So I don't buy it that large companies have more or better R&D than smaller ones--they are about six of one, half-doz. t'other in my experience, it's all in whether the hiring manager has good judgment and how the company is run.
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with this statement. Technology is not stagnant. It certainly does make a big difference in what the management focus is, but the larger companies have more money to spend on R&D. In my opinion, a smaller company struggling to survive just can't put the focus on R&D that the larger ones can. Oh a company whose business model is R&D is an exception, but I'm speaking in general. After all, Frito Lay came up with the fully compostable chip bag, it was not a small struggling-to-survive company.
I was speaking in general, not specifically about recycling bottles. While there may be a current government approved standard on how to recycle according to a certain technology, I feel confident somebody is doing research for ways to improve the technology, whether that is reducing the cost, increasing the recyclables content, make the final product function better, or some other improvement. From Hattie's articles, it is pretty clear that Coke's technology was considered a plus for this deal.
I don't know what Coke's current intensions are. I certainly don't know what the intensions of whoever will be in charge three or four years from now will be. I do not buy in that all people at the top of big corporations are bent on destroying the world, no matter what. They are human beings and as such are complex beings. Some I despise for their morals, but I can think of a few people very active in churches that I despise for their morals. It is not limited to big corporations. I'll use Dave OReilly as an example. He is the former CEO of Chevron. Despite what you think of big oil, he had a strong personal commitment to safety on the job site. That went beyond people not getting hurt to protection of the environment. He had to sell it to the board of directors and his top management as helping Chevron's bottom line, but it was obvious he also thought it was the right thing to do. The number of deaths and injuries as well as the number of incidences and the amount of hydrocarbons spilled dropped tremendously under his guidance. I'm not just talking about gas stations where you fill up your car. I'm talking about drilling, production, refining, and distribution operations. Do I claim he was a saint every way? Absolutely not. He was good enough at the political infighting to become CEO. But once he got to a position where he could make a difference, he made a change for the good of the environment in the way Chevron operated. And because he became top dog at Chevron, he was in a position to do some good.
I realize this example may turn this thread into a rant against big oil. Hattie, if it does, I apologize. I'm just trying to use a real life example that I have some personal knowledge of to make a point.
More of my personal opinion, but I think we can come up with a better results working with the big corporations in getting them to work with us instead of automatically creating an adversarial relationship where people are trying to destroy them. Yes, it is a lot harder to work with them than work against them. This approach is not as politically correct. Yes, you have to show that this change will help the bottom line, whether it is a more cost efficient way to operate or it improves public opinion of them enough that people will preferentially buy their product, even at a higher cost. Yes, you still need people jumping all over the big corporations whenever they mess up so public opinion makes a difference to their bottom line, whether it is Big Oil, Coke, Walmart, or many, many others. They have to be held accountable. I am cynical enough to expect the worst, but I am not totally without hope.
) and in my experience, it's all in who you know. Smaller startups can collaborate or form partnerships, get SBIR grants that the bigger companies don't qualify for, and if they stay well-connected to universities and similar places that do all that stuff, it's not difficult for them to get research done on the cheap. They also follow up better on projects, there's less leeway for messing around. Bigger companies tend to hire their R&D outright, and because many hiring managers are very impressed by Ivy League degrees (as opposed to, you know, projects that actually worked), they end up with a lot of dead wood in their R&D departments. What I am saying is, yes, someone probably is doing quite a bit to improve the tech, but they most likely are not at Coke--they are at either some other company that specializes in plastics/glass materials, or they are at a university that has a strong materials science program. Small companies like this one tend not to know which companies are doing what, how to approach them, how to find a good university partner to do the work; they don't have a huge amount of experience forming that type of partnership, and it's not a simple business deal. Yes, Coke has technology now, but I can guarantee you they hired a contract research group to build it and install it for them. Their own research is all food science stuff, flavor chemistry type of work.
