Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:40:48.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The American Beverage Industry and the Development of Curbside Recycling Programs, 1950–2000

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2012

Bartow J. Elmore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many people today consider curbside recycling the quintessential model of eco-stewardship, yet this waste-management system in the United States was in many ways a pollutersponsored initiative that allowed corporations to expand their productive capacity without fixing fundamental flaws in their packaging technology. For the soft-drink, brewing, and canning industries, the promise of recycling became a powerful weapon for combating mandatory deposit bills and other source-reduction measures in the 1970s and 1980s. In examining the nexus of business, envirotech, and political history, this article explores how American corporations enrolled government agencies to construct resource reclamation systems in the United States that became models for waste management programs in municipalities around the world.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , Autumn 2012 , pp. 477 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Melosi, Martin V., “Waste Management: The Cleaning of America,” Environment 23 (Oct. 1981): 9Google Scholar; for a discussion of the massive increase in packaging waste in the twentieth century, see Strasser, Susan, Waste and Want: A Social History of Trash (New York, 1999)Google Scholar. Strasser argues that the country's solid-waste problems developed in the early twentieth century in part because of the emergence of a new consumer culture that considered recycling and reuse practices outdated and antimodern, symbolic of impoverishment, and potentially harmful to one's health. Ibid., 136, 200, 269.

2 Novak, William J., “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” American Historical Review 113 (June 2008): 752–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sklar, Martin J., The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890–1916 (Cambridge, U.K., 1988), 434, 438CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 (New York, 1963), 6Google Scholar; John, Richard R., Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse (Cambridge, Mass., 1995)Google Scholar; White, Richard, Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America (New York, 2010)Google Scholar; Balogh, Brian, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (Cambridge, U.K., 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Several scholars have produced excellent works on the development of curbside recycling programs, though none have specifically engaged the literature on the “myth of the weak American state.” See Ackerman, Frank, Why Do We Recycle: Markets, Values, and Public Policy (Washington, D.C., 1997)Google Scholar; Melosi, Martin V., Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment (Pittsburgh, 2005)Google Scholar; Melosi, Martin V., The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present (Baltimore, 2000)Google Scholar; Rogers, Heather, Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage (New York, 2005)Google Scholar; Royte, Elizabeth, Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash (New York, 2005)Google Scholar; Blumberg, Louis and Gottlieb, Robert, War on Waste: Can America Win Its Battle with Garbage? (Washington, D.C., 1989)Google Scholar; Zimring, Carl, Cash for Your Trash: Scrap Recycling in America (New Brunswick, N.J., 2005)Google Scholar.

4 See Aquino, John, ed., Waste Age/Recycling Times' Recycling Handbook (Baton Rouge, 1995)Google Scholar. On Germany, see Nast, Mathias, Die stummen Verkäufer: Lebensmittelverpackungen im Zeitalter der Konsumgesellschaft: Umwelthistorische Untersuchung über die Entwicklung der Warenpackung und den Wandel der Einkaufsgewohnheiten (1950er bis 1990er Jahre) (Bern, 1997)Google Scholar. For a Scandinavian perspective on beverage-container recycling and an excellent discussion of the sociocultural construction of reverse vending machines (RVMs), see Jørgensen, Finn Arne, Making a Green Machine: The Infrastructure of Beverage Container Recycling (New Brunswick, N.J., 2011)Google Scholar. For a broad look at how America's throwaway culture transformed the European economy in the latter-half of the twentieth century, see Strasser, Susan, McGovern, Charles, and Judt, Matthias, eds., Getting and Spending: European and American Consumer Societies in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 This study seeks to integrate business and environmental history in ways suggested by scholars Christine Meisner Rosen and Christopher Sellers. For their discussion of the merger of the fields, see Rosen, Christine Meisner and Sellers, Christopher, “The Nature of the Firm: Towards an Ecocultural History of Business,” Business History Review 73 (Winter 1999): 577–600Google Scholar; Rosen, Christine Meisner, “Industrial Ecology and the Greening of Business History,” Business and Economic History 26 (Autumn 1997): 123–37Google Scholar.

6 “Deposit System,” Southern Carbonator and Bottler (Nov. 1905): 10Google Scholar. According to the Coca-Cola Bottler, Coke distributors found deposit systems particularly effective in inducing returns. See Coca-Cola Bottler (Apr. 1929): 34–35Google Scholar.

7 The forty-to-fifty figure reflects return rates for some bottles in the 1960s as calculated by the Investment Research Department of Laidlaw and Company in an investment report for the Coca-Cola Company, “Follow-Up Report No. 6 to Basic Report Dated October, 1963,” Aug. 1965, box 57, folder 1, Robert W. Woodruff Papers, Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library (MARBL), Emory University (hereafter cited as RWW Papers); United States Resource Conservation Committee, Committee Findings and Staff Papers on National Beverage Container Deposits (Washington, D.C., 1979), 75, 76, 84Google Scholar; Shireman, William K. et al. , The CalPIRG-ELS Study Group Report on Can and Bottle Bills (hereafter cited as Can and Bottle Bills), (Stanford, 1981), 5Google Scholar.

8 Hays, Constance, The Real Thing: Truth and Power at the Coca-Cola Company (New York, 2004), 11Google Scholar.

9 Shireman, et al. , Can and Bottle Bills, 4Google Scholar; American Can Company, A History of Packaged Beer and Its Market in the United States (New York, 1969), 7Google Scholar; Ogle, Maureen, Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer (Orlando, 2006), 213Google Scholar; McGahan, A. M., “The Emergence of the National Brewing Oligopoly: Competition in the American Market, 1922–1958,” Business History Review 65 (Summer 1991): 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 American Can Company, A History of Packaged Beer, 29Google Scholar; “Soft Drinks: Will the Cans Take Over?” Business Week, Jan. 1954, 47Google Scholar; Shireman, , et al. , Cans and Bottle Bills, 9Google Scholar; “Canned Soda Pop,” Wall Street Journal, 24 Sept. 1953Google Scholar, box 292, folder 10, RWW Papers; McGahan, , “The Emergence of the National Brewing Oligopoly,” 230, 247–48Google Scholar.

11 “Now! Your Favorite Soft Drinks in Cans!” Daily Mirror, 10 June 1953, 19Google Scholar, box 292, folder 10, RWW Papers.

12 “C&C Super Corp. to Open Third Plant Next Month to Can Soft Drinks in Chicago,” New York Times, 25 Apr. 1954, F1Google Scholar.

13 Nicholson, H. B., “The Fabulous Frontier,” A Speech for the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, 11 Nov. 1953Google Scholar, box 58, folder 1, RWW Papers.

14 Hays, , The Real Thing, xiiGoogle Scholar.

15 “Coca-Cola in Cans for the Far East,” Coca-Cola Bottler (Apr. 1955): 28Google Scholar; “Sales of Canned Soft Drinks Soar,” Coca-Cola Bottler (July 1965): 25–27Google Scholar; “Aluminum Aftermath,” Wall Street Journal, 22 Nov. 1965, 2Google Scholar.

16 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Reuse and Recycling Act of 1979, 96th Cong., 2d sess., 3 Mar. 1980, 58Google Scholar; Senate Subcommittee for Consumers, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1977, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 25, 26, 27 Jan. 1978, 158Google Scholar.

17 Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Commerce, Solid Waste Management Act of 1972, 92nd Cong., 2d sess., 6, 10, 13 Mar. 1972, 35Google Scholar; Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Nonreturnable Beverage Container Prohibition Act, 93rd Cong., 2d sess., 6, 7 May 1974, 95, 108Google Scholar; Rogers, , Gone Tomorrow, 136–37Google Scholar.

18 Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Nonreturnable Beverage Container Prohibition Act, 108Google Scholar; Hays, , The Real Thing, 11, 182Google Scholar.

19 The soft drink industry consistently argued that consumers forced the beverage companies to adopt one-way containers. It was a bottom-up process, Coke and its industry allies argued. Consumers living in the automobile age had more mobility than ever before and wanted the convenience of not having to return packaging to retail outlets. While such claims were in part true, left unsaid were the business forces that shaped America's throwaway culture. Oneway containers helped soft drink businesses achieve economies of scale in their bottling industries, reducing costs associated with collecting and processing returnables. Convenience packaging, in other words, was as much a product of consumer demand as it was an industry solution to a distribution dillema. For excellent works that explore both business and consumer forces that shaped America's throwaway culture, see Susan Strasser, Waste and Want; Strasser, Susan, Satisfaction Guaranteed: The Making of the American Mass Market (New York, 1989)Google Scholar; “Throwaway Society,” in Steinberg's, TedDown to Earth: Nature's Role in American History (Oxford, 2002): 226–39Google Scholar; “‘The Convenience is Out of this World,’ The Garbage Disposer and American Consumer Culture,” in Getting and Spending.

20 In 1961, Kouwenhoven, John Atlee published The Beer Can by the Highway: Essays on What's American about America (Baltimore, 1961)Google Scholar, a testament to public concern about the aesthetic costs associated with one-way container waste; “Beer Bottle Plan Offered by Delegate,” Washington Post, 17 Mar. 1953, 26Google Scholar; Rouleau, Andre J., administrator of Vermont Beverage Container Law, “Vermont Deposit Law and Recycling,” presented at Vermont Solid Waste Summit, 8 Nov. 1985, P2Google Scholar InfoHouse Online Comprehensive Pollution Prevention Reference Collection, www.p2pays.org/ref/24/23636.pdf (accessed 2 Aug. 2011).

21 “Heads New Anti-Litter Group,” New York Times, 14 Oct. 1954, 31Google Scholar; Royte, , Garbage Land, 184Google Scholar; Melosi, , Garbage in the Cities, 225–26Google Scholar; Rogers, , Gone Tomorrow, 141–46Google Scholar.

22 “Litter Increased in Crowded Cities,” New York Times, 7 Dec. 1954, 40Google Scholar.

23 Strand, Ginger, “The Crying Indian: How an Environmental Icon Helped Sell Cans—and Sell Out Environmentalism,” Orion Nature Quarterly (Nov./Dec. 2008): 24Google Scholar; Dunaway, Finis, “Gas Masks, Pogo, and the Ecological Indian: Earth Day and the Visual Politics of American Environmentalism,” American Quarterly 60 (Mar. 2008): 67–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Strand, , “The Crying Indian,” 24Google Scholar; Royte, , Garbage Land, 184Google Scholar.

24 Melosi, , Garbage in the Cities, 170Google Scholar; Beverage Industry 87 (June 1996): 26Google Scholar, cited on the Library of Congress's “Coca-Cola Television Advertisements: Homepage,” http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ccmphtml/indsthst.html (accessed 29 Mar. 2011)Google Scholar; Paul Austin to Robert W. Woodruff, 28 Nov. 1969, box 16, folder 1, RWW Papers.

25 American Soft Drink Journal (July 1967): 34Google Scholar; National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) Bulletin, 26 Apr. 1968; NSDA Bulletin (Jan.–Feb. 1968).

26 Paul Austin to Robert W. Woodruff, 28 Nov. 1969, box 16, folder 1, RWW Papers.

27 “‘Bend a Little’ and ‘Keep America Beautiful,’” featured on Coca-Cola's company blog, “Coca-Cola Conversations,” edited by archivists Ryan, Ted and Mooney, Phil, http://www.coca-colaconversations.com/my_weblog/2009/04/bend-a-little-and-keep-america-beautiful.html (accessed 28 Jan. 2010)Google Scholar; Pendergrast, , For God, Country, and Coca-Cola, 301Google Scholar; New York Times, 22 Apr. 1970, 33Google Scholar.

28 For a detailed history of the Oregon battle, see Walth, Brent, “No Deposit, No Return: Richard Chambers, Tom McCall, and the Oregon Bottle Bill,” Oregon Historical Quarterly 95 (Fall 1994): 278–99Google Scholar; Stanford Environmental Law Society, Disposing of Non-Returnables: A Guide to Minimum Deposit Legislation (Stanford, 1975), 17Google Scholar.

29 Gould, Lewis, Lady Bird Johnson and the Environment (Lawrence, Kans., 1988)Google Scholar. See also Gould, Lewis, ed., Lady Bird Johnson: Our Environmental First Lady (Lawrence, Kans., 1988)Google Scholar; Melosi, , Garbage in the Cities, 198, 200–01Google Scholar.

30 House Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Prohibit Certain No-Deposit, No-Return Containers, 91st Cong., 2d sess., 18 Sept. 1970, 53Google Scholar.

31 Ibid., 46; Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Solid Waste Management Act of 1972, 79Google Scholar.

32 Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Materials Policy, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 14, 19 July 1977, 62Google Scholar.

33 Rogers, , Gone Tomorrow, 150Google Scholar; “Yonkers Studies a No-Return Ban,” New York Times, 9 Sept. 1971, 59Google Scholar.

34 Rogers, , Gone Tomorrow, 172Google Scholar.

35 Zimring, , Cash for Your Trash, 160Google Scholar; Jørgensen, , Making a Green Machine, 29–31Google Scholar.

36 Rogers, , Gone Tomorrow, 140Google Scholar.

37 Meeting minutes from the State Association Conference, National Soft Drink Association, 10 Nov. 1970, 12, American Beverage Association (ABA) Information Center, Washington, D.C.

38 “Advertising: Reynolds in an Ecology Drive,” New York Times, 13 Apr. 1971, 63Google Scholar; “Display Ad,” New York Times, 9 Feb. 1971, 25Google Scholar; Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Solid Waste Management Act of 1972, 81Google Scholar.

39 Melosi, , Garbage in the Cities, 221Google Scholar; “Recycling Efforts Faltering on L. I.,” New York Times, 13 Feb. 1972, A1Google Scholar.

40 “Waste Recycling Effort Found to Lag,” New York Times, 7 May 1972, 1Google Scholar; “A Guide to Recycling,” Washington Post, 13 Apr. 1978, VA1Google Scholar.

41 “Waste Recycling Effort Found to Lag,” New York Times, 7 May 1972, 1, 57Google Scholar; Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Solid Waste Management Act of 1972, 26Google Scholar.

42 House Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Prohibit Certain No-Deposit, No-Return Containers, 91st Cong., 2d sess., 18 Sept. 1970, 39Google Scholar; Royte, , Garbage Land, 127Google Scholar.

43 Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Solid Waste Management Act of 1972, 35Google Scholar.

44 Senate Subcommittee for Consumer, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Beverage Container Recycling and Reuse, 95th Cong., 2d sess., 25, 26, and 27 Jan. 1978, 203Google Scholar.

45 On the birth of the environmental justice movement, see McGurty, Eileen Maura, “From NIMBY to Civil Rights: The Origins of the Environmental Justice Movement,” in Environmental History of the American South: A Reader, ed. Sutter, Paul and Manganiello, Christopher J. (Athens, Ga., 2009)Google Scholar; and Bullard, Robert, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality (Boulder, Co., 1990)Google Scholar. For works on the emergence of the modern environmental movement, see Hays, Samuel P. and Hayes, Barbara, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985 (Cambridge, U.K., 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steinberg, Ted, “Shades of Green,” in Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History, ch. 15 (Oxford, 2002), 239–61Google Scholar; Rome, Adam, The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism (Cambridge, U.K., 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. According to Heather Rogers, one study showed that roadside litter in Oregon decreased by 35 percent in the wake of the new deposit law. Rogers, , Gone Tomorrow, 147Google Scholar.

46 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Reuse and Recycling Act of 1979, 68Google Scholar.

47 Jørgensen, , Making a Green Machine, 89Google Scholar.

48 Rogers, , Gone Tomorrow, 154Google Scholar.

49 “Bottle Bill Foes' Recycling Claim Disputed,” Washington Post, 25 Oct. 1987, B7Google Scholar; Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Recycling, 102nd Cong., 2d sess., 17 Sept. 1992, 160Google Scholar; House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste, 101st Cong., 2d sess., 12, 13 July 1989, 256Google Scholar. For a thorough analysis of the D.C. bottle bill debate, see Clay, Joy A., “The D.C. Bottle Bill Initiative: A Casualty of the Reagan Era,” Environmental Review 13, no. 2 (Summer 1989): 17–31Google Scholar.

50 Gaines, L. L. and Wolsky, A. M., “Resource Conservation Through Beverage Container Recycling,” Conservation and Recycling 6 (1983): 11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In 1969, the Coca-Cola company commissioned the first Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study to determine the environmental footprint of various packaging materials. Under the direction of Robert Hunt and Bill Franklin, the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) carried out the study on behalf of the soft drink company. Their findings were never reported to the public, but in 1974, the EPA asked Hunt and Franklin to complete a similar study on nine different beverage containers. The study, Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Alternatives (Washington, D.C., 1974)Google Scholar, offered an excellent comparison of energy requirements and environmental costs associated with recycling different packaging materials. For more on Coke's involvment in the develoment of LCA, see Hunt, Robert G. and Franklin, William E., “LCA—How It Came About: Personal Reflections on the Origin and the Development of LCA in the USA,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1 (Mar. 1996): 4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 van Voorst, Bruce, and Schoenthal, Rhea, “The Recycling Bottleneck,” Time, 14 Sept. 1992Google Scholar; Zimring, , Cash for Your Trash, 134Google Scholar; Kimball, Debi, Recycling in America: A Reference Handbook (Santa Barbara, Calif., 1992), 23–24Google Scholar.

52 Royte, , Garbage Land, 14Google Scholar; “Who Foots the Bill for Recycling,” New York Times, 25 Apr. 1993, F5Google Scholar; Folz, David H., “Recycling Performance: A Public Sector Environmental Success Story,” Public Administration Review 59 (July–Aug. 1999): 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Loughlin, Daniel H. and Barlaz, Morton A., “Policies for Strengthening Markets for Recyclables: A Worldwide Perspective,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36 (2006): 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Rogers, , Gone Tomorrow, 176Google Scholar; “Can or Bottle, Bill Wants Makers to Pay for Recycling,” New York Times, 11 July 2002Google Scholar; Government Accountability Office (GAO), Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling (Dec. 2003), 11Google Scholar; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures (Washington, D.C., 2010), 52Google Scholar.