Time to Stop Supporting Organizations That Don’t Represent the Long Term Interests of Their Members

As the debate over competing e-waste certifications continues, each side has positioned themselves into separate philosophies and business models. One has a pragmatic approach, a thought process about managing e-waste as standard metallurgical scrap metals grades. In this view, if it’s resource abundant and has commodity market value, it’s simply a question of buying and selling. The other side has a more progressive thought process, which entails controlling and accounting for e-waste toxin streams and ensuring that associated toxins don’t reach uncontrolled processes. By uncontrolled, I mean processes without safety procedures and pollution control equipment, in facilities that do not historically have enforceable regulatory environment surrounding heavy-metal melting processes. (Read Redemtech’s comparison of BAN’s e-Stewards Standard and ISRI’s R2 Standard here.)

About one thing, there is no doubt in my mind: past scrap metal export practices have hurt poorer nations. It’s been extremely beneficial to their local economy, though at the expense of the environment and the health of those in the surrounding community. Not only has this applied to e-waste, but to other scrap processing categories as well.

But to effect change, we need knowledge of the acts themselves, as well as the culture and economics behind these acts. Basically there are two sides:

• Those supporting use of low-cost uncontrolled processes/infrastructure for ignoring toxin releases associated with e-waste and scrap metal processes
• And those supporting controlled processes/infrastructure for mitigating toxins releases associated with e-waste and scrap metal processes

One can readily guess which of the above costs less. Even if EPA existed in developed countries, it’s disturbing that our own EPA advocates the prevailing uncontrolled export practices. In our back yard, strangely enough, federal entities are not required to adhere to rules they themselves develop for industry, and unfortunately use substandard prison labor for e-waste processing and other sensitive jobs. But I say, why stop here? The Postal Service has financial problems. Why not simply hire $2-a-day mail carriers? You can do the same with other public services.

I’m sure this idea would not be too appealing to our excellent public service sector, but the private sector contends with this irony on a daily basis. Cheap prison and export labor should not compete against our nation’s rebuilding process. Prison and foreign labor only replaces our precious U.S labor force, impedes investment and contributes to failed e-waste ventures. I’ve not heard of any U.S. e-waste processor or investor saying they’re near their projected capacity. Thus, by supporting these practices, we undermine the core stated objectives of both our domestic recycling association and the EPA.

Meanwhile, the irony continues. A good industry friend and I were recently discussing the recent ISRI convention. He mentioned that for the first time, the Chinese exporters actually had booths and were soliciting for scrap business. Normally, nothing would be wrong with this. However, the exporters were actually verbally circumventing their suppliers/ISRI members. Keeping in mind, ISRI membership funded the venue in which all of this occurred. I wondered if UNICOR (prison labor) would be the next group to have a booth there. My buddy actually said that after attending this year’s conference, he’s not selling to his U.S. scrap buyer (an ISRI member) anymore, because the Chinese offered a sweeter deal. Currently, China’s undervalued currency and exchange rates are setting up, or buying, U.S. scrap yards. In my view, they will continue to push American metal operations and U.S. scrap metal owners either to sell or perhaps will simply price them out of existence. As Americans struggles with operational financing, other governments fund scrap metal transactions for export.

To cap it all off, exporters at the conference were saying, “I buy from them (U.S. scrap buyers), sell to me, I’ll pay you similar, or more, depending on volume.” 

ISRI’s global e-waste and scrap metal trade policy has created an unfair business climate for their membership and for American processors, and it’s being done right under their noses. ISRI is aware that American scrap metal processors have difficulties competing with inferior Third World scrap metal processes, fire-sale export freight rates, and unfair pricing. Sadly, over the last 20 years, many U.S. metal processors have gone out of business because of the mostly unchallenged unfair scrap metal trade business. I believe all U.S. smelters, mills and foundries should reconsider their ISRI membership, and align their time and hard-earned money with trade organizations more suited to their interests. American smelters and mills have struggled through overpaying for scrap resource for years. Policies that ISRI supports are at odds with fair trade, not to mention with the interests of many members who are U.S.-based scrap processors, smelters and mills.

It’s time to stop supporting industry organizations that undermine the environment and look over the interests of their members.