Earlier quoted context omitted.
The feasability is the same whether you crush a drive or erase it normally. A serious company would worry about the people who are inside your network reading the live drives, not campfire scare stories about drives magically remembering previous values. Drives are extremely dense. If there were any way to store a value and still have any remnants of the old one, we would have slapped an error-correcting code on it a…
Its not the feasibility of reading previously erased data. The much more simple issue, is that drives that have not been erased look exactly like drives that have been erased. Does the drive contain data? Who knows until you hook it up to a computer. Meanwhile It's very easy to distinguish a drive that has been crushed and can be e-wasted, from a drive that has not been crushed, and can't be e-wasted.
No matter what a drive looks like, you simply erase it again. Does the drive contain data? Send it to erasure one more time, and then it doesn't.
I expect the objection that someone could still mess this up, there is still a risk of an employee being terribly confused and putting a drive directly into the trash, instead of the erase box.
But my point is, if this is a realistic problem with your employees, you have bigger problems. Even if you destroy instead of erasing, your employees could also throw drives into the nearest kitchen trashcan instead of putting them in the destroy box. Your front desk could just let someone through because they had a good story, and they'll make an exception just this time. Your employee clicked on the wrong button and you have ransomware. These are real things that happen every day and result in data leaks.
If erasing drives is too complex to have it handled reliably, the organizational capacity is already too low to handle sensitive data. You will lose the data one way or the other.