An Interview with Scott Cassel, Executive Director of PSI
There has been much to celebrate in the field of product stewardship in 2010, including the new Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act that will make it easier to properly dispose of pharmaceutical wastes, recognition of the need for improved management of electronics, and the 10th birthday of the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) (December 5th).
We caught up with Scott Cassel, Executive Director of PSI, for an interview in hopes of inspiring industries to think about how product stewardship can help their sustainability efforts in 2011 and the years to come.
GN: In a nutshell, what is Product Stewardship?
SC: We say that Product Stewardship is a policy that ensures that all those involved in the lifecycle of a product share responsibility for reducing its health and environmental impacts, with producers bearing primary financial responsibility. While product stewardship can include actions taken by any individual manufacturer, importer, retailer, or any other actor in the product supply chain, those with the greatest ability to reduce a product’s impact (e.g., manufacturers and retailers) have the greatest degree of responsibility. Only manufacturers have the knowledge about the materials contained in their products, and thus have the power to reduce potential problems at their source.
Another important facet of product stewardship is that these systems shift the cost of end-of-life management of products from the public sector to the private sector. By shifting the funding source, product stewardship not only creates the reliable funding base needed to sustain programs that reduce public risk but it often creates efficiencies in operations that lower overall system costs.
GN: If we lived in an ideal world, is the ultimate goal of product stewardship that all components of a product are completely recycled/reused at the end of the products useful life?
SC: Reuse and recyclability are both very important, but the real vision of product stewardship is to reduce environmental impacts (and risks to human health) throughout the entire product lifecycle. This could also mean that fewer materials are used in a product, or that the product might be replaced by a new technology (e.g., viewing streamed movies on-line versus mailing or buying DVDs). Government policies can drive this type of industry innovation by creating incentives. When we consider ways to reduce our consumption of raw materials and the release of toxic substances to the environment, reuse and recycling are just two strategies. These goals can also be achieved by changing product design. Manufacturers can choose to design products that last longer, are easy to repair, and are made of materials that are sustainably sourced and do not include harmful or persistent chemicals. And, of course, consumers can decide that they can still live happy lives with less stuff. Consumer purchases drive product impacts, with the manufacture of the product being the largest impact in the product’s lifecycle.
GN: Traditionally in the United States, product stewardship initiatives have largely, but not always, been the result of legislation. Have legislation and memorandums of understanding for product stewardship been household hazardous waste (HHW) related industries only? if not, do you feel it is important to state that it has generally been for HHW related industries? Certainly product stewardship benefits all industry?
SC: Extended producer responsibility, or EPR, is a central tenet of product stewardship. Today, we have more than 60 EPR laws in 32 states that require product manufacturers to provide for the collection and recycling or safe disposal of their products at the end of their useful life. Most of these laws apply to products that contain mercury or other toxic substances, such as thermostats, batteries, fluorescent lamps, or auto switches, but there are also laws now on carpet, phone books, and paint (including latex paint). There has also been legislation introduced on packaging (in Vermont in 2010), and there is a growing national conversation about what the U.S. can learn from EPR laws for packaging from Europe and Canada. As we consider the full lifecycle impacts of products, we will see that non-hazardous materials might have impacts equal to hazardous products, if we consider, for example, that toxic materials might be used in the mining of materials used in the manufacture of non-hazardous products. We need to expand our horizons about what is involved in making products and delivering them to the consumer, in addition to the end-of-life management of that product.
EPR can be applied to a wide range of product categories, and is one of the tools for communities pursuing “zero waste” goals overall, not just the kinds of products typically collected through household hazardous waste. It’s also important to remember that EPR can apply to products used in the commercial or institutional settings – not just those used by households. Finally, while voluntary programs can jump start product stewardship efforts, our experience has shown that most companies are reluctant to invest resources in reducing environmental impacts from their products unless legislation levels the playing field so that the good actors don’t put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to laggard competitors. Legislation is also needed to reach high rates of program performance so that risks (e.g., mercury in the environment) are truly minimized and benefits (e.g., jobs from increased recycling) are fully realized.
GN: What is most important thing that you feel a producer can do to make Product Stewardship work?
SC: The most important action a producer can take is to earnestly engage with other stakeholders to develop solutions. Product stewardship relies on negotiations between stakeholders about their roles and responsibilities for minimizing product impacts. Several major industries (e.g., paint and rechargeable batteries) have demonstrated that they can find ways to work collaboratively with other stakeholders. Many individual companies have successfully made the transition to more sustainable production methods or establishing take-back programs that are not only better for the environment, but can be better for business as well. The majority of companies are eager to reduce their products’ impacts on the environment if the playing field is level, but of course some major industries continue to drag their heels. The thermostat industry, for example, asked us to develop model legislation that would level the playing field so all thermostat manufacturers had to collect and recycle used thermostats. After engaging in a full stakeholder process, and after consensus was reached with a multi-stakeholder group, they pulled out and opposed the consensus solution. Negotiating in bad faith has created distrust among all the other stakeholders working in the process. Such behavior is to be avoided.
GN: What is the most important thing that you feel consumers can do to make Product Stewardship work?
SC: Consumers have a responsibility to educate themselves about product impacts and take advantage of take-back opportunities available to them. Consumers also have tremendous purchasing power that can influence companies by demanding better products. With that said, manufacturers need to provide consumers with safer alternatives that are competitive in quality, availability, and price, and retailers should make these products available to their customers. While the market will respond to consumer demand, if the consumer doesn’t have a choice, or does not know what choice is better owing to a lack of information, relying on them to demand product changes is unrealistic. We still have a long way to go in this area by providing the consumer with easily understood information that distinguishes environmentally preferable products from the rest of the pack.
GN: Ideally, how would you like to see all the players involved in Product Stewardship work together (e.g., company, retailer, consumer, government)?
SC: There are a number of successful examples of this type of collaboration. Our eight-year effort with the American Coatings Association, which represents the paint industry in the U.S., is a perfect example of how cooperation can yield a solution acceptable to all stakeholders. After much negotiation in which consensus was reached on every major issue, the paint industry has agreed to take responsibility for managing all leftover latex and oil-based paint generated in the U.S. That result took an incredible amount of stamina from all stakeholders. It is also important for an entire industry sector to participate, which means that the association must be active as well as several of the key manufacturers. They must see it in their interest to invest resources in working with other stakeholders. Unfortunately, for many companies, that has meant that they need legislation introduced or threatened for them to raise stakeholder engagement as a priority.
GN: What is biggest thing missing at this time to make Product Stewardship the norm?
SC: The public needs to accept that they should pay for the full lifecycle cost of a product, and that the most efficient way this can happen is for manufacturers to take responsibility for incorporating these costs into their business model. There is a perception among some that product stewardship is a tax. What is not factored into that thinking is that, by not properly managing a product all along the lifecycle, there are environmental and social costs that translate into financial loss, whether in the reduced purchase of fish that contain mercury or health costs to treat mercury poisoning. Each year, about five tons of mercury enters the environment as the result of the disposal of common household thermostats. Fewer than five percent of these are being collected right now. This is the direct result of the thermostat industry not putting the necessary resources into collecting those thermostats. The public needs to demand that these companies take responsibility for their actions, but they also need to express a willingness to pay for that health and environmental protection. We cannot expect a company to pay for costs that cannot be passed onto the consumers of their products. Otherwise, that industry will continue to pollute the environment in very significant ways.
For more information visit the PSI website and blog.
Scott Cassel is the Executive Director of the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), which pursues initiatives to ensure that all those involved in the lifecycle of a product share responsibility for reducing its health and environmental impacts. Prior to founding the Institute in 2000, Scott served seven years as the Director of Waste Policy and Planning for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. He is a founding Board Member and past-President of the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association, whose mission is to reduce the toxicity of the municipal waste stream. He is also a founding Board Member of the Global Product Stewardship Council, which harmonizes product stewardship programs internationally. Scott has worked on product and waste management issues for the past 25 years, for a start-up solid waste management company, a non-profit statewide environmental group, and several other government agencies, including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. He is author of a comprehensive book chapter on product stewardship in the 2008 Handbook on Household Hazardous Waste. He was also a syndicated newspaper columnist in Massachusetts, including the Boston Business Journal. Scott has a master’s degree in environmental policy and dispute resolution from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an undergraduate degree in Geology and Environmental Studies from the University of Pennsylvania.
More from GreenNurture
- The Heart of Change – Making Change Last
- 4 Barriers to Business Recycling
- 6 Business Benefits for Recycling the Big 5
So when I visited the new offices of 
