The Role of Collective versus Individual Producer Responsibility in e-Waste Management: Key Learnings from Around the World

Dempsey, Mark; McIntyre, Kirstie

doi:10.1039/9781847559197-00212

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are some national WEEE implementations, both within and outside of the EU, that attempt to either count or separate each producer's branded products within WEEE with varying degrees of success. Examples exist in Japan, the United States (Maine), The Netherlands, and for power tools in Germany (Dempsey and McIntyre ; INSEAD IPR Network ). While interesting, approaches allowing producers to separate out their brands have been limited due to cost.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mayers

Lifset

Bodenhoefer

et al. 2012

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mayers

Lifset

Bodenhoefer

et al. 2012

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Competitive strategies are supported because they have been shown to be lower cost to run and make producers directly responsible for the costs of recycling their own brands promotes design for recycling (Dempsey and McInryre 2009). Additionally, Janse van Rensburg has developed a ''recipe'' for e-waste management in developing countries, which suggests valuable aspects such as refurbishing and the sale of PC boards subsidize the costs of negative value components such as CRT screens (Janse van Rensburg, personal communication, 2010).…”

Section: The South African Weee Producers' Forummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Separate collection systems are established, and management is either overseen by the producer or contracted out to a third party (Dempsey and McInryre 2009). These systems are typically funded by a pre-disposal fee (in South African terms, pay-as-you-recycle), and recyclers compete to receive waste at the lowest cost to the manufacturer.…”

Section: Trends In E-waste Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition

Lawhon

2012

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socio-technical transition theory is increasingly being used in research and practice to explain and guide transitions toward sustainability. Although recognizing the coevolution of technology and society, multi-scalar influences, and complex social processes, transition theory has thus far inadequately accounted for the role of power and in shaping transitions. This study uses the example of the transition-in-progress toward more sustainable e-waste practices in South Africa as one illustration of how power shapes the successes, failures, and direction of transitions. I look specifically at three transition arenas that are competing for legitimacy to guide the South African e-waste transition and show how their history, membership, and rules of participation shape the different pathways promoted by these organizations. In the South African case, vested interests and constraints on participation resulted in the splintering of original transition arena. While socio-technical transition theory suggests the importance of different competing niche experiments, in this case, different pathways are being promoted by different coalitions of actors through different arenas. The presence of multiple arenas and pathways has divided resources, created confusion, and arguably delayed the transition. Further, the scope for participation in these organizations differs, and this has implications for the redistribution of power. I suggest the need to more carefully consider the role of power, trust, and legitimacy within socio-technical transition theory and specifically within the transition arena. Importantly, analyzing the transition arena as a site of contestation over the distribution of costs and benefits of the particular pathway will enhance socio-technical transition theory's explanatory power regarding how and why particular outcomes emerge.

show abstract

“…Much effort has been put into developing strategies to internalize economic costs through subsidies to make e-waste recycling financially viable in the Global North, again in line with EM (cf Dempsey and McIntyre, 2009). Specifically, extended producer responsibility as a strategy for cost internationalization has been closed linked to EM (Deutz and Frostick, 2009).…”

Section: Em and E-wastementioning

confidence: 99%

Dumping Ground or Country-in-Transition? Discourses of E-Waste in South Africa

Lawhon

2013

Environ Plann C Gov Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic waste (e-waste) has become a point of interest for social and technical scientists, activists, and policy-makers. In South Africa, researchers, consultants and industry have worked together to develop plans for modernizing the e-waste industry while, at the same time, a group of activists connected to the global environmental justice movement is concerned with the illegal import of e-waste into South Africa. In this paper, I show how the discourses of ecological modernisation and environmental justice have been mobilized by these two different groups. The discourses have contrasting evaluations of the role of technology, relationship with the state, and the role of political economy which shape interactions between the discourses and discourse coalitions. Despite these differences, productive engagements exist. I suggest that understanding these differences can improve this engagement and contribute to more successful e-waste policy and management in the South African context and more widely.

show abstract

The Role of Collective versus Individual Producer Responsibility in e-Waste Management: Key Learnings from Around the World

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

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

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

Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition

Dumping Ground or Country-in-Transition? Discourses of E-Waste in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About