Glastonbury, social enterprise and the end of life.

Sadly I read in the Observer over the weekend that the crowd, Instead of contenting themselves with traditional mainstays (sex, drugs and alcohol) now also seem to have developed a new practice: leaving their tents and many associated possessions at the venue. The result is that this waste has to be scooped up, brought to and thrown into landfilll–at a considerable financial and environmental cost. This story raises an issue we in the social enterprise sector need to focus heightened attention on–end of life disposal of consumer products.

We first should ask the question, “who pays the cost of this wasteful behaviour?”. In one sense it is the festival organisers. Their charges, both to clean up as well as to discard the used tents in landfill will initially be borne by them and in future years ticket prices will be raised in response. Thus, rather typically, the “bad apples” make things worse for the rest, raising prices for all festival goers though benefiting privately. The modest cost of the tent is outweighed by the benefit they perceive in not having to lug home and clean a dirty tent.

How to address this problem? One could imagine an expensive, cumbersome and irritating administrative solution. Perhaps something like those who take tents in have to buy a permit, or pay a deposit, which will be returned when they leave the festival. Some festival goers, the particularly wealthy, lazy or wasteful, will simply leave their tents anyway. Moreover, although this charge might be likely to reduce the cost to the festival organiser, it is certain to transfer it squarely to the local authority, as I have no doubt the tents will merely be disposed of elsewhere, rather than left. But are there other solutions?

Lets consider who else benefits from the current arrangement? The thoughtless and inconsiderate festival goers are one economic “winner”, but are there others? Presumably the manufacturers who produce (one guesses in some low-cost country) disposable tents for purchase near the venue profit from their sale. They pay no price for the negative externalities their behaviour has generated, but capture all the extra profits. Perhaps this can be addressed with an end-of-use or end of life tax charged to the distributor of these tents. If a tax system were really clever, it could be paid to the local authority, should they be charged to clear the site, or hypothecated to some other government department which deals with the environment. Certainly not to the festival organiser, unless they were somehow responsible for the cost of recycling the material. Such tents are too temporary to be re-used, I am told.

Social enterprises and social businesses try to avoid such externalities. One could also imagine a clever organisation doing a deal with the festival, the manufacturer and the local authority to collect these tents and recycle them; but it would probably be best if they were not produced in the first place. Social enterprises succeed by focusing on externalities and then eliminating them, if they are negative. Government could help by being more active in charging for their creation and in rewarding them when they a positive.

We will keep posting on this theme until either the government acts or I am even too old to dream of Glastonbury!