A Case Discussion on Market-Based Extended Producer Responsibility

The Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act

Işıl Alev, Natalie Huang, Atalay Atasu, L. Beril Toktay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In this article, we analyze the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act to explore the benefits and potential drawbacks of a market-based extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation implementation with operational flexibility for manufacturers. Based on publicly available reports and stakeholder interviews, we find that the Minnesota Act attains two key goals of market-based EPR (i.e., higher cost efficiencies and substantial landfill diversion); however, this may come at the expense of selective collection and recycling, an increased burden on local governments, and a loss of balance in contractual power between stakeholders. We observe that these concerns arise because of specific flexibility provisions afforded to manufacturers that allow them to operationalize their EPR compliance with a cost-efficiency focus. Thus, we conclude that EPR goals must be carefully translated into operating rules in order to achieve goals while avoiding unintended consequences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)208-221
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Industrial Ecology
Volume23
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

recycling
producer
act
electronics
responsibility
market
stakeholder
flexibility
efficiency
costs
cost
local government
compliance
landfill
legislation
interview

Keywords

  • State of Minnesota
  • e-waste
  • electrical and electronic equipment
  • environmental policy
  • extended producer responsibility (EPR)
  • industrial ecology

Cite this

A Case Discussion on Market-Based Extended Producer Responsibility : The Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act. / Alev, Işıl; Huang, Natalie; Atasu, Atalay; Toktay, L. Beril.

In: Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 23, No. 1, 01.02.2019, p. 208-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a109a861c9de420984f27372c2258f0c,
title = "A Case Discussion on Market-Based Extended Producer Responsibility: The Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act",
abstract = "In this article, we analyze the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act to explore the benefits and potential drawbacks of a market-based extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation implementation with operational flexibility for manufacturers. Based on publicly available reports and stakeholder interviews, we find that the Minnesota Act attains two key goals of market-based EPR (i.e., higher cost efficiencies and substantial landfill diversion); however, this may come at the expense of selective collection and recycling, an increased burden on local governments, and a loss of balance in contractual power between stakeholders. We observe that these concerns arise because of specific flexibility provisions afforded to manufacturers that allow them to operationalize their EPR compliance with a cost-efficiency focus. Thus, we conclude that EPR goals must be carefully translated into operating rules in order to achieve goals while avoiding unintended consequences.",
keywords = "State of Minnesota, e-waste, electrical and electronic equipment, environmental policy, extended producer responsibility (EPR), industrial ecology",
author = "Işıl Alev and Natalie Huang and Atalay Atasu and Toktay, {L. Beril}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jiec.12721",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "208--221",
journal = "Journal of Industrial Ecology",
issn = "1088-1980",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Case Discussion on Market-Based Extended Producer Responsibility

T2 - The Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act

AU - Alev, Işıl

AU - Huang, Natalie

AU - Atasu, Atalay

AU - Toktay, L. Beril

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - In this article, we analyze the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act to explore the benefits and potential drawbacks of a market-based extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation implementation with operational flexibility for manufacturers. Based on publicly available reports and stakeholder interviews, we find that the Minnesota Act attains two key goals of market-based EPR (i.e., higher cost efficiencies and substantial landfill diversion); however, this may come at the expense of selective collection and recycling, an increased burden on local governments, and a loss of balance in contractual power between stakeholders. We observe that these concerns arise because of specific flexibility provisions afforded to manufacturers that allow them to operationalize their EPR compliance with a cost-efficiency focus. Thus, we conclude that EPR goals must be carefully translated into operating rules in order to achieve goals while avoiding unintended consequences.

AB - In this article, we analyze the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act to explore the benefits and potential drawbacks of a market-based extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation implementation with operational flexibility for manufacturers. Based on publicly available reports and stakeholder interviews, we find that the Minnesota Act attains two key goals of market-based EPR (i.e., higher cost efficiencies and substantial landfill diversion); however, this may come at the expense of selective collection and recycling, an increased burden on local governments, and a loss of balance in contractual power between stakeholders. We observe that these concerns arise because of specific flexibility provisions afforded to manufacturers that allow them to operationalize their EPR compliance with a cost-efficiency focus. Thus, we conclude that EPR goals must be carefully translated into operating rules in order to achieve goals while avoiding unintended consequences.

KW - State of Minnesota

KW - e-waste

KW - electrical and electronic equipment

KW - environmental policy

KW - extended producer responsibility (EPR)

KW - industrial ecology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041071356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041071356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jiec.12721

DO - 10.1111/jiec.12721

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 208

EP - 221

JO - Journal of Industrial Ecology

JF - Journal of Industrial Ecology

SN - 1088-1980

IS - 1

ER -