Zero Waste by Robin Murray, Greenpeace Environmental Trust 2002

The controversies about waste and what to do about it
should be seen in this context. Waste was one of the most
tangible symptoms of the material excesses of mass
production. Its volumes climbed with growth. The rising
resistance to its disposal was one expression of the limit to
the old industrial order and contributed to the elaboration
of the alternative. Waste reduction is part of the new
paradigm now being put into place.
From the time of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the full
extent to which the environment is bearing on the
direction of industrial development is becoming clear.
Initially it was particular industries that most felt the
pressure of the environmental critique – agriculture,
chemicals, energy, oil and mining – and the industries
reacted with defensive hostility. But post-Rio, leading
corporations have come to recognise that the environment
is a more general issue, and that environmental policy
propositions can no longer be resisted in particularistic
ways. Climate change, the depletion of the ozone layer
and accumulating toxicity in land and sea have multiple
sources and universal effects.
E c o - e f f i c i e n c y
A significant development in this period has been the
expansion of the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD), a congress of multinationals
which sought to develop a positive corporate view of the
environment, ‘by business for business’. In 1997 two of its
leading members published a major statement arising from
the WBCSD discussions, called ‘Eco-Efficiency’. It opened
with the following explanation of the term:
‘Its essence … is contained in seven simple guidelines:
• reduce the material intensity of goods and services
• reduce the energy intensity of goods and services
• reduce toxic dispersion
• enhance material recyclability
• maximise sustainable use of renewable resources
• extend product durability
• increase the service intensity of products
‘Following these guidelines can give companies a
competitive head-start into the next century – but not if
they are treated as an add-on to “business as usual”…
Eco-efficiency does require a profound change in their
theory and practice of core business activities.’ 46
Like the early manifestos of Taylorism and Scientific
Management, this sets out an entirely new way of thinking
about production. The WBCSD has become a significant
player in the movement to incorporate environmental
issues within the industrial dynamic.
All seven of the above principles bear on the goals of Zero
Waste. The reticence in the old waste industry to think in
t e rms of Zero Waste is absent in the wider commerc i a l
world. ‘Zero Waste’ has become one of the watchwords of
e c o - e ff i c i e n c y. In the words of Edgar Wo o l a rd Jr, form e r
c h a i rman of DuPont, ‘The goal is zero: zero accidents, zero
waste, zero emissions.’ As noted earlier, the language
adopted and the approach is that of Japanese Total Quality
Management extended to eco-efficient management.
Major companies have begun to adopt zero targets. Bell
Canada, Kimberley Clark, Du Pont, Honda, Toyota,
Hewlett Packard, the Ricoh Group and Interface Carpets
are all aiming for Zero Waste. Xerox set the goal of
‘waste-free products from waste-free factories’ and has
introduced targets for solid and hazardous waste
reduction, air emissions, waste water discharges, low
energy usage and the inclusion of 25% post-consumer
recycled material in its parts and packaging. Increasing
numbers of firms are adopting medium-term waste
reduction targets of 50% or more – in parallel with the
70
Zero Waste
71