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.
机构:
Southeast Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Nanjing 211189, Jiangsu, Peoples R ChinaSoutheast Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Nanjing 211189, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
Ding, Junfei
Chen, Weida
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Southeast Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Nanjing 211189, Jiangsu, Peoples R ChinaSoutheast Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Nanjing 211189, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
Chen, Weida
Wang, Wenbin
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
China Univ Min & Technol, Sch Management, Xuzhou 221116, Jiangsu, Peoples R ChinaSoutheast Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Nanjing 211189, Jiangsu, Peoples R China