Extended Producer Responsibility as a Driver for Design Change

2,95

MB

- Utopia or Reality?

349

stron

4348

ID

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics

2004

rok

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

1. INTRODUCTION. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND . 1

1.2 EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 5

1.2.1 What is extended producer responsibility? 5

1.2.2 Intended outcomes of EPR programmes to date 8

1.2.3 Type of responsibilities 12

1.2.4 Multiple policy instruments . 13

1.2.5 Level of coerciveness. 15

1.2.6 Products covered by EPR programmes . 15

1.2.7 Individual vs. collective responsibility 16

1.3 EPR AND DESIGN CHANGE: WHY THIS RESEARCH? . 18

1.4 PURPOSE . 22

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS . 23

1.6 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS THESIS . 26

1.7 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS 26

2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK . 29

2.1 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTERVENTION. 29

2.1.1 Evaluation of public intervention. 30

2.1.2 Dimensions to be evaluated . 33

2.1.3 Evaluation criteria 34

2.1.4 Intervention theory 38

2.1.5 Programme and policy instruments. 40

2.1.6 Evaluation of Environmental Intervention. 43

2.1.7 The roles of mandatory environmental interventions 45

2.2 EVALUATION OF EPR PROGRAMMES. 46

2.2.1 Intervention theory for an EPR programme . 46

2.2.2 Evaluation framework for an EPR programme. 51

2.3 FOCUS OF THIS THESIS 51

3. METHODOLOGY. 57

3.1 APPROACHES COMMON TO THIS RESEARCH WORK 57

3.2 STUDY 1: EVALUATION OF THE PRESENCE OF EPR LEGISLATION 61

3.2.1 Case selection 61

3.2.2 Data collection 63

3.2.3 Analysis and interpretation. 67

3.3 STUDY 2: EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EPR PROGRAMMES. 69

3.3.1 Case selection 69

3.3.2 Data collection 70

3.3.3 Analysis and interpretation. 72

3.4 OTHER SUPPORTING STUDIES 72

4. PRESENCE OF EPR LEGISLATION AND DESIGN CHANGE.75

4.1 STATUS OF THE RESPECTIVE EPR PROGRAMMES . 77

4.1.1 EPR legislation for EEE 77

4.1.2 EPR legislation for end-of-life vehicles 86

4.2 MEASURES TAKEN BY MANUFACTURERS 90

4.2.1 Focus areas. 91

4.2.2 Measures related to design for end-of-life. 95

4.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING MEASURES RELATED TO DESIGN FOR ENDOF-LIFE114

4.3.1 EEE manufacturers in Japan.115

4.3.2 EEE manufacturers in Sweden 128

4.3.3 Car manufacturers in Japan133

4.3.4 Car manufacturers in Sweden141

4.4 INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS148

4.4.1 Goal attainment evaluation.148

4.4.2 Attributability evaluation .162

4.5 THE ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS OF THE STUDY 170

5. IMPLEMENTATION OF EPR PROGRAMMES AND DESIGN CHANGE 175

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF CASES 178

5.1.1 EPR programme for EEE in Japan.178

5.1.2 EPR programmes for EEE in the Netherlands 189

5.1.3 EPR programmes for EEE in Switzerland 207

5.1.4 EPR programmes for batteries in the Netherlands .224

5.1.5 EPR programmes for batteries in Switzerland .234

5.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMMES: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COLLECTIVE

RESPONSIBILITY 243

5.2.1 Collection .244

5.2.2 Recovery .250

5.2.3 Monitoring and enforcement.262

5.3 THE MEANING OF INDIVIDUAL IMPLEMENTATION265

5.3.1 Varying forms of implementing individual responsibility .265

5.3.2 Operational meanings of individual responsibility .270

5.3.3 Implications to current and future implementation 274

5.4 ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS FROM THE STUDY. 276

6. CONCLUSIONS. 279

6.1 WHAT DID THE THESIS ADD?. 279

6.2 REFLECTION UPON THE STUDIES 281

6.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR POLICY MAKERS. 289

6.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE RESEARCH 290

REFERENCES. 293

ABBREVIATIONS313

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES FOR THE STUDY PRESENTED IN CHAPTER 4 .315

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES FOR THE STUDY PRESENTED IN CHAPTER 5 .319