FULL SHRUNK & SAVE
−55%ANNUAL WASTE SPEND · AUSTRALIAN UNITY · PORTFOLIO-WIDE
Australian Unity, the portfolio that stopped paying for assumptions.
A portfolio-wide, data-driven reset across Australian Unity’s healthcare property assets. Smart metering exposed under-60%-capacity services, duplicate collections and unvalidated billing, the tender rebuilt the lot.
SCALER · FLIPPA · HEALTHCAREREAD →
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE · HEALTHCARE PROPERTY PORTFOLIO
Australian Unity’s healthcare portfolio cut waste spend 55%. Volumes fell by half.
- Engagement
- Full Shrunk & Save
- Tech deployed
- Scaler · Flippa
- Duration
- Baseline → tender → contract reset
- Headline result
- −55% annual waste spend (up to −75% at some sites)
The brief
Waste services across Australian Unity’s healthcare property portfolio had been designed on standardised assumptions rather than real usage data, for years. With the portfolio heading to tender, there was a window to do it properly: baseline actual demand, align servicing to it, and take a clean scope to market.
What we deployed
Smart metering across the portfolio, working alongside site operational teams. Every bin measured for utilisation, composition and contamination. Actual waste densities validated across key streams. Flippa bin-flip sensors confirming which services actually happened, on schedule, at the right size.
What happened
The data was blunt. Bins were routinely serviced under 60% capacity. Duplicate and unnecessary collections were running at selected sites. Services were being billed with no consistent validation against delivery. Recyclable streams, cardboard, paper, were leaking into higher-cost general waste. We redesigned services around real demand and supported the supplier reset through the tender.
The result
Annual waste spend down ~55%, up to 75% at some sites. General waste volumes down ~50%, with improved recycling capture and diversion from landfill. Overbilling and service errors eliminated through validated delivery. Medical facilities halved general waste services while rectifying billing discrepancies. The model is now standardised and deployable across the broader portfolio, sustainability and asset value pulling in the same direction.
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE
−65%WASTE SPEND · PRIVATE HOSPITAL, ADELAIDE
The density assumption that was quietly doubling the bill.
A smart-metering baseline caught an overstated waste-density assumption (120 → ~60 kg/m³). Right-sized collections, reintroduced organics, backdated credits, inside ~2 months of tender award.
SCALER · HEALTHCAREREAD →
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE · PRIVATE HOSPITAL, ADELAIDE
A private hospital in Adelaide cut waste costs 65%. Nobody noticed but the invoice.
- Engagement
- Full Shrunk & Save
- Tech deployed
- Scaler
- Duration
- ~2 months from tender award to new model live
- Headline result
- −65% annual waste spend · −40% collections
The brief
Services were running smoothly at this private hospital, which was exactly the problem. Nobody had visibility into actual usage or performance, so nobody could say whether “smooth” was also “right”. The facilities management team wanted a data-led look under the hood.
What we deployed
Smart metering and on-site validation to build an accurate baseline of waste generation and service requirements, in partnership with the FM team and the hospital’s operational stakeholders. Bin utilisation and composition measured over time. Actual waste density validated against what the invoices assumed.
What happened
The invoiced density assumption was 120 kg/m³. The measured reality was ~60 kg/m³, the hospital had effectively been paying for waste twice as heavy as what was in the bins, and reporting it in sustainability numbers too. Bins were frequently serviced under 60% capacity. There was little validation between services delivered and services invoiced. We redesigned the services, reintroduced organics to pull weight out of landfill, and took the lot to market with full contract negotiation.
The result
Annual spend down 65%. Collections down 40%. A backdated credit applied to invoices for the overcharging. Capped uplifts, performance clauses and a tenant rate card written into the new contract. All of it without touching patient care.
ADVISORY · ~$1M SPEND
−30%NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PROPERTY PORTFOLIO · TENDER & SCOPE
Tender and scope cleanup, with more still to come.
~$1M annual waste spend across a national healthcare property portfolio. 30% came off through tender and scope cleanup alone, the optimisation phase hasn’t even started.
SHRUNK & SAVE · PORTFOLIOREAD →
ADVISORY · NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PROPERTY PORTFOLIO
30% off a ~$1M waste bill, before optimisation even starts.
- Engagement
- Advisory → Shrunk & Save
- Tech deployed
- Scaler
- Duration
- Tender phase complete; optimisation phase to implement
- Headline result
- −30% on ~$1M annual spend
The brief
A national healthcare property portfolio spending roughly $1M a year on waste, with a contract built up over years of scope creep and legacy assumptions. First job: clean the scope, test the market.
What we deployed
Data-led scope review and competitive tender. Every service line questioned against actual demand before it was allowed back into the new scope.
What happened
The tender and scope cleanup alone stripped 30% from annual spend, services that didn’t match demand, pricing that didn’t match market, scope that didn’t match reality.
The result
~30% reduction achieved across tender and scope cleanup. The optimisation phase, metering, right-sizing, stream redesign at site level, is still to implement. Further savings to come.
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE · ~$600K
−50%INITIAL ANNUAL SPEND ~$600K · FLEET / COMMERCIAL
Half a $600K waste bill, off a clean baseline.
A global vehicle rental group’s Australian operations. ~$600K initial annual spend, reduced ~50%, measured against a validated baseline, not a hauler’s estimate.
SHRUNK & SAVE · FLEET / COMMERCIALREAD →
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE · GLOBAL VEHICLE RENTAL GROUP
A $600K waste bill, halved.
- Engagement
- Full Shrunk & Save
- Tech deployed
- Scaler
- Headline result
- −50% on ~$600K initial annual spend
The brief
A global vehicle rental group’s Australian network, depots, sites, streams and haulers accumulated over years, with a ~$600K annual waste bill nobody had ever validated from the ground up.
What we deployed
The full Shrunk & Save program: baseline the real waste picture, validate services and billing against it, redesign the scope, take it to market.
What happened
The usual pattern at national-portfolio scale: servicing designed for the worst-case day, billed every day. Once the baseline was real, the scope shrank to match it.
The result
Annual waste spend reduced ~50% against the ~$600K starting position.
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE · ~$400K
−55%INITIAL ANNUAL SPEND ~$400K · STUDENT ACCOMMODATION
Student accommodation, restructured.
A national student accommodation portfolio, four sites. Spend down ~55%, diversion up 20 points, annual price uplifts cut from 15% to 5%, and ~$20K in backdated credits recovered.
SHRUNK & SAVE · STUDENT ACCOMMODATIONREAD →
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE · NATIONAL STUDENT ACCOMMODATION PORTFOLIO
Four sites, one restructure, 55% off.
- Engagement
- Full Shrunk & Save
- Tech deployed
- Scaler (smart metering)
- Headline result
- −55% annual waste spend · diversion 15% → 35%
The brief
A student accommodation portfolio of four sites spending ~$400K a year on waste, with servicing and billing that had never been independently validated. Students are messy; that had become the excuse for everything.
What we deployed
Smart metering across the portfolio to validate utilisation and billing, site by site.
What happened
Metered reality didn’t match the invoices. Services were right-sized, a dedicated cardboard stream was introduced, and the validated scope went to a competitive market process across all four sites.
The result
Annual spend down ~55% (from ~$388K to ~$176K). Landfill diversion up from 15% to 35%. Annual price uplifts renegotiated from 15% down to 5%. ~$20K in backdated credits recovered.
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE
−55%ANNUAL WASTE SPEND · HEALTHCARE PROVIDER, ADELAIDE
Engagement complete. 55% saved. Same contractor.
A completed healthcare engagement in Adelaide delivering a ~55% annual saving, diversion up 15 points and uplifts more than halved, without changing waste contractor. Spend figures not for publication.
SHRUNK & SAVE · HEALTHCAREREAD →
FULL SHRUNK & SAVE · HEALTHCARE PROVIDER, ADELAIDE
55% off the waste bill. The contractor stayed.
- Engagement
- Full Shrunk & Save (complete)
- Tech deployed
- Scaler (smart metering)
- Headline result
- −55% annual waste spend · diversion 20% → 35%
The brief
An Adelaide healthcare provider with a waste contract that had drifted the way they all drift: annual uplifts running at 18%, servicing never re-tested against demand, diversion stuck at 20%.
What we deployed
Metering technology to assess how each waste stream was actually being utilised, followed by a competitive go-to-market process on the validated scope.
What happened
Utilisation data showed the service design didn’t match the site. Organics were introduced to pull weight out of general waste. The market process reset pricing, and the incumbent contractor kept the work, at rates that reflected reality.
The result
Annual waste spend down ~55%. Diversion up from 20% to 35%. Annual uplifts cut from 18% to 7.5%. ~$10K in backdated credits recovered. Engagement complete. (Spend figures withheld at client request.)
ADVISORY · LITTER LOOKER
−19%MIXED-RECYCLING CONTAMINATION · UNIVERSITY, MELBOURNE
Contamination, designed out.
A data-driven redesign of waste handling and infrastructure at a leading Melbourne university cut mixed-recycling contamination ~19% and general-waste contamination ~5%, with costs down and diversion up, faster than typical at that scale.
LITTER LOOKER · UNIVERSITIESREAD →
ADVISORY · LITTER LOOKER · RESEARCH UNIVERSITY, MELBOURNE
The campus that cut recycling contamination 19%, with data, not posters.
- Engagement
- Advisory · technology-led optimisation
- Tech deployed
- Litter Looker
- Headline result
- −19% mixed-recycling contamination · −5% general-waste contamination
The brief
A leading Melbourne university wanted contamination down and diversion up, and had already tried the generic playbook. The ask: use site-specific data to work out which interventions would actually move the numbers.
What we deployed
On-site monitoring through Litter Looker, feeding a data-driven redesign of waste handling practices and infrastructure, executed with the on-site facilities team, who became the operational control layer.
What happened
Instead of broad interventions, the data pointed at specific bins, specific buildings, specific behaviours. Handling practices and infrastructure were changed where the data said to change them.
The result
Mixed-recycling contamination down ~19%. General-waste contamination down ~5%. Waste management costs significantly reduced, landfill diversion substantially increased, on a faster timeline than sites of this scale typically manage.
ADVISORY · LITTER LOOKER
~1,000AUDITS · 3 MONTHS · UNIVERSITY, QUEENSLAND
The construction waste hiding in the operational bins.
~1,000 QR audits across campuses in ~3 months. At one coastal campus we caught contractors dumping construction waste into operational bins, a builder’s cost, quietly landing on the university, and stopped it immediately.
LITTER LOOKER · UNIVERSITIESREAD →
ADVISORY · LITTER LOOKER · MULTI-CAMPUS UNIVERSITY, QUEENSLAND
~1,000 audits in three months. One expensive discovery.
- Engagement
- Litter Looker deployment
- Tech deployed
- Litter Looker
- Duration
- ~3 months to first review
- Headline result
- Contractor construction waste identified and stopped, immediate landfill reduction
The brief
A multi-campus Queensland university deployed Litter Looker to get continuous visibility of what was actually going into its bins, campus-wide, without waiting for annual audit day.
What we deployed
Litter Looker QR audits across all campuses, cleaners snap a photo, tag a rate, move on. Three months in, the university had ~1,000 audits on the dashboard.
What happened
At a coastal campus in the middle of major construction work, the audit data showed something that shouldn’t have been there: construction-related waste, repeatedly, in the university’s operational bins. That waste was contractually the builders’ to capture and dispose of separately. The companies doing it were identified from the data and stopped immediately.
The result
An immediate reduction in landfill waste, and a cost quietly shifted back to where it belonged. A simple fix to a hidden problem that would otherwise have left the university scratching its head about why it wasn’t meeting waste targets.
ADVISORY · LITTER LOOKER
1,970SMARTPHONE AUDITS · TWO PUBLIC HOSPITALS, ADELAIDE
1,970 audits. Under 15 seconds each. Zero sorting tables.
Litter Looker across two Adelaide public hospitals. Nearly 2,000 QR audits in ~5 months found bagged, near-clean dry waste going to landfill, while the dry-waste infrastructure sat underused.
LITTER LOOKER · HEALTHCAREREAD →
ADVISORY · LITTER LOOKER · TWO PUBLIC HOSPITALS, ADELAIDE
The diversion opportunity that was already installed.
- Engagement
- Litter Looker audit program
- Tech deployed
- Litter Looker
- Duration
- ~5 months
- Headline result
- 1,970 audits · dry-waste diversion opportunity mapped ward by ward
The brief
Two public hospitals in Adelaide wanted continuous, low-effort visibility of bin-level contamination across general waste, dry waste and organics, without pulling staff onto sorting tables.
What we deployed
Litter Looker: QR stickers on every bin, scanned with any smartphone, no app, contamination logged in under 15 seconds, everything flowing to a live dashboard. 1,970 audits across the two sites (1,391 and 579).
What happened
The single biggest finding wasn’t exotic: fully bagged, near-clean dry waste going straight into general bins, a training and bin-placement problem, not a materials problem. At one site, general waste was hauled every two days while the dry-waste stream (15–20% cheaper, 100% landfill diversion) was collected fortnightly and underfilled. The data also caught a definitions problem: items being recorded as “contamination” that the downstream processor happily accepts. At the other site, top locations were logging contamination rates as high as 96%. Organics, meanwhile, were running clean, the system there works.
The result
A ward-by-ward map of exactly where diversion is being lost and why, plus a recommended trial program: right-size bins, fix placement and schedules, measure with Litter Looker and weights, extrapolate what works. Evidence first, disruption minimal.
TECH ONLY · AUDIT PROGRAM
48%OF AUDITED WASTE INCORRECTLY DISPOSED · BASELINE, AUDIT 1 OF 4
Measure. Fix. Re-measure. Repeat.
A quarterly audit program at a specialist women’s hospital in Melbourne. Audit one set the baseline: 48% incorrectly disposed, full glove boxes in clinical waste. By audit two, general waste was running 81% correct.
AUDIT · HEALTHCAREREAD →
TECH ONLY · SPECIALIST WOMEN’S HOSPITAL, MELBOURNE
The hospital that stopped guessing, one quarter at a time.
- Engagement
- Quarterly measure-and-verify audit program (4 audits/year)
- Tech deployed
- Physical audits · Shrunk data capture · Scaler (on-site scale system)
- Duration
- Ongoing, audits 1 and 2 complete
- Headline result
- General waste 81% correctly disposed by audit 2
The brief
A specialist women’s hospital in Melbourne committed to something rare: not one audit, but four a year, run as a continuous measure-and-verify loop. Baseline, intervene, re-measure, replicate what works.
What we deployed
Bin-by-bin physical audits, sorted one bin at a time and weighed through Shrunk’s data capture system, rotating through wards and departments each quarter.
What happened
Audit one (121 kg): 48% of waste incorrectly disposed. In clinical waste, which costs 5–10x more to dispose of, 53% of material didn’t belong, including full, unopened boxes of gloves in one specialist ward’s clinical bin and recyclable PVC and sterile wrap in the wrong streams despite recycling programs existing on site. Two wards were running above 93% incorrect. Targeted signage, placement and training interventions followed. Audit two (139 kg, different departments): general waste running 81% correct, with theatre clinical waste 78% correctly classified, the compliance benchmark.
The result
A live baseline, ward-level accountability and early evidence the interventions are taking effect. The quarterly loop continues, because one audit is a snapshot, and four is a trendline.
ADVISORY · SCALER
7.6%UNVERIFIABLE BIN CHARGES, DOWN FROM 43.7% · INVOICE REVIEW
Bins billed at zero kilograms. Refunds paid twice. We read the fine print.
A 12-month forensic invoice review at a Melbourne hospital: rate errors, clinical bins invoiced at 0 kg, a duplicated refund, and 71 bins supposedly collected two days before Christmas. After Scaler went in, unverifiable charges fell from 43.7% to 7.6%.
SCALER · INVOICE VALIDATION · HEALTHCAREREAD →
ADVISORY · INVOICE REVIEW · SPECIALIST WOMEN’S HOSPITAL, MELBOURNE
What a year of waste invoices looks like under a microscope.
- Engagement
- Forensic invoice review (12 months of billing)
- Tech deployed
- Scaler (on-site scale system) · invoice analytics
- Duration
- Review period Feb–Jan; scale system live from mid-September
- Headline result
- Unverifiable bin charges down from 43.7% to 7.6%
The brief
Validate a year of clinical, confidential and commingled waste billing against the contracted rate schedule, rate application, invoice accuracy, data integrity, and whether the services billed were even plausible.
What we deployed
Line-by-line invoice forensics benchmarked against the approved rate schedule, cross-checked from mid-September onwards against Scaler, an on-site scale system recording what every bin actually weighed.
What happened
Core rates were applied correctly, and then it got interesting. Three waste streams charged at $3.38/kg against a contracted $3.25/kg (small here; material across a network). Clinical bins invoiced at under 2 kg, and some at exactly 0 kg, physically inconsistent with how the hospital manages waste. A billing-error refund that appears to have been paid twice. Bulk lines combining up to 45 services into one row. Seventy-one clinical bins recorded as collected on December 23rd, from a basement waste room that can’t hold them. And the structural fix: before the scale system, 27–44% of bin charges each month had no barcode, unverifiable. After Scaler: 13.5%, then 7.6%.
The result
No systemic rate fraud, but a documented list of billing anomalies for formal validation with the contractor, refund requests on the table, and a permanent change: every bin now weighs itself into evidence. Guesswork is no longer a billing method here.
TECH ONLY · AUDIT
36%OF AUDITED WASTE INCORRECTLY DISPOSED · HOSPITAL, EASTERN MELBOURNE
Half the clinical bin wasn’t clinical.
263 kg audited at a major hospital in Melbourne’s east: 49% of the clinical stream misclassified, one pathology floor’s clinical bin 46% clean gloves, at roughly 10x general-waste disposal rates.
AUDIT · HEALTHCAREREAD →
TECH ONLY · MAJOR METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL, EASTERN MELBOURNE
The bins knew things the invoices didn’t.
- Engagement
- Site-wide waste audit, with the site’s FM partner
- Tech deployed
- Physical audit · Litter Looker recommended for ongoing M&V
- Duration
- Full-site audit + report
- Headline result
- 36% incorrectly disposed · 49% of clinical stream misclassified
The brief
A full-site audit of general and clinical waste at a major metropolitan hospital in Melbourne’s east, 21 locations, wards to café, to find out what was actually in the bins.
What we deployed
A 24-hour capture of the site’s waste, decanted, sorted into streams, weighed and recorded: 263 kg across general and clinical bins, location by location.
What happened
36% of audited waste was in the wrong stream. The expensive half of the story: 49% of clinical waste, which costs roughly 10x more to dispose of, wasn’t clinical. One pathology floor’s clinical bin was 46% clean gloves. In the emergency department, 45% of clinical waste was recyclable. The café’s general waste was 76% divertible. Plus two things no dashboard would have predicted: clinical waste bags nested inside each other, bag-in-bag, ward after ward, liners alone were ~5% of both streams, and patient-identifiable items in open bins.
The result
A ward-by-ward misclassification map, a recommended one-month trial in two priority wards (signage, training, bag-in-bag protocol, Litter Looker), and a strategic plan pathway, where structured programs like this typically cut waste costs 10–30%.
TECH ONLY · AUDIT
$283KESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS IDENTIFIED · PUBLIC HOSPITAL, CANBERRA
One day of sorting. $283K of findings.
336 kg audited across a Canberra public hospital: 31% incorrectly disposed, 43% of clinical waste divertible at lower cost, and one genuinely clean stream that proved the site can do it.
AUDIT · HEALTHCAREREAD →
TECH ONLY · MAJOR PUBLIC HOSPITAL, CANBERRA
The audit that found $283K in the bins.
- Engagement
- Multi-building waste audit, with the site’s FM partner
- Tech deployed
- Physical audit · Litter Looker recommended for ongoing monitoring
- Duration
- Full audit + report
- Headline result
- $283K estimated annual savings from improved segregation
The brief
Audit general, clinical and paper/cardboard streams across two buildings of a major Canberra public hospital, and quantify what incorrect segregation was actually costing.
What we deployed
A 336 kg physical audit, general (215 kg), clinical (51 kg), paper/cardboard (71 kg), sorted, weighed and mapped to levels and departments.
What happened
31.2% of waste was incorrectly disposed. 43% of the clinical stream, at ~10x general-waste disposal cost, could have been diverted cheaper, led by clean medical equipment and recyclable sterile wrap. Nearly 15% of general waste was contaminated medical waste travelling the wrong direction, a compliance risk. Root cause wasn’t just behaviour: clean bins were chronically scarce and dock runs were long, so waste went wherever a bin existed. The bright spot: the paper/cardboard stream ran at 3% contamination, proof the site segregates well when the infrastructure works.
The result
$283K in estimated annual savings identified from segregation and stream changes, plus a costed roadmap: fix bin logistics, launch organics diversion (15.8% of audited waste), add PVC and sterile-wrap recycling, and keep score with ongoing monitoring.
TECH ONLY · AUDIT
50%OF AUDITED WASTE INCORRECTLY DISPOSED · PUBLIC HOSPITAL, NORTHERN MELBOURNE
Three-quarters of the clinical stream wasn’t clinical.
320 kg audited at a public hospital in Melbourne’s north: 50% incorrectly disposed, 75% of clinical waste misclassified, one ward at 93%, and up to $694K a year on the table.
AUDIT · HEALTHCAREREAD →
TECH ONLY · MAJOR PUBLIC HOSPITAL, NORTHERN MELBOURNE
The clinical bins that were anything but.
- Engagement
- Site-wide waste audit, with the site’s FM partner
- Tech deployed
- Physical audit · WasteEye, Litter Looker, Scaler recommended for phase two
- Duration
- Full-site audit + report
- Headline result
- 75.3% of clinical stream misclassified · up to $694K/yr identified
The brief
A site-wide audit of general, clinical and commingled streams at a major public hospital in Melbourne’s north, 15 locations from ED and ICU to theatres and portables.
What we deployed
A 320 kg physical audit, every bin sorted and weighed by location, with findings priced at both the disposal rates in force and the incoming contract rates.
What happened
Half of everything audited was in the wrong stream. The clinical numbers were the worst we’d measured: 75.3% of the clinical stream wasn’t clinical waste. One ward’s clinical bin was 93% clean, low-risk material. ED’s was 92% wrong. ICU’s clinical bin held 14.5 kg of clean recyclable PVC on its own, and one set of portables was using the clinical bin as an all-purpose tip, 21% of it sharps containers that belonged in a dedicated system. Meanwhile the tiny mixed-recycling stream ran 88% correct, so the site clearly could sort when set up to.
The result
Estimated savings of up to $694K a year at the rates in force at audit ($300K at the updated contract’s clinical rate), from segregation alone. Delivered as a phased, ward-by-ward reform roadmap with the FM partner: priority wards, infrastructure fixes, and smart-tech visibility so the improvement gets measured, not assumed.
TECH ONLY · AUDIT
$41KPER YEAR IN REFUNDS GOING TO THE WRONG BIN · PRECINCT, BRISBANE
~2,000 refundable containers. One day’s waste.
A 922 kg audit of a major Brisbane riverside precinct found ~2,000 container-deposit bottles and cans in the wrong bins in a single day, an estimated $41K/year leak, alongside an organics stream running at 2% contamination.
AUDIT · COMMERCIAL PRECINCTREAD →
TECH ONLY · RIVERSIDE RETAIL & PARKLANDS PRECINCT, BRISBANE
The precinct throwing away $41K of refunds a year.
- Engagement
- Precinct-wide waste audit, with the site’s FM partner
- Tech deployed
- Physical audit · WasteEye and Litter Looker recommended for tenant profiling
- Duration
- One full trading day’s waste, audited bin by bin
- Headline result
- 65% actual vs 84% achievable diversion · ~$41K/yr container-refund leak
The brief
Audit one full day’s waste across a major Brisbane riverside retail, hospitality and parklands precinct, four precinct zones, every stream, and find the gap between current and achievable diversion.
What we deployed
A 922 kg bin-by-bin manual sort across general, commingled, cardboard and organics, with every bin labelled to its origin so findings mapped to specific bin rooms and tenancies.
What happened
Diversion was running at 65% against an achievable 84%. The headline leak: ~2,000 container-deposit-eligible bottles and cans, 38% of all audited waste by weight, sitting in the wrong bins, forfeiting refunds or going to landfill entirely. Extrapolated conservatively: ~$41K a year. Over half of general waste didn’t belong there, mostly unseparated food organics from back-of-house. And the good news mattered too: cardboard ran at 4% contamination and organics at 2%, exceptionally low for any industry, because staff visually vet every organics bin before collection.
The result
A precinct-wide roadmap: tenant-by-tenant waste profiling with AI cameras at key disposal points, a staged container-deposit recovery rollout, packaging reform through lease agreements, and multilingual, photo-based signage for public bins. The model: prove it stream by stream, the way the organics stream already had.
TECH ONLY · WASTEEYE
3xDIVERSION UPSIDE IDENTIFIED (14.2% → 41.6%) · UNIVERSITY, NZ
A week of cameras. No sorting tables.
WasteEye cameras and Litter Looker across a New Zealand university campus, in partnership with a global beverage company. 18% of items were in the wrong bin; correct sorting alone would nearly triple diversion.
WASTEEYE · LITTER LOOKER · UNIVERSITIESREAD →
TECH ONLY · WASTEEYE · UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, NEW ZEALAND
The audit nobody had to touch.
- Engagement
- Camera-based waste audit + 6-month behavioural monitoring, in partnership with a global beverage company
- Tech deployed
- WasteEye · Litter Looker
- Duration
- 5–6 day camera capture; 6-month monitoring program
- Headline result
- Diversion path from 14.2% to 41.6% mapped without a single manual sort
The brief
Understand what a New Zealand university campus was actually throwing away, indoor stations, outdoor bunkers, cafés, without the cost and disruption of a manual sort.
What we deployed
WasteEye AI cameras over ten waste stations, capturing images every 15 minutes for nearly a week, machine-classified and human-verified. Litter Looker across ~50 stations for six months of behavioural follow-up.
What happened
The cameras watched 4.7 m³ of waste happen. 18% of items went into the wrong bin. Bottles and cans, nearly a quarter of all waste, were the biggest recyclable lost to landfill; more than one in three recycling bins contained contaminants. The cameras caught the texture manual audits miss: bins overflowing before the 2:30pm collection and empty after, cardboard stuffed into general waste beside a half-empty recycling bin, sushi containers as the single most-lost recyclable, and two full bins of decommissioned wall signage arriving as one-off “contamination”.
The result
Current diversion of 14.2% with a mapped path to 41.6%, nearly triple, mostly through sorting, not new services: fewer, better-placed bin stations, collections shifted an hour earlier to match peak, eye-level signage using photos of the actual items, and simplified streams. Every recommendation traceable to a timestamped image.
ADVISORY · DATA REVIEW
20-50%SAVINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE DATA · SHOPPING CENTRE PORTFOLIO
Maximum bins, billed every day of the year. Holidays included.
A desktop review of a multi-centre retail portfolio’s waste data found rate drift running well above contract, a bin rental that had tripled without sign-off, and maximum bin counts invoiced on days the centres weren’t even trading.
DATA REVIEW · RETAIL / COMMERCIALREAD →
ADVISORY · RETAIL SHOPPING CENTRE PORTFOLIO
One data review. Savings of 20-50% identified.
- Engagement
- Data review, invoice and rate analysis
- Tech deployed
- Invoice & rate forensics
- Duration
- Desktop review
- Headline result
- 20–50% potential savings identified across the portfolio
The brief
A retail property group with a portfolio of shopping centres, a six-figure combined annual waste spend, and multiple incumbent contractors. Question: what’s real, what’s drifted, and where’s the money?
What we deployed
A full desktop review per site: every rate benchmarked against market, every invoice line checked against contract, service patterns tested for plausibility, diversion calculated from the data.
What we found
Rate drift running well above contracted rates at some sites. A monthly bin rental that had roughly tripled through a contract extension nobody explicitly signed off. Ancillary service volumes creeping steadily upward. Fees charged to a tenant with no contractual basis. And the giveaway: sites billed at exactly maximum bin counts every single day, including public holidays when the centres weren’t trading. In fairness, the data cut both ways: one centre was found to be underbilled, and others were confirmed competitively priced.
The findings
Potential savings of 20–50% identified at the priority sites from the data alone, with a clear view of which sites warrant renegotiation versus market testing. These are findings from the review, the numbers you can see before a single scale or camera goes in.
ADVISORY · DATA REVIEW
4xPRICE RISES VS MARKET BENCHMARK · MULTI-SITE HEALTH NETWORK
Every bin full, every service day, all year. Sure.
A multi-site public health network with a seven-figure annual waste spend, price rises running at roughly 4x market, and a weekly billing chart sitting flat at the theoretical maximum bin count, all year. Hundreds of thousands in annualised savings identified in the data.
DATA REVIEW · HEALTHCAREREAD →
ADVISORY · MULTI-SITE PUBLIC HEALTH NETWORK
The billing chart that never moved.
- Engagement
- Data review, service & invoice analysis
- Tech deployed
- Invoice analytics
- Duration
- Desktop review
- Headline result
- Six-figure annualised savings identified from validation alone, plus a 10–20% rate renegotiation opportunity
The brief
A multi-site public health network with a seven-figure annual waste spend that kept growing faster than the hospitals did. The question: how much of the bill was real?
What we deployed
Full analysis of the network’s invoicing and spend data: price-rise trajectories, service-pattern plausibility scoring, spend by service type, benchmarking against market.
What we found
Spend had compounded by hundreds of thousands over three years. Cumulative price increases of over 20% on both solid and clinical waste in two years, roughly 4x the observed market benchmark, with no rate standardisation across identical services at the same site. And the flatline: the maximum contracted bin count billed every week, implying every bin is full on every service day, without fail, for a year. Bins don’t do that.
The findings
Six-figure annualised savings identified from optimisation and validation alone, conservative, and before touching rates, plus a rate renegotiation opportunity worth a further 10–20%. All of it visible from the invoice data, before a single site visit. That’s what a waste bill looks like when nobody’s checking.
TECH ONLY · AUDIT
2xDIVERSION UPSIDE (28.6% ACTUAL VS 57.7% POTENTIAL) · RESEARCH BUILDING, MELBOURNE
The recycling bin was 75% cardboard. The cardboard bin was elsewhere.
A 203 kg audit of a university research building found diversion could double, led by cardboard bypassing its dedicated stream and lab consumables with nowhere to go.
AUDIT · UNIVERSITIESREAD →
TECH ONLY · RESEARCH BUILDING, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
Doubling diversion, starting with moving one bin.
- Engagement
- Building-level waste audit
- Tech deployed
- Physical audit · bin-level weighing
- Duration
- 2.5 days of building waste, audited
- Headline result
- 28.6% actual vs 57.7% potential diversion
The brief
Audit the entire waste output of a university research building, labs included, and find out why diversion was stuck under 30%.
What we deployed
Every general and commingled bin from 2.5 days of building operation: 203 kg, individually weighed, decanted, sorted, recorded.
What happened
The potential diversion rate was double the actual. The biggest single culprit was also the simplest: cardboard was 23% of all waste, and three-quarters of the “mixed recycling” stream was cardboard that should have been in the dedicated paper/cardboard bins, which existed, in the waste compound, further away than the recycling bin. Organics were 11% of waste with no organics bins in the building. Paper towel was 9% and has been a recurring theme in every audit on this campus since 2017. And the lab fingerprint: pipette-tip racks, consumables and ice packs, unrecyclable in commingled, but candidates for supplier take-back programs.
The result
A fix list ranked by effort: relocate a cardboard bin to the loading dock, add organics bins, target paper-towel volume at the source, and set up manufacturer take-back for lab plastics. Diversion upside: roughly double, mostly through logistics rather than behaviour change.
