Lecturer: Rike Sandlin
Rivervista Partners LLC
info@rivervistapartners.com
769-218-9825
Highlights:
• Conflict between two groups has been replaced by mutual respect.
• Outcomes of both sets of standards are similar, so either one is acceptable from an enterprise perspective.
• R2 standard was a collaboration of the recycling industry, OEMs, EPA, and NGOs in the early 2000s.
• R2 governance process includes customers, retail, logistics providers, OEMs, recyclers, ITAD companies, security professionals and consultants.
• E-Stewards managed by Basel Action Network which follows Basel Convention Treaty without being part of it.
• Laws must be followed regardless of domestic or international origin for both standards.
• Selection between standards often demand driven based on what enterprise clients require.
Rike’s assessment:
As insiders, you and I recognize there’s been conflict over the years between these two groups. But it’s actually exciting right now to see at least mutual respect among these groups, and so the heat has diminished quite a bit, which is good. But generally speaking, as I mentioned earlier, the outcomes, the results of both of these sets of standards are very similar. So, from an enterprise perspective, I would say either one is acceptable. Either one is good and so there is no need to have both. Although some ITAD companies have pursued both because they want to make sure that they’re meeting the requirements of anybody that’s out there, but because some enterprises have said that you need to be e-Stewards, some have said you need to be R2, so I understand why someone would get both, but frankly they’re equivalent. As an insider in the industry, you know that there’s some governance differences and how these standards are managed. For the R2 standard, the recycling industry was part of that, as well as the OEMs, the EPA as well as NGOs. So, it was really a collaboration from the very beginning back in the early 2000s, when that movement started to create the R2 standard. That collaborative philosophy has continued forward and so the R2 Technical Advisory Committee, the R2 consensus body are very balanced across various stakeholder groups. You have customers, retail, logistics providers, OEMs, recyclers, ITAD companies, security professionals, and consultants. There are a lot of people that have a voice in the R2 governance process. E-Stewards is really managed by the Basel Action Network, who are mission driven, purpose driven. It’s exciting what they’re they desire to see in the world and much of what they’ve done, the results are the same as R2. So, in my mind, there’s not a great difference between the two. There are some cost differences and some nuances that make it more attractive for one or the other for a particular ITAD company, but by and large they’re the same. Their differences are more nuanced. It’s not just trade versus trade bans. The Basel Action Network (BAN), which is very mission driven, is all about following the Basel Convention and international Treaty that nearly every country in the world has signed on to except the US and a handful of others. The issue is that BAN and the e-Stewards program say you must follow that treaty specifically, and you must follow any amendments to that treaty that have occurred, The R2 standard really accomplishes much the same goal more generally and more broadly without being part of the Basal Convention Treaty. It (R2) says if there’s a law, whether domestic or international law, you have to follow. So, if there’s a law that applies where you are, where you’re importing from, where you’re exporting to, you have to follow those laws. And so, from that standpoint, again the outcomes wind up being very similar. But you know this is more of a marketing spin to an extent, that between these two bodies that say one is more restrictive or the other more open. Again if the company is really following those rules, again in the R2 example that they can’t export to somewhere where it’s illegal to export to, even if it’s legal in the US, they’re not allowed to do it in that other country, then that they get to the same point as a strict follower of the Basel Convention, because there are other treaties and conventions: There’s the World Trade Organization, there’s the OECD, there’s various bilateral and multilateral trade agreements around the world. So, it’s difficult to say that the Basel Convention is the only thing that needs to be considered. It’s an important one. It’s a good one, it helps us to prevent dumping on countries that can’t handle that type of equipment and those environmental issues, but it’s not the only thing that has to be considered. And so, from that standpoint, again, I think the results and the outcomes are the same even though there’s been a bit of a marketing spin from each of the organizations. Selecting one or the other standard is likely demand driven. Enterprise clients that prefer one standard over the other would try to meet those requirements. So, it’s that demand side of the equation. What does the enterprise client require?
