Crawford, Al

English

Research Papers in Economics

Solid Waste Management:
A Manufacturer’s Perspective
by
Al Crawford
Procter & Gamble Co.
Introduction
As you may know, Procter & Gamble haa
been quite active in the solid waste field on a
number of fron~, and we have learned about a
lot of approaches that communities use to man-
age solid waste. This is an incredibly dynamic
field, with no one “best way.” In fac~ I don’t
think there will ever be a single best way for the
whole country.
I would like to start by making sure we
are all beginning this inquiry at the same place.
Our solid waste needs are real, growing, and
changing.
So, where are we?
I will limit my comments to municipal
solid waste--the stuff that goes to landfills. I
mention this because sometimes people mix solid
waste issues with litter, marine and wildlife pro-
tection, ocean dumping, and the next election
platform.
The good news is that we can help,
I am absolutely convinced that there is
nothing here that is impossible--no magic
required, no rocket science, no major upheavals.
In fac~ there are many examples around of how
to do everything necessary to get control of our
municipal solid wastes. So a lot of what needs to
be done to get started is to go school in those
places that are already dealing with it.
So, what is the solid waste “system”? It
goes something like this:
1. Industry makes the goods.
2. The public buys them, uses what they want
and
3. throws the rest away.
A lot of us would love to find a silver bul-
let solution. How does that show up? Usually
we try to define some sort of bad guy so that we
can shoot him. The bad guy may be portrayed
as fast food packaging, disposable diapers, foamed
polys@rene, or something else.
I am not suggesting that we ignore any of
these things. But there are two problems with
trying to solve solid waste by shooting bad guys.
Firs$ there isn’t any single bad guy. And, in
fact the things usually chosen are almost
invariably trivial. If we totally eliminated all fast
food packaging, disposable diapers, and foamed
polystyrene cups, we would still have over 95
percent of our solid waste left.
I guess if you are really intent on hunting
down a bad guy, I would suggest yard waste or
newspapers. These are the two biggest single
items--but even eliminating them will not get the
job done.
The second problem with bad guy hunting
is that it usually turns out to be incredibly dis-
tracting. When we get heavily involved in focus-
ing on any single aspect of this system we short-
change the rest of it and the total system needs
adjusting.
Journal of Food Distribution Research Febmary 90/psge 101Who’s the boss?
Who’s running the system--I mean who
really controls what it does? Is it industry? the
public? both? nobody? This is extremely impor-
tant because it focuses our energy on dealhg
with solutions, not just looking for causes.
A lot of people have concluded that
industry is the boss. I mean, if industry just
stopped offering such wasteful, bulky packages
and products the problem would go away--right?
Perhaps in a planned society it might but it’s
not that simple. Let’s take a closer look.
In our business, the moment of truth hap-
pens when the consumer reaches for the product
of her choice from the atore shelf. This is how
consumers vote--every day.
Procter & Gamble haa been in the business
of meeting consumer needs for 160 yeara. And,
in spite of what some people believe, our adver-
tising does not lead people to buy thinga they
don’t want. It may lead them to try something
new, but if the product does not meet their
needs, does not do what they wan~ does not
appeal to them because of what it is rather than
because of what we say about i~ they don’t buy
it again.
Baaed on everything we know, the
American public is the prima~ driver of our
solid waste system. The stuff in our trash cans
is filling up the landfills.
Some Reduction
So what can be done? Let’s start with
industry. Procter & Gamble haa committed to
m~or programs in source reduction and recy-
cling, and we are working hard to encourage
other firms to make similar commitments, Let’s
take a look at what can be done.
We use the EPA Hierarchy of solid waste
solutions that has become the standard through-
out the field.
Source reduction means there will be less
waste to deal with after a product is used. Our
first source reduction category is material
e~ciency--simply more efficient use within cur-
rent designs--sometimes known as lightweighting.
Most firms have tMs kind of program already
under way as part of their cost control efforts,
An example is reducing the amount of plastic in
bottles.
Another way to reduce waste is to make
combination products such as Tide with bleach,
or Bold with fabric softener. That means one
less package for bleach or fabric softener.
Still another category of source reduction
is concentration--using a condensed or con-
centrated form of a product. For example, Ultra
Pampers have been redesigned to ‘be 50 percent
less bulky than the previous model and actually
are more absorbent. In addition, the plastic bag
used for packaging uses 70 percent less material
than the previous box.
We also have a concentrated laundry deter-
gent in Japan that is 60 percent of the bulk of ita
predecessor.
There is a very important fact to note
about all these examples: they do not require
any significant change in consumer habits We
have learned through expensive experience that
changing consumer habits is tough; so we prefer
to stick with existing habits and preferences if
possible.
After concentration comes refill/reuse.
This means that you buy a package once, then
refill it from some other source, such as a larger
container. For example, our 25-pound Tide box
is a very material-efficient package. The largest
size box of Tide sold--42 ounces--has 2.3 times
the amount of packaging. Of course, the larger
box is corrugated cardboard, rather than the
thinner chipboard. But the smaller boxes also
require an outer corrugated shipping case actually
bigger than our 25-pound box. Bigger is defi-
nitely material efficient.
Another example is Lenor, the German
veraion of Downy fabric softener in a pouch, a
more efficient container. The pouch is both a
refill package and a concentrate. The consumer
buys a pouch full of concentrated tkbric softener,
cuts off the corner and poura it into bottle, adds
water, shakes it up. Then s/he haa four liters of
Lenor and onIy a little pouch to throw away.
Our goal is 10 percent source reduction.
The Lenor pouch representa a 90 percent source
reduction--9O percent less material than the cor-
responding bottle. Some of you might be saying,
“Sure, but who’s going to go through all that
trouble--cu$ pour, illl, shake? That’s a pain.”
You are ngh~ it is a pain. In fa~ this package
lost for every packaging attribute we tested
except one--intent to purchase. It haa been on
the market over a year now and is still growing
steadily. Incidentally, our m~or German mm-
February 90/page 102 Journal of Fmd Distribution Waearchpetitors have paid us their highest compliment--
they have copied it with versions of their own.
Remember our question about who is the
boss? In Germany the consumers are clearly the
driving force in Lenor’s success, Why? Because
they are personally affected by Germany’s solid
waste problem--most homes get only two smallish
cans for trash per week, Consumers are acutely
aware of their landfill limitations.
This prodtict is especially material efficient
because it is a combination of two source reduc-
tion categories--concentration and refill packaging.
Are we planning something like the Lenor pouch
for the United States? Yes, we will test it this
year on the East Coast. But to be hones$ I am
not sure it will sell. There are already examples
of solid waste efficient packages available and
most of them do not do veqy well if they require
much compromise on the consumer’s part.
We are serious about source reduction and
think a 10 percent level is reachabIe--IF con-
sumers directly experience the solid waste crunch
in ways that they can affect as the Germans who
buy Lenor do.
The key question is whether consumers are
personally affected enough to voluntarily change
their purchase and disposal habite. Think about
ifi if your first can of trash cost $2, the second
$4, and the third $10, would you rethink some of
your habits?
Recycling
The EPA has called for a 25 percent
recycle raie by 1992. How do we do that? We
have to do it the same way we do everything
else--we make it a priority, allocate resources and
start.
We have a Spit & Span Pine bottle made
from 100 percent post-consumer recycled PET;
there is not a gram of new material in it. It
passes all requirements specified for the virgin
resin bottle.
Last spring we announced that Downy,
Tide, and Cheer laundry product bottles are now
qualified with 20 to 30 percent recycled HDPE.
High Density is harder to incorporate back into
our bottles than is PET, so we have a long learn-
ing process ahead of us. But this is a good start.
We use over 100 million pounds of HDPE
a year for Procter & Gamble bottles alone. In
fact we would move even faster if our suppliers
could establish good sources for recycled material
of consistent quality and quantity. We are
actively trying to fill this need through a variety
of means.
Recently we announced two new diaper
projects. One is to recycle soiled diapers back
into high grade paper and plastic which can be
used to manufacture plastic goods. Another is to
compost the soiled diapers for soil conditioners.
Although we are just getting started on these
projects, initial indications of success are very
promising.
Of the 1+ billion cartons Procter& Gamble
manufactures every year, 70 percent are made
from recycled fiber and the other 30 percent
eventually will be. We are also beginning to
recycle the solid waste from offices and plants.
Remember, on average 40 percent of municipal
solid waste comes from business, institutions, and
industry.
Now I would like to venture onto some
thin ice and talk about the pitfalls we’ve seen
some areas stumble into as they set up recycling
systems. First let me start with one area of 100
percent strength--motivation. Every recycling
person I have dealt with at the state of local level
believes in recycling and really wants to do it,
Furthermore, the evidence is pretty strong that
the public likes the idea too, Most people are
willing ta participate. That’s absolutely wonder-
ful.
Many communities start with some sort of
voluntary drop-off or buy-back system and get
perhaps a 10-20 percent participation rate. That
means 10 to 20 percent of the total potential
population actually brings in material.
This often raises the first key question--
economics. Should recycling be free to the
public; should people be paid for recycling or
should the recycling program be treated as a
lower-cost alternative to a landfill or incineration
and be partially supported by public funding?
Drop-off programs typically save two of the
biggest costs--collection and sorting--so they can
usually stand on their own. But they often don’t
collect a lot. So the question is how to expand.
I know of no large-scale recycling programs that
are totally funded by the value of the recovered
materials. Something else must be considered.
A chart from the Center for Recycling
Research at Rutgers shows the break-even point
for curbside recycling systems using a landtlll or
incineration avoidance justification. The chart
was developed from data from a number of
Journsl of Food Distribution Research February 90/psge 103rather small towns in New Jersey and Rhode
Island using costs and material values from over
a year ago. However, the principle is very sound.
Basically, the chart shows that the only way to
do broad-scale efficient recycling is to get a high
recovery rate. In other words, the more you
collect the cheaper it gets.
This leads to some common pitfalls. Many
communities do what is natural--they start off
with drop-off, move to voluntary collection, and
then to mandatory collection--often in a very
limited geographical area. They may buy some
trucks--usually sized for three materials (typically
glass, aluminum, and paper) --and take a “learn as
we go” attitude to minimize their risk and
commitments.
A year or two later they sometimes find
that running the truck fleet is inefficient and a
burden. They and their public want to recycle
more material--usually plastic or steel (tin cans) --
to improve the economics; but they are not set
up for it. In other words, by adopting a “step-at-
a-time” process, they have gradually evolved from
a volunteer, citizen effort to trying to run a
business--often a rather large business--without
being able to achieve economies of scale.
What about degradability? What is the
truth? We decided to join Dr. Rathje on his
Sunnyvale, California, dig. He uses a giant post-
hole digger to bring up sample borings. “He
brings up glass bottles--unbroken glass bottles
usually--and totally flat plastic ones. He also
recovers, as you may have heard, very readable
newspapers. Did you know that one way scient-
ists can tell the age of a landfill is by reading the
newspapers they find there? Although most
papers will readily degrade in a compost pile or
sewage treatment plant they usually keep pretty
well in the dry, oxygen-poor environment typical
of most landfills.
Procter & Gamble has been working on
biodegradabili~ technology for years as part of
our detergent program. Unfortunately, we have
no evidence that any of the available degradabil-
ity plastic technologies will help extend landfill
life at all. And this is not just a Procter &
Gamble or industry opinion. The Environmental
Action Foundation has written an excellent posi-
tion paper on degradable plastics saying essen-
tially the same thing.
How about the other end--recyclability?
We are using the SPI resin code on our plastic
bottles. That is one factor to consider as you
look at how to educate the public. In our view,
plastic recycling must become extremely wide-
spread. We are board members of the plastics
Recycling Foundation and the Center for Plastics
Recycling Research at Rutgers.
We are strongly encouraging industry to
speci~ recycled material for their products and
packages. The supply will develop once people
understand that we really want to buy it.
We believe that incineration is an essential
part of solid waste management and have made
the removal of heavy metals from our inks, dyes,
and pigments a company policy and are targeting
for total elimination of these elements.
Taxes
Taxes are often considered as a way to
force industry to make different kinds of pack-
ages. I hope by now you are convinced that
there is no single bad guy or group, so packaging
taxes must be carefully considered.
We are very concerned that across-the-
board per unit package taxes will simply become
invisible revenue sources that leave the public no
action options, do not lead consumers to change
their purchasing or disposal habits, and therefore
do little to reduce effectively the nation’s solid
waste.
Conclusion
We simply must solve this problem
together. No single sector can do it alone. It
may seem overwhelming at firs$ but we can
manage it. There is no silver bullet solution; so
we have to team up. Procter & Gamble wants
very much to be part of the process. We have
dealt with similar issues, and I am very happy
that our top management haa decided to get out
in front of the solid waste issue and make it a
corporate priority. It is coming, as steadily as a
runaway supertankeq and it is going to take all
of us to come onto the bridge, take the helm, and
plot the course.
February 90/page 104 Journal of Food Distribution Research

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: A MANUFACTURER'S PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics