A new public report on corporate waste sharply exposes where many business owners are leaving money: in waste contracts, limited waste separation and not enough price comparison. For shops, this is not just about sustainability, but mainly about getting a grip on costs. According to the report, better waste separation can lead to savings of around 12.5% to 20% on the waste contract.
The report, prepared by IPR Normag on behalf of Rijkswaterstaat VANG Buitenenshuis, is dated 27 January 2026 and has now been made public. The reason lies in the broader government goal of moving the Netherlands towards a circular economy. The introduction states that the Netherlands wants to be fully circular by 2050 and that VANG Buitenenshuis is working with municipalities, collectors and businesses to improve waste separation in the office, retail and service sectors. The study aimed to clarify whether, in practice, entrepreneurs experience sufficient financial incentives to better separate their waste.
For retailers, this is more relevant than it may sound. The report shows that 60% to 80% of businesses in the surveyed target group mainly have a residual waste contract and offer little in the way of separate collection. This is precisely where the researchers say there is potential for savings, especially in waste paper and cardboard (OPK) and plastic packaging, metal packaging and drink cartons (PMD).
The price differences are substantial. For weekly collection of a 240-litre container of residual waste, the report cites a range of €595 to €975 per year. At the same frequency for waste paper and cardboard, it runs from €210 to €732 per year. Conversely, for vegetable, fruit and food waste (GFE) or swill, i.e. organic food waste, higher amounts are mentioned: for weekly collection of 120 litres, this runs from €865 to €1,140 per year. For PMD, the range is also wide: €385 to €1,500 per year. For glass, for collection once a fortnight with 240 litres, it ranges from €320 to €680 per year. The picture is clear: those who do not compare may be paying significantly too much.
This is also exactly where the report says things often go wrong. Many entrepreneurs request only one quote. Contracts are often concluded online, without proper visibility of the differences in container size, emptying frequency and conditions. In addition, the report says that 70% of respondents have not had a consultation on better waste separation. This leaves not only knowledge but also room for negotiation.
The report refers to LAP3, the National Waste Management Plan, for the legal framework. This looks at two factors: the area of the farm and the amount of waste per week. This is not done in kilos, but in litres. For small premises under 40 m², a lighter obligation applies. For a surface area of 40 to 100 m² and a waste quantity of 240 to 660 litres per week, in principle one waste stream of your choice must be kept separate and offered separately, e.g. paper and cardboard, biowaste, glass packaging or plastic film. With larger volumes and larger areas, this obligation increases. For many shops, this means that paper and cardboard is often the most logical first stream to separate.
For the ordinary shop without a professional kitchen, there is another important lesson. Organic flows such as GFE or swill sound sustainable, but are not automatically the cheapest route. Instead, the report makes it clear that for non-horeca businesses, these flows are often limited and can be relatively expensive. For many shops, the first gains are therefore more likely to be in cardboard, packaging and reducing residual waste frequency.
At the same time, the report has a blind spot. It focuses on formal corporate waste contracts and the official waste market. What is barely made visible is the practice where entrepreneurs themselves take cardboard to a public paper container or dispose of glass to a bottle bank to save costs. Especially in inner cities and small shops, such behaviour can play a role. With that, the report is useful but not complete. It mainly describes the market as it is contractually set up, not always street practices as they really are.
The conclusion for retailers is clear. Commercial waste is no longer an afterthought. It is a cost item that requires attention just like energy, purchasing and logistics. Those who know their area, estimate their waste volume realistically and compare several offers can often make quick profits. With less residual waste, a smarter contract and a better choice of waste streams.
