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
  • [31] India's E-Waste Rules and Their Impact on E-Waste Management Practices: A Case Study
    Bhaskar, Kalyan
    Turaga, Rama Mohana Rao
    JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2018, 22 (04) : 930 - 942
  • [32] Sustainable management of electronic waste (e-waste)
    Herat, Sunil
    CLEAN-SOIL AIR WATER, 2007, 35 (04) : 305 - 310
  • [33] Changeable closed-loop manufacturing systems: challenges in product take-back and evaluation of reconfigurable solutions
    Andersen, Ann-Louise
    Brunoe, Thomas D.
    Bockholt, Markus Thomas
    Napoleone, Alessia
    Kristensen, Jesper Hemdrup
    Colli, Michele
    Waehrens, Brian Vejrum
    Nielsen, Kjeld
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, 2023, 61 (03) : 839 - 858
  • [34] Production and carbon emission reduction decisions for remanufacturing firms under carbon tax and take-back legislation
    Ding, Junfei
    Chen, Weida
    Wang, Wenbin
    COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2020, 143
  • [35] The challenges and opportunities of the transformation of e-waste into value-added materials: e-waste management approach
    Eman Serag
    Environmental Sustainability, 2022, 5 : 277 - 288
  • [36] The challenges and opportunities of the transformation of e-waste into value-added materials: e-waste management approach
    Serag, Eman
    ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 5 (03) : 277 - 288
  • [37] Increasing diversion of household hazardous wastes and materials through mandatory retail take-back
    Wagner, Travis P.
    Toews, Patti
    Bouvier, Rachel
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2013, 123 : 88 - 97
  • [38] An overview of e-waste management in China
    Lu, Chenyu
    Zhang, Lin
    Zhong, Yongguang
    Ren, Wanxia
    Tobias, Mario
    Mu, Zhilin
    Ma, Zhixiao
    Geng, Yong
    Xue, Bing
    JOURNAL OF MATERIAL CYCLES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2015, 17 (01) : 1 - 12
  • [39] An investigation into e-waste flows in India
    Dwivedy, Maheshwar
    Mittal, R. K.
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2012, 37 : 229 - 242
  • [40] Did Europe Move in the Right Direction on E-waste Legislation?
    Mazahir, Shumail
    Verter, Vedat
    Boyaci, Tamer
    Van Wassenhove, Luk N.
    PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2019, 28 (01) : 121 - 139