Integrating waste, manufacturing and industrial symbiosis: an analysis of recycling, remanufacturing and waste treatment firms in Texas

Abstract

The continually increasing volume of the waste stream has led to numerous calls for strategies to close the loop on material use through industrial symbiosis strategies which direct used material and products (wastes) back to production processes. By use of a survey of recycling, remanufacturing and waste treatment firms in Texas, this paper asks if these firms can operate as a bridge between production and consumption/waste to efficiently increase the flow of used materials and products back to production processes at the local level. The results suggest that while most materials and used products are collected locally, only some can be re(consumed) locally. Moreover, the firms face negative perceptions about their activities from industry and the public at large that likely slow both the rate of entry of new firms into these markets and the expansion possibilities of existing firms. In addition, the types of conventions that characterize the interactions of more successful firms are not well developed in this sector(s). It is unlikely that recycling, remanufacturing and waste treatment firms can become central players in the production, consumption and waste cycle loop until society develops production design, marketing and consumption philosophies that include recycling and remanufacturing at a fundamental level.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part by a research grant from the University of North Texas. The author would like to thank two anonymous referees for their very useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks are due to the interviewees who participated in this study.

Notes

Approximately 30% of all US municipal waste was recycled in 2001 (Goldstein and Madtes, 2001); aluminum recovery from scrap recycling accounts for 35–40% of the available supply of aluminum (US Geological Survey, 2001); iron, including steel, rates were at 64%—rising to 95% for automobiles and construction structural beams and plates, 84% for appliances, 58% for steel cans and 40% for rebar and other materials (Steel Recycling Institute, 2002); soda-lime-silica glass bottles are recycled at about 37%, PET and HDPE plastic bottles a little less than 25% with remaining types less than 5%; 4% for rubber and 35% for paper (Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, 2002a, b).

Paper is classified under three different categories, depending upon specificity and function. Firms collecting paper along with other diversionary materials are classified under diversionary recycling, firms specializing in paper are classified under paper recycling, while firms using pre or post consumer paper to make new products (e.g., boxes) are classified under paper remanufacturing.

Scoring 4.5, on a 5-point scale, with 5 being most important in response to the statement, The potential for growth in this sector is high'.

These tendencies are statistically significant. Firms with primarily: local inputs/outputs, Rs = .587, p = .045, regional inputs/outputs, Rs = .857, p = .000, and national inputs/outputs, Rs.737, p = .006. They are also independent of firm size and corporate type.

Includes local government contracts, brokers, drive-ups and smaller firms.