Waste and recycling targets are easy to set. Building a system that can process material efficiently, recover usable commodities, control costs, and operate reliably is much harder.

In a recent Net Zero Compare conversation, Brandon Lapsys, President of Viably, discussed the operational and economic realities behind waste-processing and recycling infrastructure. Viably works across construction and demolition waste, food and organic waste, municipal solid waste, and single-stream recycling, providing equipment, integrated systems, and technical support.

The discussion centered on a practical point that is often overlooked: recycling outcomes depend not only on environmental goals, but also on end markets, transportation, labor, contamination, maintenance, technology selection, and the quality of the data used to measure performance.

🎥 Watch the Full Interview: In the full conversation, Brandon Lapsys explains how waste-processing projects are evaluated in practice and why promising recycling concepts can struggle once operational and commercial constraints are taken into account. The interview also covers construction and demolition waste, food-waste processing, equipment selection, maintenance, AI, data quality, and the pressures likely to shape recycling infrastructure in North America over the next several years. For sustainability and ESG teams, the discussion offers useful context for understanding what sits behind the waste and diversion figures that eventually appear in corporate reporting.

Start With the End Market, Not the Equipment

One of the clearest themes in the conversation was the need to work backward from the final destination of recovered material. When evaluating a project, Viably looks at where the waste comes from, what it contains, which commodities can realistically be recovered, and whether there is a viable market for those outputs. Geography matters because both waste and recovered materials can only be transported so far before hauling costs begin to undermine the economics.

That means a facility can be technically capable of separating several materials and still be a poor investment if there is no reliable buyer nearby. Before focusing on equipment, operators need to understand who will use the recovered material, what quality specifications apply, how far it must travel, what transportation will cost, and whether demand is stable enough to support the business case.

Future markets also matter. Lapsys noted that some facilities are designed in phases so additional recovery capabilities can be added later if new commodity markets develop.

Recycling Economics Depend on the Entire System

Environmental benefits alone do not make a recycling project commercially sustainable. The economics can depend on labor, hauling, tipping fees, contamination, equipment requirements, commodity prices, and the availability of dependable end markets.

Lapsys identified end markets and labor as two of the most important considerations, while noting that their relative importance varies by waste stream and geography. Labor extends beyond sorting staff. Drivers, technicians, maintenance personnel, and other skilled workers all affect operating costs and reliability.

For sustainability teams, this is an important distinction. A diversion strategy may appear successful because material is being redirected away from landfill, but the underlying model may still be difficult to sustain if it requires excessive handling, long transportation distances, high labor input, or produces commodities with weak demand. The business case has to account for the entire chain from collection through processing to the final market.

Material Quality Can Determine Whether Recovery Has Value

Recovery rates alone do not show whether a recycling system is working well. The quality of the recovered material can be just as important. For food waste, Lapsys identified plastics, microplastics, and hard plastics as major contaminants. Cleaner organic material generally has access to more potential end markets. Construction and demolition waste presents similar problems. Recovered wood, for example, may contain metal, plastics, or treated material, all of which can affect where it can ultimately be sold or used.

Lapsys said customers producing higher-quality outputs generally have more options for placing those materials. For companies reporting waste diversion or circularity performance, this matters because separating material is not the same as producing a usable secondary commodity. A stronger assessment considers both how much material was recovered and what happened to it afterward.

Construction and Demolition Recycling Is Moving Toward More Automation

Construction and demolition waste is difficult to process because the incoming material is mixed and can vary considerably. When Viably designs new C&D facilities, Lapsys said the company generally favors higher levels of automation and less reliance on manual sorting. Labor is expensive, difficult to recruit, and can limit facility performance. Older facilities can also lose recoverable material when the incoming stream is not adequately prepared before it reaches sorting personnel. If too much material is moving across a conveyor at once, valuable commodities may remain in the residual stream.

More automation usually means higher upfront capital expenditure, but it can reduce labor requirements while improving recovery and material purity. That does not mean every operation should automate as much as possible. The appropriate balance still depends on local labor costs, waste composition, volumes, available markets, and the operator’s business model.

Source Separation Can Help, but It Is Not Always the Best Option

Some demolition projects use source separation at the job site to create cleaner material streams before waste reaches a processing facility. That can reduce downstream sorting requirements, but it also introduces additional costs and logistical constraints.

In dense urban environments, for example, there may be limited space for extra containers, equipment, workers, and trucks. Spending more upfront to create a cleaner stream may make sense if the recovered material has a strong end market, but in other cases centralized sorting may be more efficient. The decision has to be made within the context of the full cost model rather than on the assumption that more source separation is always better.

Food Waste Processing Still Has a Contamination Problem

Food waste is receiving more attention from municipalities, retailers, hospitality companies, manufacturers, and sustainability teams, but collection is only the first step. Lapsys described contamination as one of the biggest barriers to effective food-waste processing, whether material is treated at the source or transported to a centralized facility. Education can reduce some contamination, but packaging design also affects how easily organic material can be separated before composting, anaerobic digestion, or another form of treatment.

For businesses introducing food-waste diversion programs, collection infrastructure should therefore be planned alongside processing requirements. Organizations need to understand which contaminants are likely to enter the stream, what packaging will be present, and what the receiving facility can actually handle.

Technology Selection Should Account for Future Operating Conditions

Selecting waste-processing equipment is not simply a matter of determining whether a machine can handle current volumes. Organizations also need to consider service availability, staff requirements, operator training, maintenance, expected growth, changing waste composition, moisture levels, packaging, and the final destination of recovered material. A business processing one volume today may grow substantially, while the composition of its waste stream may also change over time.

Lapsys pointed to food waste as one example. A stream may shift between pre-consumer and post-consumer material, contain different packaging, or vary in its liquid and solid content. Equipment selected only for current conditions can become restrictive if future growth and variability were not considered during procurement. The better approach is to design technology around the business model and expected operating conditions, rather than forcing operations to fit the equipment later.

Maintenance and Training Are Part of the Investment Case

Even a well-designed system can underperform if maintenance and training are treated as secondary concerns. Lapsys emphasized preventive maintenance, operator training, and retraining. Equipment will eventually require repairs, servicing, or overhaul, while staff turnover can leave an organization without the people originally trained to operate and maintain the system.

Return-on-investment calculations should therefore consider more than purchase price and theoretical throughput. Spare-parts availability, technical support response times, training requirements, employee turnover, and planned and unplanned downtime all affect long-term performance.

A system’s specification sheet may describe what it can do under ideal conditions. Sustaining that performance in a working facility requires ongoing operational discipline.

Waste Data Is Improving, but More Data Is Not Automatically Better

Waste and recycling operations now generate far more data than in the past. Sensors and monitoring technologies can track material at multiple stages, from origination through processing and departure from a facility.

According to Lapsys, the challenge is increasingly not whether data exists, but whether organizations know how to use it. Rather than trying to optimize a large number of metrics at once, he suggested focusing on a small set of data points, understanding what they indicate, improving performance based on those findings, and then expanding the analysis.

That approach is also relevant to sustainability and ESG reporting. Companies may receive extensive waste, diversion, or emissions data from contractors, but additional metrics do not automatically lead to better decisions. The data needs context and a clear purpose.

ESG Teams Should Ask How Waste Data Was Measured

Before using contractor or facility data in sustainability reporting, companies should understand how long the relevant metrics have been monitored, whether the methodology has been applied consistently, and whether the provider can demonstrate how the information has been used in real operations.

Lapsys also cautioned against collecting data simply because it is available. The more useful question is whether the information can support measurable improvements in recovery, efficiency, performance, or another defined objective.

This is particularly relevant when waste data feeds into corporate environmental claims or Scope 3 analysis. A reported figure is more meaningful when the company understands how it was measured and what physically happened to the material behind it.

AI Is Already Present, but Its Value Depends on Execution

AI is already being used in waste-processing operations. Lapsys said many facilities employ some form of AI, although the industry is still working out how to turn those systems into measurable improvements in recovery, purity, efficiency, and overall performance.

AI is also being applied outside the processing line, including in back-office functions and customer reporting. But more advanced analytics do not eliminate the need for operational understanding. The technology is only useful if operators know what they are measuring, why it matters, and how the information can improve the way material is handled.

Landfill Capacity and Transportation Costs Could Drive More Investment

Lapsys expects continued investment in recycling infrastructure across North America, in part because landfill capacity is becoming more constrained. Viably is already seeing more inquiries related to municipal solid waste, organics, food waste, and construction and demolition recycling.

Transportation is another pressure. Moving waste and recovered commodities is becoming more expensive, increasing the incentive to reduce the number of loads, decrease material volume, or process waste closer to where it is generated.

In some applications, that could strengthen the case for decentralized or at-source treatment, particularly where hauling represents a large share of the total cost. The appropriate model will still depend on the waste stream, geography, end market, and the economics of processing.

Companies Should Understand Where Their Waste Actually Goes

One of Lapsys’s final recommendations was directed squarely at sustainability and ESG teams: learn what happens to waste beyond the corporate reporting boundary.

That means understanding where local waste streams go, how they are processed, which end markets exist for the resulting materials, and where operational bottlenecks occur. This knowledge can improve discussions with waste contractors, regulators, procurement teams, and internal stakeholders because it gives sustainability professionals a clearer picture of what is technically and commercially feasible.

It can also lead to more realistic targets. Corporate goals and policies are easier to design when decision makers understand the available infrastructure, the contamination problems facilities face, which recovered materials have viable markets, and where the economics remain difficult.

Conclusion

The strongest theme from the conversation was that waste strategy works best when organizations understand the full system rather than focusing on one stage of it. Recovery targets, equipment purchases, reporting metrics, and landfill-diversion goals all depend on what happens upstream and downstream.

For sustainability and ESG teams, that means looking beyond the reported diversion rate to understand material quality, processing methods, measurement practices, and final destinations. For operators and business decision-makers, it means evaluating end markets, transportation, labor, maintenance, and future operating conditions before committing capital.

As landfill capacity tightens and the cost of moving and processing material increases, organizations with a clearer understanding of where their waste goes and what happens to it after collection will be better equipped to make sound investment and sustainability decisions.

National and North American associations Viably belongs to:

• CDRA - Construction & Demolition Recycling Association

• MSC - Mulch & Soil Council

• NWRA - National Waste & Recycling Association

• USCC - US Composting Council

• SWANA - Solid Waste Association of North America