The Recycling Spin: Why Your Sustainable Product Is Only 11% of the Solution

---

My NoSmalltalk session with Shashank Noronha

by Albert Schiller

Many of us participate in a daily ritual of conscientious consumerism. We choose the product with the recyclable packaging, the one made with "natural" ingredients, believing we are making a responsible choice that contributes to a healthier planet. Yet, insights from Shashank Noronha, an entrepreneur who has spent over a decade dissecting the manufacturing process, reveal that these well-intentioned actions may only address a sliver of a much larger, systemic failure. His analysis suggests that our focus on the end-of-life of a product conveniently ignores the more significant problems created long before it ever reaches our homes.

Shashank’s argument is built on a stark, uncomfortable fact. When we place our plastic waste in the correct bin, we assume it enters a functioning cycle. However, he points out that "the fact remains that 9 to 11% is only actually recycled". This single data point fundamentally challenges the efficacy of our current approach. It means that for every ten plastic bottles we believe we are recycling, nine are destined for landfills or the environment. Even if a company laudably cuts its plastic use by 95% in its packaging, the remaining 5% from millions of units still overwhelmingly adds to the unrecycled heap. The problem, as he states with stark clarity, "is staggering, and it's compounding". Every new piece of plastic produced adds to the existing mountain, creating a debt of waste that our current systems cannot possibly repay.

This critical observation stems from his four-phase view of a product’s lifecycle: manufacturing, logistics, usage, and post-usage. He argues that the vast majority of companies, and by extension, consumers, focus almost exclusively on the final two phases. We debate the merits of an "eco-friendly" product during its use and the recyclability of its packaging after, but this conversation is incomplete. It willfully ignores the carbon emissions from inefficient logistics and the waste and energy consumption inherent in the manufacturing phase. As Shashank puts it, most brands focus on what happens when the product is in the consumer's hands, because that is where the sale is made. They address the questions a consumer is most likely to ask: "Is it safe for my child? Is it safe for my pets?".

According to Shashank, solving for the final 11% while ignoring the preceding 89% of the problem is not a viable strategy for true sustainability. We cannot solve a compounding problem with a fractional solution. The current approach allows both brands and consumers to feel virtuous for addressing the most visible part of the waste stream. At the same time, the larger, systemic issues at the point of creation and delivery continue unchecked. A genuinely sustainable model requires a radical shift in perspective, one that holds the creator, not the consumer, primarily responsible for the integrity of the entire system. Before we can assess the sustainability of any product, we must first demand a transparent account of its entire journey.

5 Lessons I Learned from this Encounter:

Open Questions for Discussion

1. If individual consumer choices, like buying products with less plastic, have a limited systemic impact due to low recycling rates, where should a concerned citizen focus their energy to combat the "compounding" waste problem effectively?

2. Given that brands focus their communication on the "usage" phase (e.g., "natural," "organic"), what pointed questions can consumers begin asking to demand transparency about the "manufacturing" and "logistics" phases of the products they buy?