Letting a revenue stream slip away from you, and actually paying someone to take it away, sounds like bad business. But that's what companies do when they send their trash to get dumped in a landfill.
Out of all the sustainability and efficiency efforts companies have adopted, one of the biggest shifts in thinking has come from goals on sending zero waste to landfill (usually shortened to "zero waste").
Companies in almost any industry are seeing significant savings -- General Motors, for example, has brought in $2.5 billion in revenue through recycling over four years and Walmart has cut by over 80 percent in one state alone the amount of waste it has to pay to send to landfill.
Not surprisingly, getting to zero is not an easy task. But as the examples from several companies who've traveled the path to zero waste show, there are some common elements to any successful strategy.
There is a common recipe for a lot of these initiatives -- a little bit of material reduction, a whole lot of recycling and reuse, and a bit of incineration (also called waste-to-energy) -- and they come down to four general categories that can help you structure your efforts:
- Know What You Have
- Track and Set Goals
- Find a New Life
- Put Employees in Charge
Zero waste is not just for giant corporations -- the lessons that these companies and others have learned can help just about any company identify, reduce and even eliminate their waste streams entirely.
1. Know What You Have
To do something about your trash, you first have to know what you're dealing with. Look at your trash. No, really look at it. Sort it out. Find out what you're making. And only then can you do something about it.
The only way some companies have accurately determined what trash they're dealing with is by getting their hands dirty -- literally -- with a dumpster dive.
Procter & Gamble's waste reduction teams have sorted through trash at its various facilities, which make everything from makeup to shampoo to batteries to dog food.
Walmart, meanwhile, has identified around 100 waste streams created from products, packaging and food, coming from its sales floors, break rooms, bathrooms and parking lots.
And construction equipment maker Caterpillar's plants produce more than 30 waste streams like concrete, scrap metal, plastic and sludge.
Once you've figured out what kinds of waste you're creating, then you've got to keep it separated.
Before grocery retailer Supervalu started its landfill waste reduction push, its Albertsons stores in southern California were sending 2.4 million pounds of waxed corrugated cardboard to the trash. The material, which is used to ship produce, frozen food and other wet items, can't be traditionally recycled due to the wax coating.
Next page: How General Motors manages waste at its 76 zero-waste sites around the globe.
Two Albertsons stores -- which now send less than 5 percent of their waste to landfill -- found a solution by partnering with a company that turns the cardboard into fireplace logs. But first the store started sorting their different wastes, keeping waxed cardboard separate from other fiber-based materials as well as trash.
Sorting waste, though, needs to become second nature. It needs to be accessible and be treated as just the way things are done.
Sometimes it's not just how to sort waste, it's where. When Caterpillar's Aurora, Ill., plant started working on its waste, it quickly became clear that the best way to address it was to go right to the source. To that end, the plant put recycling in place along assembly lines and set up a conveyor to use for sorting waste. Just three months later, 40 percent of the trash along the lines was getting recycled instead of dumped, creating a projected savings of $200,000 a year.
2. Track and Set Goals
Other than "low-hanging fruit," the most overused adage in green business is "you can't manage what you don't measure." But setting goals and working to meet them is still a tall order for just about any type of waste-reduction initiative, so it's worth noting how goals and metrics can keep a company on track to zero waste.
General Motors, which has 76 zero waste manufacturing facilities and 10 zero waste non-manufacturing sites around the world, says a key to its effort has been rigorous tracking of waste along with setting goals and metrics to hold plants accountable.
Each facility has specific goals, and the plant scorecards are tied to plant manager performance evaluations. "Tying revenue to various waste streams tends to generate more interest and helps us approach waste reduction from a sustainable financial perspective," said John Bradburn, GM's manager of waste-reduction efforts.
Pete Pearson, director of sustainability for Supervalu, says a metrics-based approach, although not as accurate as something like tracking energy, is key. "Although measuring waste is not a perfect science, every effort must be made to accurately account for materials being diverted from landfill," he said. "It must be clear to stores the correlation between landfill diversion and cost savings." Key to that is making the whole process, from sorting to tracking, easy to integrate in to employees' workdays.
Don't make recycling something that is seen as an extra effort; it needs to just be the way things are done.
A couple of Walmart's efforts on its journey to zero waste have been to change how employees think about waste (i.e. it's not trash until it's in the trash can) and the location of waste bins.
Next page: How to get employees engaged on zero waste
Doug Sanders, Walmart's senior manager of store operations and sustainability, said stores have looked at where they have waste containers and reallocated where bins for trash or recycling should be. In some cases, trash cans are turned into recycling bins, and one of the biggest-impact changes was also a no-brainer: The company put recycling bins at cash registers.
In addition, when employees are stocking merchandise, they now have recycling bags attached to the carts they use to make it easy to collect things like plastic wrap. "It's not a major change to their job. It's a simple function that makes it easy for them," Sanders said. "If it's difficult, it's going to be very difficult for them to want to execute the programs we want to put in place."
3. Put Employees in Charge
Companies with successful zero waste programs don't just make recycling and waste sorting a job employees have to do, but something they want to do and can get excited about.
Some have created special designations or titles for waste managers, such as PepsiCo U.K.'s "waste marshals," who are empowered to do what's necessary to deal with waste. In the U.S., PepsiCo has 13 Frito-Lay manufacturing sites sending less than 1 percent of waste to landfill. Frito-Lay plants have "site champions," and team members are assigned specific waste streams to oversee. Waste teams create scorecards and use waste bills to track the effectiveness of programs.
In addition to making waste a part of plant manager evaluations, GM rewards employees for new waste-reduction and recycling ideas.
"The key to converting these plants is people and process. For the team, it becomes a sense of pride for those that work at those facilities, and it reflects in quality and throughput," Bradburn said.
Next page: Giving waste a second (or third, or fourth) life
Supervalu has also developed a rewards program, Pearson said. "Whether a store director is being proactive and creating partnerships with a community farmer, or if a store associate is stepping up to lead recycling efforts in the break room," he said, "there has to be engagement from all levels of leadership, including executive leadership encouraging and praising the positive behavior."
4. Find a New Life for Waste
One company's waste is another's raw material. While that doesn't have the same ring as the original axiom, but the fact remains that there are plenty of companies that thrive on the trash of others, either using it to make new products or running their operations in some way.
Procter & Gamble has devoted an entire group of employees to seeking out others who can use its wide variety of wastes, and also to find a use for inventory the company is unable to sell or would toss in the trash. The company's Global Asset Recovery Purchases (GARP) team has worked in countries around the world to find new uses for P&G's scrap product and packaging.
Feminine hygiene pads from a Hungary plant get shredded and burned to power a cement kiln, mascara gets turned into tire shine, shampoo goes into a car wash -- the list really goes on and on.
Through GARP and other efforts, P&G now has eight zero waste manufacturing plants in Belgium, Hungary, Italy, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
GM has developed innovative ways to take byproducts from manufacturing operations and turn them into car parts or supplies.
For example, cardboard used in shipping finds a new life as sound-absorption material, tires from vehicle testing are shredded and made into air and water baffles, and paint sludge is turned into plastic shipping containers.
Walmart has also found plenty of solutions through other companies or non-governmental organizations. When the company was seeking out places to send its food waste, Walmart worked with the Environmental Defense Fund and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But Sanders said that in its search, Walmart found plenty of individual sites it could send compost or animal feed, but no nationwide infrastructure that all of its stores could take advantage of.
So it did what only Walmart could do: It created its own network.
The company went state-by-state, looking for potential partners in companies and service provides, and identifying what was lacking. In addition to connecting composters and others who could take the waste with one another, Walmart put out calls for business in areas where solutions were needed.
In some cases, Sanders said, entirely new companies were started to serve Walmart's needs, knowing they'd be able to pull in other customers as well by putting a food waste program in place where none existed before.
View Zero Waste is a Journey
Let's pull out another cliché to close on: Like any sustainability initiative, zero waste is a journey, not a destination. If you want to be successful, don't just look at zero waste a goal to be met and then moved on from. The best and most effective programs are a constant process that, like energy efficiency or water reduction, can always be improved on.
Once you've hit your original targets, read about what other companies are doing, search for new partners and others that can reuse waste, try to make as little trash as possible, and whatever you do, don't put anything in the landfill.
Because that's just wasteful.
Photo cc-licensed by kkiser.













More on the tools companies
More on the tools companies use
Hey Jonathan - always glad to see more focus on zero waste. I really like your 4 points and would love to see more continued follow up re: what tools companies are using to accomplish these 4. (moment of self-promotion, we offer a enterprise software tool that helps companies maximize the economic and environmental impact of their zero waste initiatives - giving them the tools they need to manage and track all of their byproducts, as well as maximize the value of their byproducts and minimize the costs / find new solutions for their wastes.)
You totally nailed why it is important, but in talking to alot of these companies and others who are leading in zero waste, most of them are still using excel spreadsheets and home-grown systems to manage and track, which can be time-consuming and potentially inaccurate. The information they get from their waste services vendors is typically very limited to weights and yardage vs details that really matter when you are trying to achieve zero waste.
Thanks again for continuing to shed light on the importance of zero waste and providing information that helps companies get there faster.
Cheers -
@BrookeBF from @RecycleMatch
www.recyclematch.com
Jonathan, Good piece except
Jonathan,
Good piece except for one big mistake...when you say "...zero waste to landfill (usually shortened to "zero waste".) I recently had a national magazine publish the following commentary on this confusion between ZW and ZW-to-landfill... because they are not the same. I am one of the pioneers of the ZW movement, and was part of the international organization that defined what ZW is and isn't. This is important because incinerators are just as bad as landfills.
This commentary in BIOCYCLE magazine is lengthy, but I think you'll find it interesting if the topic interests you.
Thanks for your piece, and if you have any questions, just ask!
Eric Lombardi
"Zero Landfill Is Not Zero Waste"
BioCycle July 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7, p. 44
Commentary
Eric Lombardi
THE Zero Waste movement is more than just a vision. It is a movement that is actually changing the world. To prove it, I recommend visiting GreenBiz.com and in the search box type “zero waste.” You will be amazed, as I was, at the tsunami of business activities over the last couple of years related to the idea of totally eliminating waste from our manufacturing, distribution and collection systems. However, a new problem is now emerging, and that is the idea that landfills are the sole villain here when in fact burning mixed waste is just as bad or worse.
Not using the landfill has got to be good news, right? Yes and no. The good news is that managing our discards as a resource is finally getting attention at the highest levels in the business sector from executives who can impact a large volume of materials. The business leader’s green impact comes from minimizing material purchase/consumption, product design and decisions about discard management systems.
The bad news is that some CEOs are learning that “zero waste to landfills” is Zero Waste, and it isn’t. The problem with having a singular focus on the landfill implies that making energy from waste by burning it is acceptable. Waste-to-Energy (WTE) is a disposal technology that destroys resources forever; it makes things “go away,” and doesn’t reduce waste or protect natural resources.
There are legitimate businesses making great strides toward Zero Waste, like Subaru with their 97 percent diversion. But companies that tout “Zero-Waste-to-landfill” and then burn half of their discards are greenwashing.
BURNING ISN’T ZERO WASTE The pioneers of the Zero Waste movement in the U.S. — and I count myself as one of them —were very clear in the mid-90s that zero waste to landfill was not the same thing as Zero Waste. Zero Waste is about making the best choice with our natural resources — from extraction to production to consumption to disposal. It involves a constant evaluation about our materials’ choices and a strong commitment to eliminating waste, not just treating it.
We were, and continue to be, very clear on our view that the current WTE technologies in the marketplace are actually a waste of energy, money and natural resources. For all the fancy talk about “conversion technologies” (including plasma, gasification and pyrolysis), the workhorse of the industry remains mass burn systems that make some of the dirtiest, most expensive electricity on the planet. WTE makes no sense environmentally, economically or socially: it has the most greenhouse gases (GHG) per fuel type, its emissions contain dangerous air pollutants, it’s the most expensive form of electricity, and it fails to create a fraction of the jobs created by recycling and composting. And WTE produces only a fraction of the energy that can be saved through recycling. Table 1 (U.S. Energy Information Agency) and Figure 1 (USEPA) support that harsh assessment.
Not all companies have fallen prey to the zero waste to landfill message. Some businesses are embracing true Zero Waste as a guiding principle and doing great work. For example, Xerox has been redesigning products for years to reduce the number of parts so models can be more interchangeable. BMW has reduced the number of different types of plastics it uses so more of the car can be recycled more quickly. And Amazon.com’s frustration-free packaging program moves manufacturers from plastic clamshells and wire ties over to recyclable cardboard, saving resources and fostering better customer satisfaction.
Today the challenge we have in creating Zero Waste Communities is that it takes time — but not a lot of time, mind you. Fresno, California jumped from 29 percent to 71 percent in just six years, and many businesses are hitting 90 percent recovery targets well ahead of schedule. Eco-Cycle believes communities can transition to Zero Waste within 10 years, and has created a generic 10-year “bridge strategy” to do so. Our plan proposes definitive programs, policies and infrastructure. A ten-year timeline broken into three phases to implement them all is a reasonable average. In years 1 to 4, a community achieves 50 percent; in years 5 to 8, it achieves 70 percent. Years 9 and 10 are the final challenging push to 90 percent. The journey begins with voluntary participation and ends with mandatory source separation in every home, business and institution.
But even after we get to a 90 percent recovery rate, we may still have about 10 percent of nonrecyclable, noncompostable and nonreusable discards that will need to be treated. That’s when we can talk about “Zero Waste and Bio-Energy.” The cleanest and safest way forward on dealing with this “residue” is to follow the three-step German approach: sort out any remaining recyclables, “biostabilize” the residue in an anaerobic digester to capture the biogas and use it for energy, and landfill the remaining inert material in a dry tomb landfill. Even better would be to follow the Italian lead and sort out all the nonrecyclable items in the residue, identify who made and marketed them, and then pressure these companies to redesign for Zero Waste.
But what we need now is to draw a line in the sand between a true commitment to Zero Waste and those that might want to stop at just zero-waste-to-landfill. I applaud groups like the Green Manufacturers Network for creating a workshop about waste and companies like Subaru
legitimately looking at how to better use and recover our limited natural resources. They are recognizing a planet in crisis and making smart business decisions to succeed in a world of declining resources and growing populations. But it is important that the message go out loud and clear that zero waste to landfill is NOT Zero Waste. The true goal of Zero Waste is not just zero waste to landfill or zero waste to energy, but redesigning our entire cycle of resource extraction, consumption and discard management so no resources are wasted at any point along the way.
Eric Lombardi is the Executive Director of Eco-Cycle, Inc. (www.ecocycle.org) and is recognized as an authority on the social and technical aspects of creating community-based “Zero Waste” resource recovery programs. Lombardi has experience internationally as a consultant and public speaker, and was invited to the Clinton White House in 1998 as one of the Top 100 USA Recyclers. Eric is also a cofounder of the U.S. GrassRoots Recycling Network (www.grrn.org) and the Zero Waste International Alliance (www.zwia.org).
Copyright 2011, The JG Press, Inc.
It is completely incorrect to
It is completely incorrect to say that "zero waste to landfill" is shortened to "zero waste". Zero waste is about zero waste to both landfills and incinerators (even if they recover some energy). See the Zero Waste International Alliance website for the accepted definition of zero waste (http://zwia.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&It...). While I am not denigrating these companies in the article, it is important not to buy in to the language of greenwash that uses "zero waste to landfill" as in some cases this is a claim made by companies not making any changes at all. Landfills and incinerators both waste the materials and the embodied energy it took to make the product. In many cases, zero waste to landfill is really just a marketing strategy used by incinerator companies and is in fact an obstacle to real sustainable solutions like closing the loop on materials and product redesign. I would be thrilled if Green Biz started to make this distinction in its zero waste articles.