‘‘ T


The library sector is, by default, socially conscious. If anyone can do it, we can.


Building Collections


Sustainability in stock supply and management


HERE is no need to dwell on the background to this, we all know the situation. And while the model of library lending,


being centred around repeated reuse of resources, already has arguably strong green credentials, there is still much room for improvement.


Alongside the obvious, an outcome of the ongoing shift towards digital resources is increased sustainability, with reduced impacts from production, delivery, transportation and physical infrastructure. However, digital is not without its own impacts; servers and data centres storing all that data don’t power themselves, and iPads etc. need manufacturing and charging. Additionally, digital is not accessible to all, and the physical library experience is essential to many, with all its added social, wellbeing and inclusivity benefits.


Sustainable alternatives? Books are supplied with plastic jackets to help keep them in good condition and prolong their life. These are not single- use plastics, but a more sustainable solution is still required. Recently, the public library service in Helsinki has grabbed our attention, announcing they have stopped the use of plastic covers, turning to plant-based alternatives.


To date, no UK library service has made a similar move, and no plant-based or bioplastic book coverings are readily available in the UK. Where they do exist, even in Scandinavia, products are of the ‘sticky-back film’ variety and, arguably, are not practical or efficient for large- scale use. It would also be expected that more sustainable alternatives will be more expensive, with estimates of costs being four times as high.


Currently, the only feasible approach would be to have no book coverings at all. Counter-intuitively, not using them could create its own negative impact,


March 2022


requiring books to be disposed of sooner and replaced more frequently. There is a balance to be stuck, but there is little available evidence to show the extent to which the removal of covers shortens the shelf-life of books. We could wait for evidence from our pioneering Scandinavian colleagues, or we could take the leap and find out for ourselves.


Demand more I quizzed our largest supplier, it was clear by the well-practiced response that I wasn’t the first to ask these questions. Suppliers are actively looking at ways to improve sustainability, including trying to source plastic-free coverings. As their customers, we need to increase pressure on library suppliers to make improvements, and perhaps we need to be prepared to accept the increase in servicing costs that will inevitably arise. Other areas suppliers are making improvements include using paper-based box filling materials and tape, giving options to reduce printed paperwork, and increasing energy efficiency in their own processes and buildings. They are also actively procuring delivery services from companies that are invested in non- fossil fuel transportation. However, it is down to us in library services to demand even more, and to include sustainability as a priority in tendering criteria. Internally, we can review how we manage our physical stock. Many practices that have been introduced in recent times, primarily for financial efficiency, have knock-on sustainability benefits. Direct delivery reduces the number of journeys a book needs to make to reach its destination. Whilst there are mixed views on it, a dynamic stock model vastly reduces the amount of courier journeys required, as books stay where they are reserved and returned, rather than being transported back to a ‘home’ library.


Re-use before recycling There is further scope for improvement


Paul Howarth (paul.howarth@suffolklibraries.co.uk) is Head of Content and Resource Development, Suffolk Libraries. www.suffolklibraries.co.uk


INSIGHT


within our processes for disposing of withdrawn library items. As well as having the benefit of income generation, selling used stock further continues its life and reuse. Where allowed, and where sale is not possible, gifting withdrawn stock to worthwhile community settings has the joint benefit of continuing use and creating social impact.


It is, hopefully, fairly obvious but where withdrawn stock is not fit for sale or reuse, we need to be identifying the most environmentally friendly options, working with companies who recycle materials rather than sending them to landfill.


It is encouraging to see that the sector is looking into these issues and that improvements have already been made. I suppose the questions to be asked are, is this enough to make a difference? are we moving fast enough? or are much bigger changes needed, and now? The library sector is, by default, socially conscious. If anyone can do it, we can. We just need to keep putting pressure on leaders, producers and suppliers to make alternatives available, and we need to be prepared to take some risks and step into the unknown. IP


INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 21


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60