China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Reverse Supply Chain Management
Published in Ifeyinwa Juliet Orji, Frank Ojadi, The Circular Supply Chain, 2023
Ifeyinwa Juliet Orji, Frank Ojadi
The traditional business practices of landfilling products after their useful life are not considered sustainable anymore due to two reasons. Firstly, such practices increase the depletion of natural resources and thereby increase the cost of extracting more raw materials to fulfill consumers' demand. Secondly, such practices destroy the natural ecosystem through soil, water and air contamination. Hence, worldwide business legislations are beginning to force firms to identify ways of minimizing resource consumption and waste generation. For example, the extended producer responsibility (EPR) can extend the responsibilities of manufacturers to the post-consumer stage of the lifecycle of the products. Likewise, the EPR mandated recycling, minimum recycled content standards, energy efficiency standards, disposal bans and restrictions. Advance recycling fee (ARF), advance disposal fee (ADF), virgin material taxes/subsidies and deposit/refund schemes are some of the relevant laws which push manufacturers toward industrial sustainability and reducing solid waste generation. There is an existing solution to both of the above-mentioned problems in the form of recovery-and-reuse policy that reduce both natural resource consumption and solid waste generation. The recovery-and-reuse policy is based on 6Rs that reduce, reuse, recycle, redesign, remanufacture and refurbish. Remanufacturing involves the recovery of used products so as to convert such products into useful products and is regarded as a profitable approach of minimizing natural resource depletion and waste generation.
Removing Carbon Dioxide from the Air to Stabilise the Climate
Published in Subhas K Sikdar, Frank Princiotta, Advances in Carbon Management Technologies, 2020
The problem is that virtually cost-free discharge of flue gas to the atmosphere, as available at present, makes it almost impossible for commercial operations to justify the investment and operating expense of CCS. Future generations will regret this lack of action. One remedy for this would be for governments to incentivise the storage of carbon dioxide and penalise the failure to store it. It would be possible perhaps to adapt the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach which has been used in Europe since the 1990s for the reduction and management of various waste streams and to promote more sustainable use of resources (EU, 2014). Under EPR, regulations might require organisations which extract and/or import fossil fuels to pay the costs of capture and permanent storage of a fraction of the emissions for which they are responsible. Initially, the Removal Fraction (that proportion of emissions that is stored) should be set at a small fraction of the total production, as there is currently insufficient capability to store all the carbon dioxide emitted. Over time, as storage capacity increases, so too should the Removal Fraction. Ultimately, the goal is to match the whole national, and thus global, production of carbon dioxide with an equal amount of storage. The price of fossil fuels would rise under this regime, at first modestly as the removal fraction is small, but ultimately to meet the full cost of capture and storage. However, the scheme avoids the arbitrariness of permits and carbon tax, coupling the consumers’ extra price burden to the actual cost of pollution control (Allen et al., 2009).
Multi-Agent Framework for Distributed Leasing-Based Injection Mould Remanufacturing
Published in Qurban A. Memon, Distributed Networks, 2017
Bo Xing, Wen-Jing Gao, Tshilidzi Marwala
To address the growing problems of diminished natural resources and increased waste, governments around the world have established or proposed stricter legislation to prevent the open-loop ‘sell and forget’ mode of transacting for a producer. That is, producers are required to take responsibility for their products at the end-of-life (EoL). Specific examples of closing such waste-loops cited by Ref. [3] include the take-back obligations on the waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) directive in Europe, extended producer responsibility (EPR) in Japan and Taiwan, and voluntary product stewardship in Australia. These external influences make the companies change their business models in which they replace product ownership with creative service offerings [4]. In this view, products should not be valued for their material make-up but for the services that they provide to the user [5].
Current status of the recycling of e-waste in Indonesia
Published in Geosystem Engineering, 2022
Kurniawan Kurniawan, Muhammad Dzikri Ahira Soefihara, Deddy Chandra Nababan, Sookyung Kim
As mentioned earlier, the more detailed legal framework of e-waste is further regulated in Government Regulation No. 27/2020 (Specific Waste Management Act). The definition of specific waste mentioned in Article 1 Paragraph (2) is waste due to its concentration and/or volume needing specific treatment. In the case of e-waste or B3 waste, as it contains hazardous and toxic substances, it must be treated before it can be thrown away into the landfill. Furthermore, the management of B3 waste consists of waste reduction and treatment. Waste reduction is further classified into the limitation of waste occurrence, recycling, and reuse (Article 6), while waste treatment consists of every step taken to process e-waste from sorting to end treatment (Article 14). In the regulation, every B3 waste producer must conduct waste reduction as stated in Article 6. In addition, the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme has already been organized in this regulation which obliged electronic waste contributorsto collect their end-of-life products from the customer and further process the collected e-waste in an environmentally soundmanner. Besides the EPR, the Ministry of Environment is obligated to ensure the implementation of waste management facilities in coordination with the local government or private companies with licenses. Furthermore, the government has the right to create a grand design of a national B3 waste management plan. In a more specific duty, the public is born to dispose of B3 waste separately from other types of waste.
Coordination mechanism for a remanufacturing supply chain based on consumer green preferences
Published in Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 2022
Li Cui, Xiaoyue Jiang, Lu Zhang, Pan Zhang, Jian Mou
The rapid development of industry enriches our lives but also creates considerable electronic waste, which leads to serious environmental pollution. In recent years, the concepts of sustainable development, green development and resource recycling have gradually become popular. With improved living standards and increased environmental awareness, consumers pay increasing attention to the green degree of products, such as unit energy consumption and unit carbon emissions. Thus, supply chain management is gradually becoming increasingly green. Governments have formulated and introduced relevant regulations and laws to guide green strategy development in the supply chain. Because remanufacturing can substantially save energy and raw materials and reduce pollutant emissions, it is a new way to balance economic and environmental benefits that is increasingly accepted by firms (Zhao, Zhu, and Cui 2018). Increasing numbers of firms have become aware that remanufacturing waste products can not only result in profits but also improve corporate reputation and the ecological environment. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a concept that emphasises the responsibility that the producer should bear in not only the production process but also the entire product life cycle, especially in terms of recycling and disposal after abandonment. Only when members of the remanufacturing supply chain cooperate with each other can they better implement remanufacturing and improve their own competitiveness and profits. Therefore, many firms are urgently attempting to establish coordination mechanisms for the remanufacturing supply chain.
Strategic management of product recovery and its environmental impact
Published in International Journal of Production Research, 2021
Zhe Wang, Yue Wang, Zhi Liu, Jinshi Cheng, Xintong Chen
The rapid progress in technology brings the higher replacing frequency of new product, resulting in the fastest growth in the amount of end of life (EOL) products each year. Extended producer responsibility (EPR), presented by Thomas Lindhqvist in a 1990 report to the Swedish Ministry of the Environment, is an effective environmental protection strategy to solve the problem of EOL products. It holds the manufacturer financial or physical responsibilities for the treatments of EOL products and aims to promote product recovery, thereby minimising the environmental impact of EOL products (Moritz et al. 1997; Van Rossem, Tojo, and Lindhqvist 2006). In the past twenty years, EPR has been widely applied to the field of waste management. More and more countries have incorporated various forms of EPR into their environmental laws (Atasu and Subramanian 2012).