Contamination in recycling bins has been in the spotlight lately. As SK Recycles rolls out its program for paper and packaging, cities and regions that chose the “community-led” model are worried about facing fines if contamination exceeds allowable thresholds. Under this system, municipalities (or contractors in the “program-led” model) bear the responsibility for everything in the bin that shouldn’t be there.
It’s got me pondering who should be responsible for contamination…
On one hand, SK Recycles is legally responsible for recycling paper and packaging. Technically, they’re not responsible for handling the non-program materials that make their way into recycling bins. On the other hand, municipalities and contractors aren’t necessarily responsible for that stuff either. Neither of them contaminated the recycling bin – people did that.
So, why do people put the wrong stuff in the bins? Some possibilities:
- They aren’t paying attention (low priority)
- They don’t know what is accepted (uneducated)
- They didn’t mean to (inadvertent, accidental)
- They don’t know where to put non-program items; or they do know, but it’s too much trouble (inconvenience)
- Their garbage bin was full (so much to unpack here …)
Each of these reasons (and I’m sure there are many others) implies a different remedy and maybe also a different responsible party. Not knowing what is accepted is on SK Recycles, yes, but it’s also on their member companies who put the myriad of packaging types on the market in the first place. Even people who really try to educate themselves get overwhelmed trying to figure out what goes where.
Lack of options for non-program items is not on SK Recycles, although it’s not likely on municipalities or contractors either. And if other programs’ inconvenience is causing contamination, that’s on the other programs, who are not even being considered in the responsibility stakes.
And how much do we hold individual people responsible for their incorrect decisions? And if we do hold them responsible, what does that look like?
Historically, recycling programs have relied heavily on education campaigns rooted in the idea that contamination is mainly a knowledge problem. If residents know the rules, the thinking goes, they will follow them. But anyone who has worked in waste diversion long enough knows that knowledge is only one piece of the puzzle.
People make disposal decisions quickly, often while distracted, rushed, tired, or juggling competing priorities. They do not stand in their kitchens contemplating material streams and end markets. They ask themselves much simpler questions: “Can this go here?” “Will it fit?” “Is this close enough?” If the answer is uncertain, many will default to the recycling bin because it feels better than garbage.
That means contamination is not just an education problem. It is also a systems design problem.
When programs are confusing, inconsistent between communities, or unable to keep pace with constantly changing packaging formats, contamination becomes almost inevitable. When the easiest option is the wrong option, people will choose it surprisingly often.
This is where responsibility becomes complicated. Producers now have more control than they did under previous systems. They influence what packaging enters the market, what materials are accepted, how programs communicate with residents, and, in many cases, how collection systems are structured. If contamination rates are going to carry financial consequences, it makes sense that producers should also carry significant responsibility for reducing the conditions that create contamination in the first place.
But municipalities and contractors still play a role too. Collection systems, cart sizes, landfill tipping fees, public space recycling, and local education all shape resident behaviour. A community with overflowing garbage carts and limited disposal options may unintentionally drive contamination regardless of how good the recycling education is.
And residents are not exempt from responsibility either. Recycling only works when people participate thoughtfully. But expecting perfect sorting in an imperfect system may be unrealistic. Humans are inconsistent. Convenience matters. Clarity matters. Access matters.
Maybe the bigger question is not “Who is responsible for contamination?” but “Who has the ability to reduce it?”
Because contamination is rarely caused by one bad actor. It is usually the result of a chain of decisions, incentives, limitations, and system gaps. Assigning liability to a single party may simplify contracts and regulations, but it does not necessarily solve the underlying problem.
If Saskatchewan wants cleaner recycling streams, the solution probably is not stricter blame. It is better system design: clearer programs, better packaging choices, convenient alternatives for non-program materials, realistic expectations of human behaviour, and shared accountability across everyone involved in the system.
