What's my motivation?
by Jackie Gubeno
|
Hundreds of factors weigh into everyday company decisions. From personnel and policy issues to expenses and investments, businesses are constantly faced with choices large and small.
So why do some companies choose to recycle construction and demolition material? Why do others neglect the practice? Do government regulations have a major impact on a contractor's decision to commit to C&D recycling? Or does improving company image push some to choose one way or the other? What role does the availability of markets and processing facilities play? These are just a few of the questions posed by a recent internal survey conducted by the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), a nationwide construction industry trade association headquartered in Alexandria, Va. The project has attempted to gather some data to find out what motivates its members to engage in construction and demolition recycling. Just the Facts The survey was conducted via e-mail between May 28 and June 26, 2004. Over 20,000 e-mails were sent out inviting member companies to take part in the survey. Of the 811 recipients who followed the Internet link to the survey, 328 completed it, according to Melinda Tomaino Flores, environmental program coordinator for the AGC. |  |
Considering it was their first survey on C&D recycling, the AGC was generally pleased with the response rate, although, "you always hope for more," Flores says.
Flores says the survey was sent to a wide spectrum of the construction industry. "All types of member companies were surveyed--from general contactors and specialty contractors to service providers," she says.
Of the respondents, 56 percent had most recently completed a building project, while nearly 18 percent were working on highway projects. Nine percent identified their most recent project as a demolition project.
Responding companies' projects were scattered nationwide, located in 43 states and the District of Columbia, with heavy concentrations in California, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota and Texas.
The impetus for the survey was provided by the association's partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Sector Strategies program, Flores says.
The construction industry is one of 12 sectors partnering with the EPA in the program, which was established in June 2003. Others include agribusiness, cement manufacturing, colleges and universities, forest products, iron and steel manufacturing, metal casting, metal finishing, paints and coatings, ports, ship building and specialty chemical manufacturing. The program works to overcome barriers to environmental improvement, encourage the use of environmental management systems, and analyze and report on environmental gains and burden reduction, according to the Sector Strategies' Web site.
"(The survey) falls in line with that partnership by gathering data that we can use to better understand the barriers to recycling of C&D debris," Flores says. "We hope to work with EPA to craft innovative solutions and programs to help remove those barriers."
To Recycle or not to Recycle
Of the 328 companies that responded, 58 percent of them said they do recycle C&D debris, while the remaining 42 percent said they do not.
The companies were a near-equal spread in size--38 percent identified themselves as "small" (between one and 49 employees), another 38 percent as "large" (over 100 employees) and the remaining 25 percent as "medium" (employing a staff of between 50 and 99).
When it comes to the motivating Factors that lead these companies to recycle, enhancing public image topped the list. Of the companies surveyed, 238 "strongly agreed," or "agreed," with the statement that recycling improves a company's public image, and this affects their business decision to recycle C&D debris.
Saving money came in second, with 173 responders agreeing that recycling saving the company money weighs into their decision.
"The will to recycle appears to be there," Flores says. And, judging by the survey, the will is generated by the companies, not outside forces.
Legal mandates requiring C&D recycling took a back seat to public image and financial savings, with only 56 respondents--or 17 percent--claiming that laws affected their decision to recycle. On the other hand, about 45 percent, or 148, said that laws didn't affect their decisions, while 124 said they were neutral on the subject.
Only 71 respondents said that C&D recycling requirements in contracts had an effect on their recycling practices. Ninety-four respondents claimed to be neutral, and 163 companies disagreed that contract requirements had any bearing on their decisions.
Furthermore, 54 percent of the respondents replied that they agreed with the statement that employees are willing to recycle C&D material once they are trained--compared with only 14 3ercent who disagreed. In addition, 40 percent of companies surveyed agreed with the statement that subcontractors are willing to recycle C&D material once they are trained, with 25 percent disagreeing.
And though the will to recycle may be there, Flores says the results of the survey show that readily available markets for C&D recyclables and the ease of transporting the material to recycling facilities drew much weaker responses.
Of the companies surveyed, 42 percent--or 139 companies--said they disagreed with the statement that there are readily available markets for C&D recyclables. Seventy-eight companies said they were neutral and 33 percent (111 respondents) agreed. Of the 111 companies who agreed, only 25 of them "agreed strongly."
According to the survey results, another factor that might be placing a potential roadblock to companies' willingness to recycle C&D is the availability of recycling facilities. Forty percent of the respondents--or 132 companies--disagreed with the statement "C&D recyclables can be economically transported to recycling facilities." Thirty one percent agreed with the statement and 94 companies claimed to be neutral on the subject.
Companies were practically even on whether established waste disposal practices can be easily modified to recycle C&D material, according to the survey. Thirty nine percent agreed with the statement, while 43 percent disagreed.
What's Next?
"There was no precedent, so there were no surprises," says Flores about the survey's results. She says the association didn't go into the project with any particular hypotheses in mind. "The purpose and intent was to get a handle on what the situation is, what those barriers are," she says. So without any defined expectations, the AGC considers the information garnered by the survey as a kind of starting point, she says.
Flores says the whole goal of the survey was to help the industry and EPA understand what roadblocks are keeping companies from recycling C&D material. and simultaneously see what factors are motivating others to do so.
"Based on the survey results, the general understanding is that many of them agree that recycling does improve their public image," she says. "But many of them disagree about the availability of markets and facilities."
Flores says the information gathered can help the AGC better facilitate C&D recycling where practicable. "It's effective for us to know where best to focus our partnership resources," she says.
She notes that adding the online format proved to be convenient for the participants as well as those gathering and tabulating the information.
A summary of the results of the AGC's survey are available for viewing on the association's environmental services Web site, located at www.construction environment.org.
Thinking It Through
What affects your company's decision to recycle (or not recycle) C&D
debris?
(Answers from 328 AGC Survey Respondents)
Strongly Agree Neutral
Agree
a. Recycling saves money 66 107 73
b. Recycling improves my public image 61 174 75
c. Recycling is required by law 16 40 124
d. Recycling is required by my
contracts 25 46 94
e. There are readily available markets
for C&D recyclables 24 87 78
f. Employees are willing to recycle
C&D once they are trained 25 155 101
g. Subcontractors are willing to
recycle C&D once they are trained 16 117 112
h. Established waste disposal practices
can be changed without major
difficulty to include C&D recycling 23 106 57
i. C&D recyclables can be economically
transported to recycling facilities 18 84 94
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
a. Recycling saves money 65 17
b. Recycling improves my public image 16 2
c. Recycling is required by law 110 38
d. Recycling is required by my
contracts 129 34
e. There are readily available markets
for C&D recyclables 101 38
f. Employees are willing to recycle
C&D once they are trained 38 9
g. Subcontractors are willing to
recycle C&D once they are trained 72 11
h. Established waste disposal practices
can be changed without major
difficulty to include C&D recycling 113 29
i. C&D recyclables can be economically
transported to recycling facilities 100 32
