A Multi-Faceted Approach

There’s no denying that successful, sustainable beverage container recycling is complex and requires consensus on goals and targets among multiple stakeholders, including material producers, beverage companies, bottle manufacturers, retailers, waste collection companies, recycling processors, consumers and policy makers. The varied special interests found among those responsible for the recycling "value chain" are the primary reason no single, "one-size-fits-all" model exists today.

Beverage companies, material producers, retailers, the government, recyclers and environmentalists all have their own ideas about what sustainable recycling of plastic, glass and aluminum beverage containers means to them. Some consumers themselves have a strong desire to participate in recycling, but want systems that are accessible, convenient, low or no cost, trustworthy and rewarding. Although all stakeholders agree that recycling is a responsible environmental aspiration, depending on one’s interests, recycling is often viewed as either a feasible imperative or a difficult issue rife with cost dilemmas.

As a result, it’s easy to see how one can get bogged down in circuitous debates, which is why it’s important to foster strategic negotiations that result in a short- and long-term vision for broad-based recycling success with clear goals to facilitate practical planning and a singular understanding of the environmental imperatives. To ensure a successful course, four core elements must be addressed: incentives, real estate, cost reduction and setting meaningful targets.

To get more consumers to recycle, something must be in it for them. Curbside programs provide an important basis for any recycling program, but communities with curbside programs typically recycle only 20 percent to 30 percent of their beverage containers, in part because these programs interface only with single-family households, which are responsible for only 25 percent of the total waste stream in many areas. Additionally, many programs do not provide consumers with a sufficient incentive, or reward, for recycling. While placing containers at the curb may seem simple, the reality is that a significant percentage of consumers still don’t bother.

Clearly, appealing to the consumer’s sense of environmental responsibility only goes so far. Recycling is, at heart, a consumer topic. Policy makers, in partnership with industry stakeholders, must recognize that incentivizing consumers is the best way to engage them.

Through deposit systems across the U.S., we have learned that recycling rates are higher when incentives are offered. For example, programs that provide coupons or points in exchange for bottles have shown increases in return rates. These programs, conveniently located near retailers where consumers can use them, have provided positive returns for retailers and consumers alike.

Cash works too, and the larger the incentive, the higher the recovery rate. For example, Michigan, which carries a 10 cent deposit on beverage containers, has a rate of return of more than 95 percent on containers covered by its "bottle bill" deposit legislation. California and New York achieve recovery rates well above 70 percent when using curbside and deposit-return programs. In contrast, however, states without legislation-based incentives to recycle, such as Texas and Georgia, have rates in the single digits. Working models in the U.S. demonstrate that this thinking not only works but is replicable.

Even small incentives have proven effective in encouraging consumers to recycle. In 2003, Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, Anheuser Busch and Tomra conducted a pilot project of a rePlanet recycling kiosk at a Wal-Mart store in Florida using only a 1 cent recycling incentive. The pilot, designed to evaluate customer usage and satisfaction with the center, showed that customers returned an average of 437,000 containers per month over 11 months at a rate that was similar to California’s overall return rate. Of those customers surveyed, 71 percent said they preferred rePlanet over other types of recycling, and 67 percent said they were "extremely satisfied" with the 1 cent value per container.

Another important success factor is for states to make effective use of real estate to provide consumers with convenient drop-off locations for their empty beverage containers. Retailers and other high-traffic venues of all kinds act as powerful recycling magnets. Why? They provide the most convenient channel for consumers to begin the reclamation process because they don’t need to make an extra step in their busy daily routines.

California provides a powerful example of the effectiveness of retail-based recycling centers to facilitate consumer returns. California’s beverage container recycling law, AB2020, requires retail grocers to provide convenient redemption opportunities for the public—the result of much effort on the part of stakeholders. Consumers don’t need to search for their local recycling centers—the centers are on their way to their next shopping trip. As incentives have grown in California, consumers have demanded conveniently located, clean facilities where they can return their bottles for cash. Hundreds of California retailers now have recycling centers on site.

A recycling program at Tesco supermarkets in the United Kingdom showed that even in a location where bottles have no redemption value, consumers appreciate the opportunity to return all types of beverage containers to a convenient, clean and safe facility. In the initial store pilot, recycling increased by 50 percent within two months of the recycling center installation.

Locating recycling along the point of distribution makes the best use of logistics economics and allows us to influence consumer behavior in a meaningful way. Retailers bring a tremendous amount of value to the system when they help with this cornerstone to recycling.

Commodity values alone do not pay for the convenient collection infrastructure required to raise recycling rates, as is evident by the lack of infrastructure available to consumers. We must assume that the "gap" between the cost of recycling and the revenues from recycling are paid for by some stakeholders. This can be resolved by partners committed to innovating, applying best practices and using technology to reduce the cost to recycle.

For recycling to truly be a success, every effort must be made to keep costs in check. The old model, where every bottle is collected by hand and sorted, fails to address the increasing costs of labor. Keeping costs in line means dramatically reducing or eliminating the labor required to manage recycling and reducing the handling and transportation costs on the back end.

Technology is available today that significantly reduces these expenses. Communities and retailers can use "reverse vending machines" (RVMs) to collect, sort and compact beverage containers, improving efficiency and simplifying the redemption process. Kiosks that include RVMs provide consumers with a simple, attractive and clean means to recycle. Their main benefit of "self-service" allows for convenient access to recycle beyond the 40-hour workday, reduces labor costs and can even deliver incentive marketing programs to encourage consumers to shop inside the store—thus benefiting the host by building retail traffic and customer loyalty.

Compacting beverage containers at the point of collection reduces storage needs and collection costs; the costs of real-estate and transportation are reduced in one simple crunch.

Manufacturers benefit from automated collection technology, as its advanced material recognition and sorting technology can produce the clean secondary materials most valued by their production facilities.

To become a recycling leader, the United States needs to establish a national beverage container recycling target—above 70 percent—that can be designed at the state level emulating local and best practices, while considering these four principals that are meant to drive participation, provide convenience, encourage investment and ensure results.

High targets will achieve the commitment necessary to create effective recycling programs nationwide. Through continuous improvement we will find ways to optimize collection at the lowest cost possible.

Beverage producers, bottlers, material producers, retailers, the recycling industry and government have done enough testing: It’s time to invest, either voluntarily or through agreed legislative terms that set a level playing field with common rules and standards. States with comprehensive programs are the ones to emulate.

The environmental argument for implementing nationwide targets is compelling, and this should be the tie that binds together all stakeholders in the recycling value chain. A truly comprehensive beverage container recycling approach—designed to achieve recovery rates of 70 percent or more—has the potential to be a significant contributor to national carbon reduction goals.

Beverage containers require fossil fuels to produce, and recycling them into reusable materials will play a key role in reducing the United States’ carbon footprint. Each year, Americans use and dispose of as many as 200 billion aluminum, glass and plastic beverage containers, wasting valuable materials sought by manufacturers. Empty beverage containers represent a significant amount of revenue as a secondary raw material for new products. Last year alone, in terms of aluminum cans and PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles only, about $2.3 billion in material value was buried in a landfill or burned in an incinerator.

In addition to seeking recycled containers for their value in reducing carbon emissions, "material security" is a key concern among manufacturers, as they need to ensure stable, affordable and clean supplies of raw material for production.

With carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions a top concern of policy makers and the public alike, more decision makers need to recognize that the production and disposal of these containers has far-reaching effects on the environment. Recycling beverage containers will help America reduce its carbon emissions and engage Americans as we work to address climate change. According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), compiled by CM Consulting, a Toronto-based research firm, a 90 percent recovery rate would result in 25.2 million metric tons of avoided greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to 1 percent of the 2020 reduction target. About half of these gains will be the result of increased container recycling from status quo levels.

The environmental imperative to recycle is clear. From the companies that manufacture plastic, glass or aluminum containers to the bottlers and retailers who sell them to the consumers who purchase them to the recyclers who manage the used packages, every stakeholder must work in concert to find ways to reduce the billions of wasted packaging materials that end up in landfills, incinerated or are thrown out as litter in America each year. Using these key elements for a successful approach to recycling used beverage containers, planners have a guide to help the United States address its challenge.