Charity By Business--A Great Stopgap, Not A Great Solution
Now a big private-sector player has stepped in to offer a solution to the problem. It turns out that the local Wal-Mart is already regularly sending trucks back to Washington--mostly empty, after goods for sale in Fairbanks are unloaded. So now Wal-Mart has started its own recycling program, shipping its waste products to Washington for reuse, and it has offered to include refuse from local people at no cost to the community. A few details:
The store's decision to accept recyclables--in reasonable quantities, as it will fall to the store’s paid employees to handle them--is sure to be a hit with its regular shoppers, who live in a community that lacks a conventional recycling program. It's also likely to create an interesting decision for Wal-Mart critics in Fairbanks who either avoid super-retailers in protest of their significant, indirect impact on locally owned businesses and the labor pool or those who believe Wal-Mart is simply hoping recyclers will be inclined to buy more merchandise from a friendlier company.Wal-Mart, naturally, is proudly trumpeting this news of its latest "good neighbor" policy. But as is usually the case when private/public lines get blurred, the most appropriate feelings seem to be mixed ones. When cash-strapped governments are unable to provide basic services to their citizens, it's nice that big private companies are willing to fill the gap. (We all remember the spate of stories about Wal-Mart and other firms providing disaster relief after Katrina on a more timely basis than FEMA.)
Suzy Fenner, a community recycling advocate, said Fairbanks residents are currently left with imperfect options--such as burning gasoline to haul paper and plastic to a willing business, which then burns more energy to ship the products out of state. Fenner applauded Wal-Mart's initiative and suggested it will help nudge public awareness of recycling options closer toward the point of a public program or more private-sector involvement. . . .
Store officials made it clear: They’re not turning into a recycling center. But they also said they can accept some common, everyday recyclables, such as loose paper or old newspapers, empty plastic soda bottles or milk jugs, and empty aluminum cans--during business hours. Managers said anything larger than a heavy armful should be bundled or bagged to help associates manage. Recyclers should also phone ahead with bigger loads and use the company’s back loading dock. They should also separate plastics--Nos. 1 and 2--by type, which is identifiable by the number imprinted on the bottom of products.
But let's face it, having private enterprise offer public benefits on a charitable basis is not a sustainable long-term program. What happens when Wal-Mart's trucks get filled with their own recyclables, crowding out public materials? What if the demand for recycling services becomes so great it takes up too much costly time on the part of Wal-Mart employees? At a fundamental level, why should a necessary public good like recycling be provided purely as a "favor" by a self-interested business, rather than as a right funded by taxpayers for the benefit of taxpayers?
After all, unlike rights, favors can always be taken away.
So two cheers to Wal-Mart in this case--but here's hoping the people of Fairbanks won't be willing to settle for this as a long-term answer to their recycling dilemma. It's not one.
Email blog entry to a friend
Comments
Add a comment
By 
Mark W. McElroy, on
June 23, 2008 11:30 PM
Hi Karl:
You said, "At a fundamental level, why should a necessary public good like recycling be provided purely as a 'favor' by a self-interested business, rather than as a right funded by taxpayers for the benefit of taxpayers?"
The answer, I submit, is that the business is staffed by people, who do not check in their citizenship at the door on the way into work. It's a duty, not a favor.
What Wal-Mart should do, in this case, is take rightful claim to the disproportionate contribution it is making on a per capita basis to the well-being of Fairbanks.
We have a metric for doing so. Wal-Mart should talk to us, and so should others in similar circumstances.
Regards,
Mark
By Mark W. McElroy, on
June 23, 2008 11:30 PM
Mark,
I'm not sure I understand the third paragraph of your comment. When you say that Wal-Mart should "take rightful claim to the disproportionate contribution it is making . . . to the well-being of Fairbanks," it sounds as though you mean that Wal-Mart should somehow be repaid or rewarded for the recycling program it is providing to the community. Am I interpreting you correctly? If so, how would such a repayment or reward be provided?
Karl
By 
KW, on
June 24, 2008 7:49 AM
If we really want to address issues like the environment, we have to get away from the notion that all proposed solutions must be instant, perfect and permanent.
If we don't, these problems will never be addressed in a timely and satisfactory manner, if at all.
So instead of wrinkling up our noses at Walmart -- which, I'm sure, is the hip thing to do -- we should be applaud them for their innovation and good citizenship in providing a generous, workable interim solution to this community's problem.
Now its up to the greater community of Fairbanks to come up with a long-term solution.
By JBlog, on
June 24, 2008 2:02 PM
Hi Karl:
Good question. No, I was not suggesting that Wal-Mart should be paid or rewarded (other than in kudos) for the contribution they're making. Rather, I was suggesting that they should take credit via their sustainability reporting.
Every company has a set of duties or obligations to contriute to the well-being of the communities in which they do business. This can be quantified on a per capita basis. I am simply suggesting that Wal-Mart is very likely exceeding its pro rata share in the case of recycling efforts in Fairbanks, and that it should take credit for that in its sustainability metrics.
Anyone who wants to know more about how to do that, including you Karl, can contact me for more details.
Regards,
Mark
By Mark W. McElroy, on
June 24, 2008 5:44 PM
Hi Karl:
You said, "At a fundamental level, why should a necessary public good like recycling be provided purely as a 'favor' by a self-interested business, rather than as a right funded by taxpayers for the benefit of taxpayers?"
The answer, I submit, is that the business is staffed by people, who do not check in their citizenship at the door on the way into work. It's a duty, not a favor.
What Wal-Mart should do, in this case, is take rightful claim to the disproportionate contribution it is making on a per capita basis to the well-being of Fairbanks.
We have a metric for doing so. Wal-Mart should talk to us, and so should others in similar circumstances.
Regards,
Mark