The Great Disposable Diaper Debate
In the late 1980's, environmentalists raised concerns about the disposal of diapers in municipal landfills, space for which is becoming scarce. The average infant uses 7,800 diapers in the first 130 weeks of life.
The debate over disposable diapers was complex. Disposable diapers account for just 2 percent of municipal solid waste. The time required for plastic to break down is 200 to 500 years. Eighteen billion disposable diapers go into landfills each year, An Arthur D. Little study comparing the environmental impact of cloth and disposable diapers over the products' lifetimes found cloth diapers consumer more energy and water than disposables. Cloth diapers also cost more (not counting diaper-service fees) and create more air and water pollution through washing. Critics point out that the study was commissioned by Proctor and Gamble, the largest maker of disposable diapers, with 50 percent of the market. However, the study was a sophisticated "life-cycle analysis" that used elaborate computer models, and Arthur D. Little, although now defunct, was considered an eminent research firm.
In surveys in the early 1990s, four of five American parents preferred disposables. Most hospital staffs and daycare centers favor using disposables, even though many personally use cloth diapers. Switching from disposable to cloth diapers costs about 2.5% more. The disposability of the diapers was also improving, with companies devoting significant R&D dollars to reducing the time for biodegradation. Proctor & Gamble created advanced techniques for industrial composting of solid waste and spent $20 million to develop diapers that break down into humus.
Environmentalists, however, were quite successful in obtaining regulation of disposables. Twenty states considered taxes or complete bans on disposables. Nebraska banned non-biodegradable disposables, with a low that took effect in October, 1993. Maine required day care centers to accept children who wore cloth diapers. New York considered requiring that new mothers be given information explaining the environmental threat of disposables. In 1990, the Wisconsin legislature barely defeated a measure to tax disposables.
Alternative to disposables were being developed. R. Med. International distributes Tender Care, a disposable diaper that degrades in two to five years because its outer lining is made of corn starch. However, the price of these diapers is substantially higher than that of other disposables and made mass market appeal impossible.
The Great Disposable diaper Debate peaked on Earth Day, 1990. After the Little Study appeared, parents' guilt about rain forests and landfills was relieved, and by 1997, 80 percent of all babies were wearing disposables. Many attribute the change in attitude as well as the halt in regulatory and legislative action to Proctor & Gamble's effective public relations using the Little Study results. Also, Allen Hershkowitz, as senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, "The pediatric dermatology clearly seemed to favor disposables, while the environmental issued were murky." Environmentalists referred to Mr. Hershkowitz as "the skipper of the Exxon Valdez."
During the 1990s, all disposable diaper manufacturers were able to develop materials that were much thinner and lighter than their predecessors. Not only were the diapers decomposing faster, but they also took up less room in the landfills.
By 1997, the National Association of Diaper Services (NADS) reported its membership at an all-time low, with closing of diaper services even in ecologically conscious Boston. There are no diaper services located in any of New York City's five boroughs. Their current marketing campaign emphasizes a two-year guarantee for potty-training with diapers free after that. Babies, the NADS says, can't feel the wetness in disposables.
The Internet has created a new submarket for cloth diapers because the network of parents who prefer cloth diapers is so easily connected. The two national companies remain Mother-ease of New York, and Kooshies Baby Products of Ontario, Canada, but there are several small companies, including Darla's Place, based in Imlay City Michigan. Founded by Darla Sowders because of her frustration with the national brands, the company uses at-home mothers to sew its product, which captures the market for used diapers. The diapers are sewn a certain way that customers say prevents leaks. The brand is regarded as the "champagne" of diapers and sells at a premium above other diapers in the submarket. Despite this activity, Kimberly-Clark indicates that there is no change in demand for cloth diapers or any reduction in the use of disposables. 4 P&G reports sagging diaper sales, and is competing with a new premium brand marketed as an item of clothing.
References:
Case: Jennings, M. (2009). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings 6th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western
Citations:
1. Arthur Little declared bankruptcy in January 2002. Jonathon Glatter, "Arthur D. Little Plans Bankruptcy Filing," New York Times, February 6, 2002, p. C4
2. Zachary Schiller, "Turning Pampers into Plant Food?" Business Week, October 22, 1990, 38.
3. Kathleen Deveny, "States Mull Rask of diaper Regulations," Wall Street Journal, June 15, 1990, p. 81
4. Lisa Latham, "The Diaper Rush of 1999: Cloth Makes a Comeback on the Net," New York Times, September 19, 1999.
5. Emily Nelson, "Diaper Sales Sagging, P&G Thinks Young to Reposition Pampers," Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2001, pp. A1-2.
Questions:
1. Did Arthur D. Little have a conflict of interest with Proctor & Gamble's sponsorship of its work?
2. Would it be a breach of duty to the hospital's patients and shareholders to adopt a position (that is, using cloth diapers) that increases costs?
3. Do people ignore environmental issues for the sake of convenience? arguments depend on whether you must change diapers?
4. What lessons are learned from this case for applicability to other industries?
5. Did environmentalists exaggerate?