I concluded my previous blog with the challenge, “If you agree that the fate of these materials is our responsibility, how can we guarantee their proper disposition?” This raises in my mind the question of just how many of the materials that go out the back door as recyclables are genuine recycling candidates?
There are some materials for which mature markets exist without prodding. For many other materials, however, the situation is sketchier, often for the lack of local markets or processing capabilities. The practice of outsourcing has in many instances crippled the development of local markets, at the same time removing effective accountability for the fate of materials labeled at some point in the process as “recyclables.” In my humble opinion, the latter is worse than the former.
Why? Because the practice of outsourcing is on its deathbed. Already the cost advantages of outsourcing are eroding, gobbled up by increasing costs of transportation along with shrinking differences in real wage rates. How long before things reach a tipping point? It depends of the value of the materials involved, but we’ve already seen evidence in the downturn that the time is not far off.
While in the not-too-distant future you can rest assured that it will be cheaper to deal with materials, be they wastes or recyclables, as close to home as possible, a practice that effectively cuts the pins out from under outsourcing. But what does that do for accountability? It depends on whether you really want to know how your recyclables are handled after they leave your hands. For those who care what becomes of the recyclables, it seems to me that you can make that part of your contracts. As for those to whom the ability to claim a high recycling rate is important, a high degree of accountability may not be of much value...perhaps even counterproductive.