IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i10p4037-d358268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physical Responsibility Versus Financial Responsibility of Producers for E-Wastes

Author

Listed:
  • Hsin Rau

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 32023, Taiwan)

  • Athena Rhae Bisnar

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapua University, Muralla Street, Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines)

  • Jan Patrick Velasco

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapua University, Muralla Street, Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines)

Abstract

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a legislative mandate that requires a producer to be accountable for the whole life cycle of its product—from product design to final disposal. The EPR system is imposed to solve the problem of the growing e-waste in different areas of the world. Different countries have different system designs and approaches in EPR, depending on the country’s legislation, customer demand, incentives, and resources; it can either be a physical responsibility or a financial responsibility. Physical responsibility is when the producers are responsible for the physical movements of the e-wastes necessary, while financial responsibility is when the producers are financially supporting all the costs needed to successfully fulfil the EPR goals. In this study, we will determine which type of EPR system is better by doing a comparison on its social welfare value using a social welfare model. This study uses a notebook computer as an example, and based on our analysis, we conclude that the physical responsibility is better if and only if the rate of return of e-waste is equal to or greater than a certain percentage. Otherwise, the financial responsibility model outperforms the physical responsibility model. A sensitivity analysis is also carried for each parameter used in the two models for determining the significance.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsin Rau & Athena Rhae Bisnar & Jan Patrick Velasco, 2020. "Physical Responsibility Versus Financial Responsibility of Producers for E-Wastes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4037-:d:358268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4037/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4037/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Soo-cheol Lee & Sung-in Na, 2010. "E-Waste Recycling Systems and Sound Circulative Economies in East Asia: A Comparative Analysis of Systems in Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-13, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hilal Shams & Altaf Hossain Molla & Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman & Hawa Hishamuddin & Zambri Harun & Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar, 2023. "Exploring Industry-Specific Research Themes on E-Waste: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-22, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elena C. Prenovitz & Peter K. Hazlett & Chandler S. Reilly, 2023. "Can Markets Improve Recycling Performance? A Cross-Country Regression Analysis and Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Amanda M. Y. Chu, 2021. "Illegal Waste Dumping under a Municipal Solid Waste Charging Scheme: Application of the Neutralization Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-10, August.
    3. Peter Clough, . "Building a Recycling Society: The Experience of New Zealand," Chapters, in: Zhang Yunling & Fukunari Kimura & Sothea Oum (ed.), Moving Toward A New Development Model For East Asia-The Role of Domestic Policy and Regional Cooperation, chapter 13, pages 393-428, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    4. Mohammad Izzat Rasnan & Ahmad Fariz Mohamed & Choo Ta Goh & Kohei Watanabe, 2016. "Sustainable E-Waste Management in Asia: Analysis of Practices in Japan, Taiwan and Malaysia," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Camelia Delcea & Liliana Crăciun & Corina Ioanăș & Gabriella Ferruzzi & Liviu-Adrian Cotfas, 2020. "Determinants of Individuals’ E-Waste Recycling Decision: A Case Study from Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Khor, Kuan Siew & Udin, Zulkifli Mohamed & Ramayah, Thurasamy & Hazen, Benjamin T., 2016. "Reverse logistics in Malaysia: The Contingent role of institutional pressure," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 96-108.
    7. Siow Yue Chia & Song Hong & Stephen Howes & Paul Wyrwoll & Vo Hai Minh & Sun Xuegong & Saroj Kumar Mohanty & Tulus T.H Tambunan & Somchai Jitsuchon & Larry Strange & Chang Jae Lee & Zhang Yunling & Mi, . "Moving Toward A New Development Model For East Asia-The Role of Domestic Policy and Regional Cooperation," Books, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), number 2011-rpr-10 edited by Zhang Yunling & Fukunari Kimura & Sothea Oum, January.
    8. Khor, Kuan Siew & Udin, Zulkifli Mohamed, 2013. "Reverse logistics in Malaysia: Investigating the effect of green product design and resource commitment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 71-80.
    9. Hsin-Tien Lin & Kenichi Nakajima & Eiji Yamasue & Keiichi N. Ishihara, 2018. "Recycling of End-of-Life Vehicles in Small Islands: The Case of Kinmen, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Rui Alexandre Castanho, 2019. "Identifying Processes of Smart Planning, Governance and Management in European Border Cities. Learning from City-to-City Cooperation (C2C)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-15, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4037-:d:358268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.