yesterday, I was driving through town, and I saw a huge protest going on at Staples, the common office supply store. I pulled over, and found out that people were protesting Staples not carrying recycled paper. I suppose this is a good cause, and I am not going to argue with it. I was wondering though… the people who make recycled paper, will protests like this actually make them change their ways? Or are they too lost in their ways? Is protesting the most effecient thing to do when you want something changed?
I went to the Protests at the Wake Forest (Winston-Salem) Presidential Debates, and we got nothing done there. We had talks, and discussions, but nothing was actually acomplished. I am not sure protests actually work.
With corporations no. Corporations are driven by the bottom line. If you can prove to them there is a market for recyvled paper, they would carry it. Other than than, environmental protestors are considered mostly a nusaince that must occasionally be appeased.
I think you’re right about corporations being driven by the bottom line, but environmental protests can be effective towards that end. Much environmentalism has roots in local or regional concerns–typically polluters. However, if some group of concerned consumers gains sufficient attention across the general public, corporations will be forced into rethinking their policies. A few examples: no more styrofoam at fast food places, substantially smaller markets for things like real furs and veal as compared to just 30 years ago, many large supermarkets offer organic produce or alternatively refuse to carry genetically engineered foods. The key with all these examples and others is that enough pressure must exist in order for corporations to change. Change is costly, but so is losing business on ideological grounds. At some point it will become more cost-effective to eat a short term cost through changing some policy rather than sustaining a long-term and potentially increasing loss of revenue due to customer dissatisfaction. So, I think protests can be effective, of course I think the glass is half full too.
I guess protesting is one way to get Staples’ attention, basically by saying, “We represent a market for recycled paper.” It might garner more attention than filling out comment cards.
On the other hand, if their point is that Staples is morally in the wrong for not offering recycled paper, I think they’re missing the mark. No store has a duty to provide a product that they can’t sell profitably.
The environmentalists’ efforts would be better spent in public education, encouraging consumers and especially businesses to seek out and use recycled paper and other environmentally-responsible products. If Staples sees their competitors doing a brisk trade in green office supplies, you’d better believe they’ll rush to offer the same.
It seems to me that protesting won’t be as effective as “voting with your dollar” by buying recycled paper eleswhere, and widespread public pressure will do more good than a few wackos with some signs and a catchy chant.
If recycled paper were less expensive than non-recycled paper of identical quality, I guarantee you Staples would carry it. The fact that recycled paper is not less expensive than the non-recycled variety says more about the deficiencies in the recycling industry than it does about Staples.
There’s also the problem of bleaching: The snow-white paper that’s so popular nowadays is not considered “environmentally friendly” by some, because the bleach used for getting the white color is inherently evil or some such nonsense. Recycled paper manufacturers, whose primary consumers are environmentally-conscious folks who would feel guilty about being environmentally “correct” in some areas but not in others, tend to shy away from offering bleached products, offering instead that newsprint-looking “unbleached” paper that is supposed to be more “natural”. Thus, there probably aren’t too many recycled paper manufacturers who make bleached-paper products similar to the ones Staples’ customers buy.
Around here, a protest like that will bring dozens of phone calls asking them to carry that kind of paper. Then they will, at least for a while, just to be safe.
Since there is so little for Staples to lose, it seems like a lock to work.
Around here, a protest like that will bring dozens of phone calls asking them to carry that kind of paper. Then they will, at least for a while, just to be safe.
Since there is so little for Staples to lose, it seems like a lock to work.
( :eek: I didn’t “submit” twice, honest! the system is taking so long I just used the back button to reach the forum thread faster. Guess it passed through the posting thread on the way.)
Not sure what we’re debating here but I’ll chime in anyway. The protests I heard about at Staples are run by the Coastal Rainforest Coalition. Here’s their press release. http://www.forestethics.org/html/eng/180-AA.shtml
Seems like a good cause, we should use more recycled paper. I think the reasons behind the protest are a little silly, though. For those that are unaware paper is primarily manufactured from waste products from sawmills, top logs that used to be wasted, and plantations.
They claim Staples should:
1.Immediately phase out all wood and paper products made from old growth fiber.
-Pretty vague I think. “Old-growth” is a relative term.
2.Immediately phase out all wood and paper products made from fiber from US public lands.
-Seems like this should be a different debate all together
3.Commit to achieving 50% post consumer content for all paper products within two years and begin an immediate phase out of all products that are made of 100% virgin wood fiber.
-IIRC 48% of all paper products consumed are recycled in the US
4.Make available 100% post consumer paper and paper that is made from agricultural fiber by designating and stocking permanent shelf space all stores and other points of sale.
-Ok, they should sell 100% post-consumer products, no problem there. Why is agricultural fiber better than forest fiber?
5.Educate all employees, customers and suppliers on the benefits of recycled paper, recycling, alternative fibers, and healthy forest resources.
-So everybody that has anything to do with Staples should sit through a seminar to get re-educated with their propaganda. That’s a nice one.
Recycling is good, we should all do more, and Staples should probably sell paper with post-consumer content. But this whole campaign strikes me as a shake-down.
The protestors would probably have a much bigger impact if they:
Promoted the purchase of recycling content products at their places of employment;
Encouraged their local government agencies to adopt “recycled content” purchasing programs;
Made sure they personally only purchase recycled-content products and ask friends and family to do the same.
I’m not a big protest fan, and as an environmental professional I see much more value in putting your money where your mouth is. No matter how I think life should be, in reality it’s up to us to tell corporations what we want, and the best way to do that is by voting with our wallets.
As far as recycled content office paper goes, the grey newspaper-looking stuff isn’t very common anymore – in fact, the one big supplier I knew of stopped making it a few years ago. Most of the recycled stuff I see now is either white or is a specialty paper (Flip through the choices at Kinko’s and you’ll see what I mean). Although I haven’t looked into it lately, some recycled paper mills were using hydrogen peroxide as a bleaching agent instead of chlorine compounds. I’ll have to do some research and see if that is still the case.
And because I always remember that one last thing I wanted to say once it is too late:
The most important part, IMO, of buying recycled is looking for the postconsumer part. That’s the stuff that people have actually used and recycled. The main reason I promote buying recycled (and the reason I personally buy recycled) is to cut down on what we send to the landfill.
As an invenory specialist I know that product should move. Corporations pay taxes on their inventory value. A product that does not move is eating up precious shelf space, and being taxed annually driving up the cost of sales for that product. It also represents money spent that is not not generating revenue. No cash flow = big problem.
Well, at the risk of committing heresy by questioning the unerring and infallible divine will of the “free market” in this case, I will note that it also says something about the deficiencies of said market. The deficiencies occur, for example, because our government subsidizes forestry in our national forests and because insufficient attempts are made to try to account for the costs of the lost forests, pollution, etc. associated with the logging and paper manufacturing industry.
I thought companies didn’t so much “pay taxes” on stuff they kept in inventory, as that they’re not allowed to deduct their costs in buying the products until such time as they are actually sold, sent back, lost, or destroyed.
Is there really an annual “inventory tax” in addition to this? Is it something various states have implemented, or is this a federal tax?
Short answer: No. Staples is not raping the earth. Staples, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Office Max, etc., etc., are providing products that are in great demand by consumers. They also provide these products at lower costs than smaller retailers. If anyone is raping the earth, (and I’m not saying anyone is or is not) it is consumer demand: “we have met the enemy and he is us” (apologies to Walt Kelley).
Why are the protesters targeting Staples? Because they’ve had trouble reaching the average consumer, because it’s easier to target one retailer than many consumers, because the same tactics have already won major concessions from Home Depot, Lowe’s, 84 Lumber, and other large retailers of wood-based products, and because Staples’ buying policies affect a significant portion of the paper market.
Will the protesters be successful? Most likely they will, at least in the short term. Staples will likely at least pay lip-service to the protesters’ demands, annouce that by 2003 or some such date that Staples will buy x% of post-consumer recycled content and * will prefer* to get other materials from certified and non-threatened forests. However, at present, the supply of this type of material is limited, giving Staples an “out” when although they’d prefer to get “green” material, they cannot find enough.
Have TPTB produced a recycled paper that will feed through ordinary laser and inkjet printers? If not, then the environmentalists might be more effective picketing outside Hewlett-Packard instead of Staples.
The environmentalists might also be more effective by trying starting a “quit printing out every e-mail you get” campaign aimed at corporate America. I am a white-collar worker and the amount of paper wasted in a single day is obscene.
Value of company at beginning of fiscal year - value at end = gain or loss.
Gains are taxed, losses are deductible.
Inventory is part of that value. Therefore you want to sell everything you buy.
Also poorly selling product still cost money to purchase, it costs money to have employees account for it during inventories, somone to add it to product lists and databases, etc, etc. It gets ugly when you look at the big picture
This is strange – I was in a Staples a few weeks ago and they had scads of recycled paper in big displays all along the front of the store. I remember observing that it was much more expensive than regular paper and wondering who would really buy it in any large quantity. Most likely, environmentalists buy it one ream at a time (whoopee…) and some office managers cheerfully pay the higher price since it’s the company’s money anyway.
