Differences in Perception of Extended Producer Responsibility and Product Stewardship among Stakeholders: An International Questionnaire Survey and Statistical Analysis

Different perceptions of the concept of extended producer responsibility and product stewardship (EPR/PS) have tended to lead to prolonged policy disputes and have likely affected the design of EPR/PS policies. We therefore surveyed stakeholders’ perceptions of the concept of EPR/PS, including its aims, application, and rationales, and analyzed 376 responses with regression analysis and cluster analysis. The results clearly demonstrated the diversity in stakeholders’ perceptions and identified/confirmed several patterns between stakeholders’ perceptions and attributes. Concerning aims, our analysis showed that stakeholders from middle‐/low‐income countries placed more importance on proper treatment and waste reduction in EPR/PS policy, while those from Europe, North America, Japan, and the rest of Asia had different perceptions on seven aims of EPR/PS, especially for increasing collection and shifting responsibility to producers, and paid varying attention to upstream and downstream improvement (e.g., better product design and recycling, respectively). Our analysis also confirmed that respondents perceiving lack of capability of local governments regarding waste management advocated EPR/PS more and respondents positive about information acquisition put more importance on physical responsibility. The largest contributing variables to the perception of EPR/PS were 14 specific EPR/PS mechanisms/issues, suggesting that discussion about specific mechanisms of EPR/PS policy is a key if common and better understandings of the EPR/PS concept are to develop. The dominant rationale of EPR/PS agreed upon by the respondents was producers’ capability, but the concept of beneficiary bears was also supported by 58% of respondents, especially by national governments and North Americans. Finally, implications of the results for EPR/PS policy development were discussed.     

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.     

Extended Producer Responsibility in the United States

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach that requires manufacturers to finance the costs of recycling or safely disposing of products consumers no longer want. This article describes the evolution of EPR policies in the United States, focusing on the role of states as policy actors. For their part, federal lawmakers have not embraced EPR policies except to remove some barriers to state‐level initiatives. In the two‐decade period from 1991 to 2011, U.S. states enacted more than 70 EPR laws. In addition, manufacturers have implemented voluntary programs to collect and recycle products, but those efforts have proven largely ineffective in capturing significant quantities of waste products. With the help of new coalitions of diverse interest groups, recently states have renewed efforts to establish effective EPR programs, enacting 40 laws in the period 2008–2011. Several state initiatives suggest a more promising future for EPR.     

Comparative Analysis of Extended Producer Responsibility Policy in the United States and Canada

This article analyzes the policy choices and programmatic elements of extended producer responsibility (EPR) as implemented in the United States and Canada. The article traces the historical development of EPR in each country and defines common features of EPR in each nation. The U.S. states and the Canadian provinces have assumed the primary role, rather than the federal governments, for enacting producer responsibility requirements in their respective countries. However, the paths taken demonstrate several fundamental differences, including the prevalence of individual versus collective responsibility and the financing mechanisms implemented for EPR. Given the deepening experience with EPR and the breadth of its application to a widening array of products in the United States, the Canadian model for EPR is starting to receive more examination from policy makers in the United States, indicating that the policy and programmatic differences between the two nations may eventually be narrowing. The comparative policy analysis is illustrated through the lens of EPR regulatory efforts for waste electronics, with particular profiles of the programs in the State of Minnesota and Province of Ontario. Both approaches broadly reflect many of the policy considerations and governance and programmatic themes that dominate EPR programs in each country. Finally, the article offers recommendations for collaborative work between the United States and Canada to explore consistency between programs and other complementary strategies to support producer responsibility activities.     

An Input‐Output Model of Extended Producer Responsibility

Under an extended producer responsibility (EPR) system, when a producer delivers a product to the market it must also pay a takeback fee, which is used to cover the costs of end‐of‐life disposal. EPR systems are currently used in Europe and beyond to manage a variety of products, including packaging and used tires. In this article we develop an input‐output (IO) model that is able to assess the impacts of an EPR system, and is based on the waste IO (WIO) model. The WIO model is itself a hybrid‐unit model extension of the Leontief model that is able to capture the substitution effect between recycled/recovered material/energy from waste treatment and their non‐waste cognates. The resulting EPRIO model, besides the conventional direct and indirect effects of the Leontief model and the substitution effects of the WIO model, is able to capture the opportunity costs of financing the EPR system, and additionally requires the specification of an alternative waste management policy, with its own opportunity costs. The impact of an EPR policy is thus the difference between the impacts of the reference EPR and the alternative waste treament policies. The resulting model is illustrated with a simple example of a used tire management EPR system.     

Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation

The goal of this article is to contribute to the understanding of how the multiple, and sometimes conflicting, stakeholder perspectives and prevailing conditions (economic, geographic, etc.) in the implementation locality shape extended producer responsibility (EPR) “on the ground.” We provide an in‐depth examination of the implementation dimension of EPR in a specific case study by examining concrete activities at the operational front of the collection and recycling system, and probing the varying stakeholder preferences that have driven a specific system to its status quo. To this end, we conduct a detailed case study of the Washington State EPR implementation for electronic waste. We provide an overview of various stakeholder perspectives and their implications for the attainment of EPR policy objectives in practice. These findings shed light on the intrinsic complexity of EPR implementation. We conclude with recommendations on how to achieve effective and efficient EPR implementation, including improving design incentives, incorporating reuse and refurbishing, expanding product scope, managing downstream material flows, and promoting operational efficiency via fair cost allocation design.     

With a Little Help from EPR?: Technological Change and Innovation in the Norwegian Plastic Packaging and Electronics Sectors

In this article we discuss the interplay between extended producer responsibility (EPR) and technological change and innovation (TCI) in Norway. We ask whether Norwegian EPR policy has an effect on TCI and, if so, whether it makes any difference how the EPR policies are designed. By carrying out a comparative study between the plastic packaging (PP) sector and electrical and electronic (EE) sector in Norway, we conclude that there is a correlation between Norwegian EPR policy and TCI, but the causality is rather weak. EPR has an effect on downstream activities through increased recycling and indirectly through institutional innovation and learning. It does not, however, make a significant difference how the policies are designed, because they are considered similar by a majority of actors contributing financially to the EPR schemes. As for technological change and innovation upstream, the role of Norwegian EPR policies in the observed trends is not significant. Other factors such as the EPR-based Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive promulgated by the European Union (EE sector) and the need for competitiveness (PP sector) seem far more important. In order to make collective EPR policies more powerful in inducing technological change and innovation, decision-makers should consider more specific measures that directly address the core businesses of the producers.     

End‐of‐life product management as a resilience driver for developing countries: A policy experiment for used tires in Ecuador

Over the last decades, a number of new environmental policies have been designed to improve waste management. Among them, extended producer responsibility (EPR) has introduced a mechanism to shift the environmental and financial burden of end‐of‐life products from public management to producers. Recently, EPR has been adopted by a growing number of developing countries, but this policy often struggles in being effectively implemented in such contexts, missing the opportunity of using waste management as a sustainability driver. By discussing the EPR for end‐of‐life tires (ELTs) in Ecuador, this paper proposes a different approach in designing and implementing EPR schemes in developing countries: it recommends consideration of social sustainability, rather than merely copying foreign management frameworks. To address this point, two case studies on socially directed ELT applications were designed and carried out. The case studies aimed at improving resilience of vulnerable populations to natural disasters by increasing the resistance of housing and settlements against catastrophic events using civil engineering applications. The analysis of the case studies’ outcomes brings to light possible policy adjustments, in which social sustainability goals are taken into account within the national EPR scheme. The Ecuadorian case also highlights the benefit of employing an adaptive governance approach when dealing with challenging urban management topics, such as informality (a widespread phenomenon in developing countries) and resilience.     

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.     

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.     

India's E‐Waste Rules and Their Impact on E‐Waste Management Practices: A Case Study

India, like many other developed and developing countries, has adopted an extended producer responsibility (EPR) approach for electronic waste (e‐waste) management under its E‐waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. Under these rules, producers have been made responsible for setting up collection centers of e‐waste and financing and organizing a system for environmentally sound management of e‐waste. In this article, we use the implementation of these rules in Ahmedabad in western India as a case study to conduct a critical analysis of the implementation of India's Rules. Interviews of main stakeholder groups, including a sample of regulated commercial establishments, regulatory agencies enforcing the Rules, informal actors involved in waste collection and handling, as well as publicly available information on the implementation constitute data for our case study. Our results indicate that while there has been an increase in the formal waste processing capacity after the implementation of the Rules, only 5% to 15% of the total waste generated is likely channeled through formal processing facilities. While the EPR regulation forced the producers to take action on a few relatively inexpensive aspects of the Rules, the collection and recycling system has not been made convenient for the consumers to deposit e‐waste in formal collection and recycling centers. Based on our findings, we argue that Indian EPR regulation should go beyond simple take‐back mandates and consider implementing other policy instruments such as a deposit‐refund system. An important implication for developing countries is the need for careful attention to instrument choice and design within EPR regulations.     

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.     

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.     

A Case Discussion on Market‐Based Extended Producer Responsibility: The Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act

In this article, we analyze the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act to explore the benefits and potential drawbacks of a market‐based extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation implementation with operational flexibility for manufacturers. Based on publicly available reports and stakeholder interviews, we find that the Minnesota Act attains two key goals of market‐based EPR (i.e., higher cost efficiencies and substantial landfill diversion); however, this may come at the expense of selective collection and recycling, an increased burden on local governments, and a loss of balance in contractual power between stakeholders. We observe that these concerns arise because of specific flexibility provisions afforded to manufacturers that allow them to operationalize their EPR compliance with a cost‐efficiency focus. Thus, we conclude that EPR goals must be carefully translated into operating rules in order to achieve goals while avoiding unintended consequences.     

Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Savings Potential of Extended Producer Responsibility for Mattresses and Boxsprings in the United States

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation in the United States, which currently only exists on the state level, now includes three mattress EPR acts, which intend to shift the financial and operational burden of mattress end‐of‐life (EOL) management away from local and state government. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the original objective behind EPR is to reduce the environmental life cycle impacts of products. This article therefore quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) savings potential of mattress and boxspring recycling and reuse in the United States and also discusses labor implications and mattress design issues. We find that all three acts are unlikely to generate redesign incentives, but are expected to dramatically increase mattress collection and recycling. The collection and recycling of all 35 million EOL mattress and boxspring units estimated to reach the end of their lives in the United States every year would generate in the order of 10,000 jobs and GHG savings between 1 and 1.5 million metric tonnes.     

Feasibility of Using Radio Frequency Identification to Facilitate Individual Producer Responsibility for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Regulatory measures that hold producers accountable for their products at end of life are increasingly common. Some of these measures aim at generating incentives for producers to design products that will be easier and cheaper to recover at the postconsumer stage. However, the allocation of recovery costs to individual producers, which can facilitate realization of the goals of these policies, is hindered by the practical barrier of identification and/or sorting of the products in the waste stream. Technologies such as radio frequency identification (RFID) can be used for brand or model recognition in order to overcome this obstacle. This article assesses the read rate of RFID technology (i.e., the number of successful retrievals of RFID tag data [“reads”] in a given sample of tagged products) and the potential role of RFID tags in the management of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) at current levels of technical development. We present the results of RFID trials conducted at a civic amenity site in the city of Limerick, Ireland. The experiment was performed for fixed distances up to 2 meters on different material substrates. In the case of white goods (i.e., large household appliances), a 100% read rate was achieved using an RFID handheld reader. High read rates were also achieved for mixed WEEE. For a handheld scan of a steel cage containing mixed WEEE, read rates varied from 50% to 73% depending on the ultrahigh frequency (UHF) metal mount tag employed and the relative positioning of the tags within the cage. These results confirm that from a technical standpoint, RFID can achieve much greater brand or model identification than has been considered feasible up to now, and thus has a role to play in creating a system that allocates recovery costs to individual producers.     

生态产业共生网络形成机理及其系统解析框架

生态产业共生网络是由各种类型的企业通过经济、社会和环境方面的密切合作而形成的企业及企业间关系的复杂系统,其基本出发点是企业间必须具备环境合作,根本目的是提高资源生产力和生态效率。从形成生态产业共生网络的微观要素——企业环境责任入手,从环境伦理的角度阐释生态产业共生网络中企业的五类环境责任,并探讨其形成和运作机制——企业环境责任的市场化运作模式及约束机制。在此基础上,提出了基于技术可行性分析、经济可行性分析和社会环境可行性分析的生态产业共生网络三级解析框架,并对其解析方法做了探讨。     

Swedish Experience Using Environmental Accounts Data for Integrated Product Policy Issues

This article quantifies and ranks the environmental pressure caused by different product groups consumed in Sweden. This is done using information from economic and environmental statistics. An analysis for the year 1998 is performed for approximately 50 product groups using input-output analysis. This type of analysis has some major advantages for integrated product policy (IPP) purposes: the underlying data are regularly updated, the data systems are being harmonized by international standards, and the connection between environmental goals and IPP goals can be investigated. This article summarizes two Swedish reports, one for the Producer Responsibility Committee and one for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. The results show that the volume of consumption is an important factor in environmental pressure from products as well as impact intensities. The most important product categories for private consumption are petroleum products, electricity, construction, and food and beverages, as well as transport. Possibilities of building indicators for IPP are also discussed.     

Original Equipment Manufacturers’ Participation in Take‐Back Initiatives in Brazil

Lax legislation and increasing demand for electronics are driving relentless growth in electronic waste (e‐waste) in the developing world. To reduce the damage caused by e‐waste and recover value from end‐of‐life (EoL) electronics, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have created, over the past decades, programs to divert e‐waste from landfills to recycling and reuse. Although the subject of intense debate, little is known about such initiatives in terms of levels of participation by OEMs or the extent to which they have succeeded in reducing e‐waste in developing economies. To broaden our understanding of these issues, we investigate take‐back initiatives in the thriving market of personal computers (i.e., desktop and laptop computers) in Brazil. Using a multimethod approach (electronic archival data collection and semistructured interviews with manufacturers), we find evidence that large multinational manufacturers are at the forefront of take‐back programs. However, these initiatives in many ways lag behind those implemented in the United States, a more developed market as far as product take‐back is concerned. We find the main reasons for the low levels of participation by OEMs in take‐back programs to be high collection costs, low residual values, and lax, unclear, and conflicting legislation. Moreover, we propose new avenues of research, in light of our scant knowledge of country‐specific, company‐specific, and product‐specific determinants that moderate participation.     

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.