Last weekend I had the joy and good fortune to watch my daughter graduate from college. Few of my previous life experiences have matched that prideful day.
At Wesleyan University, on commencement day, a commitment to social justice dripped from each graduate’s gown. A stream of red and black marched by the round-topped star-gazing observatory as African drummers pounded soulful renderings under a tent. Professors and other dignitaries mingled around lawn chairs, and flags whipped in the cold wind.
Receiving an honorary degree was former Wesleyan graduate, Majora Carter, whose efforts to economically revitalize poor urban areas are profoundly “Wes.” So was her speech. Her message: Get ready to be uncomfortable. That’s right! Anyone who wants to shake up the status quo will have enemies, even brutal opposition. You will know who your friends aren’t, she said.
As someone who wears product stewardship lenses inside his gl
Over the past 13 years, this space has yielded dividends. In the past two weeks, three new producer responsibility laws have passed – Connecticut’s first-in-the-nation mattress law, and paint laws in Minnesota and Vermont (the 5th and 6th states to pass paint stewardship legislation so far). These laws do not pass solely because of PSI. In many ways, they would never pass if it was all up to us, or up to any one stakeholder. It takes a strong coalition that gets built over time. Starting and maintaining those coalitions is what PSI does – and it often starts in a very uncomfortable place, where we need to convince all stakeholders that the heavy lifting needed to change the status quo is worth the effort.
Thanks to all of our partners for great success these past two weeks, and we hope for many more victories that result in resource savings, job creation, and taxpayer savings. I am starting to like this feeling of being a little less uncomfortable.
It was 1997. I was listening to Ron Driedger, an official from the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, discuss during a keynote presentation how his agency required producers to pay for managing their post-consumer products. From paint to pharmaceuticals, Ron said, industry-funded take-back programs enabled cost-effective recycling and safe disposal of a range of consumer products. This decreased not only government spending, but also the potential for negative environmental impacts due to improper waste management.
I was intrigued.
As the Director of Waste Policy and Planning for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and in the midst of writing the state’s solid waste master plan for my fourth time, I knew we needed new ideas—and quickly. So when I returned to the office, I told my boss that I wanted this producer responsibility waste management approach to be the United States’ chief import. I made the case that product stewardship policy could not only save governments millions of dollars, but also be good for the environment and create recycling jobs. Then, I went out on a limb even further: I proposed creating a new, national nonprofit organization focused on this new concept of product stewardship. One that would be the voice for state and local governments. One that would help spur economic growth and cut back on taxpayer costs. One that would work to benefit the environment by finding innovative solutions to managing post-consumer solid waste. And one that would get government and industry to work collaboratively toward a common goal.
My boss—Gina McCarthy—bought into the idea.
Well, okay. She actually told me to finish the solid waste plan, first. Then, she asked for a business plan.
It took months of discussion and multiple drafts of that business plan, but in the end, Gina followed through, providing the funding and support that I needed to start the Product Stewardship Institute.
Thirteen years later, Gina McCarthy is poised to become the next head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, having earned the nomination from President Barack Obama. And she brings exactly the type of leadership that EPA needs.
Gina is an innovator and, by extension, a supporter of innovation. When I started PSI, I had to overcome numerous roadblocks that a bevy of detractors (mostly people who saw PSI as a threat to their turf) set up for me. Gina, however, saw PSI as an opportunity. In fact, she became one of the first PSI board members, helping to guide and shape the nascent organization. She understood the balancing act we were playing between government, business, and environmental activists. She took a calculated risk, asked questions, and provided advice. She helped PSI move forward by making decisions based on sound information, thoughtful deliberation, and consideration of multiple viewpoints.
The EPA’s past support for product stewardship has been instrumental in PSI successes, too. This includes our national paint dialogue, which led to a major waste management agreement with the paint industry, as well as our pilot computer take-back project with Staples, which led to nationwide take-back programs by Staples, Best Buy, Office Depot, and Office Max.
Unfortunately, the EPA’s more recent approach to product stewardship has been tepid, and there have been missed opportunities. With Gina at the helm, though, I feel confident that she would breathe fresh life into that seemingly worn banner of “change” that was unfurled at the White house in the early days of the first administration. The EPA needs fresh ideas. It needs a fighter. It needs someone who will advocate for progressive environmental interests while tempering that passion with economic and political realities.
Gina is a kid from Boston with the street smarts to manage a bureaucracy that’s in the crosshairs of Congress. She’s the “anti-intellectual” who’s intelligent. She’s the tough regulator who knows when to cut a deal. She’s the baseball manager who kicks dirt on an umpire’s bad call but then goes out for beers with the umpires after the game. From local health official to state and federal regulator, Gina has climbed the ladder while maintaining close ties to business leaders and environmental groups.
I think the President made the right choice by nominating Gina. Let’s hope Congress does, too.
Flying high above the Atlantic on my way home from a week of travels to Canada and Scotland, I pondered how America can be such a powerful world leader in technology, the economy, and the military, but so unenlightened regarding trash. We pride ourselves on innovation, bold risk-taking, fierce independence, and toughness. Yet, we are well behind our Canadian and European comrades regarding strategies to turn our country’s waste problem into an opportunity to recover valuable materials, create recycling jobs, and reduce costs. In fact, our corporations display a fear and trepidation of the future that is downright troubling.
What is so disappointing is that most corporations selling products into the U.S. market are operating within much more sophisticated solid waste programs than we have in the U.S. Although we have made progress in managing some problem wastes (e.g., electronics, mercury thermostats and lighting, and paint), the Canadians and Europeans have us beat in so many product areas, particularly packaging.
In Ottawa, Ontario, I moderated and presented on a panel called “Policy Shaping the Landscape” at the PAC NEXT annual conference that PSIco-sponsored. In front of several hundred corporate powerhouses like Unilever, P&G, Nestle, Walmart, Kraft, and Target, my fellow panelists and I discussed the mix of strategies needed to manage all packaging waste in Canada by 2015 – voluntary industry initiatives, extended producer responsibility (EPR), and other regulations. That same conversation is not yet happening in the U.S. And the U.S. representatives of those same corporate powerhouses are avoiding even having that conversation.
September 28, 2012—Scott Cassel speaks at PAC NEXT in Ottawa, Ontario.
As our first session panelist, Michael Goeres, executive director of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), provided the context for Canada’s national focus on packaging. According to Goeres, it started in 1989 with the National Task Force on Packaging. The issue reignited during the debate on packaging EPR that started in 2000. And it resurfaced, yet again, with the 2009 Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility and Canada-wide Strategy for Sustainable Packaging,which created a central platform on which to implement EPR laws throughout Canada by 2015. Goeres also discussed CCME’s initiative to work with industry to reduce packaging waste, which culminated in the recent announcement of the Design Guidelines for Sustainable Packaging, a voluntary joint initiative between Éco Entreprises Québec (a PSI Sustaining Partner) and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition.
In contrast to our Canadian counterparts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not consider waste management to be a federal government issue, but rather a state and local government issue. After a request from state and local agency officials to help solve the growing waste problem, the EPA held five meetings on packaging waste between 2010 and 2011 and even released a report. However, it pulled out soon thereafter, leaving regional EPA branches to follow up.
September 28, 2012—PAC NEXT panelists at Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, Ontario.
The next speaker on our panel, John Coyne, is a Unilever vice president and chairman of Stewardship Ontario, the industry-led product stewardship organization that takes pride in its implementation of Ontario’s six-year old Blue Box EPR program. Of the 1,500 businesses represented by Stewardship Ontario, John said: “…we are dedicated to supporting our member companies’ drive to innovate – to contribute to making their businesses, packaging, and products more environmentally sustainable and more readily recyclable. We lead through development and investment.”
Here are a few other things he said:
- “By any measure, the Blue Box is defined and regarded as both a success and a symbol…75 percent of Ontario residents say they consider the Blue Box their primary pro-environment effort …People like it. It makes them feel good about their contribution. More importantly, people use it.
- “By embracing innovation, by harnessing creativity, by building on our achievements and accomplishments, we aim to be a global leader in responsible product stewardship. At all times, we never lose sight of the fact that our primary job is to meet collection and diversion targets and to prevent waste from filling landfills and fouling waterways.”
- “We need to ensure that the success of the Blue Box fuels further innovation – which, in turn, will help make the program even more successful.”
Ironically, many of the same companies that are members of Stewardship Ontario are also members of the U.S-based Grocery Manufacturers Alliance (GMA), which hired the consulting firm SAIC to issue a report last month that criticized the Blue Box EPR program as inefficient and ineffective. Go figure.
The last speaker on my panel, Meegan Armstrong of the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, touted the province’s commitment to manage, by 2017, all products under an EPR system that promotes private sector initiative and innovation.
As if that three-speaker session was not enough of a contrast with the U.S., next, I spoke on a panel at the Scottish Waste and Resources Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, where my fellow panelists and I discussed the interplay between voluntary and regulatory solutions.
Oct. 3, 2012 — Scott Cassel speaks in Glasgow, Scotland about PSI’s experience forging agreements between stakeholders for both voluntary and regulatory product stewardship programs.
The Scottish government has just introduced packaging regulations that are more aggressive than the existing packaging law in place in the U.K., of which Scotland is a part. However, Zero Waste Scotland, an independent organization funded by the Scottish government, is tasked with implementing the packaging law through both EPR and voluntary solutions. The recycling rate in the U.K. far exceeds that of the U.S., but—to Scotland—that rate is unacceptably low. They want to do more.
America, we have a problem. If our corporations continue to refuse even to have the discussion with other U.S.-based stakeholders about how we are to reduce waste, save taxpayers money, create recycling jobs, and achieve our joint objectives by both voluntary and regulated solutions, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves for wasting economic opportunities.
As Americans, we should be leading in the creation of innovative waste management solutions, as we do in other areas of the economy, rather than burying our future in the rubble of our own fear.
Twelve years ago, when PSI was getting off the ground, my personal vision was that government and industry representatives could have meaningful discussions about waste policy outside the legislative arena, and develop joint policies, regulations, and laws to protect human health and the environment. I was tired of the traditional unilateral government approach to pass laws over the fierce objections of industry. Collaboration, after all, can achieve far better results than forcing anyone to do anything.
Fast forward twelve years, to today. While there are many stellar individual examples of corporate leaders finding ways to reduce their product impacts, far more companies have chosen to thwart attempts at having an open conversation about their environmental and social responsibility. In an ironic twist of self-fulfilling prophesy, most companies that hate regulation and want smaller government only become “greener” through the threat of legislation.
In an ironic twist of self-fulfilling prophesy, most companies that hate regulation and want smaller government only become “greener” through the threat of legislation.
PSI works on about 18 product categories, and has invited manufacturers, retailers, and other businesses associated with every one of these products to discuss how to reduce their health and environmental impacts. The only industries to fully engage in these discussions are paint (through the American Coatings Association) and rechargeable batteries (through Call2Recycle).
The International Sleep Products Association would not bring any members to our two open national mattress dialogue meetings, refused to provide contact information, and would not discuss strategies to solve the problem.
The majority of U.S. consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies were invited to attend our three technical packaging calls that recently addressed both voluntary and regulated strategies to reduce, reuse, and recycle packaging and printed material, including non-EPR systems. Only a few participated, and they have not invited PSI to attend any of their discussions. The truth is that most CPG company representatives in the U.S. are so new to the issue of packaging waste and recycling that they do not know what to do. There are many in this field, including PSI, who have been working on these issues for years, and can provide insights and opportunities for productive discussion among all stakeholder groups. However, this can only happen if these companies do not close ranks and only discuss strategies among themselves.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association came to PSI five years ago seeking EPR legislation on mercury thermostats because they did not want to continue paying for the recycling of thermostats from free-riding companies not contributing to the industry-funded thermostat recycling program. After six months of multi-stakeholder negotiations and after all issues were negotiated, they walked away from the agreement and have since opposed all thermostat legislation except bills that codify their voluntary program.
No wonder why environmental groups have sharpened the saw against these companies. We have now come full circle to the point where PSI began – governments are left with little choice but to force legislation on industry, or accept whatever programs industry wants to do. That is truly a sad waste of all of our time and energy.
Yet the world turns, and PSI will react to this reality. We will continue to seek out corporate leaders, like those on our Advisory Council, at the American Coatings Association, and at Call2Recycle. And we will continue to support and strengthen voluntary programs as well, since many states will not support legislation under any circumstances. But the truth is that PSI is being forced into the same antagonistic fight in state legislatures that we wanted to avoid when we were created in 2000.
I had hoped that data, logic, discussion, and human interaction would breed relationships that would entice companies to transcend their natural inclination to maintain the status quo. We are now entering the fall, and many governments are getting ready for the 2013 battle in state legislatures across the U.S. …unless someone would rather talk…
Is anyone out there? Hello?
For the 11th year in a row, Massachusetts has failed to pass electronics EPR legislation. It is now 12 years since the Commonwealth became the first state in the country to ban the disposal of lead-bearing cathode ray tubes, sparking the electronics recycling industry in the U.S…and placing the financial burden to manage electronics on Massachusetts cities and towns. It was the classic ban without a plan. Unlike the stellar U.S. women gymnasts who earned Gold in London yesterday, our country fails miserably at passing legislation that will keep gold and other valuable materials out of our country’s landfills and incinerators.
What a waste. What a shame. To watch our great and mighty companies offshore jobs, complain about it being the only choice they have, but do little to create thousands of green jobs that are there for the asking if they would engage with PSI and other stakeholders to develop extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws and other strategies that meet their own interests.
The powerful corporate self interest that has blocked movement on product stewardship and EPR in the U.S. is the same one that unknowingly is weakening itself, just as the U.S. auto industry’s fight against fuel efficiency standards weakened itself, causing the need for a government bail-out.
I just finished yet another book that chronicles ways that U.S. companies and policy makers are failing to take actions that will strengthen our economy, instead resulting in the slow decline of U.S. economic power. Edward Luce’s Time to Start Thinking shows what the product stewardship movement experiences on a smaller scale – a failure to launch. Look no further than the microcosm of the product stewardship field, where many unenlightened companies fight against policies that will save billions of dollars for U.S. taxpayers, reduce waste, and generate thousands of recycling jobs.
These companies operate under the guise of groups like the Product Management Alliance, which evaluates EPR laws by showing that the laws that they weaken actually don’t perform well. How enlightening! The powerful corporate self interest that has blocked movement on product stewardship and EPR in the U.S. is the same one that unknowingly is weakening itself, just as the U.S. auto industry’s fight against fuel efficiency standards weakened itself, causing the need for a government bail-out.
As I wake up this morning to yet another failed attempt to pass an e-waste bill in the all-Democratic Massachusetts Legislature (and with its Democratic Governor), I wonder what this failure is all about…was Dell so bent on passing a bill that ensured that any goals included would already be met before the law went into effect? Or was the House leadership frozen in political gridlock on matters far removed from the bill itself? It is clear that there was no consensus on the bill, but how can stakeholders be so far apart for so long that we cannot figure out a way to act in all of our own self interest?
Close your eyes…and envision a time when we in the U.S. really went for the gold…like those women Olympic gymnastic heroes of today. Rather than burying our gold in the ground and mining raw materials in an endless cycle of waste, we owe it to ourselves to find a way to break out of this malaise together.
Everyone and everything these days is being reinvented, reinvigorated, redesigned, and remade. It’s all about branding. Recycling is being reinvented as EPR…EPR is being reinvented as recycling. Many of those working on recycling containers, packaging, and printed materials are like those who finally found religion…they think their brand is the best.
Some believe that only voluntary efforts can work, while others believe only EPR can work. Some believe EPR only works on packaging but not products, while others believe the reverse. Some say that only toxic products should fall in an EPR system, others say only some packaging materials but not others. The state of recycling discussions in the U.S. today is exciting, but rudderless.
PSI has never wavered on who it is. For the past 11 years, PSI has served many in the world of recycling as a Facilitative Leader. We work to provide forums for the honest discussion of how to reduce the lifecycle health and environmental impacts from consumer products all along the product lifecycle. We don’t hold to a particular set of strategies for doing so but rather promote deliberative discussions to arrive at mutually agreeable solutions. We raise issues that need to be discussed, and we do not let any group dodge hard questions. We believe that sustainable solutions can only be reached by integrating the expertise of each key stakeholder. We base decisions on jointly developed data. We emphasize transparency and hold open meetings and calls. No group is locked out. We help stakeholders frame their own debate, and we help them manage the data and issues so that they make decisions and move forward on shared goals. We do not exclude ideas and strategies because they are unpopular. We tackle the “elephant in the room.”
PSI was a main force in bringing the product stewardship movement to the United States. Through thousands of presentations, webinars, dialogue meetings, and informational briefings, we helped build the capacity for product stewardship in 47 states and for thousands of local governments. We aim to identify trends, raise issues, develop solutions, implement strategies, and evaluate programs. We connect people into networks. We are not passive facilitators. We forge progress. We do not believe EPR alone is the answer. We believe that voluntary solutions and legislated solutions both have a place at the table.
As a facilitative leader, PSI succeeded in developing a national multi-stakeholder agreement on product stewardship.
PSI helped stakeholders reach a national agreement with paint manufacturers, retailers, painting contractors, the U.S. EPA, and multiple state and local government agencies.
In 2007, PSI helped stakeholders reach a national agreement with paint manufacturers, retailers, painting contractors, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and multiple state and local government agencies. This agreement has translated into three state laws and a national model, and is being rolled out nationwide to ensure a harmonized system. We did this through joint research, and raised nearly $2 million of public-private funding of pilot projects and initiatives that paved the way for the paint manufacturers to become true corporate leaders. The paint industry, through the American Coatings Association, has taken responsibility for managing leftover paint for the entire industry…over 64 million gallons each year. The agreement PSI helped forge is a huge win for paint recycling jobs, municipal budgets, and the environment. It will save U.S. municipalities about half a billion dollars each year in costs that they would have to pay if they were to properly manage all leftover paint.
Yes, paint is different from every other product. However, every product is different from every other product, or package. Each one requires its own strategies and solution — some voluntary, some regulated strategies, and some both. PSI has developed a process that has led to voluntary and regulated solutions on over 15 product categories.
According to the Facilitative Leadership Training Institute, facilitative leaders prefer dialogue to debate and understand the values beneath an opinion instead of arguing over competing opinions. They work toward synthesis and transforming analysis into shared understanding. They respectfully elicit the insights, creativity, and wisdom from others.
In their book entitled Breaking Robert’s Rules, Larry Susskind and Jeff Cruikshank say that facilitative leadership is a means to “… getting people to take responsibility for their own futures.” PSI’s paint dialogue became known as the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative, which took on a life of its own as stakeholders became empowered to make decisions as a group.
PSI has facilitated change in the product stewardship movement, while keeping the same commitment to honest dialogue. We cannot do our work without you. In the spirit of Emma Lazarus, Give us your weary, old worn out arguments and we will recycle them into a sustainable solution.
The State of Maine has stood out as a leader in the U.S. product stewardship movement, passing the country’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws on electronics, thermostats, fluorescent lamps, and comprehensive framework. It also passed laws on automobile switches and batteries. In the U.S., there are now more than 70 EPR laws in 32 states on 10 products. These laws have begun to change the wasteful ways of our society by requiring manufacturers to internalize product lifecycle costs that are otherwise imposed on the public – from manufacture to ultimate recycling or disposal. By recovering valuable materials, these laws are also the backbone of a vision for more recycling jobs and greater national security by controlling the source of materials for use in new products. Maine exhibited an elegant pragmatism in passing its EPR laws. The Maine State Legislature and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) carefully considered well formed options, made clear decisions, and achieved results.
In a crushing turn for the product stewardship movement, Maine Governor Paul LePage sought to reverse these laws since taking office in 2011, threatening to nullify significant economic and environmental progress in the state. It appears that the Governor has chosen to listen only to those who oppose Maine’s EPR laws, and shut out the viewpoints of important stakeholders such as Maine’s local governments, businesses, environmental groups, and others in the state who might disagree with his preconceived notion that government regulation equals economic stagnation.
To be sure, there are many businesses that support EPR, particularly product recyclers, which create up to ten times the number of jobs as those working in the waste disposal business. Although there are several business groups opposing Maine’s EPR programs, including those that manufacture carpet, mattresses, fluorescent lights, thermostats, and toys, one company – Honeywell – has stood out as an example of why the public interest can only be served by including the viewpoints of all stakeholders. Honeywell has manufactured and sold more mercury thermostats than any other company, and for this reason it is on the hook to pay more money than any other to safely collect and recycle those mercury thermostats removed from walls and replaced with newer models. Honeywell is also the majority player in the Thermostat Recycling Corporation, which has collected only 5 percent of the mercury thermostats sold into the market. Yet, through its industry lobbying organization, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Honeywell opposes legislation that would require the company to collect and safely recycle its fair share of mercury thermostats manufactured and installed in homes and businesses over the past 50 years.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, mercury exposure can lead to memory loss, complications related to attention and language, inhibit motor and coordination skills, and negatively impact many other areas of neurological development. Mercury pollution is also responsible for warnings in Maine and across the country that alert consumers to limit their consumption of certain types of fish that contain high levels of mercury. Fish and Maine have always had a strong relationship. But over 67 tons of mercury have been emitted into the environment since 1998 as a result of thermostat manufacturers failing to meet their social responsibility to safely collect and recycle mercury thermostats. It is truly shocking that this staggering statistic was not a sufficient reason for the Governor to seek out other perspectives. Even more baffling is the fact that Honeywell sought PSI’s assistance in 2006 to pass the original thermostat legislation in Maine, consented to an agreement that PSI mediated with company executives, Maine DEP, and state environmental groups, and then proceeded to spend the next 6 years fighting the same law it had initially supported.
On January 16, public comments were due to the Maine DEP on the agency’s second report issued under its 2010 EPR framework law. This report, released in December, was supposed to evaluate the thermostat recycling law and the five other state EPR laws. PSI joined more than 150 Maine citizens and other state and national organizations when it submitted comments. While PSI supports the effort to evaluate these EPR programs, we found the report to be truly unworthy of being called an evaluation, let alone a “cost-benefit analysis,” which implies rigorous analysis. This report is merely a biased tool that disparages EPR programs while using incorrect or incomplete information. It even denigrated the state’s EPR program staff by leaving the strong impression that they took inappropriate actions, without providing any justification for these statements. PSI strongly believes that this report should be redone with greater competency and wider stakeholder input.
Governor LePage seems to have created a culture of fear in his own environmental agency, where thoughtful discussion is unwelcome and strict adherence to his perspective is required. He seems to believe that laws pertaining to environmental issues have no connection to improving the economy, and fails to understand that EPR laws foster the healthy environment that is so crucial to Maine’s tourism, fishing, hunting, and way of life. His black-and-white, us-versus-them ideology makes him incapable of partnering even with industry groups at the forefront of the environmental movement that want to sponsor stewardship legislation in Maine to create more jobs, save money for local governments, and protect the environment.
Good government policies can lead to private sector innovation by creating a level playing field and, at the same time, reduce the external costs imposed on society by actions of powerful corporations. America is a democracy. We need state leaders who listen to all its citizens and seek to balance government regulation and free market enterprise so that innovation is unleashed while public interests are protected. This balance has been horribly upset in Maine. We hope for its return.
The Product Stewardship Institute was founded in 2000 to establish cooperative agreements with stakeholders to reduce the lifecycle health and environmental impacts from consumer products. Most advocates at the time pointed their fingers only at producers, suggesting that the responsibility was solely theirs. Instead, PSI said the responsibility was shared among all stakeholders, but that producers had primary responsibility for financing and managing the system. This nuanced framing of the product stewardship movement as having a lead actor with a strong supporting cast helped the movement take hold in the U.S.
Over the past decade, PSI has knocked on the proverbial door of over 15 industry sectors and offered to work collaboratively to reduce the unintended lifecycle impacts resulting from their products. Companies, like the people who run them, have responded in a variety of ways. These responses usually fit within a trajectory of perspectives that reflects the culture of the industry sector and the individuals who lead them. Whether and how these perspectives change through discourse is also a reflection of the industry, its leadership, and external influence and circumstances. In general, PSI’s experience is that the perspective of most industry sectors proceeds along the following path during the course of a dialogue: (1) there is no problem; (2) government should do more to address the problem; (3) more funding is not needed; (4) government programs should be paid for through a visible consumer fee; (5) industry programs are more efficient so the private sector should take programmatic control; (6) don’t hold us responsible for meeting performance goals.
Of the industries we work with, only two manufacturers – paint and rechargeable batteries – have fully engaged government, and both were responding to the threat of legislation. Perhaps the paint industry learned from previous legislative battles on lead paint and volatile organic compounds and saw how it could benefit from the unified national process that PSI offered. Maybe the rechargeable battery industry learned that collaboration with governments was needed to implement its own voluntary producer responsibility program. Whatever the case, the rest of the industries have either refused to engage in a constructive dialogue about the problems caused by their products or they engaged for a period of time, sometimes up to six years, before digging in against further discussion.
The six phases above have been called Industry Stages of Grief by my colleagues in the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment. These phases represent the progression of perspectives that most corporate executives go through when they are confronted with problems caused by their products. No company likes to be told that their products cause pollution and add to the financial strain of governments. None wants to be asked to change its business practices, since change will always mean an investment of resources. The key is whether a company or an industry sector is willing to learn, and also believes it can convince other stakeholders of its viewpoint. I have found that all stakeholders have the potential to change their positions once they engage in dialogue. This change of perspectives happened at every one of PSI’s dialogues, no matter which industry sector we engaged. Government officials learned as much as their industry colleagues, and all positions were influenced as a result.
To be sure, there are companies that are engaging with external stakeholders and have figured out how to make social and environmental sustainability a key component of their business models. For many others, it is difficult to break from the pack.
The Industry Stages of Grief outlined above is a general guide. Manufacturers enter at different places along this trajectory, and proceed at different speeds. All stakeholder viewpoints must evolve to some degree for negotiations to be successful. It takes a commitment of resources for groups of individuals who represent divergent viewpoints to jointly embrace a common idea. There is a dynamic tension that occurs in negotiations. For the dialogue to succeed, the pace of change must meet the expectations of the stakeholders, particularly the governments that now pay a huge cost to manage waste. Progress must be fast enough to keep them from unilaterally legislating. On the other hand, if these regulators proceed too quickly, before strong coalitions can be formed to support the desired changes, they risk not only alienating the industry groups they want to engage but other key stakeholders as well.
Gilles Goddard, an industry representative from Canada, uses the following phrase to capture the delicate dance of negotiations: “You can’t pull a flower to make it grow.” Negotiations take time, perseverance, and the right individuals who want to reach an agreement. Timing is a key element. If government pushes too hard or pulls too fast, it can ruin the chance for success. But if industry moves too slowly, it can also sour the opportunity for an agreement, and result in unilateral government legislation.
Honest dialogue anyone? Is there anybody out there?
Last month, as the Product Stewardship Institute celebrated its 10th Anniversary at our national forum, a new coalition of manufacturers seeking voluntary programs announced its creation. The Product Management Alliance (PMA) launched a press release stating that it seeks to “…support voluntary market-based extended producer responsibility efforts and voluntary incentives for increased recovery and sustainable product and package design.” PMA is comprised of manufacturers of carpet, electronics, toys, paper, packaging and transportation materials, mattresses, plastics, personal goods, and pharmaceuticals. But while voluntary programs have a definite role in reducing the health and environmental impact from consumer products, they are no substitute for balanced regulation, which is often a better way to foster innovative market-based solutions.
One good place to start is with the facts. Voluntary, market-based approaches will result in high collection rates only when a product has value at the end of its useful life greater than the cost to collect and transport that product to a secondary market. For example, many retailers collect toner cartridges because they can refill and sell them at a profit. No regulations are needed because the value of the used cartridge is greater than the cost to collect, transport, refurbish, and resell the refurbished cartridge. Retailers have the incentive to heavily market the return of those cartridges. In another example, a car battery left on the curbside will magically disappear because some enterprising scrap dealer will always pick it up and bring it to market for the value of the lead. Unfortunately, though, the cost to properly manage many other consumer products – including carpet, mattresses, electronics, toys, and all the other products whose manufacturers have formed the Product Management Alliance – is much greater than the market value of the used product.
After nine years and a signed agreement, the carpet industry’s best efforts to put in place a voluntary collection and recycling system has resulted in the recycling of only 4.5 percent of all the carpet available for recycling in 2010. The rest of that carpet material – more than 95 percent, or nearly 2.9 million tons – was disposed of in landfills and incinerators. Not only was this material wasted, but it causes operational problems at these disposal facilities, resulting in extra costs. The 13-year old voluntary industry thermostat recycling program reached only a 5 percent recycling rate before governments started to regulate. And the voluntary industry recycling program run by the rechargeable battery recycling industry for the past 17 years has posted only a 10-12 percent rate.
Wasted resources result in lost jobs and economic value. This is not a band wagon to hop on and emulate.
Don’t get me wrong. PSI supports voluntary programs under certain circumstances. Voluntary programs work well as a ramp up to regulated programs. They can grease the wheels so that, when a regulated system kicks in, the players know what they are supposed to do. These programs can also allow an industry leader to spark an innovative program. PSI worked with Staples in 2004 to develop the country’s first computer take-back program, which was piloted, then scaled nationally after two years. This voluntary program is available to everyone, and it resulted in innovative programs by others in the office supply sector, such as Office Depot and Office Max, as well as Best Buy. And voluntary programs can operate in areas where no laws, or weak laws, are in place.
But relying on manufacturers to voluntarily collect their products is like trusting that people will stop at intersections with no stop lights or signs…and no threat of enforcement.
Some people will have the sense to do it, but most will not. This is why the environmental movement was born nearly 50 years ago. It was because the market cannot police itself, resulting in environmental externalities in the form of pollution that impacts all of society. Do we really have to explain this concept all over again? Have we regressed this much?
Imagine a professional ballgame with minimal rules, no common goals, and no referee, where each player performs according to his own definition of success, and where there is no penalty for not playing. Like this imaginary game, voluntary product stewardship programs create a competitive advantage for those companies that will not act unless forced to do so. And, in every case, there will be a significant number of those companies. This reticence is unfair to those corporate leaders that know what is needed, have the ability to reach high performance, but get dragged down to the least common denominator.
The buzz among the product stewardship community is that the formation of the PMA is an indication that the product stewardship movement has gained steam, attention, and credibility. There is an interest in finding ways for voluntary industry initiatives to integrate with regulated programs. But there is also a concern that PMA is promoting voluntary programs to block sensible laws that will require them to take greater responsibility, even if the results will be better for the common good. There are other concerns about voluntary programs. Since they rely on the good will of companies, they could be here today but gone tomorrow. And it is often hard to know how effective they are since program operations are often not transparent, and companies selectively report data.
For the past 30 or 40 years, there has been a creeping sense among some in politics that all government officials are inept bureaucrats tying companies in knots, preventing job growth, and wasting investment dollars for little benefit. To be sure, those officials exist. But most officials I know are interested in using their authority to create a level playing field for fair competition that will result in more recycling jobs from materials that previously polluted the environment. They want to set broad performance targets and allow companies the flexibility they need to innovate and reach the targets at minimum cost. That is the type of balanced regulation and progress we need.
Government product stewardship regulations will result in fair and effective systems. Voluntary actions will not.
It is widely known that the route to producer responsibility in the U.S. has been markedly different from the route taken in Europe and, to a degree, Canada. In the U.S., issues were prioritized based largely on toxicity. When the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) held its first national product stewardship forum in 2000, we asked state and local solid waste management officials across the country what they considered their biggest waste management problems. By far, the number one issue was electronics, followed by mercury products and paint. For this reason, in the U.S., we focused on these products as the top issues.
Europe, however, started with Germany’s packaging law in 1990. Over the past 20 years, more than 30 European countries have adopted extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs for packaging. Four Canadian provinces have now enacted packaging EPR laws. And the U.S. is still building the groundwork for action.
Here is how the landscape is shaping up for EPR for packaging in the U.S. Proponents of EPR include, not surprisingly, state and local government agencies that started the U.S. product stewardship movement. However, all governments are interested, not just those in progressive states. The cost of managing waste has become a big issue for government, and they are ready to act. Governments are interested in saving money, but are also concerned about the loss of control over the collection of recyclables from households. PSI has been convening its state and local government members to figure out the type of EPR system they want as a model in the U.S. Other EPR supporters are, also not surprisingly, environmental groups. And that is where the current support for EPR for packaging and printed materials stands at the moment.
There are some exceptions among industry. Nestle Waters North America (NWNA) has stepped out as a major proponent of EPR, and PSI is working with them, among many others. NWNA wants to show that EPR can result in increased supply of recycled materials on par with the rates achieved by beverage deposit laws. This position is not to be confused with the position of others in the beverage industry that developed the EPR packaging bill in Vermont in 2010 that included EPR only if the state’s 40-year old container deposit law was repealed. That strategic misstep has confused many people into believing that EPR is synonymous with a repeal of the bottle bill, and has created great animosity among stakeholders. But it has gotten people talking.
“If success is measured by the achieved recycling levels, then member states with strong producer responsibility systems have successfully increased overall rates.” 2005 European Commission Study on Packaging Waste and Options to Strengthen Prevention and Re-use of Packaging
Consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies have, for the most part, been uninterested in engaging in a discussion about EPR for packaging in the U.S., even though their counterparts are operating under the exact same systems in Europe and Canada. Sierra Fletcher, our Director of Policy and Programs and I spent four meetings over nine months with representatives from P&G, Kraft, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, ConAgra, and other CPG companies in meetings held by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These companies, in general, believe that we can increase recycling significantly solely by optimizing the current system. In my ten years of engaging brand owners in EPR, we know that this is a necessary step in the process because the existing system can always be made more efficient, and that reduces cost. But it is always only a stage in the process of moving toward an understanding that EPR, and perhaps other systems, are also needed. Only two CPG companies – Estee Lauder and SC Johnson – have engaged PSI in a real discussion on EPR. Estee Lauder is a big fan. SC Johnson does not believe it is the right solution.
The rest of the stakeholder groups are in learning mode, and this is who PSI is talking to.
End users of glass, plastic, paper, aluminum, and other metals – so called commodities – have started to warm to the idea of learning about EPR. The Association of Post-Consumer Plastics Recyclers invited me to speak at its annual meeting in June. I found an engaged and interested group of plastics recyclers that were desperate for ways to increase the recycling of plastics. They want more supply of high quality recycled plastics at the best possible price. They are looking at all solutions, and their staff and policy committee smartly have begun to learn about EPR and how it can help them. Have they embraced EPR whole-hog? No. But do they think EPR might be part of the solution for more business and more jobs. Absolutely.
Plastics recyclers are leading the commodity groups in understanding that quantity, quality, and price can possibly be achieved by EPR. But aluminum is not far behind. I just got back from a trip to Chicago where the Aluminum Association had its annual meeting. I spoke to aluminum industry executives about what EPR is and isn’t, and how EPR and the bottle bill can live together or apart but that the decision should be up to the brand owner as to how they will meet aggressive performance goals. Aluminum industry representatives asked all the right questions, and we have begun a healthy discussion.
Representatives of glass and paper commodities are still warming to the idea of even having an in-depth discussion about EPR. But PSI is talking to them as well. A key concern of the paper industry is why they should face the potential transactional costs of a shift to EPR when their material is already recycled at a high rate.
We are also having discussions with waste management companies, which view EPR as a potential threat to their business models. These companies have invested in recycling and waste disposal trucks and facilities, and in a business strategy that will need to be flexible to respond to the changes ahead with EPR.
Other groups are pushing the conversation as well. The newly formed PAC-NEXT, based in Canada but working with retailers, CPG companies, and related businesses that operate across North America, has invited PSI to engage with its corporate members with the goal of helping the packaging industry transition toward a world without packaging waste. PSI is co-chairing a PAC-NEXT project to develop best practices for post-consumer material recovery, including EPR, which will lead toward harmonization of programs in North America. And Future 500 out of San Francisco is selectively engaging stakeholders on EPR in the U.S.
Packaging and printed materials is a product area that is much different from others we have tackled in the U.S. – yet at the same time it shares with other products the fact that our traditional waste management system has relied on the patchwork of local and state governments to clean up after us. A solution will not be achieved overnight, but we are starting to build it. There are many stakeholders with multiple interests that need to be melded into a cohesive agreement that is sustainable. These stakeholders are not at the same place in their interest and willingness to develop a model EPR bill in the U.S. But these discussions are taking place, and coalitions are forming.
But the first thing that needs to happen is that people learn the facts, and that is where PSI is spending its time – educating all stakeholders about EPR so that they understand how EPR will result in less waste, more recycling, more jobs for the recycling industry, and lower costs for government. This is all about how good government and the right regulations CREATE jobs. It is time for this reality to be heard loud and clear in America.
Check out the article in Plastics News reporting on my presentation to the plastics recycling industry. Although there are a few factual errors in the article, it will give you a good sense of what I said, and about how EPR can increase material supply and quality, and lower costs.