 Comparison of three E-Waste take-back policiesFeifei Shan, Wenli Xiao and Feng Yang International Journal of Production Economics, 2021, vol. 242, issue C Abstract: 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. Keywords: Take-back legislation; Product recycling; Extended producer responsibility; Advanced recycling fee; Pre-disposal fee (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:proeco:v:242:y:2021:i:c:s0925527321002632 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108287 Access Statistics for this article International Journal of Production Economics is currently edited by Stefan Minner More articles in International Journal of Production Economics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.