20 research outputs found

    Producer responsibility for WEEE as a driver of ecodesign: Case studies of business responses to producer responsibility charges

    Get PDF
    Due to potential environmental, resource and health problems associated with waste, waste minimisation is a prioritised waste management strategy in many countries. Producer responsibility policies promote waste minimisation by stipulating separate collection and recycling of particular waste streams. In addition, a purpose of the policy is to encourage product development that reduces waste generation and improves recyclability. It is sometimes assumed that the financial responsibility assigned to producers for collection and recycling of their end-of-life products will instigate waste minimising product development in order to reduce costs. However, this view has also been contested. Following the adoption of the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC) all EU member states have to implement producer responsibility for WEEE. Taking a qualitative multiple case study approach, this study explores company responses to the costs of existing national producer responsibility policies for WEEE in relation product development. The purpose is to inform policy-making on the effectiveness of producer responsibility charges in achieving waste minimising product development. The study comprises both large companies and SMEs in the lighting equipments sector. It also includes companies in EU member states without producer responsibility for WEEE in order to see if there are any differences in waste-minimising product design among countries and if national policies have an impact beyond national borders. Economic principles and previous research findings on ecodesign make up the analytical framework for the study. Quantitative data on cost-benefits of ecodesign and waste minimisation achievements were scarce. However, the company responses show that the costs imposed on the producers by the WEEE policy have had little effect on product development so far. The costs can generally be transferred to customers via product prices. The price increases were generally small and without any negative effects on competitiveness. Other drivers such as bans on certain substances, environmental industry product declarations, commercial advantages including direct customer demands from for instance public procurers, are more effective

    Product service systems for household waste prevention

    Get PDF
    Waste prevention is the prioritized waste management option within EU waste policy. There is however a scarcity of research on and policy measures for waste prevention. Improved resource productivity in consumption practices may prevent waste. Literature suggests that Product Service Systems (PSS, ‘a marketable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user’s needs’ (Goedkoop et al. 1999)) have potential for increased resource productivity compared with self-servicing (households owning material artefacts and using them to perform household tasks themselves), and therefore potential for waste prevention. However, the potential of PSS is uncertain due to a lack of well-reported quantitative assessments. Moreover, the potential is predicated on particular behaviours of self-servicing households and PSS providers concerning their choice and management of material artefacts. This research, therefore, aims to assess the utility of the PSS concept for achieving household waste prevention in the UK with a view to informing policy-makers. Three objectives address the aim, namely to: identify attitudes towards PSS adoption and behaviours concerning choice and management of material artefacts which influence the waste prevention and wider environmental performance of PSS; the waste prevention potential of experimental PSS; identify the environmental potential of experimental PSS. An exploratory mixed-methods research design was used to address the objectives, comprising focus groups, interviews, a survey, document studies, development of a model for waste prevention assessment and a simplified life cycle approach using life cycle indicators. The context was a national property development firm and households on new housing developments built by the firm. Experimental PSS, for potential provision by the property development firm were developed for four household tasks to enable the assessments, namely garden maintenance, home improvement, house cleaning and laundry. The households, the property development firm and its supply chain expressed reluctance towards adopting PSS. Reported behaviours concerning choice and management of material artefacts partly confirmed and partly diverged from the propositions in the PSS literature. For almost all propositions, there were diverging behaviours. PSS for all household tasks except house cleaning had some although modest waste prevention potential. PSS led to increases in some types of emissions in most of the assessed scenarios. Increased emissions mainly arose from the transport for the delivery of PSS. Due to the increase in some emissions, it is uncertain whether PSS qualifies as waste prevention according to the legal definition. The waste prevention and environmental potential depend on the organisation of PSS. Moreover, the behaviours of service providers in particular are uncertain. Despite the modest potential for household waste prevention PSS could have a role as one in a suite of waste prevention measures. However, due to the uncertainty of the potential it might be inappropriate for policy-makers to promote adoption of PSS currently. Adoption of household services provided by local service providers may however increase. Policy-makers should consider promoting the environmental sustainability of both self-servicing households and of commercial household services. Policy-measures are proposed. The PSS concept is critiqued and the term PSS rejected. It is suggested PSS are services

    Promoting sustainable resource use through product service systems.

    Get PDF
    In a world of declining prices for manufactured goods and increased global competition, many manufacturers have developed a range of services that complement and in certain instances replace traditional products, in an attempt to maintain or boost profitability. Resultant products have been classified as Product Service Systems (PSS) and comprise both an tangible artefact and intangible service, which are conflated through business processes to deliver value to customers. Research suggests that the environmental performance of PSS may be significantly better than that of traditional products. Theoretically, improvements in resource productivity that might be gained from use of PSS as opposed to traditional products are potentially enormous: somewhere between a factor of 10 and 20. To realise these environmental benefits, there is a need to identify instances where conventional material products can be substituted by PSS. This will depend on the criteria upon which consumers’ decisions are made. One prominent theory of decision-making assumes that a decision to buy is based on the performance of product or service against well-defined criteria, such as price and quality. An analytical technique is required to enable consideration of multi-criteria and provide information regarding the relative importance of each criterion. A review of the literature was undertaken to identify suitable methodologies for this study. Three techniques were identified as being appropriate, namely: Choice Experiments (CE); Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT); and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP was seen to be a suitable tool to enable consumers to compare product service systems with traditional products and identify substitutions, as it is a robust method that is particularly suited to decisions made with limited informati
    corecore