Tag: suatainability

OM in the News: Hasbro to Phase Out Plastics From Packages

Hasbro Inc. — known for its plastic dolls, Transformers and Mr. Potato Heads — is vowing to cut down on the plastic components used to package those products, reports Industry Week (Aug. 20, 2019). The toy company will start phasing out plastic from new packaging, including elastic bands and shrink wrap, starting next year, with a plan to eliminate virtually all plastic from packages for new products by the end of 2022. The company has not yet announced a plan to cut down on plastic usage in the toys themselves, though it will soon announce steps involving more sustainable materials.

The packaging switch will only apply to new products. About two-thirds of Hasbro’s product portfolio is new each year. “Something already designed and on the shelf we’re not taking off the shelf, but everything we’re putting into the marketplace going forward” would get the new packaging where it makes sense, said Hasbro’s CEO. The new packaging costs will be about the same for the company.

There are some places Hasbro won’t be able to replace plastic, because of health and regulatory rules. For example, packaging for Easy Bake Oven ingredients will remain wrapped in plastic to keep the food tamper-proof and fresh. So far, Hasbro hasn’t been able to find an alternative.

Consumer companies are facing an increasing backlash to single-use plastics, with major corporations from PepsiCo to Procter & Gamble vowing to cut back.

Classroom discussion questions:

  1. How is this an OM issue?
  2. Why is packaging so important to Hasbro?

OM in the News: The Hidden Problems of Recycling

I am not an adamant tree hugger, but my family certainly takes our household recycling seriously, as I am sure many of you do. So it came as a bit of a shock to find that our local garbage company (which sends separate trucks for normal garbage and recycled goods), took our recycling can and mixed it with the normal can. It turns out they ship it all to the same landfill since the city can’t afford to sort and recycle anymore. The New York Times now reports (March 16, 2019) that “recycling, for decades an almost reflexive effort by American households and businesses to reduce waste and help the environment, is collapsing in many parts of the country.”

Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents’ recycling material in an incinerator. The Memphis airport still has recycling bins around the terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a landfill. (The airport is keeping its recycling bins in place to preserve “the culture” of recycling among passengers and employees). Hundreds of cities across the country have quietly canceled recycling programs.

Prompting this nationwide reckoning is China, which until 2018 had been a big buyer of recyclable material collected in the U.S. That stopped when China determined that too much trash was mixed in with recyclable materials like cardboard and certain plastics. After that, Thailand and India started to accept more imported scrap, but even they are imposing new restrictions. With fewer buyers, recycling companies are recouping their lost profits by charging cities more, in some cases 4 times what they charged last year.

Amid the soaring costs, cities and towns are making hard choices about whether to raise taxes, cut other municipal services or abandon an effort that took hold during the environmental movement of the 1970s. The troubles with recycling have amplified calls for limiting waste at its source. Measures like banning plastic bags and straws, long pushed by environmental groups, are gaining traction more widely.

Classroom discussion questions:

  1. As a student, what is your obligation to recycle now that you know it may be economically inefficient?
  2. Should taxpayers subsidize recycling?

OM in the News: The Nuclear Waste Challenge at Fukushima 6 Years Later

Six years after the largest nuclear disaster this century, reports The New York Times (March 13, 2017), Japanese officials have still not solved a basic problem: what to do with an ever-growing pile of radioactive waste. Each form of waste at the Nuclear Power Station presents its own challenges. It is a massive OM issue worthy of class discussion when you cover the chapters on Project Management and Sustainability. Here is a rundown on the complexity of this $188 billion project:

400 Tons of Contaminated Water per day. Japan is pumping water nonstop through the reactors to cool melted fuel that remains too hot and radioactive to remove. The 1,000 storage tanks already hold 962,000 tons of contaminated water, but the plant is running out of room to store it.

3,519 Containers of Radioactive Sludge. The process of decontaminating the water leaves radioactive sludge trapped in filters, which are being held in thousands of containers.

64,700 Cubic Meters of Discarded Clothes. The 6,000 cleanup workers put on new protective gear every day. These hazmat suits, face masks, etc., are thrown out at the end of each shift. The clothing is stored in 1,000 steel boxes stacked around the site.

Branches from 220 Acres of Deforested Land. The plant’s grounds were once dotted with trees, and a portion was even designated as a bird sanctuary.

200,400 Cubic Meters of Radioactive Rubble have been removed so far and stored in the equivalent of about 3,000 standard 40-foot shipping containers.

3.5 Billion Gallons of Soil Have Been Bagged. Japan will eventually incinerate some of the soil, but that will only reduce the volume of the radioactive waste, not eliminate it.

1,573 Nuclear Fuel Rods. The condition and location of this molten fuel debris are still largely unknown. The plan is to use robots to find and remove it. But the rubble, the lethal levels of radiation and the risk of letting radiation escape make this exceedingly difficult. A robot inserted into one of the reactors detected radiation levels high enough to kill a person in less than a minute.

Classroom discussion questions:

  1. How does this cleanup project compare to other massive ones like those discussed in Chapter 3?
  2. Why is this a sustainability issue?