Strategic, Financial, and Design Implications of Extended Producer Responsibility in Europe: A Producer Case Study

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation, making producers responsible for financing and organizing take-back and recycling of waste batteries, packaging, end-of-life vehicles (ELVs), and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), has been or is currently in the process of being implemented in 29 different countries in Europe following introduction of European Union directives. This article reviews the potential impacts of EPR for waste batteries, packaging, and WEEE on producers distributing products in Europe through a case study of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE)—responsible for marketing and distribution of PlayStation products.
There are presently more than 250 producer responsibility organizations (PROs) established to meet EPR obligations in Europe, which contrasts to the single national recycling schemes founded in the late 1990s. SCEE estimates it avoided anetcostof €408,000 in 2005 by introducing competitive review of PRO services (against a total net take-back cost of €401,000).To meet increasingly extensive compliance obligations, SCEE has initiated new activities, with considerable implications for the company's legal, sales data administration, procurement, accounting, and product and packaging approval practices.
Considering the ultimate aim of EPR to establish economic incentives for improved product design, several significant political and practical obstacles are described from SCEE's case and industry situation. Although the principle of EPR is indeed interesting, its practical application in Europe may require refinement. Producers, given adequate support by policy makers, still have opportunities to develop new processes under the WEEE Directive to facilitate design for the environment.     

Implementing Individual Producer Responsibility for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment through Improved Financing

Under the European Union (EU) Waste Electrical and Electronics Equipment (WEEE) Directive, producers are responsible for financing the recycling of their products at end of life. A key intention of such extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation is to provide economic incentives for producers to develop products that are easier to treat and recycle at end of life. Recent research has shown, however, that the implementation of EPR for WEEE has so far failed in this respect. Current WEEE systems calculate their prices according to simple mass‐based allocation of costs to producers, based on broad collection categories containing a mixture of different product types and brands. This article outlines two alternative approaches, which instead calculate charges for products sold by producers by classifying them according to their eventual end‐of‐life treatment requirements and cost. Worked examples indicate that these methods provide both effective and efficient frameworks for financing WEEE, potentially delivering financial incentives to producers substantial enough to affect their potential profitability and, as a likely consequence, the decisions relating to the design of their products. In particular they fulfill three important criteria required by the WEEE Directive: they can financially reward improved design, allocate costs of historic waste proportionately (on the basis of tonnes of new products sold), and provide sufficient financial guarantees against future waste costs and liabilities. They are also relatively practical for implementation because they are based solely on cost allocation and financing. Further research and investigation would be worthwhile to test and verify this approach using real‐world data and under various scenarios.     

A Statistical Analysis of Prices of Electrical and Electronic Equipment after the Introduction of the WEEE Directive

In January 2003, the European Union (EU) issued a directive on e‐waste (waste from electrical and electronic equipment; WEEE) to deal with increasing quantities and the included hazardous components. The WEEE Directive is based on the principle of extended producer responsibility, which shifts the responsibility for end of life of products away from municipalities toward producers. This led some researchers to state that, in theory, the costs of waste treatment are passed on to consumers in terms of higher prices. This work addresses two fundamental questions: (1) Did the introduction of the WEEE Directive increase consumer prices of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE)? and (2) how much is this price increase? We carry out, for the first time in the literature, a quantitative research on price variation of the vast majority of EEE sold in the EU after the introduction of producers’ financial responsibility. The panel data include 972 price level indices, namely, six categories of EEE for 27 member states for six years. The main result is that the average variation of the prices for each category of EEE investigated actually increased and the variation was between 0.71% and 3.88%, depending on the specific category of EEE. The average increase of 2.19% is in line with the previous studies that estimated the impact of the WEEE Directive up to a 3% increase of the product price. The t‐test performed on the data shows a good statistical significance, which strengthens the relevance of the results. Finally, future directions for research are included.     

Closed‐Loop Supply Chains for Photovoltaic Panels: A Case‐Based Approach

Photovoltaic (PV) waste is expected to significantly increase. However, legislation on producer responsibility for the collection and recovery of PV panels is limited to the European Union (EU) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Recast, which lays down design, collection, and recovery measures. Academic knowledge of closed‐loop supply chains (CLSCs) for PV panels is scarce. We analyze the supply chain using multiple cases involving the main stakeholders in the design, production, collection, and recovery of PV panels. Our article answers two research questions: How does the PV supply chain operate, and what are critical factors affecting the reverse supply chain management of used panels? Our research seeks to fill the gap in the CLSC literature on PV panels, as well as to identify barriers and enablers for PV panel design, collection, and recycling.     

Business‐to‐Business Information Technology User Practices at End of Life in the United Kingdom,Germany, and France

Business‐to‐business (B2B) electronics account for a significant volume of the electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) put on the market. Very little B2B waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is reported as collected in the European Union (EU) in compliance with the WEEE Directive, which uses the policy principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR) to ensure that WEEE is managed correctly. This presents a barrier to parties looking for access to the waste. Company practice dictates the channels into which B2B WEEE flows following primary use. This article presents a study that engaged with company actors directly to get a better understanding of business information technology (IT) EEE asset management. Data were collected to determine the barriers current practice could present to the collection of B2B IT EEE at end of life and the implications of these for the development of policies and strategies for EPR. A questionnaire was developed and data were gathered from organizations in three EU countries—the United Kingdom, Germany, and France—stratified by size. Some notable findings were that there are several routes by which end‐of‐life B2B WEEE can flow. The recycling and refurbishment of B2B IT units at end of use was shown to be commonplace, but it is likely that these units enter streams where they are not reported. The actors disposing of their units did not have information on the management or disposition of these streams. It is concluded that to achieve the goals of EPR for B2B IT WEEE, the networks and the operational practices of these streams need to be better understood when developing strategies and policies.     

From Legal Transplants to Sustainable Transition

Extended producer responsibility (EPR), which assigns significant responsibility to producers to take back their end‐of‐life products to create incentives for redesign of products with lower life cycle environmental impacts, has come to a crossroad facing a trade‐off between the original innovation‐oriented regime design and the cost‐efficiency challenges in practice. This is particularly true in its implementation in non‐Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) countries as they are trying to transplant the “best practices” from OECD countries, for there is increasing skepticism as to whether EPR is suitable for developing countries at all. As an important producer of electronic products and destination of electronic waste (e‐waste) flows in the world, China has been expected to play a vital role in the evolution of global governance based on the idea of EPR, either to create new ways for producers to perform their end‐of‐life strategies, or to reshape the mode of production and consumption with its fast‐growing market. However, the establishment of EPR in China has been long and full of difficulties. This article reviews the status and trends in the establishment of an EPR system for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management in China. We use the framework of a multilevel perspective of transition theory in our analysis to characterize the complex interactions among various agents in the evolution of the Chinese system from initial innovation‐oriented design to the current efficiency‐oriented version. An ongoing research framework for evaluation of the EPR program in China is outlined as the research agenda in coming years.     

A survey of life cycle approaches in waste management

Background, aim, and scope  

Life-cycle thinking and life-cycle approaches are concepts that are getting increased attention worldwide and in particular in EU Policies related to sustainability. The European Commission is launching a number of activities to strengthen life-cycle thinking in policy and business. EU policies aim to decrease waste generation through new waste prevention initiatives, better use of resources and shift to more sustainable consumption patterns. The approach to waste management is based on three principles: waste prevention, recycling and reuse and improving the final disposal and monitoring. In particular, concerning the prevention and recycling of waste, the definition of a waste hierarchy should be the basis for the prioritisation of waste management options. The benefit of using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in analysing waste management systems is the provision of a comprehensive view of the processes and impacts involved. However, it is also clear that the studies will always be open for criticism as they are simplifications of reality. Moreover, in order to become the LCA, a leading tool within businesses and government to understand and manage risks or opportunities related to waste management and treatment technologies, there are methodological choices required and a number of aspects that still need to be worked out. It is therefore important to review open and grey literatures, EU guidelines, relevant environmental indicators and databases for the waste sector and data easily usable in waste policy decision-making, with an agreed approach and methodology based on life-cycle thinking. The following survey gathers and describes the existing guidelines and methodologies based on life-cycle thinking and applicable in waste policy decision-making.     

A Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Waste Management

This article describes a decision support framework for the evaluation of scenarios for the integrated management of municipal solid waste within a local government area (LGA).
The work is initially focused on local government (i.e., municipal councils) in the state of Queensland, Australia; however, it is broadly applicable to LGAs anywhere. The goal is to achieve sustainable waste management practices by balancing global and regional environmental impacts, social impacts at the local community level, and economic impacts. The framework integrates life-cycle assessment (LCA) with other environmental, social, and economic tools. For this study, social and economic impacts are assumed to be similar across developed countries of the world. LCA was streamlined at both the life-cycle inventory and life-cycle impact assessment stages.
For this process, spatial resolution is introduced into the LCA process to account for impacts occurring at the local and regional levels. This has been done by considering social impacts on the local community and by use of a regional procedure for LCA data for emissions to the environment that may have impacts at the regional level.
The integration follows the structured approach of the pressure-state-response (PSR) model suggested by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This PSR model has been extended to encompass nonenvironmental issues and to guide the process of applying multiple tools.
The framework primarily focuses on decision analysis and interpretation processes. Multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) is used to assist with the integration of qualitative and quantitative information. MAUT provides a well-structured approach to information assessment and facilitates objective, transparent decisions. A commercially available decision analysis software package based on MAUT has been used as the platform for the framework developed in this study.     

Producer Responsibility Organizations Development and Operations

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulations are now in effect in 27 European Union member states and are applicable to up to 100 million tonnes of waste packaging, batteries, automobiles, and electrical and electronic products annually. This article investigates the implementation of EPR through a case study of European Recycling Platform (ERP) UK Ltd., the UK arm of one of the largest producer responsibility organizations (PROs) in Europe, recycling more than 1.5 million tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment to date. Previous research is extremely limited on the detailed operations of PROs. This case is presented as an example illustrating typical operational challenges PROs face in implementing EPR, such as how PROs gain an understanding of the waste management infrastructure and legislation in each country, collect sufficient volumes of waste using cost‐effective arrangements, and maintain uninterrupted collection, treatment, and recycling services. The case study provides new insights and context on the practical implementation of EPR regulations relevant for both policy makers and researchers.     

Recycling plastics from e-waste: Implications for effective eco-design

This paper presents five case studies on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) recycling to provide a coherent overview on the likely impact of eco-design measures on recycling of plastics used in energy-related products within the EU. Whilst some eco-design measures, such as improving disassembly of plastic parts, may generally benefit recycling operations, other measures were found to be ineffective or requiring further investigation. For example, product polymer marking, and provision of product-specific information was rarely utilized by participant organizations, if at all. Additionally, this study highlights a disconnect between the aims of substance bans as an eco-design measure and the impact upon plastics recycling in practice. Future research could help with quantitative and/or statistical analysis of WEEE processing to investigate across a wider selection of recyclers and recycling processes. Despite 20 years of research on eco-design, it appears that EU eco-design policies and voluntary initiatives are still being devised without adequate understanding of their impact on different types of recycling practices. Empirical research on recycling processes can provide important insight to ensure eco-design measures are effective and avoid unintended consequences for the environment.     

Planning Biodegradable Waste Management in Stockholm

The environmental impact of the management of biodegradable waste in Stockholm, based mainly on incineration and landfilling, was compared to systems with significant nutrient recycling; large-scale composting, anaerobic digestion, and separate collection and utilization of urine. The systems' emissions, residual products, energy turnover, and resource consumption were evaluated from a life-cycle perspective, using a computerized model, ORWARE (ORganic WAste REsearch model).
Transportation was of relatively low importance to overall environmental impact, even at high rates of nutrient recycling. This is remarkable considering the geographical setting of Stockholm, with high population density and little nearby farmland. Ancillary systems, such as generation of electricity and district heating, were crucial for the overall outcome.
Increased recycling of nutrients in solid biodegradable waste in Stockholm can reduce net environmental impact, whereas separation of human urine to be spread as fertilizer cannot yet be introduced without increased acidification. Increased nutrient recycling from solid biodegradable waste inevitably increases spreading of metals on arable land. Urine is by far the least contaminated residual product. Spreading of all other residuals would be limited by their metal content.     

Charging up Battery Recycling Policies: Extended Producer Responsibility for Single‐Use Batteries in the European Union,Canada, and the United States

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies have proven effective at raising consumer awareness, expanding waste collection infrastructure, and shifting costs of end‐of‐life (EOL) management from municipalities to stewardship organizations. Yet, such policies have been less successful in advancing waste management programs that ensure a net environmental benefit. This article analyzes how EPR policies for single‐use batteries in the European Union (EU), Canada, and the United States address the environmental costs and benefits of EOL management. Considering these EPR policies is instructive, because single‐use batteries have high collection costs and are of relatively low economic value for waste processors. Without deliberate planning, the environmental burdens of collecting and recycling such batteries may exceed the benefits. This article considers how EPR policies for single‐use batteries integrate performance requirements such as collection rates, recycling efficiencies, and best available techniques. It argues that for such policies to be effective, they need to be extended to address waste collection practices, the life cycle consequences of EOL management, and the quality of recovered materials. Such strategies are relevant to EPR policies for other products with marginal secondary value, including some textiles, plastics, and other types of electronic waste.     

A study on the environmental aspects of WEEE plastic recycling in a Brazilian company

Purpose

The high consumption of electrical and electronic equipment motivated by the rapid technological advances seen over the years has lead to an increase in the generation of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Such residues contain various dangerous substances and therefore deserve special attention. To that end, the Brazilian Policy on Solid Waste has provided guidelines on integrated and solid waste management, such as consumer electronics, aiming at their appropriate disposal and treatment through reverse logistics. In this context, the present work focuses on studying the recycling of some WEEE plastics.

Methods

This study was conducted using the methodological framework presented in the International Standard ISO 14040:2006 and aimed to determine the life cycle inventory (LCI) of a WEEE plastic recycling process in a company in Brazil. Having collected the data, it was possible to identify and quantify the environmental aspects caused by the recycling process of major plastics (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) and high impact polystyrene (HIPS). The study was conducted in the only company in Brazil that operates WEEE plastic recycling in large scale.

Results and discussion

Some of the environmental aspects caused during the recycling process of the plastics under study were identified and quantified. As a result, besides presenting the inventory, it was also possible to determine a reduction in the consumption of energy and in CO₂ emissions. When compared to the production of virgin ABS and HIPS, the recycling processes for such plastics showed a reduction in energy consumption by approximately 90% for both plastics and a reduction in CO₂ emissions by approximately 84% for HIPS and 87% for ABS. The plastics recycled by the company retain over 90% of their virgin mechanical properties.

Conclusions

The study shows that recycling is highly relevant and that components present in WEEE received appropriate destination and treatment. Recycling avoids environmental impacts as it prevents WEEE from being disposed of in landfills and as the pellets of recycled plastics can re-enter the supply chain as raw materials. Considering the legislation in Brazil, the stage of collection/transport/treatment of WEEE conducted by the company under study presents strong indications of contributions to the environment, society, and economy of the country.

     

A Dutch Approach to the European Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Using Life-Cycle Assessment for the Integrated Assessment of Technologies

In light of the European Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC Directive), traditional environmental regulation can be improved using the framework of industrial ecology. The objective of the IPPC Directive is to achieve a high level of protection of the environment as a whole (Article 1) by applying the best available techniques (BAT). In essence, the IPPC Directive obliges member states of the European Union to include considerations such as resources, energy, waste, and multimedia emissions when permitting industrial installations. This is a marked contrast to traditional environmental regulation that focuses on individual media of an individual site. In order to take all considerations into account, an integrated assessment of technologies is needed, for which a standard method is currently lacking.
In this article, a systematic approach is introduced for the integrated assessment of IPPC technologies using life-cycle assessment (LCA), a form of environmental assessment that can be broadened to an overall assessment of environmental, economic, and social aspects. This systematic approach has proven to be successful for the environmental assessment of the described cases. It is suggested here that weighting can be omitted for the evaluation of IPPC technologies. Leaving the weighting step to competent authorities of member states and allowing them to consider local issues provides maximum opportunity for the subsidiarity and flexibility principles of the IPPC Directive.     

Guidance for Improving Life-Cycle Design and Management of Milk Packaging

Life-cycle inventory and cost-analysis tools applied to milk packaging offer guidelines for achieving better environmental design and management of these systems. Life-cycle solid waste, energy, and costs were analyzed for seven systems including single-use and refillable glass bottles, single-use and refillable high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles, paperboard gable-top cartons, linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) flexible pouches, and polycarbonate refillable bottles on a basis of 1,000 gal of milk delivered. In addition, performance requirements were also investigated that highlighted potential barriers and trade-offs for environmentally preferable alternatives. Sensitivity analyses, indicated that material production energy, postconsumer solid waste, and empty container costs were key parameters for predicting life-cycle burdens and costs. Recent trends in recycling rates, tipping fees, and recycled materials market value had minimal effect on the results. Inventory model results for life-cycle solid waste and energy indicated the same rank order as results from previously published life-cycle inventory studies of container systems.
Refillable HDPE and polycarbonate, and the flexible pouch were identified as the most environmentally preferable with respect to life-cycle energy and solid waste. The greater market penetration of these containers may be limited by performance issues such as empty container storage, handling requirements, and deposit fees for refillables, and resealability and puncture resistance for the pouch.     

Toward Trash That Thinks: Product Tags for Environmental Management

In this article, we explore several options for linking information technology to materials and products through the use of bar codes and radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, and the implications for product life-cycle management. We also describe tests with existing and modified tags, both on and inside products, as would be needed for environmental management applications.
Bar codes are cheap and have an existing infrastructure; RFID tags are more expensive and less widespread, but they can be read without a line of sight between the tag and the reader. Bar codes and RFID tags carrying basic product information could link to different databases for a range of applications. Product tags could increase recycling efficiency by automating the sorting of recyclables or by linking to product dismantling instructions during the recycling process. Product tags could provide incentives for good waste management, through Universal Product Code (UPC) bar-code recycling coupons or through RFID tag automatic recycling credits for curbside collection programs. Measures to encourage the development of these types of applications include moves toward competitive, market-based waste management systems, the encouragement of experimental systems, and coordination between manufacturers and waste management industries.     

Comparison of Plastic Packaging Waste Management Options: Feedstock Recycling versus Energy Recovery in Germany

Plastics recycling, especially as prescribed by the German Ordinance on Packaging Waste (Verpackungsverordnung), is a conspicuous example of closing material loops on a large scale. In Germany, an industry‐financed system (Duales System Deutschland) was established in 1991 to collect and recycle packaging waste from households. To cope with mixed plastics, various “feedstock‐recycling” processes were developed. We discuss the environmental benefits and the cost‐benefit ratio of the system relative to municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration, based on previously published life‐cycle assessment (LCA) studies. Included is a first‐time investigation of energy recovery in all German incinerators, the optimization opportunities, the impact on energy production and substitution processes, an estimation of the costs, and a cost‐benefit assessment. In an LCA, the total environmental impact of MSW incineration is mainly determined by the energy recovery ratio, which was found on average to reach 39% in current German incineration plants. Due to low revenues from additional energy generation, it is not cost‐effective to optimize the plants energetically. Energy from plastic incineration substitutes for a specific mixture of electric base‐load power, district heating, and process steam generation. Any additional energy from waste incineration will replace, in the long term, mainly natural gas, rather than coal. Incineration of plastic is compared with feedstock recycling methods in different scenarios. In all scenarios, the incineration of plastic leads to an increase of CO2 emissions compared to landfill, whereas feedstock recycling reduces CO2 emissions and saves energy resources. The costs of waste incineration are assumed to decrease by about 30% in the medium term. Today, the calculated costs of CO2 reduction in feedstock recycling are very high, but are ex‐pected to decline in the near future. Relative to incineration, the costs for conserving energy via feedstock recycling are 50% higher, but this gap will close in the near future if automatic sorting and processing are implemented in Germany.