Blog 8: Third Parties Are Better

Spencer Schillerstrom                                                                                                                                       1/15/2015

Blog 8: Third Parties Are Better

            During MacBride’s discussion of the heterogeneity of plastics in her fifth chapter, she makes it clear that the most productive and environmentally friendly way to recycle plastics would be to cut back on variety within the world of plastic products. Not only would this make it cheaper and easier for recycling companies to process, but it would prevent large amounts of plastics from being thrown into landfills. As she states in her text, many recycling companies choose disposal when considering certain plastics in order to avoid paying extra to sort and break them down. Reducing this heterogeneity, however, has proven to be a difficult task.

            MacBride’s solution suggests that producer responsibility is the key. In her eyes, America needs a method that will not “seek to directly influence production or consumption, but [will seek] to eliminate the subsidy to industry that curbside municipal collection, sorting, and marketing of missed collections of spent products entails.” (MacBride 184) In other words, a type of producer responsibility must be found that forces companies to internalize the externalities that end-of-life products present. How can this be done, though, without completely altering their current business models? This answer can be found in third-party demanufacturing.

            As Spicer and Johnson explain in their “Journal of Cleaner Production,” the disadvantages in original equipment manufacturers (OEM) make a third-party almost seem necessary. First of all, a system must be set up to get end of life products back to demanufacturing facilities. Without separation of waste materials, this process would be expensive and very labor intensive. In addition, waste from a company that goes out of business could no longer be responsible for all the waste that was produced before closing. This ‘orphan’ material would immediately be thrown away. Finally, the smaller the manufacturer, the more difficult it would be to manage their end-of-life products. In a market where small businesses already struggle, adding end-of-life responsibilities would most likely be overwhelming.

            The solution to all of these problem, as described by Spicer and Johnson, is to implement a third-party take back system. In this system, manufacturers request bids for end-of-life management from private collectors. The collectors are almost guaranteed to be productive in their processing because of the natural competition that is created. After the manufacturer accepts the lowest bid, payments are made to the third-party as the products are sold. This way, responsibility leaves the hands of the original manufacturer as the product goes out the door. When the product has reached the end of its life, the waste enters a collection system set up by the PRP. The recycling processes then continues from there.

            Implementing third-party waste responsibility system would not only fulfill end-of-life product responsibilities, but it would also allow for companies to keep their business models intact. In today’s economy, asking manufacturers to take on more responsibility at their own cost is something that is just not practical. By eliminating financial risk, increasing productivity (from competition), and providing immediate economic feedback, the third-party system seems to be the answer to the heterogeneity problem that MacBride suggests.