Journal Pre-proof

Three-layer business model canvas of oil-water separation

equipment in restaurants and food processing factories

Toshihiko Otsuka , Riaru Ishizaki , Tofael Ahamed Associate Prof. ,

Ryozo Noguchi Prof.

PII: S2772-4271(24)00004-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2024.100273
Reference: NEXUS 100273

To appear in: Energy Nexus

Received date: 31 March 2023

Revised date: 21 December 2023
Accepted date: 12 February 2024

Please cite this article as: Toshihiko Otsuka , Riaru Ishizaki , Tofael Ahamed Associate Prof. ,
Ryozo Noguchi Prof. , Three-layer business model canvas of oil-water separation
equipment in restaurants and food processing factories, Energy Nexus (2024), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2024.100273

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Highlights

• Value propositions provided by the oil-water separation equipment (OWSE)

were attractive to users.

• Introducing high-performance OWSE can change the social structure of

manufacturers and residents of sewerage development areas.

• OWSE manufacturers can establish good relationships with residents and

governments in areas with sewage.

• Economic effect of introducing OWSE reduced the total initial cost and
maintenance.
• Iintroduction of OWSE would bring economic benefits to companies.
Three-layer business model canvas of oil-water separation

equipment in restaurants and food processing factories

Author Information:

Toshihiko Otsukaa, 1-1-1 450 Kamikomachi, Oomiya-ku, Saitama-shi, Saitama-ken 330-0855, Japan.

Saitama-ken Environmental Analysis & Research Association

E-mail address: t.otsuka@saitama-kankyo.or.jp

Riaru Ishizakib, , Ibaraki 306-0631, Japan.

Bandouseifu High School

E-mail address: rirkun@gmail.com

Associate Prof. Tofael Ahamedc, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8577, Japan.

Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba

E-mail address: tofael.ahamed.gp@u.tsukuba.ac.jp

Prof. Ryozo Noguchid, (Corresponding author) Kyoto 606-8502, Japan.

Laboratory of Agricultural Systems Engineering, Division of Environmental Science and Technology,

Faculty/Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University

E-mail address: noguchi.ryozo.8j@kyoto-u.ac.jp

Competing Interests Statement: Declarations of interest: none

Abstract: A three-layer business model canvas was applied to clarify the environmental,

economic, and social impacts of introducing oil-water separation equipment (OWSE) used in

Abbreviations: BOD: biochemical oxygen demand; EcoBMC: economic business model canvas;
EnvBMC: environmental business model canvas; ESG: environmental, social, and governance; GT:
grease trap; OWSE: oil-water separation equipment; SDG: sustainable development goal; SocBMC:
social business model canvas; SS: suspended solids; TLBMC: three-layer business model canvas
restaurants and food processing factories. Introducing high-performance OWSE can change the

social structure of manufacturers and residents of sewerage development areas and provide

economic benefits to companies. Based on the data of a ramen restaurant in Miyagi, Japan,

evaluated the economic effect of introducing OWSE resulted in the total initial cost and

maintenance was 1,032USD/year less than the cost of the sewage fee. Therefore, the proposed

equation can be used to evaluate the economic effects of introducing OWSE.

Graphical Abstract:

Keywords: economic evaluation; sewage; Grease trap

1. Introduction

Oil-containing wastewater from restaurants or food processing factories decreases the

performance of wastewater treatment facilities, causes sewage pipe blockage due to the

accumulation of oils, and causes many environmental problems worldwide [1–3]. The distance

between the starting point of the oil flow and the deposition points in a sewer pipe is

approximately 50-200 m, and oil deposits affect 25.0-37.5 % of wastewater overflow in sewage

[4]. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that approximately 3–10

billion gallons of organic wastewater were discharged, and approximately 50 % of sewage

blockages were caused by oil deposits in sewer pipes [5]. Up to 70 % of the sanitary sewage

overflows in Malaysia are caused by oil-containing wastewater in sewer pipes. In 2010, a

wastewater municipality in Malaysia received 22,184 blockage inquiries [6]. The concentration

of oil in wastewater from fast food restaurants in Thailand ranges from 730–1100 mg/L [7]. In

addition, oil has been identified as a major cause of beach pollution in Sydney and Cartagena de

Indias [8].

Local governments in Japan are strengthening regulations for organic wastewater

discharged from small restaurants and food-processing factories. For example, to manage the

sewage in the city of Kobe, restaurants and food processing factories are charged a fee

according to the wastewater concentration based on biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),

suspended solids (SS), and oil content [9]. To maintain the environment of the Kasumigaura

basin, Ibaraki Prefecture strengthened the wastewater regulations for all small-scale restaurants

to maintain the quality of BOD, SS, nitrogen, phosphorus, and oil [10].

The general measure for oil-containing wastewater in small-scale businesses in Japan

is to use a grease trap (GT). The GT can separate oil and wastewater based on differences in

specific gravity. Nevertheless, the retention time of wastewater in a GT is insufficient to

separate oil and wastewater effectively [11]. To improve this situation, oil-water separation

equipment (OWSE), such as Grease Eco (Daito-giken Co., Ltd., Japan) [12], Goslyn (Goslyn,
LLC., USA) [13], and Greaseguardian (FM Environmental Ltd., UK) [14], uses differences in

specific gravity or rotating discs. In addition, these OWSEs use technologies that absorb oil

floating in the wastewater before it flows out to the GT.

Businesses targeting wastewater are conducted all over the world in this way, and are

expected to reach 263.07 billion USD in 2020 and 500 billion USD by 2028 [15]. The global

penetration rate of sewage systems that can stably treat wastewater is 25-80% [16]. In recent

years, the impact of urbanization on wastewater treatment has become a major concern for

developing countries, where wastewater volumes already exceed the capacity of sewage in

many cities [15]. These problems are also occurring in some developed countries, and in the

United States, 2,400 of the 16,000 functioning sewage have already exceeded their treatment

capacity [17]. In this way, improving sewage treatment capacity is important when considering

a sustainable urban environment. In particular, the inflow of oil has a significant impact on

sewage treatment capacity, so the spread of OWSE is important, and it is important to

understand the impact on the environment and society when OWSE is spread [18][19][20].

Sustainable development goals (SDGs) were passed at the UN General Assembly in

September 2015 to integrate and solve global economic, social, and environmental issues [21].

The wastewater treatment could contribute to achieving 11 out of 17 SDGs [22]. The SDGs

concerned with OWSE were Goal 4 (Quality education), Goal 6 (Clean water and sanitation),

Goal 9 (Industry, innovation, and infrastructure), Goal 11 (Sustainable cities and communities),

and Goal 13 (Climate action) (Figure 1).

The momentum of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investments

emphasizes and selects companies that prioritize the environment, society, and corporate

governance. The investment balance at the end of 2015 was approximately $23 trillion and grew

to $31 trillion by the end of 2017. A company’s potential as an ESG investment can

significantly impact corporate financing and capital policy [23].

Alexandre et al. (2016) suggest the three-layer business model canvas (TLBMC) as a
method for integrating economic, social, and environmental impacts with corporate activities

[24]. The TLBMC was developed from the economic business model canvas (EcoBMC)

suggested by Osterwalder et al. (2010) [25]. The TLBMC consists of an EcoBMC, an

environmental business model canvas (EnvBMC), and a social business model canvas

(SocBMC). The TLBMC is a practical tool that supports sustainable development, visualization,

and communication using the economic, environmental, and social campuses and defines the

impact of company action on the environment and society [26]. The TLBMC has often been

used to understand the cooperation and relationships between the economy, environment, and

society within a corporation.

Previous studies have evaluated the social and economic impacts of energy recovery

from wastewater [27][28]. This research examines the social and economic impact of oil

recovery from wastewater through the reuse of recovered oil and its contribution to building a

recycling-oriented society for achieving the SDGs. The novelty of this research lies in the fact

that these findings were clarified using actual oil-water separation equipment and actual

examples of businesses that have introduced OWSE. A comparison between previous studies

and this study is shown in Table 2. Therefore, this study aims to clarify the economic and social

benefits of OWSE for manufacturers and companies using the TLBMC. The economic

evaluation equation is proposed as a method for verifying the economic effect of introducing

OWSE.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. TLBMC analysis methods for OWSE manufacturers

2.1.1. EcoBMC

EcoBMC classifies a corporation’s economic activities into nine interrelated elements:

value proposition, customer relationships, customer segments, channels, resources, activities,

partners, costs, and revenue (Table 3).

2.1.2. EnvBMC
 EnvBMC is based on environmental impacts throughout a product’s life cycle to

assess the company’s ability to create numerous environmental benefits. EnvBMC is used to

understand the environmental factors resulting from the introduction of OWSE. EnvBMC

classifies environmental benefits into nine interrelated elements: functional value, production,

materials, supplies and outsourcing, distribution, use phase, end-of-life, environmental impacts,

and environmental benefits. The EnvBMC was developed based on the environmental impact of

CO2 emissions from production to the waste process [29]. The water environment, including

wastewater, was targeted to understand the impacts and benefits of OWSE on the water

environment. The specific classification perspectives are discussed in Table 4.

2.1.3. SocBMC

SocBMC aims for companies to pursue maximum profits and to balance those profits

among their stakeholders. SocBMC is classified into nine interrelated elements: social value,

employees, governance, local communities, social culture, the scale of outreach, end users,

social impacts, and social benefits (Table 5).

2.2. Relationship perceptions between the OWSE manufacturer and stakeholders

The TLBMC results were used to summarize the causal relationships between the

manufacturer and stakeholders to better understand the relationship between the manufacturer

and stakeholders following the introduction of the OWSE in areas with sewage. In the OWSE

end-user introduction, “customer segments at EcoBMC” was selected to understand how the

business company was perceived. Moreover, it was assumed that a GT was used in oil recovery

facilities before introducing the OWSE. An end user for material and energy recycling recovers

the floating oil in the GT.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. TLBMC for the manufacturer of OWSE

3.1.1. Results of the EcoBMC

 EcoBMC, along with the activities of the manufacturer, are shown in Figure 2.

The authors have shown that the introduction of OWSE reduces the gray water

footprint [WFgray] of the n-hexane extract content discharged from restaurant wastewater by

88.8% [30]. The authors have shown that it was revealed that by using recovered oil as an

alternative fuel for biomass boilers, greenhouse gas emissions from food processing plants can

be reduced to virtually zero [31]. Therefore, Improvements in the water environment, such as

public water areas, measures against global warming using recovered oil as biomass energy, and

sustainable consumption by recycling recovered oil into foods and resources were suggested in

the “value proposition" for the OSWE manufacturer. Because OWSE decreases the oil

concentration in wastewater and the pollution load, including sewage, on wastewater treatment

facilities, it was selected as one of the value propositions for improving the water environment.

In “customer segments,” business people who are in charge of large amounts of oil,

such as restaurants and food processing factories, were suggested [32]. As a result, many

problems caused by wastewater, including the blockage of sewage pipes by oil and the increased

maintenance costs of wastewater treatment facilities, were solved. In addition, the reliability of

users was increased in “customer relationships.”

Environmental problems from oil-containing wastewater occur in developing countries

[6, 33–35]. There is a strong social need for OWSE because these countries have poor

technologies and regulations to solve these problems [36]. Therefore, in “channels,” reviews

from users and the needs of developing countries were suggested. In addition, know-how and

technical capabilities, the evaluation results of OWSE by the test body, and patents were

suggested as “resources.” They correspond to important factors for the OWSE manufacturer.

To introduce OWSE, a preliminary investigation into locations such as the installation

environment of OWSE or where water quality inflow will occur is indispensable. Because

performance tests for the OWSE by a third-party testing body increase the reliability of users, it

was suggested in “activities” [37, 38-42]. In “partners,” the OWSE factory, the OWSE test body,
the oil recovery and recycling company, and universities were suggested. In “costs,” the

activities of the OWSE manufacturer, performance test costs, preliminary investigation costs to

understand the OWSE installation environment, and OWSE manufacturing costs were

suggested. In “revenues,” the revenue generated from the sale and maintenance of OWSE was

suggested. These four items were suggested through interviews with OWSE manufacturer.

These results show that the OWSE manufacturer’s value proposition is an attractive

system for users because of its contribution to corporate social responsibility and ESG

investments. In the results of “resources,” “activities,” and “partners,” the OWSE manufacturer

can provide a high-value proposition with sustainability. This is based on reviews from users

who trusted the OWSE manufacturer because of increased sales and profits that exceeded the

cost structures.

3.1.2. Results of the EnvBMC

EnvBMC is perceived as the functional value of using OWSE per month in a

food-processing factory or restaurant. The results for the EnvBMC are shown in Figure 3.

OWSE manufacturing was suggested under “production.” Stainless steel, motors, and

heaters were categorized as necessary materials for OWSE production in “materials” [38-42].

Energy and water used in OWSE production were suggested in “supplies and outsourcing.”

According to interviews investigation, OWSE manufacturer used vehicles to transport

OWSE. Therefore, in “distribution,” vehicle transport was suggested. In addition, an OWSE

required electricity and water for operation [38-42], which was suggested as the “use phase.”

When the OWSE is scrapped, the motor and heater are discarded as industrial waste and were

suggested as “end of life” materials; however, stainless steel can be recycled.

“Environmental impacts” were CO2 emissions and wastewater from the production,

distribution, use, and waste processes of OWSE. The first effect was the reduction in CO2

emissions discharged from food-processing factories when the recovered oil was converted to

heavy oil A [31]. The second effect was a reduction in CO2 emissions when the GT was cleaned
in the ramen shop [30]. The third effect was the reduction inWFgray of the n-hexane extract

content by reducing the oil concentration in the wastewater [30]. The fourth effect was reducing

the amount of wastewater discharged from restaurants by reducing the water required for

washing dishes [30]. These effects were suggested as “environmental benefits” based on the

OWSE introduction.

Introducing OWSE results in environmental benefits if the reduced CO2 emissions and

water environment pollution in “environmental benefits” exceed the “environmental impacts.”

EnvBMC suggests effective methods to reduce the environmental load through OWSE

manufacturing activities.

3.1.3. Results of the SocBMC

The results of the SocBMC are shown in Figure 4. Compared to GT maintenance

movements, OWSE maintenance movements involved fewer physically undesirable movements

and were shown to place less strain on the lower back. In terms of operability, convenience, and

hygiene, OWSE was more effective than GT in reducing the subjective workload of workers

[37]. As a result, the introduction of OWSE had free employees from the heavy labor of GT

maintenance work and allowed them to work for long hours. In addition, managers of stores that

had introduced OWSE which was commented that the introduction of OWSE was improved the

environmental awareness of their employees as they have been able to experience using

recovered oil as a resource [37]. Therefore, using OWSE could provide “social value”, such as

improvement of the labor environment and management stability, by reducing the cost of

wastewater treatment facilities and energy. This is because the operation of wastewater

treatment facilities becomes stable and the cleaning frequency of the GT is reduced. These

social values construct mutually beneficial relationships between users and OWSE

manufacturers with long-term value for society.

Through subsequent business activities, from selling to introducing OWSE, the

manufacturers’ employees received technology education, including an economic perspective

and improved environmental conservation awareness [32, 37]. Under “government,” the

possibility of constructing a system to manage OWSE functions was shown through regular

water quality analysis by a third-party testing body [32, 38-42].

OWSE users increased their interest in the water environment, including wastewater,

by experiencing the improved effects of wastewater discharged from their business sites after

the introduction of OWSE [37]. The effects of conserving water quality in public water bodies

include improving the landscape of rivers and lakes and increasing recreational opportunities in

rivers and lakes [43]. OWSE reduces the oil concentration in wastewater and enables stable

operation of wastewater treatment facilities. Residents can expect improved hydrophilicity by

improving water quality in public areas with stable water treatment facility operations. Users

and residents have improved their interest in and awareness of the aquatic environment,

including wastewater, in “local communities.”

The introduction of OWSE improves the working environment and working time of

employees at business sites [37]. Employees develop recycling consciousness by experiencing

the use of recovered oils as resources [37]. Moreover, The amount of oil recovered from

restaurants and food processing factories by OWSE is 0.6 kg/day to 170.4 kg/day [38-42], and

oil recovery companies collect these and recycle. Oil recovery companies will increase their

business volumes and create employment as the amount of recovered oil that can be recycled

increases. These items were suggested under “societal culture.”

Since the oil concentration in wastewater can be reduced with OWSE, three

possibilities were suggested for “social impacts”. The authors revealed that one of the effects of

introducing OWSE was that the number of times cleaning by cleaning companies at restaurants

was reduced [30]. The first possibility was to deprive cleaning companies of GT and drainpipes.

The construction cost of the wastewater treatment facility without the introduction of OWSE

was estimated to be 666,667 to 1,466,667 USD, but by introducing the OWSE, the

concentration of oil and fat in the wastewater decreased, and the construction cost was
ultimately reduced to 400,000USD. Since the introduction cost of OWSE was 66,667USD, the

construction cost of wastewater treatment facilities was reduced by approximately 200,000 to

1,000,000USD [44]. The second possibility was to decrease the income of wastewater treatment

facility manufacturers because it would no longer be necessary to introduce large-capacity

wastewater treatment facilities. The third possibility was to decrease the income of wastewater

treatment facility maintenance companies by reducing the number of maintenance operations.

In “social benefits,” infrastructure would be stable by preventing drainage pipe

blockage, hydrophilicity would be improved by improving the water quality of public water

areas, and a cyclical society would be built to enable sustainable development. However, OWSE

may deprive employees of employment or reduce revenue in a few industries. In contrast,

OWSE can provide benefits such as new job creation, stable infrastructure, and improved

environmental awareness. Moreover, due to the social value provision, business activities by

OWSE manufacturers are socially balanced, even in the local community.

3.2. Results of the relationship between the OWSE manufacturer and stakeholders

The relationship between the OWSE manufacturers and stakeholders in the sewage

area is shown in Figure 5. Before introducing the OWSE, wastewater was collected from the

sewage and then flowed to the wastewater treatment facility to be discharged into the public

water areas. The government operates sewage facilities and monitors the water quality in the

public water area.

As obtained in the SocBMC results, under “after introducing OWSE,” the users were

free from the heavy cleaning of GT by collecting floating oil and experienced benefits such as

an improved working environment, raised recycling consciousness, and decreased wastewater

treatment costs. In addition, the amount of recovered oil increased due to the high efficiency of

the OWSE, and the recovered oil that oil recovery companies treated was increased.

The oil in the wastewater discharged by users was recovered as floating oil in the GT,

and the oil that the GT could not recover flowed into the sewage facilities. Oil recovery
companies recycle the recovered oil as biomass energy and fatty acid materials. However, the

inflow of oil has caused an increasing pollution load on sewage facilities and environmental

problems such as drain pipe blockage, foul odors. The complaints and requests from residents

regarding environmental problems caused by wastewater were placed to the government.

However, by lowering the oil concentration in the wastewater, the load on sewage treatment

facilities was reduced, stable treated water was obtained, and the water quality in the public

water area of the discharge destination was stable. Stable water quality in the public water area

caused residents to experience an increase in hydrophilicity in the public water area and become

more interested in the environment. Through these effects, the government increased trust in the

OWSE manufacturer and developed a cooperative relationship.

A previous study conducted a questionnaire survey on restaurants with GT introduced

and found that more than 60% of restaurants had problems with GT, such as low awareness of

wastewater on the part of restaurants, and problems with GT cleaning and management. [11, 45],

and OWSE has been developed to solve these problems. Therefore, before implementation,

there was no relationship established between the OWSE manufacturer and the grease trap

company. The authors' survey of restaurants showed that the amount of oil floating in GT was

reduced by 63% after introducing OWSE compared to before introducing OWSE [30].

Therefore, the GT cleaning companies’ sales decreased due to a decrease in the number of GT

cleaners and the amount of floating oil. Thus, the OWSE manufacturer and GT cleaning

companies constructed rivalries.

3.3. Verification of the OWSE economic effect

Based on the results of the OWSE's TLBMC and relationships and the information

about the actual site, a deeper economic effect of the introduction of the OWSE was evaluated.

Among the customers identified by EcoBMC, restaurants were evaluated using an economic

evaluation formula. The economic efficiency evaluation formula included the viewpoint of

reducing oil concentration in wastewater by OWSE, which was determined by EnvBMC and
SocBMC, as well as wastewater regulation measures and sewer usage charges. Since it is

expected that the number of local governments that will add sewage usage fees based on sewage

concentration will increase in the future, an economic evaluation formula for areas with sewage

facilities was studied using Kobe City as an example. The economic evaluation formula of this

study targets the wastewater costs for business establishments due to the introduction of oil-water

separators, the initial costs of oil-water separators, and maintenance costs, and does not include the

economic effects associated with achieving public health and the environment for residents. There

wasn't. In addition, testing institutes and universities are expected to receive benefits from testing

and development costs from OWSE manufacturers, however, such testing and research do not

always occur, and costs vary depending on the request, so this economic criteria was not included in

the evaluation formula. The stakeholders that affected the economic evaluation are shown in

Figure 6.

The GT was assumed to be an oil recovery facility before it flowed into the sewage

system. Therefore, the maintenance and cleaning frequency of the GT depended on the company.

These frequencies were measured under the same conditions before and after the introduction.

They were not added to the OWSE in the equation. The economic evaluation items for the areas

with sewage are listed in Table 6.

The costs to pay were collected as a sewage usage fee when a company used sewage,

as shown in Equation (1).

Cp = Cs (Wwdc ), (1)

The city of Kobe adds overage charges according to wastewater concentrations, such

as BOD, SS, and n-hexane extract content, to the sewage fee for a businessperson to use over

500 m3 of wastewater/month. Because OWSE treats oil in wastewater, the wastewater quality

parameters that are effective in introducing OWSE are BOD and n-hexane extract content.

Consequently, to be paid by the business operator, sewerage was calculated using Equations (2)

and (3):
 𝐶𝑝 = 𝐶𝑠 (𝑊𝑤𝑑𝑐 ) + [𝐶𝑤𝑤 {𝐷(𝑖)} × 𝑊𝑤𝑑𝑐 ], (2)

𝐶𝑤𝑤 {𝐷(𝑖)} = 𝐷(𝐵𝑂𝐷) + 2 × 𝐷(𝑛 − 𝐻𝑒𝑥) (3)

Considering the introduction and maintenance costs of the OWSE, annual benefits,

lifetime, and profit of the recovered oil as a valuable resource, the cost of introducing the

OWSE was calculated using Equation (4).

𝐶′𝑝 = 𝐶𝑠 (𝑊𝑤𝑑𝑐 ) + 𝐶𝑜𝑤𝑠 + [𝐶𝑤𝑤 {𝐷′(𝑖)} × 𝑊𝑤𝑑𝑐 ] − 𝐵𝑜 , (4)

If C’p is smaller than Cp, there are economic benefits to the introduction of the OWSE.

Consequently, Equation (5) was suggested as the economic evaluation equation to show the

introduction effect of OWSE in sewage-developed areas.

𝐶𝑜𝑤𝑠 − 𝐵𝑜 < [𝐶𝑤𝑤 {𝐷(𝑖)} − 𝐶𝑤𝑤 {𝐷′(𝑖)}] × 𝑊𝑤𝑑𝑐 , (5)

If the price minus the annual benefits of recovered oil from the introduction and

maintenance costs of the OWSE is less than the sewage cost of water quality items before and

after the introduction of the OWSE, the introduction of the OWSE would have economic

effects.

The economic effect of introducing OWSE was verified using Equation (5) for each

item when “Grease Eco (Daito-giken Co., Ltd., Japan)” was introduced to K Restaurant (Japan,

Miyagiken). At K Restaurant, the recovered oil was collected by an oil recovery company that

went directly to the restaurant and collected it, and K Restaurant did not have to pay for the

transportation costs of the recovered oil. In addition, the usage costs of recovered oil for fatty

acid feedstock or feed vary depending on the oil recovery company. Therefore, these items were

excluded from this economic evaluation formula. Table 7 shows the results of each item used in

the economic evaluation formula for K Restaurant. Table 8 shows Introducing and maintenance
cost of OWSE and annual benefit gained by recovered oil at K restaurant.

The price of OWSE varies from $12,867 to $93,000 depending on wastewater

concentration range (88 to 490,000 mg/L), and wastewater volume (0.110 to 3.98 m3/day)

[38-42]. The amount of oil recovered by OWSE at the survey points was 2.5 to 4.5 L/day, the

purchase price of recovered oil was 0.067 USD/L, and the profit from recovered oil was in the

range of 61 to 110 USD/year. These values depend on the business type (restaurant, food

processing plant), production volume, and usage volume of the place where they are introduced,

and their values fluctuate according to the environment. As a result of the survey, the additional

sewerage charges based on water quality data at the survey points were between 2 USD/m3 and

3 USD/m3. BOD analyzes related to additional sewerage charges use analysis results when

40-70% of the original dissolved oxygen has been consumed, with an analysis error of 20% [46].

Therefore, analysis values may vary due to analysis errors, and additional sewerage charges

may vary. These are uncertainties in this study. Table 9 shows the results of verifying the

uncertainty of these items.

Substituting these items into the proposed evaluation Equation (5), the price (Cows –

Bo) is 826 USD/year, the price ((Cww{D(i)}–Cww{D’(i)})×WWdc) is 1,858 USD/year, and the

difference between them is 1,032 USD/year. Therefore, the annual cost of introducing and

maintaining the OWSE is less than the sewerage fee reduced by the introduction of the OWSE.

The economic effects of introducing the OWSE are shown.

Therefore, the economic effects of introducing Grease Eco are demonstrated.

Moreover, if Grease Eco with OWSE introduction and maintenance annual costs (Cows) of 1,937

USD/year or less is installed, restaurant K would experience economic benefits.

4. Conclusions

A TLBMC for OWSE manufacturers was developed to clarify the economic and social

benefits and relationships between OWSE manufacturers and stakeholders. Moreover, an

economic evaluation equation was proposed to judge the introduction of OWSE for business

decision-making from an economic perspective.

1) There is a case in which the introduction of OWSE has cleared drain pipe

blockages and reduced drain cleaning costs by 20,000 USD/year [32]. In this way,

the value propositions provided by the OWSE were attractive to users and highly

feasible through the use of EcoBMC.

2) An environmental benefit is that the introduction of OWSE reduced CO2 emissions

from GT maintenance work by approximately 91.7% [30]. In addition, the

environmental impact is that CO2 emissions from the manufacturing, use, and

disposal of OWSE. EnvBMC, which allows comparison of these, is an effective

method to verify whether the environmental impact can be reduced.

3) In OWSE's maintenance operations, the number of physically unfavorable

movements was reduced to approximately 1/7 compared to GT's maintenance

operations. 81.5% of OWSE users were satisfied with the use of OWSE, which

showed the effect of reducing workload [37]. The introduction of OWSE has been

shown to improve the working environment of employees, enable long-term

employment, and create social value for users.

4) It has been shown that by implementing OWSE, the annual cost of treating

wastewater in sewers was reduced by 1,032 USD/year, the introduction of OWSE

would bring economic benefits to companies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.O. and R.N.; methodology, T.O. and R.N.;

validation, T.O. and R.I.; formal analysis, T.O. and R.N.; writing original draft preparation, T.O.;

writing review and editing, R.I., T.A., and R.N.; visualization, T.O. and R.N.; supervision, R.N.;

project administration, R.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the

manuscript
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

(JSPS) KAKENHI, Grant Number 20H03104.

Funding: This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)

KAKENHI, Grant Number 20H03104.

References:

[1] Toru Iyo, Noboru Kariya, Current status of edible oil measures, Journal of Environmental

Conservation Engineering, 1997, 26, 3, 160-168

[2] Oil and fat and Sewerage. Available online: http://www.city.kawasaki.jp/800/cmsfiles/conte

nts/0000084/84115/abura.pdf, (Accessed on 10 January 2022).

[3] About oil fat processing. Available online: https://www.gesui.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/living/life/oi

l/index.html, (Accessed on 10 January 2022).

[4] Keener, K.M.; Ducoste, J.J.; Holt, L.M. Properties influencing fat, oil and grease deposit

formation. Water Environ. Res. 2008, 80, 2241–2246.

[5] Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA): Washington, DC, USA, 2004.

[6] Indah Water Consortium. IWK Sustainability Report 2010. Available online:

https://www.iwk.com.my/cms/upload_files/resource/sustainabilityreport/SustainabilityReport20

10.pdf (Accessed on 01 February 2022).

[7] Stoll, U.; Gupta, H. Management strategies for oil and grease residues: J. Waste Manag. Res.

1997, 15, 23–32, doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0062.

[8] Monica, E.U.; Nora, R.S.; Laura, S. C.; David, V. M.; Edgar, Q.B. Oil and grease as a water

quality index parameter for the conservation of marine biota. Water 2019, 11, 856,

doi:10.3390/w11040856.

[9] Water quality usage fee system. Available online: https://www.city.kobe.lg.jp/a27732/busine

ss/annaitsuchi/gesuido/mokuji/03_01.html, (Accessed on 14 January 2022).

[10] Tightening regulations on small-scale business establishments in the Kasumigaura. Available

online:https://www.pref.ibaraki.jp/seikatsukankyo/kantai/suishitsu/documents/kasumijyourei_ka

isei.pdf, (Accessed on 14 January 2022).

[11] Suzue Tomi, Ryoko Yamamoto-Ikemoto, Eri Nakakihara, Fumiyuki Egawa; Characteristics of

the restaurant wastewater and oil removal in the GT, The Journal of Japan Society of Civil
 Engineers Division G: Environmental Systems and Engineering, 2011, 67, 7, p.Ⅲ_633-641．

[12] Ministry of the Environment Government of Japa; Environmental Technology Verification

program Organic wastewater treatment technology field Verification report (detailed version),

Oil separating recovery equipment for a restaurant having no holiday in compound building

Greaseeco DS-2 750-600W (corresponding type for a high concentration of oil), 2011.

[13] Greasegardian. Available online: https://www.greaseguardian.com/, (Accessed on 3 February

2023).

[14] Goslyn. Available online: https://goslyn.com/, (Accessed on 3 February 2023).

[15] Kavitha S. Venkataramane G. Mats T. Debraj B. Venkata K.K. ; A sustainable performance

assessment framework for circular management of municipal wastewater treatment plants,

Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 339, 130657,1-17.

[16] Alabaster G. Johnston R. Thevenon F. Shantz A.; Progress on wastewater treatment: Global

status and Acceleration needs for SDGs Indicator 6.3.1., United Nations Human Settlements

Program and World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2021, 1-206.

[17] Asce; Infrastructure report card: Wastewater D+, American Society of Civil Engineers,

Washington DC, USA, 2021, 1-11.

[18] Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA): Washington, DC, USA, 2004

[19] Williams, J.B.; Clarkson, C.; Mant, C.; Drinkwater, A.; May, E. Fat, oil and grease deposits in

sewers: Characterisation of deposits and formation mechanisms. Water Res. 2012, 46, 6319–

6328, doi:10.1016/j.waters.2012.09.002.

[20] Stoll, U.; Gupta, H. Management strategies for oil and grease residues: J. Waste Manag. Res.

1997, 15, 23–32, doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0062.

[21] Aya YOSHIDA; Japanʼs Efforts for Achieving the SDGs, Journal of Environmental

Conservation Engineering, 2019, 48, 5, 240-244, doi.org/10.5956/jriet.48.5_240.

[22] Khaked O. Nabila S. Enas T. S. Mohammad A.A. Mohamed S. M. Olabi A.G.; The role of
 wastewater treatment in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) and sustainability

guideline, Energy Nexus, 2022, 7, 100112, 1-19.

[23] Masataka FUKAO; The SDGs for Enterprise, Journal of Environmental Conservation

Engineering, 2019, 48, 5, 255-259, doi.org/10.5956/jriet.48.5_255.

[24] Alexandre Joyce Raymond L. Paquin; The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to

design more sustainable business models, Journal of cleaner production, 2016, 135, 1474-1486.

[25] Osterwalder A. Pigneur Y.; Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game

changers and challengers, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2010.

[26] Stubbs W. Cocklin C.; Conceptualizing ‘a sustainable business model’ Organ Environ,2008, 21,

2, 103-127.

[27] Mar P.P. Phillipp K. Dimitrios X. Lotte A. Patricia O.; Social values tensions and uncertainties

in resource recovery, Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, 319, 115759, 1-11.

[28] Huan L., Chang J. a, Zhanying Z., Ian O., Sagadevan M.; Environmental and economic life

cycle assessment of energy recovery from sewage sludge through different anaerobic digestion

pathways, Energy, 2017, 126, 649-657.

[29] Ribeiro I. Sobral P. Pecas P. Henriques E.; A sustainable business model to fight food waste,

Journal of cleaner production, 2018, 177, 262-275.

[30] Toshihiko Otsuka, Eriko Ankyu, Ryozo Noguchi; Evaluation of Environmental Sustainability

Indicators for Oil-Water Separation Equipment, Journal of Environmental Conservation

Engineering, 2016, 45, 12, 640-649, doi.org/10.5956/jriet.45.640.

[31] Toshihiko Otsuka, Eriko Ankyu, Ryozo Noguchi; Capacity Improvement of a Wastewater

Treatment System and CO2 Emissions Reduction by an Oil-Separating Process, Agricultural

Information Research, 2016, 25, 1, 29-38, doi.org/10.3173/air.25.29.

[32] Daito-giken Co., Ltd.,; Available online: https://greaseeco.co.jp/, (Accessed on 25 September

2023).

[33] Chan, H. Removal and recycling of pollutants from Hong Kong restaurant wastewaters.
 Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 6859–6867, doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.104.

[34] Stoll, U.; Gupta, H. Management strategies for oil and grease residues: J. Waste Manag. Res.

1997, 15, 23–32, doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0062.

[35] Monica, E.U.; Nora, R.S.; Laura, S. C.; David, V. M.; Edgar, Q.B. Oil and grease as a water

quality index parameter for the conservation of marine biota. Water 2019, 11, 856,

doi:10.3390/w11040856.

[36] Yuichi Y. Shinichiro S.; Environmental Technology Gap and Transfer, Quarterly journal of

public policy & management, 2007, 4, 1-14.

[37] Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; Elderly worker safety and health technology

verification program report (detailed version), oil-water separation equipment that reduces labor

burden and helps eliminate kitchen steps ” Grease eco” , 2022.

[38] Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan; Environmental Technology Verification

program Organic wastewater treatment technology field Verification report (detailed version),

Sink-type oil separating recovery equipment for small restaurant in the suburbs (installation of

septic tank) Grease eco DS-2 750-500, 2012.

[39] Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan; Environmental Technology Verification

program Organic wastewater treatment technology field Verification report (detailed version),

Oil separating recovery equipment for washing large fryer Grease eco 850-850MFP, 2011.

[40] Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan; Environmental Technology Verification

program Organic wastewater treatment technology field Verification report (detailed version),

Meat processing factory corresponding type “Grease eco FOS-900-1200”, 2010.

[41] Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan; Environmental Technology Verification

program Organic wastewater treatment technology field Verification report (detailed version),

Oil separating recovery equipment for commercial kitchen sink “Grease eco DS-2 750-600P”,

2009.

[42] Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan; Environmental Technology Verification

 program Organic wastewater treatment technology field Verification report (detailed version),

Oil separating recovery equipment for commercial kitchen sink “Grease eco DS-2 600-600”,

2009.

[43] Hiroyuki ITO, Katsuhiko DEMURA; Evaluation of Rula Community Sewerage Improvement

Project by Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, The Review of Agricultural Economics, 2002, 58,

157-165.

[44] Toshihiko Otsuka, Eriko Ankyu, Ryozo Noguchi; Feasibility study on Fat Recovery and

Recycling System for Organic Waste Water：Material and Energy flow and Economic Efficiency

for Waste Water Treatment with Fat Recovery Equipment in Food processing factory,

Proceedings of SEE conference, 2013, 23-24.

[45] Ryozo Noguchi, Chisato Sekine; Feasibility of Reducing Cost and CO2 by using a System for

Recovering Waste Cooking Oil from Wastewater, Agricultural Information Research, 2010, 19,

4, 86-94.

[46] JSA Group; JIS HB 53 Environmental Measurement [Water quality] JIS K 0102, 2023.
List of tables:

Table 1. Table of nomenclature

Item Unit Contents

BOD [mg/L] Biochemical Oxygen Demand

EcoBMC - Economic Business Model Canvas

EnvBMC - Environmental Business Model Canvas

ESG - Environmental, Social, and Governance

GT - Grease Trap

OWSE - Oil-Water Separation Equipment

SDGs - Sustainable Development Goals

SocBMC - Social Business Model Canvas

SS [mg/L] Suspended Solids

TLBMC - Three-Layer Business Model Canvas

 Table 2. Comparison with previous research and this research

Previous research Previous research

Item This research
Reference [27] Reference [28]

Urban wastewater, Industrial Urban wastewater, Sewage sludge

Wastewater wastewater, Seawater Organic wastewater

desalination brine

Energy, Nutrients, Polymers, Energy

Recovery resource Oil and fat
Other products

Mesophilic and Thermophilic

anaerobic digestion, Mesophilic and

Sewage, Seawater desalination
Evaluation object Thermophilic high-solids anaerobic OWSE
plant
digestion, Anaerobic digestion with

thermal hydrolysis pretreatment

Discussion of tensions and Life cycle environmental and TLBMC,

Evaluation method uncertainties for societal economic assessment Relationship

values Perceptions,

Economic impact, Environment Economic impact,

impact Environment
Evaluation item Social impact
impact, Social

impact
Table 3. Specific classification perspectives of the economic business model canvas

(EcoBMC)

Item Classification perspective

Value proposition What value can OWSE introduce for users?

Customer When OWSE was sold and used, were relationships constructed

relationships between the users and the manufacturer?

Customer segments All of the users were introduced to OWSE

Marketing channels to provide users with information on OWSE and

Channels
the social needs of OWSE

Necessary management resources to introduce OWSE

Resources Management resources that target the condition of OWSE and the

information needed for OWSE, including know-how

Activities Activities that the manufacturers must work on to sell OWSE

Partners Cooperating companies needed to introduce or use OWSE

Costs Main costs in resources, activities, and partners

Main method to gain profits and continuous profits gained from the
Revenue
sale of OWSE
Table 4. Specific classification perspectives of the environment business model canvas

(EnvBMC)

Item Classification perspective

Defined as using a piece of OWSE for a month in a restaurant (Ramen

Functional shop). For perceiving the environmental impact of the inventory, we used the

value value per meal [21] already reported by the authors multiplied by the

number of meals sold per month.

Production Processes needed to manufacture OWSE

Materials Resources required to manufacture OWSE

Supplies and
Energy required to manufacture OWSE
outsourcing

Physical measures needed to transport OWSE from the manufacturer to the

Distribution
end user

Use phase Environmental impact occurs when the end user uses OWSE

End-of-life Procedures required to dispose of OWSE

Environmental
The impacts on the environment occur throughout the life cycle of OWSE
impacts

Environmental
Beneficial environmental impacts occur when the end users use OWSE
benefits
Table 5. Specific classification perspectives of the social business model canvas (SocBMC)

Item Classification perspective

Benefits that the introduction of OWSE has brought to end users

Social value
and society

A role or education that occurs through the introduction of

Employees
OWSE for employees of the manufacturer

Management method or system of OWSE that is effective in

Governance
building a relationship of trust with users

Community contribution and the change in consciousness brought

Local communities
about by the introduction of OWSE

Social culture Potential impact that OWSE brought to society

Activities of the manufacturer that benefit/affect end users or

Scale of outreach
local communities

End users Final impact and effect that OWSE brought to end users

Social impacts Social impacts that occur through the introduction of OWSE

Social benefits Social benefits that occur through the introduction of OWSE
 Table 6. Economic evaluation items in the areas with sewage

Item* Unit Contents

Introducing and maintenance cost of OWSE considering the life

Cows [USD/year]
of the equipment

i - Water quality item

Concentration of water quality items; i = BOD and oil

D(i) [mg/L]
concentration

Cww (D(i)), Cww (D’(i)) [USD/ｍ3] Sewage cost of water quality item; i

Wwdc [m3/year] quantity of wastewater per year

Cp, Cp’ [USD/year] Cost when a businessperson uses the sewage

Cs (Wwdc) [USD/year] Cost of sewage use in a year

Bo** [USD/year] Benefit gained by the recovery of oil in a year

* D, (i), and Cp are shown after introducing the OWSE.

** The recovered oil is purchased directly from K Restaurant by an oil recovery company and is not

transported.
 Table 7. Items used for economic evaluation by Grease Eco in the sewage area

Before introducing After introducing

Item
quantity Unit quantity Unit

Introducing and maintenance cost of

Cows - USD/year 905 USD/year
OWSE for the life of Grease Eco

D(i) Concentration of BOD 2,779 mg/L 1,673 mg/L

D(i) Concentration of n-Hex extract content 400 mg/L 30 mg/L

Cww{D(i)}* Unit price by D(i) 3 USD/m3 2 USD/m3

Wwdc Annual quantity of wastewater 978 m3/year 978 m3/year

Bo Annual benefit gained by recovered oil - USD/year 79 USD/year

* Unit price according to the water quality concentration in the city of Kobe (2 USD/m3 for Cww{D(i)} of

1101–1500, and 3 USD/m3 for Cww{D(i)} of 2501 or higher) was adopted.

Table 8. Introducing and maintenance cost of OWSE and annual benefit gained by

recovered oil at K restaurant

Item quantity Unit

OWSE introducing cost 13,967 USD/equipment

Cows Service life 25 year

OWSE maintenance cost 346 USD/year

Average quantity of recovered oil 3 kg/day

Bo
Purchase price of recovered oil 0.07 USD/kg
Table 9. The errors in the items of requiring verification of the OWSE economic effect

Item* Unit Errors References

The price of OWSE varies depending on the oil

Cows [USD/year] concentration and ranges from 12,867 to 93,000 ［38-42］

USD.

BOD is analyzed by diluting it to a range of

40% to 70% of the oxygen consumption at the

D(i) [mg/L] ［46］
time of analysis.

The analysis error of oil concentration is 20%.

The quantity added to sewerage charges varies

Cww (D(i)),
[USD/ｍ3] depending on the concentration of wastewater. ［9］
Cww (D’(i))
The range is 2 USD/m3 to 3 USD/m3.

As a result of the investigation, the quantity of Result of the

oil recovered by OWSE was 2.5 to 4.5 L/day. investigation

Bo [USD/year] Since the purchase price of recovered oil was

0.067 USD/L, the benefit of recovered oil is in

the range of 61 to 110 USD/year.

Figure 1. Effects of introducing oil-water separation equipment (OWSE) and the

relationship between the SDGs

Figure 2. Economic business model canvas of oil-water separation equipment
Figure 3. Environment business model canvas of oil-water separation equipment
Figure 4. Social business model canvas of oil-water separation equipment
[Area with sewage: Before OWSE introduction]

[Area with sewage: After OWSE introduction]

Figure 5. Relationship between oil-water separation equipment manufacturers and

stakeholders
[Area with sewage: Before OWSE introduction]

[Area with sewage: After OWSE introduction]

Figure 6. Relationship between oil-water separation equipment manufacturers and

stakeholders evaluated by the economic evaluation equation
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may
be considered as potential competing interests: