recycling and producing energy;
influencing and working with Government, industry and local authorities to make the environment a priority.
                                                                                                                                                                61
                                                                    Version v1.0

 Delivery landscape details
 Other relevant bodies and programmes
The Agency has a number of interfaces with the other delivery bodies and programmes in the landscape:
working with Defra to understand the GHG emission reduction opportunities that exist in the waste sector;
Waste Protocols Project - a joint initiative between the Agency and WRAP to identify when specific waste types can be reused without the need for waste
management controls;
employing a NISP Liaison Manager working alongside NISP, local authorities and businesses to indentify opportunities and synergies
understanding the potential for water company energy efficiency and GHG reductions;
establishing the Carbon Reduction Commitment - a programme of work to prepare for operation of the Carbon Reduction Commitment from 2010;
NetRegs website - this provides free information to SMEs, helping them to understand complex environmental regulations that can affect them. It provides
guidance on how to comply with environmental law as well as advice on good environmental practice;
raising awareness on climate change issues through a range of communications activities including leading on World Environment Day.
4.12 Resource Efficiency Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN)
The Technology Strategy Board funds a Knowledge Transfer Network on resource efficiency. KTNs are national overarching networks in specific fields of
technology or business applications. They bring together organisations such as businesses, universities, research and technology organisations and the
finance community. The aim is to improve the UK‟s innovation performance by improving the rate of knowledge transfer.
The Resource Efficiency Network aims to help UK companies reduce their waste by promoting:
Better use of materials and energy
Use of industrial wastes as a source of chemicals, fuels and other valuable materials
Recovery and processing of waste from one site, for use as a resource elsewhere.
4.15 Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS)
The Manufacturing Advisory Service aims to help UK manufacturers to share knowledge, improve productivity and achieve success. MAS is funded by
BERR and delivered through ten regional centres covering England and Wales. The Scottish Executive has also established a MAS in Scotland, which
became operational in November 2005.
MAS offers manufacturers the following services:
direct helpline support through the regional centres;
a free one-day on-site diagnostic visit by a MAS manufacturing specialist to review a company's entire manufacturing operation;
regional Centres can follow up to deliver up to ten days' in-depth consultancy - to introduce, for example, lean manufacturing techniques, product or
process innovations, or design advice;
best practice activities, training and workshop activities for manufacturers across each region.




                                                                                                                                                            62
                                                                     Version v1.0

5. Evidence for continuation of support to single businesses
This section sets out the evidence delivery bodies have presented to continue single support to business

Continuation of single support to business evidence
5.1 Envirowise
Concerns that a blanket withdrawal of support across all business types, sizes and resource efficiency topics will leave a market failure, particularly for
smaller businesses, „top of the waste hierarchy‟ solutions across all businesses, and those businesses that have little or no previous knowledge or
experience in this area of their business operations. Envirowise believe there are benefits to re-instating some of the direct „one to „one‟ support offerings
particularly to SMEs to help them through this difficult period. Three types of intervention are identified where there may be particular market failure risks
resulting from the complete withdrawal of single business support. These three exceptions proposed would be on a controlled scale and linked to well defined
access routes. They would not be generally available services: with the associated concerns of creating an unsupportable demand or impinging on normal
commercial services.


Clean design improvements: Clean design approaches can achieve significant whole lifecycle benefits for manufacturers and users of goods and services.
Design improvements by their very nature take effect at the top of the waste and resources hierarchy. The Envirowise Designtrack service has been
successful at helping businesses of all sizes to identify product and packaging design changes that can lead to significant resource use improvements.
Market failure: The availability of the specialist design knowledge needed for these interventions is very limited. SME businesses in particular are unlikely to
be able to source this initial design expertise themselves. Recent Envirowise design events have attracted large numbers of interested businesses but there
are limits on how far the key measures can be explained in these types of one to many delivery services. Design issues also often have confidentiality
aspects that make businesses unwilling to engage in in-depth discussions in one to many situations.
Benefits analysis: In 2007/8, 183 Designtrack visits identified almost £50M/yr of savings, an average of about £250K/yr for each visit for an average visit
cost of about £1.5k, a gearing of over 150. All sectors are able to benefit from design advice but the most significant savings potentials are in the
manufacturing sectors.
Conclusion: Envirowise proposes that Defra reconsider the withdrawal of one to one support where small scale design advice interventions can stimulate,
inform and enable companies to embark on significant product and packaging improvement actions.


Sector performance data under voluntary agreements: Envirowise is working with the Food and Drink Federation and others to get the sector working
towards the water reduction commitments within the Food Industry Sustainability Strategy. This activity includes assisting companies to put in place a
rigorous and effective monitoring and measurement system to provide credible evidence of company and sector progress against the commitment targets.
Market failure: Establishing baseline data and a clear reporting framework to show credible performance improvement and identifying initial water saving
opportunities is not something that many companies are able to achieve on their own, particularly if they have not untaken any previous improvement actions
in this area. Within the Food and Drink agreement, the option to give companies within the agreement access to limited initial on site advice has been an
important element in helping recruit over 152 sites into the sector agreement with about 20% of these needing on site support. Envirowise believe that without
this ability to offer limited on site support the success of this and any future similar sector voluntary agreements would be compromised and even impossible
in some sectors.


                                                                                                                                                                63
                                                                      Version v1.0

 Evidence for continuation of single support to single businesses
 Envirowise
 Benefits analysis: The benefits that can be achieved are very case specific. The target for the Food and Drink agreement is for a 20% reduction in sector
  water use (equal to about 5M m3/yr). Initial data for one site, based on the base line site data and opportunities identified with Envirowise site visit help, is
  a reduction opportunity of 135,000 m3, (approximately 4% of the agreement target).
 Conclusion: Envirowise proposes that the option is retained to give limited site support as part of the initial phases of any future sector voluntary
  agreements.


Underpinning Business Link diagnostic activities: The Envirowise FastTrack site visit service has established credibility with many regional business support
organisations, including many Business Links. The one-day site assessment carried out in the FastTrack visit provides a business with an action plan that
prioritises the steps they should take and the likely benefits that would be achieved. Whilst this type of service may no longer be appropriate as a generally
available service to any business, we believe that it can be an effective intervention for some businesses identified within the evolving Business Link (BL)
Information, Diagnostic and Brokerage (IDB) service. Businesses identified though the IDB process with the potential scope for improvement and
commitment to take action but are unable or unwilling to take the next step to invest in improvements could be offered a FastTrack visit. This would raise their
knowledge and confidence to take up commercial services through the BL brokerage function.
 Market failure: The resource efficiency support available in the regions is evolving as the BLs contracts develop. The recently announced “Heath Check”
    service by BL is a recent development that will include a basic level of resource efficiency diagnostic. According to the RDAs‟ recent BRE pilot report ,
    there is a gap in 1:1 support for resource efficiency. Establishing a consistent service across all regions will not be an easy task. In developing the
    FastTrack service Envirowise encountered a significant skills gap in the availability of suitable advisors and had to create a rigorous procurement process
    to ensure the right skills in resource efficiency, water and waste minimisation were identified. The existing Envirowise site visit capability can be used to
    bridge this period when BLs are likely to struggle to meet the needs of their client businesses.
 Benefits analysis: Over 5,000 FastTrack visits have been undertaken in previous years, identifying significant savings and areas of environmental
    improvement for companies. In 2007/08 over 660 visits were carried out across all sectors. The average savings identified was in excess of £37k/visit and
    the ratio of cost savings to visit cost was over 35:1.
 Conclusion: Envirowise proposes to Defra that there should be consultations with the RDAs on the potential benefits of this approach for establishing a
    limited FastTrack service tied to the IDB actions of their Business Links.




                                                                                                                                                                  64
                                                                     Version v1.0

 Evidence for continuation of support to single businesses
 NISP
5.2 NISP
The IS approach is based upon building up a network of companies from different sectors to exchange information. Although the facilitation is provided free at
the point of delivery, NISP does not provide consultancy or grants and it is the companies themselves who make the necessary investments in time and
capital to implement synergies. The value for money case for supporting this approach is compelling with the Government receiving x14.5 in direct revenues
as well as gaining all the environmental benefits to meet policies and targets. It is difficult to attract private sector funding for this type of approach and
therefore post funding cuts NISP contacted the RDAs to seek ERDF „top up‟ funding to provide the services; if successful the funding conditions require NISP
to work with individual business to improve their environmental and economic performance: these contracts would run until end March 2011. This type of
funding has the disadvantage of high administration and management costs and regional pull to do something different to NISP.
NISP has an evidence base that supports capital grants not being required per se to grow capacity. NISP has attracted in excess of £110m in private
investment (over 3 years) in reprocessing facilities. If adopted this approach of not giving capital grants would address any risk of reduced Defra funding for
this area of work and make more resources available for making the evidence base to industry and addressing market failure both of which are consistent
with Defra‟s approach of not giving support to individual companies.
NISP rarely make interventions to individual businesses and then only in order to pursue specific Government policy or overcome accepted market failures in
order to multiply the opportunities for business to achieve resource efficiency economically. Defra funding will be employed to deliver focused and necessary
evidenced based activities to encourage commercial stakeholders to change their behaviours, such services are already predominantly taken up by SMEs.
Direct facilitation with and on behalf of individual businesses will take place if judged to be for the greater good in order to deliver Defra strategies of
behaviour change for a low carbon Britain and in order to ensure that domestic markets exist for materials extracted from both the commercial and the
domestic waste streams. This is particularly true where working with a business through a holistic, symbiotic approach can multiply the opportunities for other
business across geographical and sector boundaries.
NISP represents the only extensive network of UK companies already engaged in addressing the low carbon resource efficiency agenda. In a post DLR
scenario we believe that NISP deserves an equitable proportion of the available funding commensurate with historic achievement, vision, coherent
framework, scalability and the massive potential of the established network of member companies.
Negative impacts:
NISP address a market failure in information insofar that companies would not otherwise be aware of the potential business opportunities that resource
efficiency measures can create and by linking up diverse industry groups that are “out of the box” – e.g. liquid nitrogen and tyres. Also the ability to have
options for spare capacity when markets (as they have done recently) plummet – e.g. Corus and plastics.. It is implicit that without NISP its entire future
outputs are at risk including the potential for reuse/recovery or recycling of some 50M Te‟s of material resources held on its databases from the C&I sector.
Industrial Symbiosis has stimulated companies to invest over £110M in infrastructure to increase capacity and this potential would be lost.
NISP has made a fiscal return to HM Treasury (estimated at £250M generated by the BREW funded years) – this current flow of benefits would diminish
over time to zero.
Loss of world lead in IS thus adversely affecting UK plc competitiveness.
IS provides a policy framework that can make a powerful contribution in the transition to a low carbon economy, Defra‟s PSA targets and the Governments
economic and environmental objectives. Without NISP this momentum and potential will be lost with concomitant fiscal and environmental on costs.
                                                                                                                                                                  65
                                                                     Version v1.0

 Evidence for continuation of support to single businesses
 NISP
 Loss of policy implementation potential – when markets are collapsing investment is required to achieve economic, environmental and social benefits of
  greater RE. The transition to a LCREE demands an approach that can deliver – Industrial Symbiosis demonstrates that a LCREE can be delivered
  through business opportunity. Without NISP and the IS approach per se Government would be left with funding the required growth in capacity and
  efficiency through state aid measures such as direct grant support. NISP demonstrates that harnessing business opportunity drivers can deliver significant
  economic and environmental gains.
 Reputational – NISP represents Defra‟s willingness to engage with industry and is appreciated by NISP‟s 10,000+ members who are putting their time and
  effort into achieving substantial outputs. Withdrawal of funding for NISP would have a reputational impact on Government with these companies and
  potentially diminish Defra‟s ability (through the NISP verification process) to evidence the effectiveness of what Defra has achieved.
 International Reputation – NISP‟s work in China, Brazil and Mexico is attracting considerable reputational benefit to the UK (Defra). NISP is having an
  impact within Mexico and is an exemplar for other Latin American countries. NISP is the UK‟s only Eco-Innovation Exemplar project as identified by the
  EU.
 Loss of a proven highly successful and low cost carbon reduction programme.
 Loss of several millions of ERDF match across a number of RDA regions.
 Impact on the programmes in Scotland , Northern Ireland and Wales together with the SDD programmes that depend on the services of NISP in England.

Mitigation of delivery costs:
 Fiscal return on programme outputs – £250M.
 Industry match - capital investment in capacity defrayed: over £110M to date.
 Potential for establishing a part industry/academia funded centre for applied industrial ecology to showcase IS and build capacity.
 Online subscription service for industry to train management [build capacity/ change behaviours] in applied IS; harnessing best practice and promoting
   LCREE principles. Target is 500 companies as beacons of best practice nationally.
 Market testing proposal to explore impact of NISP subscription /no win no fee business model in place. Potential for mitigating some 10% of current costs
   over three years – revenues to be re-invested in building capacity.
 Consider funding NISP as an investment in migrating IS from being a pure delivery body to a policy implementation exemplar and test bed.
 In terms of additional revenue generation we have already put effort into securing European ERDF funding via the RDAs. If successful this represents
   something between 11% and 50% (dependent on the number of regions we are successful in) of funds as a percentage of Defra current level of funding.
 Potential for data collection and reporting services to RDAs/Local Authorities.
 If NISP is given the appropriate resources to develop the RED IBIS concept then we could foresee a demand from local authorities and RDAs for bespoke
   reports that would help them produce effective Single Integrated Regional Strategies (SIRS). These reports would not only help to make the region/local
   authority area more resource efficient but would assist in attracting the right kind of inward investment. On an annual basis this potentially could be worth
   a further 5 -10% as a percentage of current Defra funding.
 Other possibilities under consideration include looking at the production of bespoke publicity case studies or the production of certificates of achievement
   which may be desirable in their own right but income is likely to be very small. Subscription for membership has been attempted in the USA and has been
   proven not to be viable model and would massively reduce the outputs of the programme.
 There is always a possibility of a company requesting additional help and advice (i.e. consultancy) which is above NISP‟s facilitated offering, however,
   such services would not bring additional revenue into the programme to the benefit of all and in fact would take valuable (human) resource out of NISP to
   the detriment of Defra‟s aims and objectives.                                                                                                                 66
                                                                     Version v1.0

 Evidence for continuation of support to single businesses
 AS, Brew Centre for LAs and RDAs
5.3 Action Sustainability
Working with supply chains, trade association and industry bodies: Experience of working with supply chains to large organisations suggests that supporting
networks of businesses at various levels in the supply chain delivers significant additional benefits in terms of behaviour change. Whilst accepting that one-to-
one consultancy support is considered inappropriate use of public funds, we suggest that working with groups of organisations in the same supply chain and
sharing the learning amongst other groups will deliver significant benefits. AS‟s market interventions provide benefits across a supply chain and not just to
one organisation. Propose to work with supply chains to ensure that businesses throughout the supply chain benefit from our interaction and that
sustainability benefits accrue to all within the supply chain and to customers within similar chains. Private sector organisations and Government departments
cannot deliver on their own sustainability targets without the active involvement of (multi-tiered) supply chains. Rationale is to focus on benefits available to
the entire chain, which are unachievable by firms operating 'in a vacuum„. AS works through trade associations and industry bodies to overcome market
failure and create the evidence base and good practice model to share with organisations through the sector.

Working with procurement professionals: Training and capacity building is essential to underpin the Government‟s sustainable procurement objectives: there
is still a significant lack of knowledge and skills within the profession. Whilst the situation is improving, for example in 2006, the Chartered Institute of
Purchasing and Supply recorded 83% of buyers with little or no awareness of sustainability issues, in 2007 this had improved to 55% but buyers still required
more skills to build on their new levels of awareness. Furthermore there remains a continued need to build awareness as well as capacity, although some
public sector bodies and some industry sectors are making progress, there is clear evidence that some organisations have no awareness at all of the
sustainable procurement agenda at a professional operational level.

5.4 BREW Centre for Local Authorities
Continuing support of LAs: The BREW Centre was created to address both a market failure and a gap in the support structure for local authorities and
businesses. The targets for diverting commercial and industrial (C & I) waste from landfill do not have any other champion and rely on only the Landfill Tax as
a driver to deliver change. The projects which the BREW Centre has funded provide a direct and positive benefit to local business communities, are aligned
to Government policy (e.g. Waste Strategy 2007, BSSP) and provide benefits to local authorities through invest to save initiatives (promoted by the Regional
Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships supported by the Department for Community and Local Government). 41% of businesses go to local authorities as
a trusted source of information for environmental advice. The BREW Centre works with local authorities to ensure that when businesses do contact their local
authority they are provided with accurate, helpful advice, aligned with the BSSP. The BREW Centre would hope that this is recognised within the new
landscape and the expertise held within the Brew Centre, in focusing its primary delivery focus where clients look for support but working in co-operation with
other delivery bodies, is given the freedom and flexibility to add value.

5.5 Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) response
The RDAs play an important role in providing support to SMEs – funding a range of initiatives, including Business Link (BL) and regional delivery bodies to
provide essential 1:1 support that is still shown to be needed in order to help SMEs translate the theory into action.



                                                                                                                                                               67
                                                                     Version v1.0

6. Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
This section describes the response of the delivery bodies to the draft DLR report.

6.1. Carbon Trust
Sub-option 1d): This option could help streamline the landscape with relatively low transition costs and risks to delivery: these are not quantified. CT propose
that Envirowise energy efficiency activities are transferred to CT and that CT act as an interface for business and the public sector on all resource efficiency
issues for Wrap to leverage Wrap‟s expertise into customer segments where they do not currently work that CT currently serve (better value to customer and
Government). This would be similar to how EST and Wrap work together on „Green Homes‟.

Option 2: Allocate lead DBs for service provision and customer segments
No comments on this option other than CT is not sure about the workability of this approach in practice and welcome further discussions.




Option 3: Improve regional and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
The range of different models deployed by RDAs to deliver business resource efficiency services will make the definition of plans at regional level and
consistent delivery quality of support across England a challenging task. The capacity and capability of Business Link teams are insufficient to adequately
provide support on energy resource efficiency without training and support; concerns over RDAs de-prioritising such services. Definition of what is meant by a
local company needs to be carefully thought through as most large and many medium sized companies have activity across multiple regions in the UK and
are best addressed at a head office level to maximise impact on their activity. CT are planning to build on their recently developed SME offerings (developed
with SEEDA). CT think Business Link teams, with training, could get to a point of being able to deliver basic, general advice on energy efficiency and to sign-
post high potential cases to CT.


Sub-option 3a): Preferred option: single high-level co-ordination model agreed between the delivery bodies and the RDAs. Request for Government support
to ensure one consistent delivery model across England/ the UK.
Sub-option 3c): Strong concerns over the administrative burden relation to the management of contractual agreements and the cost effectiveness of delivery.




                                                                                                                                                               68
                                                                    Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Carbon Trust
Option 4: Optimise communications functions across the landscape
Agree elements of coordination is required and some synergies can be achieved. Important role for Government to carry out cross-cutting communication to
raise awareness and willingness to act. However, deliver bodies through their work on the ground are best placed to design a communication strategy to
maximise the impact of their services. Concerns over issues such as market confusion stemming from the activities of the regional bodies, data protection
and client confidentiality, these are not detailed.
Sub-option 4a): Need to focus Defra‟s role to resolving potential issues between delivery bodies‟ communication strategies as well as overarching
communications as outlined above. CT have reservations about anything beyond this. The difference in consumers and business would need to be taken into
account, and brands retained where they add value.
Sub-option 4b): Reservations over this option: it would reduce CT‟s marketing and communication effectiveness; messages could get mis-aligned with
activities.

Option 5: Increase sponsorship capacity to enable close working with policy
Support the increased coordination between policy and sponsors.

Option 6: Performance management improvement
Support the need for a more coherent and consistent approach to performance measurement and reporting across the landscape, but the focus needs to be
on holding bodies to account for outcomes rather than measuring inputs.

Option 7: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
Concerns over linking funding to specific outputs and having to bid for small amounts of money; need to be able to re-direct and develop activities in light of
market changes and optimise Defra funding to achieve overall outcomes agreed with Government. Keen to work with policy to develop ideas and options to
feed into the business planning process but the final decision on allocation of resource across CT activity to best achieve objectives should stay with the CT
board as they are best placed to make the required trade-offs and to add value. It is noted that the value of an independent board was endorsed by the recent
NAO value-for-money report and recognised as a large factor of CT‟s success.




                                                                                                                                                             69
                                                                      Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Wrap
6.2. Wrap
Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
Sub-option 1d): This option offers the best way forward where Wrap is best placed to lead with its key skills and experience. The option allows: focus on key
priorities; single source of expertise and consistent data; focal point of delivery of Defra‟s objectives; cost savings; behavioural change linked to infrastructure;
and ability to make strategic interventions. Resource efficiency is a distinctive challenge requiring a dedicated focused body separate from one focusing on
carbon and energy. Wrap has discussed this option with Envirowise, NISP and the ex-Brew bodies and agree that identifying resource efficiency as a
distinctive delivery activity is the correct approach. Transition will be phased to not abruptly terminate current contracts; Wrap in the first phase would take
over management of the contracts and finance responsibility, and begin joint reporting whilst working to currently agreed business plans. Time and work will
be required to develop an integrated business plan to make most of the synergies. The pace of such work will be as required by Defra. At the outset, a due
diligence process is required covering inter alia, current contract risks where some undertakings from Defra against such risks may be required. Discussions
show that some bodies have additional non-Defra funding and expect to continue operations in the landscape albeit probably not through offering free
services to business. For each merger adjustment costs and savings over any timeframe are not quantified.


• NISP: Both bodies agree they are complementary and there is a need for better integration. NISP‟s tools for driving resource efficiency are owned by its
parent company and would not be transferred in a merger. NISP data is required to carry out IS services in the absence of Environment Agency commercial
and industrial waste information; bodies also have different delivery models.


Options: leave NISP as it is currently funded directly by Defra but with a clear MOU covering remit and scope, or Wrap‟s preferred option, to channel ring-
fenced funding through Wrap. Either way both bodies are happy to co-operate and will ensure delivery continues, look to integrate services and share best
practice, demarcate activities, reduce customer confusion in the landscape, have low adjustment costs and look for potential savings in due course. The
second option would allow IS type activities to be properly coordinated with Wrap‟s programs.
CRR: Wrap already works with CRR and both agree the need for re-use in the waste hierarchy, both are positive about an integration with Wrap. Over time
after merger, remanufacture and reuse would be built into Wrap‟s programs with CRR delivering these services.
AS: Both bodies agree synergies exist between them; services are compatible and complementary with significant opportunities for knowledge sharing.
CRWP: Wrap would seek to retain CRWP as a contribution to construction resource efficiency. Post merger and in due course, will look to streamline
activities from both bodies to avoid duplications and identify efficiency savings.




                                                                                                                                                                   70
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Wrap
Envirowise: Discussions show a willingness to work more closely, existence of synergies, and ability to simplify the landscape (reduce duplications, integrate
some services, coordinate messages to business). Integration in phases: Post merger, Wrap will look for further opportunities for integration. The second
phase after two year sees further integration in programme delivery, support services and consultancy support further streamlined.
Option 2: Allocate lead DBs for service provision and customer segments
No intrinsic merit as an organising principle but there may be opportunities to adopt a joint working approach in specific applications.

Option 3: Improve regional and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
Sub-option 3a): Does not fit with BSSP requirements.
Sub-option 3b): Best starting point if a single representative from the RDAs and the national bodies develop a light touch case management process without
adding significant overheads. Issues include determining what is national and local, and how information is shared. Welcome the idea of national bodies
working with regional ones to target regional customers, but concerned if national bodies have to go through the local IDB services to approach regional
customers regardless of how they were acquired – this would counter BSSP. Concerned with the notion of regional bodies selling national body services.
Sub-option 3c): This would be counter productive and risks losing years of learning and could result in regional differences that would lack a coherent over-
arching strategy giving the potential of a post-code lottery on the level and quality of services received.

Option 4: Optimise communications functions across the landscape
Sub-option 4a): Prefer an option based on 4a: Defra should lead the development of an over-arching communication strategy and coordinate communication
plans across the landscape but focus on strategy and not tactics; day to day communications should be left to delivery bodies as these are at the end of an
integrated chain of work and draws constantly on the expertise of the bodies. It will be ineffective and inefficient if Defra were to sign-off all the elements of
individual communication programs, this would be bureaucratic and counter productive to the Defra renew process. Do not believe a one-stop shop approach
to delivering communication is effective, the requirements of different services are diverse, though, accept that the Green Homes initiative, though in its early
days, shows the potential benefits to be achieved from properly integrated messaging.
Sub-option 4b): This option would be a strategic mistake; it would be less effective in changing behaviour and confuses accountability for delivery. This would
also have to be discussed with the devolved administrations.

Option 5: Increase sponsorship capacity to enable close working with policy
WRAP agrees that it is important to have strong effective links to Defra‟s policy teams and welcomes any opportunities to improve existing arrangements.
This may come from better co-ordination between the Sponsorship Team and Policy (Option 5a). The greatest benefit is likely to come from engaging DBs in
Defra‟s business planning processes early. This will allow DBs to understand Defra‟s strategic goals and delivery priorities and the part which each DB will
play in achieving them.




                                                                                                                                                                 71
                                                                    Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Wrap
Option 6: Performance management improvement
Involving delivery bodies directly with Defra‟ business planning process would aid a greater understanding of Defra‟s strategic goals and delivery priorities by
the bodies and what role they need to play. Such engagement would allow a more central contribution by Wrap to shape the business plan and determine the
aspects of delivery of the plan which are most suited to Wrap‟s skills and capabilities.

Option 7: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
Sub-option 7a): Concerned if transference of funds between the pots was cumbersome in light of developing circumstances: results in poor value for money.
Sub-option 7b): Undesirable as a funding mechanisms; it should follow from the planning cycle and support strategic engagement between Defra and the
bodies. Risks service delivery fragmentation. Budgets should be decided at a strategic level but considered flexible to respond to in-year changes.




                                                                                                                                                               72
                                                                       Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Envirowise
6.3. Envirowise
Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
Envirowise will fit in with whatever model is adopted. Option 1 requires mitigation to delivery risks through: maintaining existing branding and services until
BSSP outcomes are clear and then developing an engagement plan with business and developing a future brand; preparing and assisting with migration of
national to regional services under BSSP; developing work-links across all bodies; establishing service delivery leads; maintaining skills of existing bodies
and ensuring expertise in service delivery is not lost; carefully managing transition with synergies obtained through closer integration of the bodies – (N.B.
Envirowise has started to explore synergy opportunities with Wrap); utilising private sector solutions to manage elements of service delivery to ensure a
single resource efficiency body remains flexible; integrating service and policy support aspects of services; developing streamlined management,
governance, reporting and funding arrangements. A strategic review of resource efficiency services is required together with likely benefits and outcomes to
prioritise services. Transition costs and benefits are difficult to estimate at this stage, but significant work is required to assess them; these will be higher if
transition is not managed well and if there is not sufficient planning and preparation for the transition process and if stakeholders are not bought-in. During
transition it will be appropriate to focus on the services to be provided, the required linkages and the contracting arrangements that can deliver best value for
money, maximise efficiencies and minimise management overheads.
Envirowise works with a number of bodies and devolved administrations: with Wrap in the retail and construction sectors: with WAG to create a new delivery
arrangements for business and the public sector in Wales – this has brought the NISP services within an overall framework managed by Envirowise; with
Scotland to embed the Business Environmental Partnership service to bring together support to micro business.


Sub-option 1d): Clearly manages risks to outcomes, but attractiveness depends on adjustment costs, and this may be higher than envisaged. 2 years to
implement with lower risks to outcomes if transition is managed carefully, particularly to ensure businesses remain engaged with the successful services
being provided. IS has an important role to play but should be considered alongside measures such as clean design, light-weighting, process optimisation
and waste management rather than as a special case.


Alternative option): Envirowise covers non-domestic resource efficiency. Costs will be no higher than option 1d with similar transition for Envirowise to absorb
public sector aspects of Wrap‟s work and NISP as there would be for Wrap. This maintains the Envirowise brand and would be similar to the way Envirowise
manages the funding of NISP in Wales.




                                                                                                                                                                       73
                                                                      Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Envirowise
Option 3: Improve RDA and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
Envirowise‟s regional experience means it is well placed to respond to whichever option is chosen. Envirowise has worked with the RDAs and Business Links
and has already developed a plan: streamlining referral arrangements between Envirowise and Business Links; co-ordinations across regions to ensure best
practice is spread; and enhanced IDB services should Business Link require them. This plan has been discussed with key regional stakeholders in the first
half of 2008 but commitment from Defra, RDAs and BLs has been restricted awaiting the DLR conclusions.
Sub-option 3a): Only a small change from current arrangements for Envirowise; other bodies less well regionally engaged may have more issues.
Sub-option 3b): As an element of this option, Envirowise are piloting referral arrangements with several Business Links under MOUs to connect their
diagnostic services with the Envirowise advice line – this can be rolled out across the regions and built upon for other services over 6-12 months. This option
requires more structures to be in place than option 3a, but Envirowise has experience of this.
Sub-option 3c): Believe there is too much uncertainty on future funding at both the national and regional level for this option to be developed. If this option is
chosen, then more clarity on long term funding levels would be needed so that the RDAs and delivery bodies could establish the necessary contractual
relationships – this could take 2 years. Envirowise‟s regional experience means this is a feasible option for its delivery.

Option 4: Optimise communications functions across the landscape
Challenging option to implement with associated financial and delivery risks. Communication coordination required through Business Link and therefore
BSSP and Transformational Government needs to be taken into account. Short term re-branding of bodies or services would be costly and risks losing
engagement and trust from business. One option might be to create an umbrella brand in due course, adopted under BSSP, and used by customer facing
bodies such as Business Link. Re-branding and re-positioning needs to ensure that business engagement is maintained and impacts realised. Once the
critical issue of branding is resolved, blocks of streamlined services can be brought on line with minimal disruption.

Option 6: Performance management improvement & Option 7: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
Agree with the factors and benefits relating to performance management and funding mechanisms. Envirowise‟s current contractual arrangements give Defra
a number of benefits including flexible size and scope, flexible skills, responsiveness to new requirements, clear reporting and performance framework and
management processes, alignment of delivery with Government policy mitigating the requirement for structures such as boards, and a competitive solution
through the tendering process and market tested.




                                                                                                                                                                     74
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Energy Saving Trust
6.4 Energy Savings Trust
Option 4: Optimise communications functions across the landscape
Do not support either option 4a or 4b nor the underpinning analysis. No evidence of consumer confusion and disagree that consumers see Government as
the first port of call for energy efficiency advice; EST research shows that one of the reasons consumers chose to interact and receive communications from
EST is because of its independence. Defra led activities on delivery risks increasing confusion. Conflict in the delivery of communication campaigns under the
Government‟s „Act on CO2‟ umbrella and EST‟s independence.
Government control risks EST‟s partnership marketing with bodies, such losses will outweigh savings from better alignment of Government spend. 5%
marketing costs savings provenance is unclear – this risks achieving short term savings at the expense of cost effective activities in EST. EST‟s
communication spend is not all Defra funded, and at any rate is dwarfed by energy suppliers‟ ~£70m spend.
EST‟s insight of consumers and knowledge base allows it to run targeted, informed national and local marketing, directing activity to the best opportunities.
Each EST advice centre has a local marketer who drives and supports key strategic national activities, local tactical activities in support of the centre‟s targets
and focus on regional priorities. EST‟s national customer insight team provides the centres with insights into consumer attitude and behaviours etc as well as
centrally developed marketing material: marketing therefore is completely integrated into the local operations of the centre rather than one dimensional
national information campaigns.
Sub-option 4a): This option implies Defra will sign-off all marketing activity which is integral to EST‟s activities as communications drive consumers to advice
centres. Inability to manage this, risks inefficiencies. EST local advice centres carry out local marketing, this could not be sensibly centrally approved by
Defra as a 3rd party. This option risks exacerbating Defra delivering EST activities which is at odds with policy-delivery partnership and with inherent
duplication and inefficiency e.g. Defra‟s current promotion of insulation, standby and CFL as well as use of partnership marketing agencies.
Sub-option 4b): This option incorrectly implies carbon reduction marketing can be simplified. Without considerable reduction in scope it is unlikely savings
can be achieved. This option takes Defra/ EST relationship further away from a partnership model with decisions made by Defra and realised through central
direction whilst the current weight of practical experience in consumer marketing lies with EST; campaigns have to be not only aligned to policy, but to
technical insight.
Alternative option 4c): Defra runs overarching campaigns; responsible for high level policy objectives, focus on brand guardianship and PR functions. This
would leave delivery bodies to deliver activities focussed on consumers, specific sectors and topics.

Alternative option - business as usual): The Landscape Review Panel continues to orchestrate the activities of the delivery bodies in order to identify
synergies, minimise overlaps, share best practice, build support for cross sector activities, ensure consistent use of „Act on CO2„brand etc.
„Act on CO2‟): There has not been a clearly defined and explicit strategy outlining how the „Act on CO2„ communications link to any particular carbon saving
action either through Defra or through any of the delivery bodies. EST acknowledges that Government is best placed to run campaigns to increase carbon
literacy and demonstrate the linkages between carbon, energy and climate change.


                                                                                                                                                                   75
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Energy Saving Trust
Option 5: Increase sponsorship capacity to enable close working with policy
Agree with the need to boost sponsorship and the benefits of a single sponsor. This option will improve synergies within Defra, across OGDs and between
the bodies. It relies on: culture and practice change in the sponsorship relationship with a focus on outcomes and clarity on the policy delivery split; planning
and management arrangements that give an early strategic steer; bodies coming together to agree how best to handle shared outcomes; engagement by
Defra with EST in developing strategy and policy; joining up of sponsorship teams across Defra and across OGDs; joined up agreements on outcomes with
clearly defined accountabilities and responsibilities across Defra and all the delivery bodies.

Option 6: Performance management improvement
A single planning and performance management framework may be more effective for Defra but fails to recognise that Defra does not agree EST‟s business
plan and that EST has other Government sponsors (e.g. SG). EST provides plans and performance reports to EST‟s board and other stakeholders and
therefore this option risks adding overheads if more than one format is required. Agree on the need for commonality in reporting evaluation results; but CO2
reductions are not the only performance measure required and evaluation programs need to serve EST‟s own/ stakeholder needs. This is a complex area
and a pragmatic approach is needed without adding overheads.

Option 7: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
Sub-option 7a): Do not support this option, it would put at risk long term strategic relationships. To work, it requires a robust strategic framework, delivering
accountabilities and a strong sponsorship team to draw together individual policy strands into a comprehensive program. Ring fencing budgets and activity by
policy owners creates a rigid framework undermining EST‟s ability to best use funds and may risk Government‟s ability to lever private sector income. Policy
teams may lead discussions, but the final funds must be agreed by sponsors as a single pot for a range of outcomes.
Sub-option 7b): More damaging than option 7a. It risks creating a climate of competition in the entire landscape. EST exists to address market failure and
therefore this option is inherently flawed; experience shows this is costly and time consuming. It would undermine EST‟s status under the EPA that allows
Defra to make long term investment in EST (e.g. green homes service). The option risks further limiting financial certainty and the associated cost savings.




                                                                                                                                                                    76
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
NISP
6.5. NISP

Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
NISP offers other bodies potential access to a network of engaged businesses and IS practice which can act as a two way street for new opportunities and
capacity building. In terms of overlapping service delivery, NISP believes these are more perception than reality.


Sub-option 1d): Favoured as a 4 body option as: no other DB is currently capable of implementing IS across the resource hierarchy or has such depth of
engagement with business; NISP and Wrap have different engagement and delivery models; IPR, cost, and commercial risks involved in effecting any
proposed merger; NISP would not be, or feel the same, to its industry members and risks losing industry support. No other option suggests they have the
possibility to maintain outcomes whilst contributing to Government policy and the requirements of BSSP. NISP has low overheads and therefore there would
be minimal efficiency savings for interim increased risks. IPR of systems and other tools is owned by NISP‟s company and therefore it is not possible to
transfer this IPR with any merger without considering either goodwill or other potentially prohibitive costs of securing such small efficiencies.
Consolidation of DB‟s would raise serious difficulties with respect to the Data Protection Act. NISP has a DP charter which would require all its members, who
have supplied information on a confidential basis, to be contacted to secure their consent to share their contact details and data. NISP owes a legal duty of
care to its members and imagines that other DB‟s have similar issues. Merging funding and operations would not necessarily allow for integration of their data
per se without significant time and legal costs being incurred to mitigate any DPA risks. This is a serious potential reputational risk for Defra as a stakeholder.


Consultation with other delivery bodies:
Brew Centre for LAs: NISP is ideally placed to manage the centre; heads of agreement exist. The centre would also be an asset in disseminating RED IBIS
and to help the Eastex model go national at the LA level.
Envirowise: Good track record of joint working particularly at regional level; no extended opportunity to discuss DLR at this time but share their concerns on
the cost of integration and potential loss of accumulated capability may have been underestimated.
Wrap: Agree identifying resource efficiency as a distinctive delivery activity is the correct approach. Wrap & NISP are complementary, together removing
barriers to resource efficient markets and accelerate business behaviour change. Both agree on the need for integration and will work together so that for e.g.
when Wrap makes capacity development market interventions, details are passed to NISP to ensure follow up and full exploitation of the capacity. With a
view to building IS capability and capacity within Wrap, both bodies have discussed the concept of a national materials management programme for
construction and the potential for other programs. Two approaches to integration are: leave NISP and Wrap as they are funded directly by Defra, or channel
ring fenced funding through NISP or Wrap. With both approaches: NISP and Wrap will look to integrate services and share best practice; limit the perception
of overlap of services, reduce customer confusion; low adjustment costs with the potential for efficiency savings in due course.
NISP also has an interest in running the Centre for Remanufacture and Re-use (CRR) as remanufacture is an element of industrial ecology – a framework
NISP has pioneered and carried out extensive work on carbon metrics. NISP has worked with the Environment Agency from the outset and has many
mutually beneficial contributions.


                                                                                                                                                                 77
                                                                    Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
NISP
Option 2: Allocate lead DBs for service provision and customer segments
As IS operates across sectors and service provision, difficult to foresee a role for it in such a landscape and consequently outcomes would be lost.

Option 3: Improve regional and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
NISP‟s regional structure and delivery model directly connects to Business Links in every region and we have already established a pro forma MoU with
them. NISP is ideally placed to continue to support regional agendas and priorities whilst maintaining the benefits of national coordination, knowledge transfer
and expertise. Regional and sub regional economic development and single integrated regional strategies could be facilitated through a new concept of
„regional economic development through intelligence based industrial symbiosis‟ (RED IBIS) that integrates planning concerns and resource flows in the most
efficient manner.
Sub-option 3a): No advantages for IS here as it is already regionally delivered and business led.
Sub-option 3b): No perceived benefits as the NISP model caters for both national and regional customers.
Sub-option 3c): In principle could work with ring fenced funding but agree with Defra assessment that this could be complex e.g. what formula would there be
per region, equal or in line with perceived need/ opportunity.

Option 4: Optimise communications functions across the landscape
Sub-option 4a): Welcome this option. As a demand led program, NISP does not support the idea that customers are confused, however, with more marketing
and general resources, NISP could support a much larger network of companies and deliver commensurate increased benefits/ IS capacity.
Sub-option 4b): No objections; NISP has hardly any marketing budget.

Option 5: Increase sponsorship capacity to enable close working with policy
Sub-option 5a): No objections; welcome the opportunity to better inform the wider Defra policy teams.
Sub-option 5b): As per option 5a, but recognise that sponsors may have split interest in a single team model.
Alternative option): Elements of options 5a and 5b combined with option 1d.

Option 6: Performance management improvement
Welcome any move to performance/ incentive based management if applied across all bodies.

Option 7: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
Sub-option 7a): No objections as long as fund allocations are based on clearly understood outcome achievements and funds spread proportionately. Under
such a model, NISP would receive ~70% of the funding. Sub-option 7b): Welcome incentive based contracts.
                                                                                                                                                              78
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
CRR
6.6. CRR
CRR cannot disagree with the broad outcomes of the DLR review. Simplification of delivery and its engagement by the target audience is necessary. Going
forward, the landscape review must take into account the complexities of the objectives in the area of waste reduction and management; the actual remits
imposed on delivery bodies must recognise the need to sustain these nuances and complexities, particularly where they represent current non-mainstream
activities.
Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
CRR are open to funding possibilities of operating through other delivery bodies. This complex, nascent and non-mainstream area of remanufacturing and
reuse requires risky perspective shifts at multiple points in the supply chain and therefore allying with delivery bodies that are well placed through
communications or networks to bring critical masses of delivery bodies together and affect purchasing decisions would be productive and welcomed. CRR
have discussed with Wrap the feasibility of operating through it and believe there would be significant benefits in cooperation and helping Wrap extend its
remit, and therefore are keen to discuss this further. However, because of the breadth of CRR‟s interests, there are benefits of having CRR as an
independent entity rather than subsumed into the general delivery of a series of focused programs. CRR believe they best serve the interests of Defra by
building the solid evidence base and prototype solutions and cooperating with other delivery bodies that offer channels to purchasers and other points in the
supply chain.
CRR‟s current co-operation analysis:
 Wrap: Pros: CRR has a history of working for Wrap. It has an excellent publicity machine; some material/ product overlap; proven ability to develop
  market, capacity, behaviours etc.; and fund-holder status. Cons: Materials focussed; little historic response to re-use; extension to re-use ostensibly ruled
  out by board ; limited track record of collaborative delivery.
 Envirowise: Pros: History of co-operation; manufacturing focus; open-minded on metrics; good relationship with Envirowise; consistent with Envirowise
  contract content. Cons: Retrenching to generic activities, poor capacity to stimulate business system changes.
 MTP: Pros: History of co-operation; similar far-term inventions (to date); and similar carbon focus. Cons: Management relationship not clear and
  interventions too hands-off.
 Carbon Trust: Pros: Similar carbon focus. Cons: Historically difficult to collaborate; embedded carbon not well developed.
Option 3: Improve regional and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
Concerns on the „portal‟ by which, in particular, SMEs might obtain access to support, the superficiality of the advice and insufficient probing to analyse the
often unrecognised core issues. The portal needs to provide sufficient expertise in diagnostics, and perhaps provide richer offerings involving the managed
cooperation of more than one delivery body in the provision of assistance. RDAs need to follow Defra‟s strategic priorities.
Substantial improvements to RDAs current tendering initiatives may be needed, focussing less on mediated support and more on direct support for capacity
building or innovative experimental approaches such as sustainability through business model innovation thereby by-passing costly middle-men replicating
national services. Tools such as „Enworks‟ are welcomed as they offer capacity of a unified project proposal and tracking environment, multi-body assistance,
benefits resolutions through the project and reductions to carbon impacts.


                                                                                                                                                                  79
                                                                   Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
CRR
Option 6: Performance management improvement
The new Defra strategic process should in future benefit from an integrated top-down approach that presents a set of thematic outcomes to delivery bodies. A
major precursor to developing a new integrated business planning process would be to develop a rationalised framework for waste and resources. In
particular it is difficult to compare an objective of tonnes diverted from landfill with CO2 reductions etc.
Option 7: Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
The current delivery landscape suffers from a deficiency in the area of facilitating radical business transformation of products and services for resource
effectiveness (as will be required for the 2050 targets). One element of this is business model analysis and redesign, as compared to the current focus on
product redesign. Whilst well researched and important, the actors in product redesign have limited power to effect business change. Future definitions and
implementations of “design methodologies for sustainability” should therefore engage a wider range of stakeholders – decision makers in the business
community, product-service designers, a clearer input of the underlying needs of consumers. Research and testing in action of a variety of approaches would
be useful.




                                                                                                                                                          80
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
CRWP
6.7. CRWP
Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
CRWP is currently classed as a delivery body in terms of Defra funding which would place it within the Wrap portfolio of work should the currently preferred
business support landscape be adopted. CRWP feel that further consideration needs to be given to this relatively simple approach.
It is important that elements of CRWP retain independence from an over-arching business delivery body for the following reasons:
 It is an industry-led body providing a strategic perspective for Defra and their delivery bodies - specific projects relate to evidence provision and garnering
     stakeholder feedback to facilitate high impact development and industry actions;
 It provides advice as evidenced by the construction resource and waste roadmap, a map used by several organisations including Wrap, to formulate
     programs of work and prioritise sector based action, such as the construction products associates work on resource plans;
 Engagement with industry is independent of any predetermined business plan, has no strings attached, and is fed back to Defra and their delivery bodies
     to promote better use of resources. This requires independence from these receiving Defra funding; and
 There seems to be little guarantee that CRWP‟s independence and autonomy would continue or would have a continued role in the revised delivery
     landscape.
There is also a wider issue of accountability to the industry sectors in terms of resource efficiency support. We feel that an industry stakeholder group, with
representation from across the construction supply chain and Government policy makers, should set the agenda in terms of the allocation of resources to
help the construction industry reduce waste and divert waste from landfill. This group is currently being set up under the Strategic forum for Construction.
CRWP would like to be able to support this stakeholder group in terms of turning the roadmap report into a stakeholder owned, long-term framework for
improvement across the construction sector. Subsequent business planning would then be aligned to the high level objectives set, and outcomes could be
reported upon in terms of progress towards meeting those objectives. This element of CRWP could be supported by an over-arching programme, provided
continued independence was assured.
The more project based aspects of CRWP, e.g. evidence gaps work, could then move more easily into the over-arching delivery body portfolio recommended
by the DLR, as the priorities for work will have been set at a higher level by the industry/policy stakeholders.


Should the DLR rationalisation option merge CRWP into a single resource efficiency body with no element of independence as detailed above, CRWP would
need to have written agreement to preserve their integrity and protect any intellectual property relating to the steering group members and the BRE/ AEA
project team.




                                                                                                                                                                81
                                                                    Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Action Sustainability
6.8. Action Sustainability
Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
Understand there could be efficiency savings and/or improved service delivery through the reduction in the number of „first tier‟ suppliers to Defra. We believe
that the options which place the smaller delivery bodies as a sub-contractor to enlarged main delivery partners represents the best way forward.
Sub-option 1d): From our experience of working with current delivery partners and discussions during this review process, we believe that working through
Wrap will enable us to best facilitate the creation of low carbon resource efficiency supply chains and therefore support option 1d. There are clear synergies
in Wrap and AS working together: both are focused on behaviour change and to this extent are pro-actively targeting sectors where sustainability impacts are
greatest; services are compatible and complementary where AS focuses on embedding sustainable procurement strategies into main-stream procurement in
supply chains, and Wrap tackles spend category interventions – together have the resources and skills to facilitate more supply chains to work holistically,
linking together large purchasers with SMEs who provide innovative sustainable products and services; opportunities for sharing knowledge and develop the
skill base of Wrap advisors; and together have a significant customer base and the ability to share contacts and marketing to the contacts. AS funding has
limited it to the private sector. AS supports the DLR that makes it clear that support should be provided to the public sector and local Government and believe
that working with the public sector to change their procurement strategies will improve their own sustainability performance and also drive efficiencies in
businesses in these public sector supply chain; significant opportunity for AS and Wrap to work together in these supply chains.
Option 3: Improve regional and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
Outside of the public sector few regional organisations have the supply chain dominance to influence the behaviour of their key suppliers. Indeed even with
regional or local government the first tier suppliers to these organisations will be dominated by national organisations.
Sub-option 3b): Believe this is the best way forward. This will allow national customers to be serviced by a single body rather than nine competing regions,
yet allows SMEs to be dealt with effectively by regional Business Links who have received appropriate support and training from the delivery body‟s regional
account managers. Whilst in principle there exists logic in Business Link advisors acting as the first point of contact for all business support, AS have
reservations about the effectiveness of this approach when working with large organisations (who are currently outside of Business Link‟s target client group
of up to 250 employees). In terms of SMEs, experience suggests that there will be a significant opportunity to up-skill the Business Links to support SMEs
around the sustainability agenda. Clearly mainstreaming sustainability into the Business Link diagnostic offers the potential for reaching a much larger
audience.




                                                                                                                                                                82
                                                                    Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Brew Centre for local authorities
6.9. Brew Centre for local authorities
Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
There are benefits to various options for merging the BREW Centre with other bodies. The BREW Centre has always supported NISP in helping local
authorities to apply the industrial symbiosis technique, and recognises the benefits in strengthening links between the „business‟ and „public sector‟ networks.
Like Wrap, the BREW Centre works to improve particular aspects of authorities‟ waste management services and there would be benefit to a strategic and
more holistic approach to improving waste management services nationally. And, like the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships, the BREW
Centre helps local authorities to help themselves improve and become more efficient in their waste and resource management strategies. The BREW Centre
also has a similar set-up being based within a host local authority. A merger would be in line with Defra‟s commitments to the National Improvement &
Efficiency Strategy.


Whichever option is pursued, the BREW Centre suggests that what drives the restructure of delivery work is either coherence of support to the customer or
the ease of implementation for Defra‟s programmes of work. The BREW Centre is uniquely placed to push forward Defra‟s agenda on commercial and
industrial waste and this must not be lost for the sake of a reorganisation. The DLR provides an opportunity to ensure that any changes made to the
landscape are undertaken as a partnership or merger. This could help to create a stronger organisation(s) that can lead on the synergies created, and will
ensure that the expertise within organisations are not lost.
Sub-option 1d): This option (3 or 4 delivery bodies) is the preferred option. The BREW Centre believes that 3 delivery bodies would be the most appropriate
option; however, it recognises the benefits of NISP being the 4th delivery body.




                                                                                                                                                               83
                                                                    Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Regional Development Agencies
6.10. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)
Landscape rationalisation options
The current offer to business remains confused and far from simplified (for either the business or the BL advisor) and is unlikely to achieve the step change
needed for business to operate within a low carbon economy. The draft DLR document fails to justify the preferred options and how these will result in a
simplified delivery landscape and comply with BSSP. The document does not provide reasoning for DB resistance to structural change and in any case such
resistance should not be taken into account when considering option choice, only in transition management. The inclusion of DB resistance in the options
analysis is therefore considered inappropriate. The RDAs support the recommendations for improved service coordination, performance management and
communication/ marketing. The options analysis should have been designed to seek the best option from the customer perspective; the scoring methodology
used does not appear to fully score and weight the most appropriate factors, suggesting a high degree of subjectivity: e.g. „service provision aligned with
customers‟ does not seem to be given sufficient weighting and yet should clearly be the primary consideration. Given the substantial EU funding opportunities
associated with resource efficiency in the English Regions, the DLR needs to consider how national funded programs best align with EU regional operational
programs to maximise the quality and quantity of services available to business. Cost benefit evidence is not provided to back-up the merger costs analysis; it
appears significant structural change is being dismissed as an option without a considered evidence base of what the true costs/ risks might be over varying
time-frames. Consideration of how bodies hold „expertise‟ is required as it may contribute to determining how they may actually be gained or lost as a result
of restructuring. Explicit reference is required to the fact that the ambition of any delivery landscape outcome will not prevent growth of, or compete with,
commercially viable private sector support. DLR options need to be future-proofed.
.


Comments provided on options 1,3 and 4 as these were identified as the most appropriate ones for the RDAs to expands upon:
Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
RDA‟s role in promoting resource efficiency isn‟t fully recognised in the draft DLR document nor consistently represented; the RDAs are not delivery bodies.


Sub-option 1d(b): Whilst this option streamlines the landscape, only removing one organisation [compared to 1d(a)] fails to respond to customer concerns
that having multiple support organisations is not meeting their needs. This option does not appear to offer improved simplification over current arrangements
for business or business advisors. It is unclear why customer segments and services have been assigned to the DBs in the way they have and why
Envirowise is excluded from the matrix structure. Clarification is required as it creates confusion between existing areas of DB expertise. It is also
questionable whether 3 or 4 DBs will result in a simplified BSSP based service. Cutting just a single programme from the offer – which RDAs feel is neither
discussed or clearly justified in the draft DLR document – it is unlikely to address the key issues of customer confusion, the size of the task in hand or the
efficient use of public funding.


NB – these comments refer to the original scope of the DLR, which included delivery bodies now covered by DECC. Option 1d(a) now represents the most
simplified option for Defra.                                                                                                                         84
                                                                      Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Regional Development Agencies
Option 3: Improve regional and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
If BL information, diagnostic and brokerage service (IDB) is going to work effectively in all regions, critical success factors are to have a more consistent
approach to joint workings agreements and having effective partnerships in place between the RDAs, Defra and BL from a national to regional level. The role
of BL and the meaning of IDB should be accurately reflected: BL does not directly deliver support and IDB is not business support. All resource efficiency
related business support provision must be funded in addition to BL e.g. it is inappropriate to expect BL to provide a comprehensive expert IDB service given
the tight timeframes and the number of products involved and they will not be „selling‟ delivery body services. Plans are in hand to address resource
efficiency support. Approaches developed by RDAs during the BRE pilot are far more in keeping with the type of services realistically available from BL. As
LAs are often the first port of call for business seeking information on resource efficiency, the DLR should also address: how the resource efficiency IDB
could also incorporate/ reference LAs – as strategic partners and delivery bodies; the role that local area agreements/ multi area agreements might play and
how the streamlining of the national delivery partners might support LAs to meet the national indicators, particularly NI186. Some RDAs disagree with the
assertion that there are overlaps and gaps between national and regional service provision – much has changed in light of BSSP in the regions. It is
recognised regional delivery should be simplified and BL will be pivotal in each region; how specialist support should be delivered varies between RDAs.
RDA support is shifting emphasis to the mainstreaming of resource efficiency issues and directing business to the private sector. Solutions need to take into
account customer journey length and service level agreements adoption. Options 3b and 3c require: funding for coordination/ management in addition to
delivery; closer working between Defra, national DBs and the regions; agreement of fair apportionment of national resources to each region; sensitivity to
constraints of delivery contracts with limitations of ERDF funding elements; some loss of Defra control of regional delivery – though mitigated through
standardised quality approvals; coordinated marketing effort; and agreement on metrics, measurement and monitoring of impact.
Sub-option 3a): RDAs generally support this option but think it needs to go beyond the BREW coordination activity. In order to work, the solution has to have:
delivery frameworks based on a multi-party agreement between Defra, the RDAs and the DBs. It is acknowledged that 9 RDAs and different BLs complicates
matters. It would have to be resourced adequately and given sufficient status. Some RDAs think the solution should go further with clear demarcation of the
types of activities that should be developed by national bodies and the remit of the regions.
Sub-option 3b): RDAs generally welcome this option as the nearest model to the existing BL IDB model where there is already an account management
function. It is unclear to the RDAs at this time what type of national support would be available to a regional customer; envisaged this would be mainly IDB to
any regional support – as such this has the potential to be a business as usual (BAU) option if not built upon sufficiently. Option merits further investigation
and potential benefits include: simple fit with BL IDB; better service focus for SMEs; simplified customer experience; facilitates multiple services from different
partners; coordinated marketing and campaigns; agreed national campaigns complimenting regional campaigns; simplified advisor brokerage procedure;
unified collateral; simpler BL coordination/ management.




                                                                                                                                                                  85
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Regional Development Agencies
Alternative options: Work with larger business – providing better integration from an account management perspective where: national customers are linked
to RDA key account managers (KAMs) or work with closer links with regional bodies; better integration between national and regional bodies and sharing
headline information on companies that each are in contact with; and rationalisation of existing national DB regional presence. National DB representation at
a regional level could be developed through: a light touch integration in joint working agreements between regional and national DBs; mid-range integration
with joint visits and formal agreements with key regional solution providers; and deep integrations where joint staff act as case managers for both national
and regional solution providers. The benefits of this option overall would be much more readily achievable with heavier rationalisation of the national delivery
bodies. This option should also recognise that RDAs will need to maintain relationships with local large businesses: greater returns gained through joint
national/ regional approach with interactions supported/ focused by KAMs.

Sub-option 3c): This would lead to clearly demarcated nationally relevant services from regional services and it would be possible to match Defra funding with
ERDF monies. Concerns regarding complex contractual issues between Defra need to be addressed by central government to ensure that: funding
allocations to the regions facilitate uniform service provision across the country; EU procurement rules are met; there is national DB capability to operate
effectively within the regions; understanding that if funding is matched to ERDF funds, then this could potentially limit the type of business that can be
supported.

The RDAs preference is for an option where regionally relevant services are procured on a regional level, where the delivery of these services are tendered
or commissioned in line with EU procurement rules. National DBs could tender to deliver this work in line with any regional or local solution providers – this is
already being actively pursued in the West Midlands.

Option 4: Optimise communications functions across the landscape

The DLR draft report fails to recognise that under BSSP, future branding will need to be significantly simplified - the impacts of this programme appear to go
unrecognised.




                                                                                                                                                                   86
                                                                      Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Yorkshire Forward (RDA)
6.11. Yorkshire Forward

Option 3: Improve regional and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
National and regional integration needs to go much deeper than the handling of individual businesses. This should look at the relative responsibilities at a
national and regional level for the delivery of certain types of activities as set out in BSSP‟s „improving you resource efficiency‟ product.
The BSSP product has jointly defined what business support is needed in the resource efficiency area. A draft action plan is in place to improve on the
existing use of Business Link as a gateway for resource efficiency support; the final piece of the jigsaw required is the relative roles of national delivery body
and regionally funded activities.
It is recommend that Defra and the RDAs agree a general demarcation between what should be delivered through Defra‟s national delivery bodies and what
should be delivered through the regions. Where delivery is regional, the RDA should procure this under general procurement rules. For each type of business
support activity the following questions need to be answered:
 Is this something that all businesses should have access to: If yes, the funding responsibility should lie with Defra where delivery could be through national
     or regional delivery bodies depending on the type of support; if no, the responsibility should lie with the RDAs.
 Is this something that should be developed in a consistent manner and done only once (e.g. sector agreements, standard development, development of
     technical guidance and best practice): if yes, Defra should lead and it should be used by the regions; if no (e.g. on-site support, collaborative projects,
     workshops and events), then this should be developed regionally to fit with other business support in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
 Is the focus on helping business to implement changes on the ground: if yes, the focus should be on regional support programs to help business to
     implement the changes; if no, then it is more likely to be appropriate for a national support provider.




                                                                                                                                                                     87
                                                                    Version v1.0

Delivery bodies response to draft DLR report
Devolved administrations (Scotland)
6.12. Devolved administrations (Scotland)
Option 1: Rationalising the number, remit and scope of delivery bodies
In general, Defra DLR draft analysis chimes well with the Scottish thinking on these issues. April 2010 would be the earliest date to implement changes to the
delivery landscape. It is understood that Wrap would prefer not to manage a high volume of environmental consultants going into business, in the way that
Envirowise currently do.



Option 3: Improve regional and national DB coordination & relationships with business customers
The draft analysis doesn‟t say much about the relationship with the environmental consultancy market and impact which Government support to business has
on that market. This is an issue raised by the Scottish consultancy community.


Option 5: Increase sponsorship capacity to enable close working with policy & Option 6: Performance management improvement
In terms of performance managing/ sponsoring, the attraction of a greater commonality of approach is seen, though have reservations about moving to a
single sponsor. From a Scottish point of view, energy and waste are geographically split and any divorce of the policy delivery from the policy area itself may
not be beneficial.




                                                                                                                                                                  88
                                                                                 Version v1.0

7. Outcomes
This section describes the alignment of delivery body outcomes with Departmental strategic objectives

7.1. Relationship to most relevant Departmental indicators
The outcomes being delivered by the landscape delivery bodies are well aligned with Defra‟s key Departmental strategic objectives on carbon reduction and
resource efficiency:

                           Outcome measure                                  Material      Virgin raw     Carbon       Water      Hazardous      Cost         New
                                                                            diverted      materials    reductions    savings       waste       savings     business
                        Objective and indicator                           from landfill     saved                                reductions                 sales

   Climate change tackled, through domestic action to reduce
   greenhouse gas emissions                                                                              WRAP                                   WRAP
    - UK GHG emissions split by sector                                                                   NISP                                  Envwise
    - UK energy consumption
    - Carbon intensity of energy production

   Better products and services, which reduce environmental impacts
   across their lifecycle while boosting prosperity and competitiveness
    - Resource efficiency: Gross value added, CO2 emissions, water         WRAP            WRAP         WRAP        Envirowise
   use, and waste to landfill by the UK manufacturing and service         Envirowise      Envirowise   Envirowise     NISP                     WRAP         WRAP
   sectors
                                                                            NISP            NISP         NISP                                 Envirowise    NISP
    - Consumption: CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and electricity use
   in the home, and water use and household residual waste                                                                                      NISP


   Sustainable water use aiming to achieve a balance between water                                                  Envirowise
   quality, environment, supply and demand                                                                            NISP

   Less waste, more material recovery & energy from waste & much
   less landfill                                                            EST
    - Household residual waste per head (i.e. after prevention re-use,     WRAP            WRAP                                  Envirowise
   recycling and composting)                                              Envirowise      Envirowise                               NISP
    - Household waste recycling - progress towards targets in the           NISP            NISP
   waste strategy
    - Non-inert, non municipal waste land filled

   Reduced global impact of UK food production and consumption                                            CT
   - Net greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food chain                                                 EST
                                                                                                        WRAP
                                                                                                       Envirowise




                                                                                                                                                                      89
                                                                                Version v1.0

 Outcomes
 Estimated outcomes in 2006/07
7.2 Summary of the different figures estimated for each of the five main Delivery Bodies for 2006-07
    2006/07                                                                       WRAP                  Envirowise                       NISP      Annual reduction required to meet
                                                                 (* indicates BREW only )                                                                                     targets

    Cost savings (£m)
    Annual in 2006/07                                                                  560                      130                         20                                      n.a.
    Lifetime (with persistence )                                                      110*                      250                         60
    Long term (cumulative 5 yr)                                                        60*

    New business sales (£m)
    Annual in 2006/07                                                                  230                                                 70                                       n.a.
    Lifetime (with persistence )                                                       50*                                                320
    Long term (cumulative 5 yr)                                                        40*

    Diversion from landfill (kt)
    Annual in 2006/07                                                                3,100                      500                        670                                    1,200
    Lifetime (with persistence )                                                      860*                    1,510                      2,010
    Long term (cumulative 5 yr)                                                       400*

    Virgin raw materials (kt)
    Annual in 2006/07                                                                2,900                       70                     3,360                                       n.a.
    Lifetime (with persistence )                                                      940*                      210                    14,610
    Long term (cumulative 5yr)                                                        430*

    Carbon reductions (kt CO2)
    Annual in 2006/07                                                               1,700#                       90                      1,150                         Business 2,200
    Lifetime (with persistence )                                                      550*                    280@                       4,050                        Domestic: 3,700
    Long term (annual in 2010/cum 5yr)                                                320*                                                                   (EWP central saving 2010)

    Water savings (million cubic metre)                                                                                                                                              50
    Annual in 2006/07                                                                                            12                          2       (assumes FISS target applied to all
    Lifetime (with persistence)                                                                                  36                         11                                 sectors)

    Hazardous waste (kt)
    Annual in 2006/07                                                                     0                       1                       140                                       n.a.
    Lifetime (with persistence)                                                           0                       4                       370

    Funding (£m)                                                                        58                       16                          6


  Notes: All savings are by reference to business-as-usual scenario (targets are actual outcomes). # WRAP estimates of carbon savings include upstream reductions. @ Envirowise estimate
  excludes embedded emissions of 370 ktCO2. All estimates take into account attribution to some extent. Lifetime impacts are for short term activities only. Long term activities are 5-year
  cumulative risk-adjusted figures (WRAP). Targets are for 2006-07 reductions, based on assumed trajectories.                                                                               90
                                                                    Version v1.0

 Outcomes
 Standardised measurement methodology
7.3 Standardisation of outcome measurement methodologies
This set of outcome measures is generally accepted as covering Defra‟s objectives (NISP also report job creation but this is not monitored by other delivery
bodies). However, there is an accepted need for greater standardisation and consistency in the way that the outcome estimates are assessed and reported.
At present there are a number of important differences in the way Delivery Bodies report their figures:
There are alternative ways of assessing „attribution‟. Envirowise are able to measure the changes taking place in a control group in order to assess against
a Business-As-Usual scenario, and some work has also been carried out by the Carbon Trust who estimated the outcomes of their activities taking into
account other policy initiatives. Otherwise, Delivery Bodies have generally based attribution on customer views as to how much of the outcome was a result
of Delivery Body activities. Some upstream and downstream impacts are taken into account by WRAP.
There are differing approaches to assessing lifetime impacts (the „persistence‟ issue). Some Delivery Bodies assume the impact declines by 20 percentage
points a year, others base persistence on evidence from past studies. For capital projects delivery bodies report the expected annual impacts at some future
(but different) points in time.
The softer impacts on behaviour through influencing, advertising etc are covered to differing extents, whilst spill-over or snowballing are not currently taken
into account in any form.
 Despite these differences, there has been good progress in standardising the reporting of outcomes. It remains the case, however, that:
the metrics only cover a proportion of delivery body activities, and generally (and properly) err on a conservative assessment of benefits. Although it should
be possible to extend the coverage in the longer term, we also need some assessment of the range of confidence in the estimates. In the meantime, care
needs to be taken when using the outcome measures to assess value-for-money.
the assessments themselves are potentially rich sources of information about the effectiveness of different policy levers. We need to ensure that the
information reported is amenable to more detailed analysis and is well-related to Departmental targets and policy concerns.
It follows that, while there are clear opportunities for developing standards for the assessment of outcomes, especially for long-term capital projects and
influencing roles, a more comprehensive and detailed reporting structure is required, one which links Government policies and targets with a range of delivery
body activities and provides estimates of outcomes across a number of environmental issues, economic sectors and time periods. For each of these
elements information about the range of confidence would also be desirable.
We have commissioned a research project to develop an approach to the assessment of outcomes which will meet the Government‟s needs. The research
will consider both the technical standards which need to be adopted in order to ensure consistency between delivery bodies, and the administrative
arrangements necessary to ensure that the standards are applied in a consistent fashion. The emerging conclusions from the research will be discussed in a
stakeholder workshop early in 2009.




                                                                                                                                                              91
                                                                    Version v1.0

8. Policy-delivery partnership
This section describes Defra‟s delivery strategy and the policy-delivery partnership. Reference to the now DECC delivery bodies are also made

8.1 Defra‟s delivery strategy
Defra‟s Delivery Strategy defines Defra‟s framework for both policy and delivery. Defra‟s job is to deliver successful outcomes, and the task of the core
Department is to deliver those outcomes through others.
The Defra family is a substantial, diverse, comprehensive set of delivery mechanisms, linked to the Departmental core. Core Defra is a relatively small
enabling Department, developing policy in dialogue, engaging internationally, brokering with pressure groups, influencing opinion, advising Ministers, and
setting national policies and standards on one side of its business. On the other it is securing successful delivery through the Defra landscape, forging
alliances, procuring and providing corporate services, holding organisations to account, setting strategies and directions, evaluating results and what
works best, and managing its accountability for delivery to Ministers, Parliament and ultimately to end customers.
The Delivery Strategy sets out a model for partnership between policy makers and deliverers, which describes the distinct responsibilities of both, and
the principles which should underpin the relationship. It identifies five key principles which embed collaborative working, strong communications and
clear accountabilities between policy and delivery:
 deliverers inform policy development and decision-making;
 outcomes and targets agreed with deliverers before publication;
 policy rationale understood and championed by both;
 deliverers empowered to get on with delivery, held to account by monitoring, audit, inspection;
 strong two-way communication with deliverers reporting back regularly to policy on the achievement of outcomes.
Under the model, policy owners are responsible for ensuring their delivery arrangements can deliver their target outcomes. They need over time to
engage, monitor, review and sometimes end these arrangements. Large or complex delivery bodies present a challenge because of the difficulty of
maintaining a strategic overview of the performance of an organisation which delivers policy to a wide variety of owners. This requires overall strategic
oversight of performance as well as the monitoring of delivery in individual policy areas.
Therefore Defra has identified the following different roles accountable for managing the relationship between the Department and its delivery partners:
 the corporate owner (or sponsor) who is responsible within Defra for ensuring effective corporate performance management of the delivery body;
 the corporate customer (or policy owner) who is the link with the delivery body on Defra customer interests and is responsible for coordinating what
  Defra requires the body to deliver.
This model is seen as an opportunity for Defra to develop a delivery landscape:
 which has more logic, less overlap and has structures based around either the needs of customers or the ability to provide specific products;
 where delivery bodies are empowered by a clear understanding of their roles, their alignment with Defra‟s strategic objectives, and transparent
   accountability relationships;
 which works more closely together to share core information and systems;
 which meets the needs of individual customer groups, and provides more one-stop entry points for customers;
 which meets the Government‟s renewed desire to find efficiencies as well as effectiveness in delivery.


                                                                                                                                                             92
                                                                      Version v1.0

  Policy-delivery partnership
  Delivery strategy and governance
The developing view of a delivery partnership between Defra and the Defra family of NDPBs and agencies also raises the possibility of achieving
improvements in efficiency through developing shared corporate services.
The 2007 Capability Review of Defra* identified the following areas for action needed to create a true partnership with delivery partners:
 Defra needs to implement the key recommendations from its own review of relationships with delivery partners. These include the Management
  Board corporately owning responsibility for effective delivery and regularly discussing the performance of delivery partners; all senior managers
  including ownership and management of delivery in their personal performance agreements; and HR actively facilitating two-way interchange
  between the core Department and its delivery partners.
 The Department needs to go further in using the expertise of its delivery partners, looking to them in the first instance to provide flexible support for
  projects rather than relying on consultants. In doing so, it will disseminate corporate knowledge and build shared understanding.
 Defra needs to co-develop business plans with delivery partners, and not allow this to be an annual 'tick-box' exercise. The Management Board
  should agree outcome-based objectives with partners and manage performance robustly against them.
 Within this model, Defra should look to accelerate its move to an 'earned-autonomy' basis for working with delivery partners.
Defra‟s response to the Capability Review identified a series of actions that were integrated into the Department‟s Renew programme. This included
developing and implementing a standard policy cycle process, supported by guidance and training which was rolled out to the Department in 2008.
Against this background, a number of issues and common themes around governance, accountability and the policy cycle across the landscape on
carbon reduction and resource efficiency delivery have been identified through the Review team‟s interviews with sponsorship and policy teams and the
delivery bodies and programmes.


8.2 Governance
Sponsor teams adopt different approaches in engaging delivery bodies in their business planning – there is potential for greater sharing of best practice
and identifying a common approach to assist the co-development of business plans between Defra and delivery bodies, ensuring delivery proposals are
aligned with Defra strategic objectives and firmly embedded in the policy cycle.
Sponsorship of the main delivery bodies in the landscape is embedded in two Board Programmes - the mechanisms for maintaining an ongoing strategic
oversight of planning, performance and monitoring of delivery in individual policy areas are limited.
The capacity and capability of the sponsorship function is key and the Defra teams need to be able to draw on skills which meet the requirements for a
stronger strategic capability to set the agenda, monitor performance of delivery and establish stronger corporate systems including reporting against key
performance indicators.




* Capability Review of Defra, published on 27th March 2007.
                                                                                                                                                              93
                                                                        Version v1.0

 Policy-delivery partnership
 Accountability and Policy cycle

Governance         Board Programme governance                Delivery body     Defra sponsor team                           Sponsorship capacity          Secondments
                                                             governance                                                                                   (in/out)
arrangements                                                                                                          G7       SEO     HEO         EO

 WRAP               Sustainable Consumption and Production    Defra non-exec    Business Resource Efficiency          0.3        0      0.9        0.3           Y
                                                              director

 Envirowise         Sustainable Consumption and Production    -                 Business Resource Efficiency          0.3        0      0.7        0.2           -

 NISP               Sustainable Consumption and Production    Defra non-exec    Business Resource Efficiency          0.3        0       0         0             -
                                                              director


                                                                                                                                      Data source: Defra sponsorship teams


8.3 Accountability
There are multiple chief executives, corporate owners and corporate customers in this landscape – an effective policy-delivery partnership depends on the
strength of the relationship between these three key roles and the more individual parties involved, the more difficult it will be to maintain that relationship.
The expanding operations of delivery bodies and their dependence on Defra grant funding acts to make them in competition with each other , potentially at
the expense of cooperation and partnership.
The delivery of Defra carbon reduction and resource efficiency outcomes by a network of delivery partners means that the quality and oversight of the
relationships between delivery partners is as important as the quality and oversight of individual policy delivery relationships. The work of the BREW
Coherence Group and its subgroups had a key role in facilitating these relationships.


8.4 Policy cycle
The Renew policy cycle emphasises the importance of input to policy development by those involved in delivery - WRAP has an established role in advising
on policy implementation and this should be maintained and extended.
There are many good examples of joint-working between Defra and delivery bodies but there may be opportunities for tapping the expertise of delivery
partners even more effectively through an interchange strategy supporting increased cooperation on projects, secondments and knowledge transfer.
There may be potential for Defra and delivery bodies to develop a deeper, shared understanding of the wider policy landscape and working together with
other Government departments and agencies to deliver common objectives.
Defra and its delivery bodies have developed a body of specialist research, data and customer insight: more needs to be done to break down knowledge
barriers between the organisations and ensure this evidence-base is shared to support more effective, efficient and delivery across the landscape.

                                                                                                                                                                             94
                                                                                     Version v1.0

9. Customer Analysis
This section examines existing research on customer awareness and engagement with Defra‟s delivery landscape

9.1 Analysis of existing research
The following is a short analysis of some of the existing unpublished customer research conducted by Defra and the various delivery bodies into the delivery
landscape. Because of the business remit of many of the delivery bodies under review and the fact that Defra has recently developed a comprehensive
behaviour change framework for citizens, this analysis focuses more on business than on individuals. Most of the research was commissioned to understand
degrees of engagement with environmental issues amongst business, awareness of environmental support organisations, and customer satisfaction with
Defra/ DECC delivery bodies‟ services.

9.2 Business awareness
The research suggests that business awareness of the delivery bodies varies by body, by business sector and by size of the business .
Defra research9.1 suggests highest awareness is of Business Link (over 80%) with no variation between large business and SMEs. Specific delivery bodies
have lower levels of awareness and there do appear to be considerable variations depending on the size of the business. Carbon Trust Brand Tracker
Research9.2 shows higher awareness of Carbon Trust than is suggested by the Defra research. The tracker reveals rising overall awareness of Carbon Trust
as an organisation whose role it is to help business reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change (about 60% awareness). Mid Caps show
increased familiarity and favourability with Carbon Trust and a greater propensity to act. SMEs are also showing increased familiarity, favourability and
propensity to act but are still the least knowledgeable of all business audiences about Carbon Trust and still least likely to be taking action. WRAP research9.3
also suggests higher awareness levels for WRAP (19% rising to 61% when prompted) and variations by sector, with local authorities and the construction
sector having a relatively high level of awareness of WRAP, the retail sector a lower level of awareness. A difference in awareness between large and small
organisations was also supported by findings from a survey carried out with organisations in the north west9.4 which suggested that SMEs are less aware of
environmental support organisations than larger companies. Envirowise research9.9 shows awareness has increased from 15.6%, of companies in sectors
covered by Envirowise, (highest in the metal & finishing (53%), chemicals (36%), and food and drink (26%) sectors) in 2003 to 33% in 2006 and 46% in
20079.10 (large business (84%, medium (73%), and small (40%)).

        Business Link
                                                                               83%                                          Awareness can vary by size of
                                                                                            Business Link
                                                                                                                            business9.1
                                                                               82%
              DEFRA                                                                                                         Q. Which of the following agencies,
                                                                                                                            bodies or Government departments have
        Environment                                                      72%                       DEFRA
                                                                                                                            you heard of?
          Agency


                RDAs
                                                           55%
                                                                                             Environment
                                                                                               Agency
                                                                                                                                1-25 employees
                                                    47%
        Carbon Trust
                                                                                                                                26-250 employees
       Energy Saving                  30%
                                                Awareness varies by                        Reg Developm't
                                                                                             Agencies
           Trust                                delivery body9.1                                                                250+ employees
                             15%                Q. Which of the following
          Envirowise
                                                                                             Carbon Trust
                                                agencies, bodies or
               WRAP
                             14%                Government departments
                                                have you heard of?                         Energy Savings                       Data source: Unpublished: Engaging
                        6%         Data source: Unpublished: Engaging                          Trust                            Businesses on Defra Issues. Defra &
                NISP               Businesses on Defra Issues. Defra &                                                          COI, July 2008. Sample size =700.     95
                                   COI, July 2008. Sample size =700.
                                                                                                   Version v1.0

 Customer Analysis
 Business engagement
9.3 Business engagement
As with awareness, the research suggests that business engagement with environmental issues also varies.
Qualitative research by Defra9.5 suggests activity with regard to environmental issues is not yet embedded throughout the business community and that
practice and levels of engagement vary enormously. The quantitative element of this research9.1 shows while many businesses recognise the importance
of industry reducing its environmental impact (93%) for many (61%) these issues have little or no impact on their own business. Company size and sector
have a major bearing on the actions being taken. Large or medium sized companies in sectors where environmental issues are closely related to what they
do, or where operations have a major impact on the environment (e.g. energy, extraction, construction and manufacturing sectors), are more sophisticated
in their approach. These companies recognise the centrality of “environmental excellence” to their business success and environmental policy is typically
wrapped into corporate strategy at board level. They have dedicated resource which ensures high levels of knowledge and expertise with regard to the
sustainability agenda.
Conversely, many SMEs are still finding their way. Decision makers are typically owner-managers whose primary focus is on surviving and competing, an
ongoing struggle, particularly in time of recession. They generally lack the time and/or resource to research or keep up-to-date on what they perceive to be
a relatively low priority issue. This is especially in very small companies where cash-flow is tight, making it difficult to invest now for returns in the long-term
or spend on non-essential things.
The Defra research also suggests that overall businesses are most likely to first turn to local government and suppliers as a source of environmental
advice. This research suggests 41% of businesses turned to the local authority (probably related to recycling), 28% to suppliers, 26% to business link, 26%
to accountants and other professionals (probably relating to cost issues), with 19% going to trade associations (qualitative research indicates this is the
manufacturing sector), 9% going to Carbon Trust, 4% to EST and 4% to WRAP. However, this varies by size of business. CT disagrees with this research
and state that a significant number of organisations in their research voiced a lack of trust of private sector suppliers and over the last three years,
organisations have tended to use public advisors over private ones to help them with carbon, additionally it is not only the size of the business that is
relevant but the type of advice sought which is dependent on the type of activity the business is looking to undertake.    1-25 employees

                      Single Most Trusted Information Source – by Company Size9.1                                                                                          26-250 employees
                      Q. Which of these is your single most trusted source of info/advice on environmental issues?                                                         251+ employees
                      Data source: Unpublished: Engaging
                      Businesses on Defra Issues. Defra &
                      COI, July 2008. Sample size =700.            28%                                                                                                       28%
                                                                                                                                                                                       24%
                                                                                                                                                                           21%   21%

                       16%                                       15%
                                                                                                                                                        13%                                 13%
                                                                                                                                                                                         11%
                            10%
                                          8% 9%                                               8%                9%
                                                            6%            6%        6%   5%             5% 5%
                                                                               4%                                    4% 4%        3%               3%              4% 5%
                                  1%                 1%                                            1%                        2%        1%     2%              1%


                           Local           Business         Environment   Accountant       Trade         DEFRA        Peers/      Suppliers    Carbon         Envirowise     Other      None of
                         Authority            Link            Agency      /other prof    Association                 colleagues                Trust                                     these
                                                                                                                                                                                                  96
                                                                   Version v1.0

 Customer Analysis
 Size of business has a major impact on engagement with environmental issues
Defra research suggests businesses tend to adopt quite a straightforward categorisation of environmental issues. Small companies think of „the
environment‟ in straightforward terms and are often informed by knowledge acquired from the media as a consumer. Very small SMEs are likely to act as
consumers do. For them, environmental issues tend to be about use of resources, energy efficiency and production of waste or recycling. Larger
businesses tend to have a more sophisticated understanding of environmental issues thinking in terms of the sustainability agenda. They are more likely to
think about incorporating efforts to minimise the impact on the environment and supporting the local economy by sourcing locally etc. They are also
motivated by CSR and managing their reputation with the broader audience of customers and shareholders. The guiding philosophies behind any action
are likely to be planned policies to reduce carbon footprint, year on year targets, and required measures (e.g. legislation).


                  Small (1-25)                                        Medium (26-250)                                        Large (251+)


     Typically only one person trying to                 Smaller mediums behave more like                     Being on top of this issue non-optional:
      manage the function: owner manager                   small companies, larger mediums often                 seen to have had a major impact on the
      in 55% of cases                                      most stressed/unengaged                               way they do business already (77%)
     Most (67%) can‟t dedicate more than                 At a certain point medium sized                       and most foresee further changes
      10% of their time to environmental                   companies will hire a specialist, at                  occurring (98%)
      issues as a result                                   which point they begin to act like large             Typically driven by compliance but also
     Unlikely to have a policy (only 19% do)              companies                                             trying to manage reputation. Also a
      and lack ability to plan                            More likely to share responsibility for               belief that „environmental excellence‟
     Don‟t see as having a major impact on                environmental issues between multiple                 generates competitive advantage
      way they do business (only 36% do)                   people (70% share decision-making)                   Environmental policy part of corporate
     Hampered by lack of                                  and can therefore dedicate more time                  strategy (91% have one) and reports to
      time/resource/knowledge/money                        to these issues (46% spend 10-50% of                  Board level in most cases (92%)
                                                           their time)                                          Likely to have dedicated resource (43%
     Tendency to regard activity in this area
      as an administrative burden                         More likely to have a policy in place                 are environmental/sustainability
                                                           (56% do) and if so, this is very likely to            Directors), often teams (70% share
     Unable to act beyond the mandatory:                  be reported to the board (73%)                        responsibility) setting policy and
      responding to legislative requirements                                                                     managing compliance
      or customer demands                                 Most are taking at least some steps
                                                           (94%) to change their behaviour and                  Understand all aspects of the
     Typically straightforward & tactical                 most (90%) also anticipate further                    sustainability agenda, generally and
      steps (energy efficiency / waste                     changes to the way they do business in                industry specific issues
      policies)                                            future                                               Strong desire to influence Government
     But also evidence of a desire to behave             Have fewer barriers to overcome –                     strategy. Often „ahead‟ of policy setters
      responsibly and open to doing more -                 though cost and time can be stress                    and well connected to relevant depts. /
      particularly if can be proved to save                points                                                intermediaries
      money
                                                                                                                                                             97
                                                                   Version v1.0

 Customer Analysis
 Levels of business engagement also varies by industry sector
The manufacturing sector tends to be more heavily regulated and this drives greater engagement in reduce a companies‟ environmental impact. Retail,
wholesale, transport and leisure are finding the current climate tough with the economic decline having an impact. however, whilst these sectors believe
environmental issues have a lower impact on the way they do business yet have similar levels of activity to manufacturing and are more likely to be driven
to a need to meet customer expectations. The service industry has the most positive attitude to environmental issues but they have low impact on the way
they do business themselves with more barriers to engagement and are unsure of where to go for information.


                                                                      Retail/Wholesale
                  Manufacturing                                                                                                 Services
                                                                      Transport/Leisure

     Foreign competition has put a high                   Many finding current climate tough:                  The service industry has the most
      priority on cost competitiveness / cost               26% in state of decline                               positive attitude towards environmental
      control                                              Trading conditions difficult – smoking                issues: 65% believe it is important that
     Often pessimistic/depressed about                     ban, increased taxes on alcohol and                   industry reduces its impact on the
      future of manufacturing in UK (due to                 uncertainty triggered by “credit crunch”              environment
      costs, competition and regulation)                    all having a toll                                    However, these issues have had a
     But business climate right now is okay:              Believe these issues have a lower                     relatively low impact on the way they
      46% in a state of growth                              impact on the way they do business                    do business themselves (32%)
     Been forced to find profitable niche                  (40%) yet similar levels of activity to              Generally more barriers to
      markets and/or diversify.                             manufacturing companies (80%)                         engagement:
     Environmental issues believed to have                More likely than businesses in other                  - more likely to be a low priority
      a higher impact in this sector than any               sectors to be driven by a need to meet                compared to other business areas
      other (47% very/fairly big) and more                  customer expectations                                 - less sure where to go for information
      likely to foresee further change to way                                                                     and more distrusting of the information
      they do business (74%)                                                                                      they find
     Most likely to have a policy (33% do)                                                                      Most likely to be driven to activity by
      and most likely to have taken at least                                                                      compliance and desire to behave in
      some steps to reduce their                                                                                  socially responsible manner
      environmental impact (81%)                                                                                 And most anticipate there being more
     Most likely to be driven by legislation,                                                                    changes to the way they do business in
      need to gain competitive advantage                                                                          future (68%)
      and or keep up with the competition



                                                                                                                                                             98
                                                                    Version v1.0

 Customer Analysis
 Business support
9.4 Business support
Where customers have sought advice and engaged with delivery bodies they are generally happy. The delivery bodies use a variety of channels to support
their customers including; websites, advice lines, targeted mailings, specialist events, and publications. Most of the delivery bodies have conducted
satisfaction research to better understand customer requirements and usage of their services in order to maintain and improve services. A summary of some
of the key relevant findings is provided below.
Defra 9.1
 Generally amongst businesses the preferred methods for accessing information were online (62%), leaflets (53%), free consultancy/ Impact Assessment
  (48%), Trade Press Articles (48%), telephone advice lines (44%).
WRAP 9.3
 Where organisations had gone to WRAP this was mainly for advice and support (14%); grants/ funding (8%); tools and resources (7%), and training (5%).
  Respondents who had previously had contact with WRAP are generally satisfied with the help they received. Local authorities were the sector most
  satisfied with WRAP.
 Organisations did not see WRAP as offering a distinct service from other organisations such as Carbon Trust. Many respondents compared WRAP to
  other organisations such as Carbon Trust and Envirowise and felt that these organisations had more publicity than WRAP and were therefore at the
  forefront of stakeholders‟ minds.
Envirowise 9.9
 Businesses contact Envirowise to request information and advice on waste, water, material issues as well as energy primarily in relation to their industrial
  and manufacturing processes. In 2007/08 Envirowise received: 12,800 calls, provided 5,000 advice sessions, received 750,000 web visitors, 14,000
  registrations and 36,000 publications were downloaded by web visitors.
 In 2006/07, of the sectors Envirowise targets, the overall awareness level was 33% with 78% of those aware having used Envirowise services, in 2007 it
  was 46% with more than half having used Envirowise9.10. Envirowise awareness studies and impact assessments show that more than 90% those who
  had heard of and used Envirowise were satisfied with the service.
NISP 9.6
 NISP holds events (varying by sector and size) in each region to promote awareness of NISP and to establish synergies between organisations. The
   majority of attendees had a positive view of these events.
 Suggestions for improvements to the service focussed on the importance of NISP promoting itself effectively so that more people could benefit from their
   services, and for an online „wants/haves‟ database to be made available as attendees were concerned at not having enough free time to attend more
   events.




                                                                                                                                                             99
                                                                                                        Version v1.0

 Customer Analysis
 Business support
Against this background of positive endorsement of delivery body services, Defra research9.7, undertaken as part of BSSP, suggests that 60% of
businesses that have received environmental advice or support think that some delivery bodies provide similar advice and support to each other. In addition,
25% of businesses believe it would be better for some bodies to be merged (this rises to 33% for those who have engaged through the BREW programme).
Defra research has explored the willingness of businesses to pay for services that would help reduce costs as well as reduce environmental impact. The
findings suggest some degree of willingness to pay for: new equipment (54%); tools for self help (42%); training (36%); workshops/events (35%; bespoke
advice (34%); information (25%); audits/ reviews (22%); none of these (19%). Large companies are almost all willing to pay for these services but even
small companies are largely open to paying for help. This suggests a potential demand for education (if it will help business reduce costs as well as
reducing their environmental impact).
However research on business barriers suggests lack of activity is most likely to result from environmental issues being perceived as a low business
priority. Cost is a major obstacle to investment in environmental improvement projects. There is reluctance to spend time or money on environmental issues
unless there are significant cost savings. Larger companies are better able to absorb costs and some sectors are obliged to do so given regulations. Small
companies are put off by high initial outlay or long term return on investment. A further obstacle, typically among small companies, is simply lack of
knowledge regarding what to do and how to do it, and a lack of resource to research options and put initiatives in place.

  Services Prepared to Pay For – by Company Size 9.1
  Q I am now going to read out a number of different services that could help you to reduce your costs and environmental impact. As
  I go through the list please tell me which, if any, you would be prepared to pay for                          1-25 employees

                                                            81%                                                                             26-250 employees
           74% 76%                                                            72%                                                           251+ employees
                                                      66%
                                                                                                 63%
                                         59%                            59%
                                                                                                                                     56%
     52%                         51%                                                                               50%
                                                                                           48%                                 46%
                           41%
                                                33%               32%                32%                     34%

                                                                                                       24%
                                                                                                                         19%               19%

                                                                                                                                                 10%
                                                                                                                                                       4%


      New equipment       Tools for self help     Training        Workshops/events   Bespoke advice     Information      Audits/reviews    None of these


   Data source: Unpublished: Engaging
   Businesses on Defra Issues. Defra &
   COI, July 2008. Sample size =700.

                                                                                                                                                               100
                                                                    Version v1.0

 Customer Analysis
 Customer journeys

9.5 Defra‟s pro-environment behaviours framework
In order to improve the support given to individual consumers, Defra has developed a framework for pro-environmental behaviours9.8. This summarises the
Department‟s understanding of the evidence on consumer behaviour and is designed to support policy development and implementation in Defra, other
Government departments and externally. As part of this framework, an environmental segmentation model has been developed dividing the public into
seven clusters each sharing a distinct set of attitudes and beliefs towards the environment, environmental issues and behaviours.
The framework has shown the importance of a holistic approach to encouraging pro-environmental behaviour, including a clear understanding of what
people should be asked to do, segmentation to better inform how Defra can target behaviour change interventions and approaches that most entrenched
segments and behaviours may require. For some segments there is a need for clear evidence of “what‟s in it for me” whilst others may be motivated by the
„feel good factor‟ and others still acting in the knowledge that they will save money. The research identifies that consumer-facing messaging needs to be
clear, consistent and coherent (across Government departments) - a considerable challenge given the even wide range of organisations involved in public
engagement on the environment. People expect Government to take a lead in intervening on climate change and to regulate industry to ensure they take
responsibility for their climate change impact. People also assume Government has already taken actions such as „editing out‟ non-environmental consumer
choice which would make product purchasing more straight forward.
The pro-environmental behaviours framework shows a need for Defra to engage with stakeholders such as delivery bodies, and the third sector, on both the
delivery of cross-cutting or lifestyle based solutions and to help prioritise certain more specific messages. It suggests that interventions should focus on
enabling, engaging, exemplifying and encouraging (depending on the segment.) For example, enabling by tackling external barriers such as information,
facilities and infrastructure and engaging through communications, community action, targeting individual opinion leaders. Exemplify, for example providing
fiscal incentives or businesses and Government leading by example. Encouraging by choice editing in product availability or, where necessary, regulation.
Critically, the research shows that in most cases a package of interventions is necessary as whilst it is recognised that information is inadequate on its own,
it clearly has an important role as part of a package of supporting measures.
These principles should be applied in any services targeted at individuals and households but they may also work with organisations. Better segmentation
of organisations according to their behaviours and understanding of business behaviours is needed to more successfully raise awareness amongst
businesses and to target messages, services and interventions more effectively.
9.6 Customer journeys
Customer journey mapping is the process of tracking and describing the experiences of a customers as they encounter a service or set of services, taking
into account not only what happens to them, but also their responses to their experiences. As part of this review, a sample of customer journeys were
developed with stakeholders and delivery bodies to illustrate potential opportunities for raising awareness and engagement and improving the customer
experience. Issues raised included:

Awareness and engagement
Defra and delivery bodies need to think holistically about the overall landscape of services to generating awareness and create the initial contact with
customers. Clearly explaining the business benefits of engaging (competitive advantage , cost savings, etc) was key. As was providing more consistent and
widespread messages via trusted sources. Once a customer was engaged, effective diagnosis and prioritisation was essential to maintain the engagement.101
                                                                   Version v1.0

Customer Analysis
Customer journeys
Role of other stakeholders
There is a wider landscape here and partnerships with other information providers such as the third sector, trade associations and private companies are
important to ensure information and support is delivered via the most appropriate channel. There are many routes into a journey which means many
opportunities and challenges for ensuring an effective customer experience which converts awareness into action

Targeting services
Defra/DECC and delivery bodies need to better understand motivations and barriers in order to target services more effectively. Delivery bodies can play a
key role in getting organisations to act more strategically by engaging the customer at a senior level and focusing the organisation on a holistic journey
which considers impacts across a product lifecycle or supply chain . Delivery bodies need to ensure their advisors look for opportunities for improved cross
referral promoting services available from other providers

Follow up activity
Follow up activity is important and could be better. Whilst some DB's are starting to use targeted follow up there was an opportunity for more targeted
solutions to maximise opportunities for behaviour change. The role of an account manager was also raised and seen as potentially important mechanism
for maintaining the customer relationship.

Gaps/overlaps
Clarity of remits amongst delivery bodies could be improved. Water saving advice was seen as a potential gap. There was also a perceived gap in the
provision of services for SMEs (as suggested in the research) - they needed easily accessible, simple advice, backed up by appropriate infrastructure.
Local authorities were cited as an area for potential overlap and confusion.

References:
9.1             Defra (2008) Engaging Businesses on Defra Issues, unpublished
9.2             Carbon Trust (2008) Evaluating Customer Satisfaction and Identifying Underlying Drivers, unpublished
9.3             WRAP (2007) Stakeholder Research, unpublished
9.4             BMG (2006) Resource Efficiency Support in the North West, unpublished
9.5             Defra (2008) Engaging The Business Community in Environmental Issues, unpublished
9.6             NISP (2007) NISP Evaluation 2006-7, unpublished
9.7             Defra (2008) Business Support Simplification Programme Research, unpublished
9.8             Defra (January 2008) A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours
9.9             Envirowise (2008) Envirowise Research Review and (Sept 2008) Response to Defra Landscape Review Draft analysis and Proposals,
                unpublished
9.10            Envirowise impact assessment 2007, unpublished



                                                                                                                                                           102
                                                                    Version v1.0
10. Delivery chain analysis
This chapter sets out a high level overview of the delivery landscape, the activities of the main delivery bodies
providing services within it, and analyses the landscape for overlaps, gaps and issues.

10.1. High level delivery chain
Figure 10.1 „High level delivery chain‟ highlights the relationships between the main stakeholders in the delivery landscape:
 On the left of figure 10.1: Key Government funding Departments - Defra/DECC , DfT, CLG, BERR, DIUS, and the Devolved Administrations.
 Moving right: The funding relationship between Departments and delivery bodies (DBs), their delivery agents and intermediaries.
 On the right of figure 10.1: The customer segments that take delivery of the services.
 Some Government departments also deliver services directly to customers such as Defra‟s 'Act of CO2„ campaign, in addition some DBs deliver
   directly to customers as well as through intermediary bodies such as consultancies, local authorities (LAs), regional development agencies (RDAs),
   and various business organisations such as trade bodies.
 The delivery landscape is a complex and crowded place with many organisations delivering services to a range of customer segments.


   Only some of the organisations in figure 10.1 are within scope of this review, they are highlighted in orange.
   As well as service provision, DBs additionally advise Government on policy, undertake research and development to develop new technologies,
   additional capacity and capability as well as create awareness of climate change amongst the different customer segments.




                                                                                                                                                        103
                                                       Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Figure 10.1 : High level delivery chain

                     EST                 EEPfH
DECC
                                                                                                           Consumers
                                         Salix                                             Local gov
Defra                Carbon
                     Trust               Finance
                                                                                           Local gov-led
                                                                                           programmes      Communities
DfT
                                                                       Third               BREW centre
                     WRAP
                                                     Business                              for LAs
                                                                       sector orgs                         Third
CLG                                                 Business
                                                                                                           sector orgs
                                                                       Research
                     Envirowise                     membership                             Env
                                                    organisations      orgs / KTNs
                                                                                           consultants
BERR                                                Energy                                                 SMEs
                                                                       Waterwise
                     NISP                           suppliers

                                                              Intermediaries
DIUS                                                                                                       Large
                                                                                                           business
                     Action
                     Sustainability                                                   RDA-led
                                                                            RDAs
                     Construction Res                                                 programmes
                     & Waste Platform
Devolved                                                                    Gov       Business             Local gov /
Admins               Centre for
                                                                            Offices   Links                pub sector
                     Reman & Reuse

                     Delivery bodies
                                                                                                           Gov depts

                                                   Manufacturing
                                                                   Market
                                                   Advisory
                            Regulators             Service         Trans Prog                                Customers
                     Env           Nat             Other gov funded bodies
 Scope of Review
                     Agency        England                                                                               104
                                                                      Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Functions of the delivery bodies
10.2. Functions of the delivery bodies
Figure 10.2 „Functions of the delivery bodies‟ highlights the functions of the DBs. Broadly, Defra ‟s DBs carries out the following activities:
 For customers (consumers, business, local government, etc.):
        o Provides advice and information through a number of different channels with the aim of raising customer awareness of climate change issues,
           actions they can take, where they can get help etc..
        o Investment in the forms of grants for new equipment, installation of equipment and materials etc, or developing new infrastructure in the form
           of market making.
       o Evidence in the form of research, customer behaviours and drivers, comparators etc..
 For Defra (and other Government departments):
       o Specialist and technical input into the policy development process providing deep market knowledge.
 Internal to the DB:
       o Develop in-house strategies, approach and methodologies, plans etc., to deliver Defra‟s outcomes.
 For partners (RDAs, local government, third sector, etc.):
        o Influence the wider stakeholder groups through partnering, developing voluntary agreements, facilitating their involvement in the delivery
           landscape etc.




                                                                                                                                                           105
                                                                                                              Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Figure 10.2: Functions of the delivery bodies

                                                                                                Defra (and other Government departments)
                                                                                                                                                                               3
                                                                                                                                                                           2
                                                                                                                                                         Delivery Body 1
             (RDAs, local government, third sector, etc)




                                                                                                                         Policy input
                                                           (partnering, voluntary agreements,


                                                                                                           (policy development, expert opinion, etc)

                                                                                                                           Strategy
                                                                     facilitation, etc)




                                                                                                              (delivery approach, operations, etc)
  Partners




                                                                       Influencing




                                                                                                                          Evidence
                                                                                                        (research, customer insight, benchmarking, etc)

                                                                                                                         Investment
                                                                                                        (market making, capital investment, grants, etc)

                                                                                                                  Advice and information
                                                                                                      (awareness raising, training, helpline, website, etc)




                                                                                                              Customers
                                                                                                (consumers, business, local government, etc)                                       106
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Delivery matrix
10.3. Delivery Matrix
The delivery matrix illustration (figure 10.3) was developed from material provided by delivery bodies and through one to one meetings with them.
This is a high level analysis of the delivery landscape suggesting a number of potential synergies exist amongst the DBs. But at this level of granularity it
is difficult to see the true picture of gaps and overlaps. It does however, set out the main players in the landscape and the areas of service provision they
focus on. We have included CT and EST to indicate DECC and Defra delivery relationship on carbon issues.




                                                                                                                                                                107
                                                                                                                  Version v1.0

  Delivery chain analysis
  Figure 10.3: Delivery matrix
                                                                           Business                                                                                      Consumers                                                             Public Sector
                         Small             Small                Mid-Cap              Mid-Cap               Large                Large                Consumer:     Consumer:        Consumer:                   Consumer:               PS: Lead               PS: Deliver
                         Businesses:       Businesses:          Businesses:          Businesses:           Businesses:          Businesses:          Home/         Home/            Buy Eco-                    Reduce                  reduction in           greener
                         Reduce            Make / Buy           Reduce               Make / Buy            Reduce               Make / Buy           Energy        Waste            Products                    travel                  env. impact            services to
                         environ.          Greener              environ.             Greener               environ.             Greener              reduce env.   reduce env.                                  impact                                         customers
                         impact            Products             impact               Products              impact               Products             impact        impact
                                                                                                                                                                                            „Act on CO2„ Campaign: Defra/                     •Universities (R&D, Sol dev)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            DECC                                           NISP
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              •EA (Protocols, joint sol dev)
                                                          •Wrap (Joint: Events & Information dissemination)                                                                                                                                   •Brew Centre for LAs
            Reduce                        Envirowise      •RDAs (Info Conduit, Joint working)
                                                          •BL (Info Conduit, Joint working)
                                                          •Trade Associations (Events)                                                    AS
                                                          •Consultancies
Waste




            Re-Cycle

                                                                                      •Envirowise (Retail, packaging, construction, supply chain)                        • LAs
                                                                                      •CT (Ads)                                                                                                                                                      •3rd Sector Organisations
                                                                                                                                                                         •Retailers
            Re-Use                                                                    •EA (Waste Protocols, Organics)              Wrap                                  •Manufacturers   Wrap                                                       •RDA
                                                                                      •Consultancies                                                                                                                                                 •Consultancies  Wrap



                                                                                                •Network of Engaged Members
                                                                                                •Universities (R&D, Sol Dev)
                                                                                                •EA (Protocols, joint Sol dev)
                                                                                                •RDA (Funding, joint net use)
Water




                                                                                                •Trade Associations (Referals, Info dissémination)                                        „Consumer Outreach and
            Reduce                                                                                                                                                                        Advice including „Act on CO2
                                                                                                •BL (Referals, Info conduits)             NISP
                                                                                                •LA (Dev solution)
                                                                                                                                                                                          Advice Line'                    EST
Materials




            Virgin Raw
            Material:
            Reduce
                                  •Envirowise (Retail, packaging, construction, supply chain)
                                  •CT (Ads)
                                  •EA (Waste Protocols, Organics)
                          Wrap    •Consultancies


                                                                                            •AEAT/ BRE: Tech support     •Wrap: ADs                                                         •Labelling     CT                                                •Wrap: ADs
                                                                                                                                       CT                                                                                                                    •RDAs             CT
            Efficiency                                                                      •Banks: Funding              •Trade Bodies                                                                                                                       •AEAT/ BRE
                                                                                            •New Tech Businesses         •Business Link                                                                                                                      •Community Groups
Energy




                                                                                            •Consultancies               •RDAs                                                                                                                               •New Tech Businesses
                                                                                                                                                                                                         •„Act on CO2„ Advice Line                           •Consultancies
                                                                                                                                                                                                         •Community Groups
                                                                                                                                                                                                         •Supply chains for energy
                                                                                                                                                                                                          efficient goods & services:
            Renewable                                                                                                                                                                                        •Manufacturers
                                                                                                                                                                                                             •Suppliers
                           • Retailers                                                                                                                                                                       •Retailers & installers                                       AS
                           •RDAs                                                                                                                                                                         •LAs                            • Contractors
                           •Contractors     EST                                                                                                                                                          •EEpfH             EST          •RDAs                   EST

                                RDAs
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           108
                                                                     Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Delivery chains
10.4. Current State of the Delivery Landscape: Delivery body delivery chains
Annex C, 'Delivery Body Delivery Chains', illustrates the delivery chains for each of the three main DBs and the RDAs covering:
 the type of service offered (waste, water, materials and energy).
 the service provision (advice provision, raising awareness, training provision etc.).
 the channels through which services are offered (delivery agents as intermediaries delivering the services, channels (direct, contact centre, web etc.),
   consultancies etc..
 customer behaviours impacted (desire to reduce environmental impact, make greener products, reduce environmental impact of home energy use etc.).
 the impact customers wants (reduce costs, adhere to legislation etc.).
 the customer segments being targeted.

These individual delivery chains provide a more detailed view of each DB‟s activities in the delivery landscape than figure 10.3 'Delivery Matrix' and further
  illustrates the overlaps in delivery operations where all DBs have infrastructure of contact centres, web systems, undertake marketing and
  communications, commission consultancies, work with similar customer segments and deliver similar services etc.. The reproduction of internal support
  functions add to the landscape overhead costs.
Figure 10.4 'DB operations model' shows a high level view of the DBs operations models:
 1st tier contact centre and web systems are used by all DBs as their first port of call for customer queries and raising awareness.
 2nd tier, specialist in-depth or technical service provision is generally provided by external specialists or consultants: their involvement is managed by the
   DB whether it is a free or a commercialised service provision.

Issues:
 Each DB has discrete and separate operational infrastructure such as contact centres, web systems etc. all of which absorb operational expenditure as
   well as operational functions such as marketing and communications that do the same. There are opportunities for the separate DBs‟ infrastructure and
   functions to work together synergistically with common branding and coordinated activities.
 This analysis, however, does not show what services are delivered for which customer segment – it is at this level that comparisons between the DBs
   can be made – the following section 'detailed delivery matrix' carries out this analysis.




                                                                                                                                                              109
                                                 Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Figure 10.4: DBs and RDAs operations model




                      1st Tier Contact   2nd Tier Technical/          Regionally Resourced     Business Link
                      Centre & Web       Specialist Advice.                                    Engaged
                                         External contractors



         Wrap         Yes                25 Contractors               No                       Yes
                                         150 Consultants

         Envirowise   Yes                150 Consultants              9 Regional managers      Yes
                                                                      based at RDAs



         NISP         Yes                Network of IS                9 Regional offices in    Via Brew Centre for
                                         practitioners/ contractors   England, & Scot, Wales   LAs
                                                                      & NI Offices

         RDAs         Yes                Network of local service     Yes                      Integral
                                         providers.




                                                                                                                     110
                                                                    Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Current state of the delivery landscape
10.5. Current State of the Delivery Landscape: Detailed delivery matrix
Figure 10.4 'detailed delivery matrix (waste & water)' and figure 10.5 „ detailed delivery matrix (material & energy)' show a more detailed level view of DB
activities targeting customer segments. This analysis highlights how the main customer segments are being serviced by the DBs.
Using the information within figures 10.4 and 10.5 along with that from the review team‟s interviews with each delivery body, the following sections set out
the key gaps, overlaps and issues in the delivery landscape.


10.5.1. Industrial symbiosis (IS)
Generally NISP provides IS service provision across all the customer sectors except for consumers, schools, hospitals and central government. Although
the detailed delivery matrices clearly shows that NISP provides services such as advice, technical help, tool etc to the same customer segments as other
DBs for the same customer needs, NISP have stated they do so as part of the IS offering only and therefore they are service differentiated i.e. do not offer
the same services as the other DBs who contact the same customers. NISP are participating in a referral model in Scotland and have reported some
success in England. NISP state that there is a need to ensure that any referral is appropriate for the company and is followed up so as not to lose the trust
of the companies concerned.
Issue:
•An opportunity exists that when advice, solution development etc. on resource efficiency is being provided by DBs for customers, related opportunities
around IS could additionally be addressed by the same consulting DB agents, and, vice versa, that when customers are engaged by NISP on IS, wider
opportunities around energy, waste, water and materials could also be covered.




                                                                                                                                                                111
                                                                  Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Delivery: Regional service provision
10.5.2. Regional service provision
Both the national DBs and the RDAs provide, manage and/or coordinate services at the regional level. The RDAs provide, manage and/or coordinate a
number of differing services regionally to largely local businesses rather than nationally active businesses who in the main contact the national DBs. In
some cases, the RDAs provide, manage and/or coordinate services where the DBs are not providing such services in their region (even though the same
DB may do so in other areas), and where the RDAs deem such services to be of key importance to their region. This is an area of concern for some RDAs
who state that the national funded DBs are not always consistent in delivering services across the country.


Our analysis suggests that there are some overlaps of service provision at the regional level where the RDAs and the national DBs carry out similar work
with local businesses and Government, though there are examples of joint-working agreements, for example: some RDAs use the expertise of the
national DBs where relevant; some national DBs use the RDA knowledge of local businesses for targeting purposes (such as NISP using local RDA
knowledge to help them engage with SMEs). Such working relationships are not consistent across the country – different RDAs have different agreements
in terms of relationship breadth and depth, and clearly the national DBs and RDAs do overlap on the local customers they target.


Some national DBs such as NISP and Envirowise are engaging RDAs to help them access RDA known local businesses, especially the difficult-to-reach
SMEs and are considering working with BLs on co-branding and joint customer support. Envirowise is working closely with RDAs and have aligned
strategies and priority sectors. Additionally some DBs (notably Envirowise) have their regional managers based at RDA sites who ensure appropriate
engagement with the BLs on targeting businesses, and provide training to BL advisory agents. A number of national DBs stated that they would signpost
customers to BLs if the query was of a general nature but only if their advisory agent could not provide the answer.

Issues:
There are opportunities to make clearer the regional delivery landscape for local businesses.
Though there are good examples of joint-working between RDAs and national DBs, there are opportunities for developing a common standardised
approach to dealing with national DBs on regional delivery, share best practice, ensure coordinated, consistent and value-for-money service delivery.
Opportunities also exist for RDAs and national DBs to rationalise and coordinate their marketing and communication contacts with local businesses.




                                                                                                                                                            112
                                                                   Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Delivery: SMEs
10.5.3. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
Various different types of service provision is provided by all of the delivery bodies ranging from advisory, to technology development support, to grants
administration, to market making. Figures 10.4 and 10.5 suggest considerable overlap in the type of services being offered. These same services
additionally seem to overlap with a range of local service providers. Some of the national DBs have agreements for joint working, for example: generally
WRAP supports the development of waste infrastructure and standards whilst Envirowise used to work closely with them to provide local on-site support.
Although on the face of it there seems to be overlaps in services provision amongst the national and regional DBs in dealing with SMEs, our analysis
suggests that in reality the level of engagement of small business with national DBs is generally low and patchy. Some national DBs do not, for example,
directly target small businesses (but provide remote assistance when required or/ and indirectly work through regional delivery bodies) due to a number of
reasons including such organisations being below the threshold at which they directly engage deeply with businesses in general, such as the level of
energy consumption. Some business organisations have commented that their members do want to do more in the climate change arena but are
prevented by a lack of services available to them, such as plastic collection and recycling which is not available in some areas cost-effectively.
Issues:
There are opportunities for a more consistent and comprehensive approach to dealing with SME business requirements across the landscape.
There are opportunities for national and regional DBs to coordinate and rationalise their marketing and delivery contacts with SMEs. A single interface
with SMEs would help more effective SME engagement.




                                                                                                                                                             113
                                                                   Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Delivery: Large businesses
10.5.4. Large businesses
Various different types of service provision is provided by DBs to large businesses ranging from advisory, to technology development support, to grants
administration, to market making.
Defra funded DBs operate in a wider landscape of many organisations engaged in providing support (over 70 national and 90 regional organisations for
business alone). The organisations active in the wider landscape crowd it with competing marketing messages and service offerings making it difficult for
some business segments to understand the landscape and the services on offer without engaging resources to research their requirements with the mass
of potential services on offer. Within the Defra funded DBs, although there are good examples of joint working between them, some overlap exists with the
type of customers the DBs target as well as services offered - figures 10.4 and 10.5 suggest:
certain customer sectors are more targeted by DBs than others: Retailers & Wholesalers, Manufacturers, Chemical Industry, Construction, Service
Industry and Food, Drink and Tobacco.
certain types of services are provided more than others: Services around waste minimisation, increase waste recycling, water use minimisation, better
product and process design, increase energy efficiency of industrial processes.
There are a number of reasons why the above listed customer segments are more targeted than others and the offered services are more preferred
including the high energy and resource usage of these customers, market failures to advice and help them commercially, ease by which DBs can convert
advice to outcomes and so on.
Issues:
There are opportunities to rationalise and coordinate the types of services offered to customers across the landscape especially in the above listed
business segments. There are, additionally, opportunities to rationalise and coordinate market making activities amongst the DBs but this is to a lesser
extent than advisory related services.
There is an opportunity to establish a lead DB for each customer segment for prescribed service offerings, this would reduce the overlaps in service
delivery and aid coordination across some aspects of the landscape of services to large businesses. This would aid businesses to know which DB to
contact for help.




                                                                                                                                                            114
                                                                   Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Delivery: Public sector and consumers
10.5.5. Public Sector (central Government, local Government, schools and hospitals)
Figures 10.4 and 10.5 suggests that most DBs who are active in the public sector tend to focus more on local government rather than central government
and schools and hospitals with some exceptions.
DBs tactically engage with LAs in providing services or have LAs deliver advice or services on their behalf. DBs engage with LAs on a number of different
fronts directly, and also indirectly through their relationships with the BREW Centre for LAs.
Issues:
There are opportunities for increasing the breadth and depth of service provision to the public sector and any reform of the landscape for service
provision to local businesses through LAs should consider Defra funded bodies, such as the Brew Centre for LAs.




                                                                                                                                                            115
                                            Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Figure 10.4: Detailed delivery matrix (waste and water)




                                                           116
                                            Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Figure 10.5: Detailed delivery matrix (material and energy)




                                                              117
                                                                  Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Delivery body relationships and former BREW pilot projects/ programmes
10.6 Delivery body relationships
All of the DBs work with each other to varying degrees. Some relationships were relatively deep, for example, Wrap and Envirowise working in the 'Food
and Drink and Retail Supply Chain' sectors on waste minimisation advice where Envirowise were the on-site partners, whilst other relationships were
more tactical and akin to sign-posting and transferring customers in real-time to the more relevant DB such as CT „warm-transferring‟ customers to Wrap.
DBs state they understood each other and where relevant would signpost or transfer customers over to other DBs. EST has a developing partnership with
WRAP to provide information on waste issues for the green homes service
From the material provided by DBs and the review team meetings with DBs, limited evidence of deep strategic level partnering between the DBs was
found.
NISP works with a number of the other DBs. Wrap and NISP have a statement of collaboration and complementarity and have a split of activities where
NISP works regionally on re-use and re-processing and with users of recycled material whilst Wrap works nationally on recycling waste issues with waste
makers; only Wrap offers grants. NISP on the whole provides targeted advice whilst Envirowise is more holistic and operated within individual company
boundaries and offered short term consultancy services (pre April 2008). NISP on the other hand operates between companies and facilitates longer term
relationships. DBs in the main do not engage the smaller ex-BREW organisations. Some DBs thought they should simply be amalgamated into their
organisations to provide synergy. Action Sustainability (AS) works with Envirowise on a number of issues where AS provides much of the sustainable
procurement advice in their joint engagements with customers – Envirowise also has procurement specialists but relies on AS for much of this.
In the main, DBs seem to work well with other key delivery partners such as the Environment Agency (EA); engagements varied, from NISP providing
technical and specialist knowledge such as protocols and standards and working with the EA to develop solutions, to informing each other of their
capabilities. Envirowise and EA, for example, have given each other access to their intranets and provide their customers with information derived from
both intranets. It was noted that the EA are moving away from their compliance role and more into advice provision for businesses and therefore
potentially causing areas of overlap in delivery with other DBs. There are also potential overlaps where for example, the EA, Wrap and the RDAs are
working together on the Pathway to Zero Waste programme – this is an area of potential overlap with NISP.


10.7 Former BREW pilot projects/programmes
The specialist nature and size of the pilot projects/programmes funded under the former BREW Programme (BREW centre for LAs, AS, CRR, CRWP)
suggests their functions could be combined with one or more of the main delivery bodies to provide a more integrated, strategic approach and provide
organisational and operational synergies. A number of these projects are already considering merging with other larger bodies in the landscape. However,
any decisions here must be contingent on the make-up of the wider landscape.




                                                                                                                                                           118
                                                                   Version v1.0

Delivery chain analysis
Communication synergy
10.8 Communication Synergy
All the main DBs undertake their own marketing and branding exercises (although this activity is limited for NISP). Defra has established a Landscape
Communications Panel to improve coordination of communications activities across the delivery network and DBs are increasingly adopting Defra‟s 'Act
on CO2„ campaign. But there is currently no single integrated communications strategy to engaging the customer segments in delivering a comprehensive
behaviour change framework.
Issues:
 Some DBs are focussed on raising the awareness of their own corporate brands and services. There is potential for lack of coordination between DBs‟
   and Departmental communications activities including alignment with the cross-government 'Act on CO2„ campaign and BSSP branding. There is also
   a potential challenge in aligning communications objectives of Defra and devolved administrations.
 In a market where there is a limited demand for DB services and where there are numerous messages from other sources, it is essential that
   communications activities are integrated, coherent, coordinated, not in competition for customer attention and delivers a focused and relevant message
   to targeted customer audiences in a timely manner.
 Defra‟s Landscape Communications Panel provides a vehicle for improved coordination of communications activities across the delivery network.
   However, there needs to be a strategic framework to ensure consistent messaging, deliver a coherent approach to brands/labelling, explain the
   benefits for consumers/business of engaging with this agenda (and risks of not engaging), and clarify the support available. This should integrate with
   the work of Defra‟s Environmental Behaviours Unit.




                                                                                                                                                             119
                                                    Version v1.0
Annexes


Annex A   Criteria definitions for high level analysis
Annex B   Long list of strategic options identified in the draft DLR report.
Annex C   Delivery body delivery chains




                                                                               120
                                                        Version v1.0

Annex A:
Criteria definitions for high level analysis
Criteria definition for strategic options analysis
1. Service Provision Better Aligned with Customers: Does this option:
    Counter known customer confusion of the landscape in terms of helping customers to gain an awareness that there may exist a
    need for action; what that action should and could be; who in the landscape can help them; how they can get that help; how to
    implement the action and advice.
    Make it clear what help is available regionally versus nationally and by which delivery body.

2. Service Provision better Co-ordinated Between Delivery Bodies: Does this option:
   Limit the overlaps in the area of service provision and the overlaps in customer segments targeted by delivery bodies. Where
   overlaps exists in terms of service area or customer targeting, allow delivery bodies to coordinate service deliver through sharing
   of knowledge, and deep and integral strategic and operational joint working.
   Allow regionally and nationally differentiated customers‟ requirements for service provision to be met through specific and clear
   targeting across the landscape by the delivery bodies.

3. Improved Communications Coherence across the Landscape: Does this option:
   Counter the current lack of communication coordination across the landscape, and overlapping, confusing and competing
   communication messages to customers. Allow a more streamlined and coherent message, one aligned to Defra‟s marketing
   strategy, to be communicated to customers. Allow Defra‟s marketing and communication strategies and plans to be prioritised
   across the landscape.

4. Increased Partnership between Defra and the Delivery Bodies: Does this option:
   Aid strategic partnering between Defra and the DBs helping them to work together to determine what needs to be done in the
   landscape to ensure Defra‟s objectives are met, to define policy, to implement policy through an agreed portfolio of work, and
   feedback the outcomes of such work back into policy re-iteration.

5. More Effective Governance and Performance Management by Defra: Does this option:
    Improve Defra‟s governance of the DBs allowing Defra to better direct and manage the DBs at the strategic level; improve
    Defra‟s performance management and measurement framework and processes allowing Defra to: better manage DBs at the
    operational level; the landscape to be managed as a whole with funding distributed to maximise outcomes rather than allowing
                                                                                                                              121
    DBs to compete for funds to deliver similar overlapping work. Assures there are no delivery gaps in the landscape.
                                                      Version v1.0

Annex A:
Criteria definitions for high level analysis
6.   Buy-in from Delivery Bodies: Does this option:
     Achieve “buy-in” from DBs in terms of support and advocacy for the change to the delivery landscape.
     Approximation of the level of buy-in from the DBs; each cross relates to 1 point that is subtracted from the calculation of
     the benefit of the option. Reference to the magnitude of change that the DBs would undergo from their status quo, the
     level of independence in terms of scope, remit, funding usage, governance and management they would lose.

7.   Adjustment Costs: Quantitative approximation:
     Approximation of the cost to operationalise this option with reference to the magnitude of change for Defra internally by
     relating Adjustment Costs to Defra‟s Delivery Body support budget. Plus or minus one tick for every percent of Total
     budget.

8.   Efficiency Savings: Quantitative approximation:
     Approximation of the level of efficiency that would be expected from the option. Reference to synergetic savings in:
     governance and management resources; operational resources; customer targeting and management; service delivery
     combination and coordination, for example:

    DB Resource Synergetic Savings: Efficiencies will be expected when DBs merge and require fewer: governance,
     management and back-office functional resources; R&D resources where similar programs are merged or complimentary;
     infrastructure (buildings, equipment, licenses) are discarded/ shared; operational resources as customer targeting is
     coordinated and coherent allowing more services to be sold and delivered at the same time.

    Defra Synergies: Efficiencies will be expected within Defra when sponsor teams come together and fewer resources are
     require in total to deliver the same or better service as skills, capabilities, cover, etc are shared and more full time
     resource can be used.

    Landscape Synergies: Efficiencies will be expected when: communication budgets are combined into a single service
     centre that provide synergies in marketing and communication resources; lead DBs are allocated for customer segments
     and service areas increasing coordination and coherence across the landscape resulting in a lower cost to serve the
     customer.                                                                                                                     122
                                                      Version v1.0

Annex A:
Criteria definitions for high level analysis
9.   Benefit:-
     This calculates the approximate and high level benefit that would be expected from the implementation of the options
     based on the criteria:
      = -1 Point for each cross (Reference to negative DB buy-in)
     = + 1 Points for each tick (Reference to positive benefits expected by each criteria)




                                                                                                                            123
                                                                Version v1.0
 Annex B: Long list of strategic options
 1 a) Rationalise the number, remit and scope of DBs:
 1 DB delivers all services of all service areas for all customer segment
The number of DBs that provide services to any given service area (waste, water, materials, energy, IS) and face-off to any given
customer segment (consumer, SMEs, large business, local government, public sector) is rationalised to a single DB, see below
matrix. Only this national DB will be funded to provide services to the identified customer segments for the stated service areas.
The remit of the DB will be to provide a complete end-to-end service to the customer segments covering advisory, research,
strategic market analysis, informing Government policy etc. This option can be carried within 24-36 months ().
                                                                            Services
                                                               Waste          Water    Materials   Energy        IS
                                         Consumer                            1 DB provides all services.
                              Segments
                              Customer



                                         SME
                                         Business
                                         Local Government
                                         Public Sector

                           Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                          Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
   No national DBs chasing the same customer and providing overlapping services                  DB reluctance ().
    across the landscape: fully streamlines the landscape ().                                  A current single DB does not have the
   A clearer picture of the landscape for customers – a single port of call for all of            capability to provide all services and
    their requirements.                                                                            customer face-off roles.
   Clear remit for DB and delineation of their scope of service provision and target             DB resources will need to be recruited and
    customers.                                                                                     trained to deliver the increased scope of their
   Only 1 national DB for regional customers to engage with ().                                 roles and /or existing DBs come together to
   Clearer funding picture for Defra: better link of funding, to service provision, to            form the new single DB.
    customers and to outcomes.                                                                    Period of re-organisation will require
   Communication streamlined with only 1 nationally based message going to                        additional resources and detrimentally impact
    customers ().                                                                               outcomes.
   High efficiency savings resulting from organisational, structural and operational             These cons result in a potentially very high
    synergies ().                                                                               cost of adjustment.
   Easier for sponsorship/ policy partnering, track performance, DB governance ().

                                                                                                                                                     124
                                                             Version v1.0
Annex B: Long list of strategic options
1 b) Rationalise the number, remit and scope of DBs:
2 DBs deliver services to all customer segments split by energy and resource efficiency
The number of DBs that provide services to any given service area (waste, water, materials, energy, IS) and face-off to any given
customer segment (consumer, SMEs, large business, local government, public sector) is rationalised to two DBs, see below matrix.
One DB focuses on Energy, the other on Resource Efficiency, each delivering end-to-end services for all customer segments. This
option can be carried within 24-36 months ().
                                                                    Services
                                                           Waste      Water      Materials   IS         Energy
                                      Consumer                     1 Delivery Body:                  1 Delivery
                           Segments
                           Customer

                                      SME                                                              Body:
                                      Business
                                                            Resource Efficiency (non energy)
                                                                       Focused                         Energy
                                      Local Government
                                                                                                      Focused
                                      Public Sector

                             Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                     Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
   Far fewer national DBs chasing the same customer and providing overlapping                   DB reluctance ().
    services across the landscape: partially streamlines the landscape ().                     A single DB does not have the capability
   A clearer picture of the landscape for customers – a single port of call for clearly          to deliver end-to-end services for either
    delineated requirements.                                                                      service area and customer face-off roles.
   Only 2 national DBs for regional customers to engage with ().                              Unlikely an IS capability could be
   Communication streamlined with 2 nationally based messages going to customers;                developed cost-effectively from scratch.
    clearly delineated between energy and non-energy ().                                      DB resources will need to be recruited
   The difference in Energy and Resource Efficiency is accounted for through different           and trained to deliver the increased
    leading DBs.                                                                                  scope of their roles and /or existing DBs
   Clearer funding picture for Defra: better link of funding, to service provision, to           come together to form the new DBs.
    customers and to outcomes.                                                                   Period of re-organisation will require
   High efficiency savings resulting from clear synergies between the DBs for this type          additional resources and detrimentally
    of rationalisation where Wrap, Envirowise, NISP and the Brew DBs form the                     impact outcomes.
    Resource Efficiency DB ().                                                                Customers will still need to go to more
   Clear remit for DBs and delineation of service provision scope and target customers.          than one DB for their combined energy
                                                                                                  and resource efficiency needs.
   Easier for sponsorship/ policy partnering, track performance, DB governance ().
                                                                                                 These cons result in a potentially high
                                                                                                                                                       125
                                                                                                  cost of adjustment.
                                                             Version v1.0
 Annex B: Long list of strategic options
 1 c) Rationalise the number, remit and scope of DBs:
 2 DBs deliver services of all services areas split by consumers and non - consumers

The number of DBs that provide services to any given service area (waste, water, materials, energy, IS) and face-off to any given
customer segment (consumer, SMEs, large business, local government, public sector) is rationalised to two DBs, see below matrix.
One DB focuses on Consumers, the other on Business, Local Government and Public Sector, each delivering end-to-end services
to the prescribed customer segments. This option can be carried within 24-36 months ().
                                                                      Services
                                                             Waste      Water      Materials    Energy        IS
                                         Consumer                          1 DB: Consumer Focused
                              Segments
                              Customer

                                         SME                                        1 DB:
                                         Business             Business, Local Government and Public Sector Focus
                                         Local Government
                                         Public Sector

                        Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                     Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
   No national DBs chasing the same customer and providing overlapping               DB reluctance().
    services across the landscape: partially streamlines the landscape ().          A single DB does not have the capability to deliver
   A clearer picture of the landscape for customers – a single port of call for       end-to-end services for either customer segments.
    all of their requirements.                                                        Unlikely an IS capability could be developed cost-
   Only 2 national DBs for regional customers to engage with ().                    effectively from scratch.
   Communication streamlined with 2 nationally based messages going to               DB resources will need to be recruited and trained
    customers ().                                                                    to deliver the increased scope of their roles and /or
   Clearer funding picture for Defra: better link of funding, to service              existing DBs come together to form the new DBs.
    provision, to customers and to outcomes.                                          Period of re-organisation will require additional
   Clear remit for DBs and delineation of their scope of service provision and        resources and detrimentally impact outcomes.
    target customers.                                                                 Coordination will still be required between the two
   Efficiency savings resulting from organisational, structural and operational       DBs to ensure coherent direction of travel and
    synergies; each DB will need to provide a full spectrum of services to             priorities between consumers and business service
    their customer segments reducing synergies obtained in (1b) ().                  development and provision.
   Easier for sponsorship/ policy partnering, track performance, DB                  These cons result in a potentially very high cost of
    governance ().                                                                    adjustment especially taking into account DBs
                                                                                       developing a full spectrum of services.                    126
                                                              Version v1.0
 Annex B: Long list of strategic options
 1 d) Rationalise the number, remit and scope of DBs:
 3 or 4 DBs deliver services split by services areas and split by customer segments
The number of DBs that provide services to any given service area (waste, water, materials, energy, IS) are rationalised and limited.
This is carried out in conjunction with a rationalisation and limitation of the DBs that face-off to any given customer segment
(consumer, SMEs, large business, local government, public sector), see below matrix. Only the DB listed in the below matrix will be
funded to provide the prescribed services to the identified customer segments for the stated service areas. The remit of the DB will
be to provide a complete end-to-end service to the customer segment covering advisory, research, strategic market analysis,
informing Government policy etc. This option can be carried within 12-24 months ().
                                                                        Services
                                                              Waste      Water        Materials     Energy         IS
                                         Consumer                                      EST                   •Wrap (for a
                              Segments
                              Customer



                                         SME                                                       EST or CT 3 DB model)
                                         Business                      Wrap?
                                         Local Government                                             CT      •NISP (for a
                                         Public Sector                                                        4 DB model)

                           Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                         Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
   Fewer national DBs chasing the same customer and providing overlapping                       DB reluctance from non-lead DBs ().
    services across the landscape: partially streamlines the landscape ().                     Capability/ appetite question of DBs to provide
   A clearer picture of the landscape for customers – a single port of call for either           end-to-end services for their prescribed
    most or all of their requirements.                                                            service and customer face-off roles.
   Only 3-4 national DBs for regional customers to engage with (); these are                  DBs resources may need to be trained to
    already known to the regional markets with clearly delineated offerings.                      understand increased scope of roles and /or
   The difference in IS, Energy and Waste specialisms accounted for through                      existing DBs come together to form new DBs.
    different leading DBs.                                                                       Re-organisation period may require additional
   Clearer funding picture for Defra: better link of funding, to service provision, to           resources and detrimentally impact outcomes.
    customers and to outcomes.                                                                   Aside of consumers, customer will still need to
   Clear remit for DBs and delineation of their scope of service provision and                   go to more than one DB for all of their needs,
    target customers means communication is streamlined also ().                                especially if Business Link is accounted for.
   Efficiency savings from organisational, structural and operational synergies                 These cons result in a potentially/ relatively
    ().                                                                                         low cost of adjustment compared to (1a-c) as
   Easier sponsorship/ policy partnering, track performance, DB governance ().                  lead DBs remain within their core areas.
                                                                                                                                                     127
                                                                   Version v1.0

  Annex B: Long list of strategic options
  2) Allocate Lead DBs for service provision and customer segments
Research shows that DBs overlap on some aspects of service provision as well as targeted customer segments. Research also
shows that customers are confused as to who can help them within the landscape through a mis-match of overlapping and mis-
focused communications messages and contact points.

This option clarifies the leading DB for customer sectors and service provision by allocating the lead DB for both service provision
(waste, water, materials, energy, IS) and customer segment (consumer, SMEs, large business, regional government, public sector)
giving it to the DB best placed to lead. The lead customer face-off DB directs the provision of the services and the interaction with
the customers bringing in other DBs as when they deem appropriate. This option does not limit the number of DBs active in the
landscape or the service they provide. This option can be carried within 12 months ().



                              Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                  Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
 Better service focus for DBs allowing more targeted service offerings through greater clarity  Little reluctance expected from
  on remits and roles on sectors and services: virtually streamlines the landscape through        DBs as only their remits and
  greater clarification ().                                                                      scope are clarified (▬).
 Landscape delivery is simplified with prescribed leads delivering services or facing-off       Increase in DB resource overhead
  customers.                                                                                      for them to better understand
 Overlaps in service delivery and customer targeting are lessened: this will result in fewer,    each other in order for them to
  more relevant and focused contacts from national DBs with regional customers ().               „sell‟ each others‟ services and
 Clear remit for DBs and delineation of their scope of service provision and target customers    coordinate multi-DB service
  means communication is streamlined also ().                                                   delivery.
 Efficiency savings from more focused service provision with fewer overlaps and redundancy  These cons result in a potentially
  ().                                                                                            low cost of adjustment.
 Easier sponsorship/ policy partnering, track performance, DB governance through greater
  clarity of DB scope and responsibilities () .


                                                                                                                                               128
                                                         Version v1.0
    Annex B: Long list of strategic options
    3 a) Change regional and national DB coordination and relationship:
    Better coordination
There are some overlaps and gaps between national and regional service provision where regional DBs deliver services that should
be, or are additionally being, delivered by national DBs.

This option improves the coordination between national and regional delivery bodies/ coordinators by setting up a coordination
framework governing how the DBs work together on providing services to national and regional customers and consumers thereby
reduce overlaps on customer targeting. The framework will cover how the DBs will share and update data on customers, markets
and intervention efficacy evidence, technologies and methods, and jointly develop value for money service offerings and coordinate
their delivery, and develop customer relationships.
The framework will jointly agreed between all the DBs with Defra facilitating and driving its development. This option can be carried
within 12 months ().


                         Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)               Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
   Fewer DBs chasing the same regional customers and providing                   Formalising coordination between regional and
    overlapping services across the regions, however there will be little          national DBs should result in DB support ().
    streamlining of the landscape in comparison to (3b or c) (▬).                 Only relates to local customers, national customer
   Regional customers better served by more informed national and regional        continue to be served the same way that they
    DBs and a more coherent and better coordinated delivery landscape ().         currently are.
   A clearer picture of the regional landscape for customers – fewer             Question of how long a coordination framework
    overlapping and competing messages ().                                        would take to develop.
   Aligns with the delivery of BSSP.                                             Regional customer still have multiple contacts with
   Little efficiency savings expected in comparison with (3b or c) (▬).           different DBs – no single face-off.
   Little sponsorship/ policy partnering, track performance, DB governance       These cons result in a potentially low cost of
    expected in comparison with (3c) (▬).                                          adjustment.




                                                                                                                                          129
                                                              Version v1.0
  Annex B: Long list of strategic options
  3 b) Change regional and national DB coordination and relationship:
  Regional local account management
This option builds on Option (3 a) as follows:
Regional DBs (for example the RDAs as commissioners and coordinators of regional delivery and their regional resource efficiency
solution providers) own and manage local customers on a case management basis; they bring in and coordinate national DBs as
and when they are required by customers or the regional DBs. Regional DBs will have a framework agreement with national DBs
(and other DBs) from which they will choose a suitable candidate to deliver services.
National DBs no longer target local customers but work with the regional DBs to target these customers, build services and
initiatives, markets etc that the customers would benefit from. The regional DBs coordinate all of the work by the national DBs to
provide customers with a seamless and coherent service covering all of their needs from waste, water, materials and energy. All
national customers will continue to be served as they currently are.
National DBs will work with regional DBs to give them an understanding of their services and how to „sell‟ these to customers as well
as when they should be brought in. National DBs will continue their nationally based work of informing Government policy where this
policy impact local customers. This option can be carried within 12-24 months ().
                           Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)              Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
 Provides a customer centric service with a single „face-off‟ to customers with      Formalising coordination between regional
    coordinated technical and specialists service delivery tuned to when the           and national DBs should result in DB support
    customer need it.                                                                  but this will be moderated by losing control of
 Splits regional and national service delivery resulting in a clearer landscape of    local customer contacts(▬).
    who does what: streamlines the landscape through clearer remits and               Regional DBs training burden in
    responsibilities ().                                                              understanding the services of the national
 A clearer picture of the regional landscape for customers – fewer overlapping        DBs and how to sell them and when to bring
    and competing messages ().                                                        national DBs in to see customers.
 National DBs will be freed from having to deal directly with a large customer       National DBs may lose contact control with
    segment, freeing up resources to focus on their key national customer segments. local customers.
 Allows regional DBs to better coordinate national DB input in regional service      Regional DBs may require additional
    deliver; allows them to choose national or local DBs and opens the market to       resources to undertake this coordination role.
    more service providers ().                                                     Potential compatibility issues between local
 Efficiency savings from more delineated service provision with fewer overlaps        and national DBs on service type provision:
    and redundancy ().                                                                Defra may need to facilitate agreements
 Little advance in sponsorship/ policy partnering, tracking performance, DB          These cons result in a potentially low cost of
                                                                                                                                              130
    governance expected in comparison with (3c) (▬).                                   adjustment.
                                                          Version v1.0
 Annex B: Long list of strategic options
 3 c) Change regional and national DB coordination and relationship:
 Regional local account & fund management
This option builds on Option (3 b) as follows:
As well as bringing in national DBs to deliver services to local customers as and when regional DBs deem they are required,
regional DBs will also hold the funds to directly commission these services from them on a contractual basis. The regional DBs will
determine which DB should be asked to deliver the services and agree the commercials.
Defra will provide appropriate funding for the regional DBs to allow them to commission suitable services in line with Defra
objectives and outcome requirements; Defra will take this same funding away from national DBs. Defra will agree with the regional
DBs that this funding will be used to provided services it requires to meet its targets and outcomes but will fully acknowledge that
the regional DBs should achieve resource synergies with other Government departments‟ funds to provide a local service that is
bigger than the sum of the different parts.
National DBs will continue to be funded by Defra to provide, inter alia, service provision to national customers, national market
making, policy informing. This option can be carried within 24-36 months ().
                 Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                   Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
  Allows a more customer centric service provision where funds  Some reluctance expected from DBs from losing control of
   are allocated to where local outcomes will be best achieved.          funds ().
  Combines different funding streams that may enable criticality  National DBs funds possibly scaled back impacting any
   of service delivery combining the different Government agendas synergies they achieved from a single pot.
   into a single coherent local impetus.                                National DBs regional funding stream will be uncertain and
  Splits regional and national service delivery resulting in a          may impact their ability to resource and plan ahead.
   clearer landscape of who does what: streamlines the landscape  RDA‟s may require additional resources to carry out the
   through clearer remits and responsibilities ().                      commissioning role – this may include procurement, contract
  A clearer picture of the regional landscape for customers –           development and management.
   fewer overlapping and competing messages ().                        May need to ring-fence this funding to ensure landscape
  Allows regional DBs to better coordinate national DB input in         services continue to be available – not in line with single pot
   regional service deliver; allows them to choose national or local     approach.
   DBs and opens the market to more service providers ().            Performance management/ fund usage reporting would need
  Efficiency savings from more delineated service provision with        to be developed – additional burden on regional DBs.
   fewer overlaps and redundancy ().                                   May need to set-up framework contracts with DBs to allow
  Easier sponsorship/ policy partnering, track performance, DB          streamlined commissioning of services.
   governance through greater control of national DB work () .         These cons result in a potentially high cost of adjustment. 131
                                                        Version v1.0
 Annex B: Long list of strategic options
 4 a) Optimise communication across the landscape:
 Better coordination
Customers report that they are confused by the myriad of messages in the landscape from different private and public, local,
regional and national DBs in terms of what is required of them, who can help and how to get help.

This option coordinates the communication message being sent to customers. Defra and the DBs will jointly develop
communication, branding and marketing strategies and coordinate and standardise messages going to customers. This will simplify
the communication landscape thereby reducing customer confusion of who provides what service, what does the Government want
of them and what they can do as well as how they can do it and what impact it will have. This coordinated communication strategy
will increase the impact of the awareness campaigns to get customers to act through better focusing a common message. This
option puts in place an agreement that DBs will spend Defra provided marketing funds as Defra wants it within Defra‟s requirements.
This option can be carried within 12 months ().


                        Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)               Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
   Help alleviate some customer confusion through more coherent and             Formalising communication coordination should
    coordinate communications.                                                    result in DB support but this will be moderated by
   Customer receive more consistent and actionable messages more in line         losing full control of marketing and communication
    with Defra‟s requirements.                                                    independence (▬).
   DBs will have a better understanding of the messages Defra wants to          Defra DBs are not the only DBs in the landscape
    deliver to its customers.                                                     sending out communications messages to
   Defra provided marketing funds to DBs are ear-marked for Defra required       customers and therefore their coordination will only
    marketing and communication activities.                                       partially fix the problem.
   No streamlining of the landscape in comparison to (4b) (▬).                  Defra resources may be required to be increased
                                                                                  to coordinate the communication landscape.
   No change to regional and national coordination (▬).
                                                                                 These cons result in a potentially low cost of
   A much clearer picture of the complete landscape for customers – no           adjustment.
    overlapping or competing messages ().
   Efficiency savings from fewer and no overlapping communication ().
   More sponsorship/ policy partnering through the need to coordinate
    messages to customers and therefore work together () .
                                                                                                                                        132
                                                        Version v1.0
 Annex B: Long list of strategic options
 4 b) Optimise communication across the landscape:
 Single marketing & communication delivery team
A Single Marketing & Communication Delivery team holds all the communication funds and delivers all the communication
messages to Defra‟s customers.
Defra CD continues to develop and own the overall marketing and communication strategy for the Delivery Landscape in line with
Policy requirements. The implementation of Defra‟s strategy is through a separate single team (Single Marketing & Communication
Delivery team), owned, governed and directed by Defra CD to develop coherent and coordinated marketing plans, campaigns and
initiatives, and once agreed with Defra CD, to deliver these messages across the Delivery Landscape for all customer segments,
currently split between Defra and the DBs, in line with Defra‟s marketing and communication strategy. Defra CD will cease to carry
out any external communication delivery.
The team develops, coordinates, administrates and commissions all the relevant communications activities within Defra and the
DBs across the Delivery Landscape. Defra CD and the DBs work closely with the team to feed in their specific requirements and
details for developing communication plans, approach, individual campaigns and initiatives. This team liaises with COI and external
agencies to commission and deliver the messages. All Defra funds DBs currently spend on marketing and communications are
redirected to the team. This option can be carried within 24-36 months ().
                             Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)               Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
 A clear split between policy & strategy development, and delivery to customers.              Reluctance expected from DBs
 A single coherent marketing and communication strategy for all customers – no                 from losing their current marketing
  overlapping or competing messages ().                                                      and communication funds ().
 A single set of marketing and communication plans and messages, resulting in coherent        DBs will lose Defra funds they
  and coordinated messages to all of the Delivery Landscape customers.                          allocate for communications and
 As a single team is responsible for communications, the landscape can react faster to         thereby any synergies they
  Government and market requirement changes.                                                    achieve with other Government
                                                                                                funds similarly allocated.
 Substantial synergetic resource of around 60-70 FTEs efficiency savings through a single
  team model in excess of 5% of current total Landscape funds ().                            The Single Marketing &
                                                                                                Communication Delivery team will
 Some streamlining of the landscape through the single marketing message focusing              require resources and time to set-
  customer demand on the right DBs ().                                                         up and get up to speed.
 No change to regional and national coordination (▬).                                         These cons result in a potentially
 More sponsorship/ policy partnering through the need to coordinate messages to                medium cost of adjustment.
  customers and therefore work together () .                                                                                               133
                                                         Version v1.0
 Annex B: Long list of strategic options
 5 a) Increase sponsorship capacity & capability to enable closer working with Policy:
 Better coordination of policy & sponsorship teams
Delivery bodies noted that their capabilities could be better used by Defra to inform policy development. Additionally there was a
question as to whether all relevant policy teams were known to them.
This option changes the relationship between Defra policy, sponsorship teams and the delivery bodies. The sponsorship team
resource capacity and capability is increased allowing them to better understand policy and to facilitate more knowledgeable,
structured and frequent engagement with all of the relevant Policy teams, this in turn allows sponsorship teams then to be the single
face-off between Defra and the delivery bodies. This option can be carried within 12 months ().


                Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                  Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
 Sponsorship teams better understand relevant policy                 Better Defra coordination of policy and sponsorship should
  objectives and required outcomes.                                    result in DB support ().
 Sponsorship teams better understand what delivery bodies            Potential increase in the sponsorship team resource overhead
  need to do to impact the different policy teams‟ outcomes and        to manage the relationship.
  objectives. This will allow a closer working relationship           Sponsorship teams training requirement to facilitate better
  between the sponsorship teams and policy owners, allowing            understanding policy.
  them to better operationalise relevant aspects of policy and        Sponsorship teams continue to have limited strategic overview
  manage the resulting delivery bodies portfolio of work and           of the landscape.
  outcomes ().
                                                                      These cons result in a potentially low cost of adjustment.
 Facilitates a coherent Defra approach to developing policy with
  delivery bodies.
 No streamlining of the landscape (▬).
 No change to regional and national coordination (▬).
 A clearer picture of the landscape for customers through
  greater sponsorship/ policy coherence reducing overlapping or
  competing messages going out to the market-place ().
 No efficiency savings in comparison with (5b) (▬).



                                                                                                                                    134
                                                           Version v1.0
Annex B: Long list of strategic options
5 b) Increase sponsorship capacity & capability to enable closer working with Policy:
Single sponsorship team

      This option builds on Activity (5 a) by:

      Creating a single Core Sponsorship team by moving sponsors from policy areas and bringing them together into a single team.
      This option can be carried within 12 months ().

                 Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                      Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
   The increase in resource numbers of Option (5a) will be                Better Defra coordination of policy and sponsorship should
    lessened due to synergies created through a single team                 result in DB support ().
    model.                                                                 Sponsors are more arms-length from policy.
   A single Sponsorship team will allow a closer coordinated              Policy and DB relationship will still need to exist so that they
    working relationship with all policy owners and will result in a        can come together to develop policy.
    strategic oversight across the delivery landscape facilitating         DBs may consider sponsors to have split interest within a
    better coordination of delivery ().                                  single team model.
   Coherent way of dealing with DBs by Defra – all management             These cons result in a potentially low cost of adjustment.
    processes will be the same.
   No streamlining of the landscape (▬).
   No change to regional and national coordination (▬).
   A clearer picture of the landscape for customers through
    greater sponsorship/ policy coherence reducing overlapping or
    competing messages going out to the market-place ().
   Similar sponsorship skill-sets will be brought together resulting
    in some efficiency savings ().




                                                                                                                                               135
                                                                   Version v1.0

 Annex B: Long list of strategic options
 6) Performance management improvement

Most sponsorship teams and DBs commented that the current business planning process could be improved and could be more
effective in deciding what the DBs should deliver with varying Defra influence.
This option develops a new planning and management framework that improve the planning process and the required engagement
between the stakeholders; it measures and tracks DB performance allowing early intervention if required to get things back on track.
The new frameworks will be developed by Defra with input from Policy and the DBs to cover all work DBs will carry out for Defra,
together agreeing on mechanisms that will allow a more transparent, inclusive and faster method of developing the annual business
plans allowing Defra to inform them. They also drive the method by which performance is commonly measured and tracked, and
what information is reported, when and how. The frameworks will be hinged on clearer Defra objectives, required outcomes and
targets against which performance can be measured against. This option can be carried within 12 months ().

                           Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)

 Common, standard and agreed business planning framework driving better planning.  Developing a new planning and
 Common, standard and agreed performance measurement mechanism permitting DBs         management framework giving more
  to be assessed in the same way and therefore clearer comparisons to be made          relevant and streamlined governance,
  between them resulting in better governance and management ().                    reporting requirements of DBs should
 Common, standard and agreed performance management framework allowing better         result in DB support ().
  management of DBs progress without onerous reporting schedules resulting in         Additional Defra resource required to
  efficiency savings ().                                                              develop the new performance
 No streamlining of the landscape (▬).                                                improvement frameworks.
 No change to regional and national coordination (▬).                                Question of how long common,
                                                                                       standard and agreed mechanisms will
 Defra and DBs working closer together will result in a reduction of overlapping or   take to develop.
  competing messages going out to the market-place ().
                                                                                      These cons result in a potentially low
                                                                                       cost of adjustment.




                                                                                                                                              136
                                                            Version v1.0
    Annex B: Long list of strategic options
    7 a) Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
    Policy teams hold all DB funds and commission services from them
Policy staff have limited engagement with the delivery of services resulting in policy not always understanding how the DBs could
help them define and deliver policy effectively.
This option puts the impetus on Policy to define and commission the programs of work that will deliver their outcomes – and some of
these programs of work will be relevant for the current landscape DBs. Defra SRO owns the funds and allocate funds to policy
owners at the project level , they allocate them to DBs (national and regional) as deemed appropriate through commissioning
services. Defra will provide funds to Policy who will allocate them to DBs (national and regional) as they deem most appropriate.
Defra will cease to fund the DBs through the current mechanism.
This option makes no changes to the status or operational scopes of the DBs, only to the funding mechanism. This option can be
carried within 12 months ().
                              Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                   Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
   Better service focus for DBs allowing more targeted service offerings through              Some reluctance expected from DBs from
    greater clarity on remits and roles on sectors and services.                                losing single pot of funds, having their
   Much improved partnering of policy and delivery across the different constituents of        funds distributed amongst a number of
    policy sub-areas. Much enhanced partnering with sponsorship teams in order for              different policy areas and therefore having
    policy to better understands the programs of work that impact their areas &                 to engage with more Defra people to
    coordinate them appropriately ().                                                        secure their funding ().
   More benefit orientated delivery of services as defined by policy: DBs outcomes link       Question of capacity and capability needs
    directly to policy outcomes that link directly to Defra outcomes – no “leakage”.            for policy teams to take on design and
   Restricts freedom of DBs to do “what they want” and drives policy to decide on the          commissioning of delivery programs
    direction of work, details of service provision as well as value for money and             DBs will lose their current blanket single
    therefore which DB could provide the best service.                                          pot and some freedom on delivery
   Policy coordinating service delivery across the landscape in line with their objectives     decisions
    and targets will result in a more coherent and refined landscape and resultantly           Policy will need to coordinate their
    efficiency savings ().                                                                     demands on DBs so that the overall
   No streamlining of the landscape (▬).                                                       requirement from DBs is coherent, avoids
                                                                                                duplication and conflicts.
   No change to regional and national coordination (▬).
                                                                                               These cons result in a potentially medium
   Policy commissioning and coordinating service delivery will result in a reduction of        cost of adjustment.
    overlapping or competing messages going out to the market-place ().
                                                                                                                                                  137
                                                               Version v1.0
   Annex B: Long list of strategic options
   7 b) Improve policy and delivery body coordination and collaboration
   Change the non-core funding nature of the DBs from Grant Letters to contractual
 The current business planning framework, governance arrangements and DBs organisation status results in Defra having limited
 control over its funds, what and how services are delivered, and to whom.
 This option changes the nature of the relationship between the DBs and Defra by ceasing annual blanket funding for non-core
 activities of the DBs for a competitive approach to funding. Defra will directly fund core activities, defined as market making and
 informing Government policy, and will go out to competition on all other programs of work and have a delivery contractual
 relationship with the winning DBs (as currently with Envirowise) for these programs. A framework agreement will exist with a list of
 accredited DBs (both local, regional and national) and only the DBs on this list will be asked to compete for work over an optimised
 timescale taking into account competitive value-for-money possibilities versus DBs resource profiling requirements and synergy
 potential. Contracts will be given to facilitate, inter alia, better customer understanding of the landscape, single-face-off for
 customers, coherent and coordinated delivery of services. Contracts will cover the full spectrum of work including customer advisory
 services and industrial symbiosis. This option can be carried within 12 months ().
                      Pros (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)                       Cons (Options analysis criteria marked: -3 - +3)
 Coordinated contract management results in fewer DBs chasing the                  DB reluctance from: disruption, losing most of their
   same customer and providing overlapping services across the landscape. single pot of funds, having to use resources to
 A clearer picture of the landscape for customers – a single port-of-call for       compete for funding ().
   either most or all of their requirements.                                        Legislative issues of changing relationship with current
 More flexibility for Defra in commissioning, funding and directing                 organisations and ability to contract to these DBs.
   programs of work.                                                                EU competition procurement rules may make
 Clearer funding and governance picture for Defra: better link of funding,          procurement administratively complex and lengthy.
   to service provision, to customers and to outcomes.                              Capability and appetite of DBs to compete for work
 Fairer and more transparent commissioning of work.                                 where they are not providing the core activities.
 Full partnering of policy/ sponsorship teams required for them to                 Willingness of DBs to operate and be funded in a
   understand and commission the required programs of work ().                    competitive manner where revenues are uncertain –
 Defra commissioning coordinated service delivery across the landscape              this will impact their ability to plan and resource ahead.
   results in a more coherent/ refined landscape and efficiency savings ().  Increase in Defra governance and contract
 No streamlining of the landscape (▬).                                              management resources to ensure all programs of work
                                                                                     are coherent and coordinated, defined accurately and
 No change to regional and national coordination (▬).                               comprehensively and deliver the required outcomes.
 Defra commissioning coordinating and coherent services will result in a  These cons result in a potentially medium cost of
   reduction of overlapping or competing messages ().                               adjustment.                                                  138
                                                                                           Version v1.0

 Annex C: Delivery body delivery chains
 Envirowise Delivery Chain

Delivery             Service                Service                        Delivery Body                     Channel         Customer              Customer        Customer
Body                 Type                   Provision                      Agents                                            Behaviour             Wants           Segment
                     What                   How                            Via                               Through         Why                   Equals          For Whom

                                                                                                                                                                     SMEs:
                   Waste:                     Raise                                                          Post/ Email   Business: Reduce         Reduce Costs
                                                                                                             – In/ Out     environ. impact                         • Chemicals
 Envirowise        Reduce                     Awareness/
                                              Influence                                                      Web                                                   • Production
                                                                                                                           Business: Make / Buy
                                              Case                                                           Direct        Greener Products                        • Construction
                                              Studies/             Serco                                                                            Competitive
                                                                                                             Marketing                                             • Retail &
                   Waste: Re-                 Best                                                                                                  Advantage
                   Cycle                                                                                     Mass Media                                            Commerce
                                              Practice
                                                                                                                           Business: Help
                                                                                                             Events                                                • Food, Drink
                                              Provide              AEAT                                                    employees live low       Be Greener
                                              Advice                                                                       carbon lives
                                                                                                             Fulfilment
                   Waste: Re-                 Provide                            Wrap:                                     Consumer: Home/
                   Use                        Technical                          Construction                              Energy reduce env.                       Large
                                              Advice                             & Retail                                                           Adhere to      Businesses:
                                                                                                             150           impact                   legislation
                                                                                 Remanufacturing   2 Hours   External                                              • Chemicals
                   Water:                     Provide                            Centre:
                                                                                       Joint       Free      Consultants   Consumer: Home/
                   Reduce                     Training                           working/                                                                          • Production
                                                                                                                           Waste reduce env.
                                                                                 Events                      9 Regional    impact                                  • Construction
                                                                                 Community                   Managers.
                   Virgin Raw                 Provide                                                                                                              • Retail &
                                                                                 Groups                      F2Face        Consumer: Home/
                   Material:                  Tool-Kits                                                                                                            Commerce
                                                                                 CT: Energy -                              Water reduce env.
                   Reduce                     (Self Help)                                                    Advice Line                                           • Food, Drink
                                                                                 Warm hand-                                impact
                                              Develop                            off                                                                               • Utilities
                                              Markets                                                                      Consumer: Buy Eco-
                   Energy:                                                       Retailers
                                                                                                                           Products                                Trade Bodies
                   Efficiency                                                    Trade
                                                                                 Associations                Local         Consumer: Reduce
                                                                                                                           travel impact                           3rd Sector
                                                                                                             Channels
                   Energy:                    Research/                          Business Link
                   Greener                    Evidence                                                                                                             Consumers
                                                                                 EA: Train site                            PS: Lead reduction in
                                                                                 inspectors                                env. impact
                                                                                                                                                                   Hospitals
                                                                                 RDAs                                      PS: Deliver greener                     Schools
                                                                                 LAs                                       services/ products to
                                                                                                                           customers                               Public Sector


Data source: Illustration based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with sponsors, and Envirowise.                                                                  139
                                                                                       Version v1.0

 Annex C: Delivery body delivery chains
 NISP Delivery Chain

Delivery     Service                Service                            Delivery Body Agents                    Channel        Customer            Customer          Customer
Body         Type                   Provision                                                                                 Behaviour           Wants             Segment
             What                   How                                Via                                     Through        Why                 Equals            For Whom

                                                                NISP                                           Direct
              Waste:                 Provide                                                                                Business: Reduce       Reduce        Small Businesses
                                                                                                               Marketing    environ. impact        Costs
 NISP         Reduce                 General
                                     Advice                                                                    Mass                                              Mid-Cap
                                                                             NISP: 3 English, Scot,                         Business: Make /
                                                                                                               Media                                             Businesses
                                     Case                                    NI, Wales Regional                             Buy Greener            Competitive
              Waste: Re-
                                     Studies/                                Centres                           Web          Products               Advantage
              Cycle                                                                                                                                              Large Businesses
                                     Best
                                     Practice                                                                  Events       Business: Help
                                                                             Universities (R&D,                             employees live low
                                                                             Solution Development)                                                 Be Greener
                                     Raise                                                                                  carbon lives
              Waste: Re-                                                                                       Telephone
                                     Awareness/
              Use                    Influence                               EA (Protocols, Joint
                                                                             solution development)                          Consumer: Home/
                                     Provide                                                                   Post/        Energy reduce          Adhere to
                                     Technical                               RDA (Funding, Joint               Email. In/   env. impact            legislation
              Water:
                                     Advice                                  network use)                      Out
              Reduce
                                                                                                               Fulfilment   Consumer: Home/
                                     R&D, Trials                             Trade Bodies: Referrals,                       Waste reduce env.                    Trade Bodies/
                                                                             Info dissemination)                            impact                               Sector
              Virgin Raw             Provide
                                                                             Business Link:                                                                      Associations
              Material:              Training
                                                                             (Referrals, Information                        Consumer: Home/                      Consumers
              Reduce                                                                                                        Water reduce env.
                                                                             dissemination)                                                                      Consumer
                                     Provide                                                                                impact
                                                                                                                                                                 Groups
                                     Tool-Kits
              Energy:                (Self Help)                             NISP: Brew Centre for                          Consumer: Buy
              Efficiency                                                                                                                                         3rd Sector
                                                                             LAs                                            Eco-Products
                                     Develop
                                     Markets                                                                                                                     Central
                                                                             NISP: Engaged Member                           Consumer:                            Government
              Energy:                                                        List                                           Reduce travel
              Renewable                                                                                                     impact                               •MoD
                                                                                                               Local                                              Hospitals
                                                                                                               Channels     PS: Lead reduction
                                                                                                                            in env. impact
                                                                                                                                                                 Regional & Local
                                                                                                                            PS: Deliver                          Government
                                     Research/                                                                              greener services to                  •Local
                                     Evidence                                                                               customers                            Councils

Data source: Illustration based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with sponsors, and NISP.                                                                     140
                                                                                         Version v1.0

 Annex C: Delivery body delivery chains
 Wrap Delivery Chain

Delivery     Service                Service                          Delivery Body Agents                      Channel         Customer            Customer          Customer
Body         Type                   Provision                                                                                  Behaviour           Wants             Segment
             What                   How                              Via                                       Through         Why                 Equals            For Whom
                                                                                     2nd Tier Advice: NISP
                                     Provide                  Wrap                                                                                                Small Businesses
                                                                                     Envirowise: On-site       Call Centre   Business: Reduce       Reduce
              Waste:                 General
 Wrap         Reduce                                                                 delivery: Waste, Supply                 environ. impact        Costs
                                     Advice                                          Chain, Packaging.                                                            Mid-Cap
                                                                                                               Web           Business: Make /                     Businesses
                                     Case                                            EST: Green Homes
                                                                                                                             Buy Greener                          •Retailers
              Waste: Re-             Studies/                                        CT: On ADs                                                     Competitive
                                                                                                                             Products                             •Farmers
              Cycle                  Best                                                                                                           Advantage
                                                                                     EA (Waste protocols/      Direct                                             •Disposal
                                     Practice
                                                                                     Organics)                 Marketing                                          •Waste collectors
                                     Raise                                                                                   Business: Help
                                                                                     2nd Tier Advice: 25                                                          •Packagers
                                     Awareness/                                                                              employees live low     Be Greener
                                                                                     Contractors               Mass                                               Large Businesses
              Waste: Re-             Influence                                                                               carbon lives
                                                                           2 Hours   2nd Tier Advice: 150      Media                                              •Retailers
              Use                                                          Free                                                                                   •Manufacturer
                                     Provide                                         Consultants                             Consumer: Home/
                                     Technical                                                                 Post/                                              •Reprocessor
                                                                                     LAs                                     Energy reduce          Adhere to     •Construction
                                     Advice/                                         2nd Tier Advice:          Email. In/    env. impact
              Water:                                                                                                                                legislation   •Extraction
                                     Standards                                                                 Out
              Reduce                                                                 Business Link                                                                •Demolition
                                     R&D, Trials                                     Community Groups          Fulfilment    Consumer: Home/
                                                                                                                             Waste reduce env.                    Trade Bodies/
                                                                                     Trade Bodies
                                     Provide                                                                                 impact                               Sector
              Virgin Raw                                                             Ctre for Remanufacture    Events                                             Associations
                                     Training
              Material:                                                              WI; MTP; MRF:recycling                  Consumer: Home/                      Consumers
              Reduce                                                                                                         Water reduce env.
                                                                                     ReMades& CL:AIRE:
                                     Provide                                                                                                                      Consumer
                                                                                     Organics                                impact
                                     Tool-Kits                                                                                                                    Groups
                                                                                     EHS NI
              Energy:                (Self Help)                                                                             Consumer: Buy
              Efficiency                                                             Welsh Dev Agency                                                             3rd Sector
                                                                                                                             Eco-Products
                                     Develop                                         English Partnerships
                                     Markets                                         Scottish Enterprise&                    Consumer:                            Central
              Energy:                                                                SEPA (Organics)                         Reduce travel                        Government:
              Renewable                                                                                                      impact                               DoH/ MoD
                                                                                     RDAs: Local partners.     Local                                              • Hospitals
                                                                                     DWP: On 3rd Sector        Channels      PS: Lead reduction                   • Schools
                                                                                     Wastewatch/ Future                      in env. impact
                                                                                     Resources: 3rd Sector                                                        Regional & Local
                                                                                                               F2F- 1:       PS: Deliver                          Government
                                     Research/                                       Construction Skills       Many                                               •LAs
                                                                                                                             greener services to
                                     Evidence                                        Council/ Construction                                                        •GOs
                                                                                                                             customers
                                                                                     Industry Training Board

Data source: Illustration based on output from desk-research, one-to-one interviews with sponsors, and Wrap.                                                                      141