"
Team:Cornell/project/hprac/economics
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
One major concern of our research is whether or not it will affect the consumer market. We understand the positive impact our work will have on Ecovative's product. However, if consumers are unwilling to pay for the environmentally friendly material, the company's product, along with our research, will not contribute towards a more sustainable future. | One major concern of our research is whether or not it will affect the consumer market. We understand the positive impact our work will have on Ecovative's product. However, if consumers are unwilling to pay for the environmentally friendly material, the company's product, along with our research, will not contribute towards a more sustainable future. | ||
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
| - | To address this issue, we looked into the current disposable materials market and conducted surveys on how the genetically modified product will fit in the market. As it turns out, companies that are heavily dependent on Styrofoam products are seeking an alternative due to rising costs and environmental concerns. In 2012, production companies spent an average of 61% of their income on raw polystyrene material. Environmental lobbyists have pushed for these companies to spend even more money on researching | + | To address this issue, we looked into the current disposable materials market and conducted surveys on how the genetically modified product will fit in the market. As it turns out, companies that are heavily dependent on Styrofoam products are seeking an alternative due to rising costs and environmental concerns. In 2012, production companies spent an average of 61% of their income on raw polystyrene material. Environmental lobbyists have pushed for these companies to spend even more money on researching recycling options. Dart Container Company, which controls 18.8% of the Styrofoam product market, has been investing large sums of money into foam collection centers for recycling. |
| + | <br><br> | ||
| + | Over 200 cities have already banned the material, most of which are in California, home to 12.1% of all industry establishments. Within the last year, Chicago, New York City, and the state of Massachusetts have announced plans to pass legislation limiting the use of Styrofoam products. | ||
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
To combat rising costs and regulations, firms are increasing the prices of their products. | To combat rising costs and regulations, firms are increasing the prices of their products. | ||
| - | According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, bioplastics volume is predicted to grow 30% globally over the next 10 years due to increasing demand for eco-friendly packaging, whereas the projected increase in demand for polystyrene packaging is less than 1%. | + | According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, bioplastics volume is predicted to grow 30% globally over the next 10 years due to increasing demand for eco-friendly packaging, whereas the projected increase in demand for polystyrene packaging is less than 1%. These changes will encourage a decrease in the price difference between Styrofoam and the genetically engineered substitute. |
| - | + | <br><br> | |
| + | Our surveys demonstrated that Styrofoam product consumers are on average willing to pay 50% more for a more environmentally friendly material. Studies done by Ecovative on the price of their product lead us to believe that within the next 10 years, the price of Styrofoam products will equal that of the eco-friendly substitute. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 19:13, 21 September 2013
Economic Analysis
One major concern of our research is whether or not it will affect the consumer market. We understand the positive impact our work will have on Ecovative's product. However, if consumers are unwilling to pay for the environmentally friendly material, the company's product, along with our research, will not contribute towards a more sustainable future.
To address this issue, we looked into the current disposable materials market and conducted surveys on how the genetically modified product will fit in the market. As it turns out, companies that are heavily dependent on Styrofoam products are seeking an alternative due to rising costs and environmental concerns. In 2012, production companies spent an average of 61% of their income on raw polystyrene material. Environmental lobbyists have pushed for these companies to spend even more money on researching recycling options. Dart Container Company, which controls 18.8% of the Styrofoam product market, has been investing large sums of money into foam collection centers for recycling.
Over 200 cities have already banned the material, most of which are in California, home to 12.1% of all industry establishments. Within the last year, Chicago, New York City, and the state of Massachusetts have announced plans to pass legislation limiting the use of Styrofoam products.
To combat rising costs and regulations, firms are increasing the prices of their products. According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, bioplastics volume is predicted to grow 30% globally over the next 10 years due to increasing demand for eco-friendly packaging, whereas the projected increase in demand for polystyrene packaging is less than 1%. These changes will encourage a decrease in the price difference between Styrofoam and the genetically engineered substitute.
Our surveys demonstrated that Styrofoam product consumers are on average willing to pay 50% more for a more environmentally friendly material. Studies done by Ecovative on the price of their product lead us to believe that within the next 10 years, the price of Styrofoam products will equal that of the eco-friendly substitute.
