Is Cradle to Cradle feasible?
Reading Bill McDonough & Michael Braungart’s book, Cradle to Cradle, has been one of those defining moments in my career journey. The huge task of re-vamping our production cycles to make them more environmentally sane seemed like just the kind of big, hairy problem I wanted to apply my business, engineering, and design skills to. About five years have passed since I read the book and, looking around, I haven’t seen the idea gain much practical traction - despite all of the hype and excitement surrounding it. The idea that Waste=Food is a beautiful concept… and I hope it doesn’t have to remain just a concept.
That’s why I was excited last month when I exchanged a few preliminary e-mails with a big electronics OEM that was thinking of exploring and implementing a Cradle-to-Cradle initiative. Unfortunately, due to the state of the economy, it doesn’t look like the project is moving forward… which is a shame because, in my opinion, it’s only through tackling problems like this that are going to shift our economy onto the right course in the long term.
In the process of getting my head around what might be involved with such a project, I took another look at the state of things. Some thoughts and useful links are below:
- First of all, Fast Company ran a brilliant and brutal exposé on Bill McDonough & MBDC late last year: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/130/the-mortal-messiah.html.
- True Cradle-to-Cradle is more complicated than just improving e-Waste management and take-back programs… but better take back programs that get consumers to shift their perceptions about their products at the end-of-life is a requisite first step for C2C. Some big players have been working on this but it has a long way to go (and probably requires stronger legislation in the USA that goes beyond voluntary take-back, which consumers often have to pay for).
- For example, both Herman-Miller chairs and USPS Tyvek envelopes have Cradle-to-Cradle certification. But neither, to my knowledge, have the robust reverse supply chain that’s necessary to actually put industrial nutrients back into the supply chain. In HM’s case, consumers don’t have an easy way to return the items and there isn’t enough volume. In Tyvek’s case, it’s also hard to actually return the product back to the manufacturer - and, even when it is returned, most of it ends up being downcycled.
- Best Buy seems to be shoring up it’s e-Waste recycling capabilities, a great initiative: http://www.bestbuyinc.com/news_center/02-19-09/best-buy-electronics-recycling-program-now-available-all-us-stores
- The facts that consumers always want new items and that businesses have gotten use to quick product cycles as an engine for growth are huge barriers for strategies like upgradeability, reparability, and durability. (Again, a shift in consumer perception is required).
- Folks have been thinking about this idea for a long time, even before popularized by C2C (and big industry trade groups exist like the Reverse Logistics Association).
- Further reading…
- The October 2008 issue of the International Journal of Production Economics has an article entitled “Cradle to cradle: Reverse logistics strategies and opportunities across three industry sectors” by Sameer Kumara and Valora Putnam.
- Reverse Logistics In the Computer Industry (2005) - Lays out the issues and a few solution strategies:
- BOOK: Environment Conscious Manufacturing (ECM)
- http://ewasteguide.info/ and http://www.step-initiative.org/ - e-Waste sites with best practices, case studies, and information about initiatives.
- For information (and graphic images) about the eventual fate of our current e-Waste stream, check out this GreenPeace e-Waste site.
So, I guess at this point I can’t answer the question posed in the title of this blog entry. But one thing’s for sure, we can sure improve a whole hell of a lot… and I’d love to dig in and start trying.