Requirement...or opportunity?

An article from my local newspaper today detailed the compliance (or lack thereof) efforts of local garbage haulers to meet a requirement that a minimum of eight percent of their volume be recycled. The city's 31 licensed haulers collectively averaged nine percent and ranged from one to 15 percent.

Rather than simply looking at the recycling requirement as a burden to be met, it would seem that this would provide someone with the opportunity to fill a void. With none of the garbage haulers managing to recycle better than 15 percent, a void is waiting to be filled by a company called something like Sioux Falls Recycling (okay, that's a bad name, but you have to come up with some of the ideas) that promised environmentally conscious residents and companies a recycle rate of at least 25 percent (according to the Argus article, a consultant reported that 40-50 percent of residential waste dumped at the Sioux Falls Landfill could have been recycled). Put some marketing behind that and you've differentiated what is essentially a commoditized service.

Naysayers will object that it would be more expensive to recycle more, but might residents and companies be willing to pay more for a premium recycling service? Some recent articles from the same newspaper suggest that they might. Hy-Vee pays five cents to customers for each plastic bag they return to their local grocery stores. And, a few local developers are spending more money to make their buildings green. In both cases, those companies are paying a premium to burnish their environmental credentials. Would they pay more for a garbage hauler that was greener as well?

As usual, if business doesn't improve on its own, elected officials (who tend to pay more attention to the public's desire for greener standards) might force them to. City councilors have already tried to increase the eight percent mandate to 15 percent and 25 or 35 percent has been discussed. Wouldn't it be less painful for companies to figure it out on their own?