Comparison of three E-Waste take-back policies

被引:11
|
作者
Shan, Feifei [1 ]
Xiao, Wenli [2 ]
Yang, Feng [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sci & Technol China, Sch Management, Int Inst Finance, Hefei 230026, Peoples R China
[2] Univ San Diego, Sch Business Adm, San Diego, CA 92110 USA
关键词
Take-back legislation; Product recycling; Extended producer responsibility; Advanced recycling fee; Pre-disposal fee; PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY; RECOVERY; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108287
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
In this study, we compare three primary forms of product take-back legislation: advanced recycling fee (ARF), extended producer responsibility (EPR), and pre-disposal fee (PDF). With ARF policy, the government is responsible for product recycling and charges consumers a recycling fee at purchase. EPR legislation makes manufacturers responsible for product recycling and financial support of the take-back system. A PDF policy also makes manufacturers responsible for product recycling but charges consumers a disposal fee when they return used products for recycling. With these three policies as our focus, we examine the impact of important parameters and compare them from the perspective of the manufacturer, the product's environmental impact, and social welfare. Though manufacturers have expressed concern over potential harm to sales under an ARF policy, we find this is the best policy in most cases, from the perspective of social welfare or the manufacturer.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Stakeholder Perspectives on E-Waste Take-Back Legislation
    Atasu, Atalay
    Ozdemir, Oznur
    Van Wassenhove, Luk N.
    PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2013, 22 (02) : 382 - 396
  • [2] Modeling and assessment of e-waste take-back strategies in India
    Dwivedy, Maheshwar
    Suchde, Pratik
    Mittal, R. K.
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2015, 96 : 11 - 18
  • [3] An Operations Perspective on Product Take-Back Legislation for E-Waste: Theory, Practice, and Research Needs
    Atasu, Atalay
    Van Wassenhove, Luk N.
    PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2012, 21 (03) : 407 - 422
  • [4] A Comparison of Product Take-Back Compliance Schemes
    Esenduran, Goekce
    Kemahlioglu-Ziya, Eda
    PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2015, 24 (01) : 71 - 88
  • [5] Waste Recycling under Take-back and Tax/Subsidy Mechanisms
    Tsai, Tsung-Hsiu
    Wu, Shih-Jye
    Hwang, Hong
    E-BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS, 2011, 3 : 293 - +
  • [6] Impact of Take-Back Regulation on the Remanufacturing Industry
    Esenduran, Gokce
    Kemahlioglu-Ziya, Eda
    Swaminathan, Jayashankar M.
    PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2017, 26 (05) : 924 - 944
  • [7] Competition and cooperation in a remanufacturing system with take-back requirement
    Jung, Ki Seung
    Hwang, Hark
    JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING, 2011, 22 (03) : 427 - 433
  • [8] The Effects of Patent Extension and Take-Back on Green
    Shi, Tianqin
    Petruzzi, Nicholas C.
    Chhajed, Dilip
    M&SOM-MANUFACTURING & SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2022, 24 (02) : 810 - 826
  • [9] Varying Lifecycle Lengths Within a Product Take-Back Portfolio
    Zhao, Yuan
    Pandey, Vijitashwa
    Kim, Harrison
    Thurston, Deborah
    JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN, 2010, 132 (09) : 0910121 - 09101210
  • [10] EFFECTS OF TAKE-BACK LEGISLATION ON PRICING AND COORDINATION IN A CLOSED-LOOP SUPPLY CHAIN
    Zheng, Benrong
    Hong, Xianpei
    JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND MANAGEMENT OPTIMIZATION, 2022, 18 (03) : 1603 - 1627