China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Introduction to Circular Economy and Recycling Plastics
Published in Rupinder Singh, Ranvijay Kumar, Additive Manufacturing for Plastic Recycling, 2022
Deepika Kathuria, Monika Bhattu
Another approach to achieve CE at the consumer level is the execution of the deposit-refund system as it enhances the efficiency of collection of plastic waste. The deposit-return scheme is implemented in Scotland to enhance the recycling of used bottles (especially PET bottles). This scheme is designed based on the deposit of 20p on buying a single-use container drink and when the consumer returns the empty bottle he/she will get back the deposit money (futurenviro.es/en/el-sistema-de-deposito-devolucion-y-retorno-aleman-sddr). But this approach in Scotland is only for PET, glass, and aluminium bottles. Germany and 40 other regions had already introduced this system where on deposition of the container, the monetary value will be provided to the consumer. For a returnable container, which can be used many times after washing, the associated value is between €0.08 and €0.15, whereas for a recyclable container (single-use, can be recycled for other purpose) the value is €0.25. Such strategies should be implemented to boost the collection and sorting process and thus adopting such a scheme across the world will help to improve the circularity of plastics (depositreturnscheme.zerowastescotland.org.uk and futurenviro.es/en/el-sistema-de-deposito-devolucion-y-retorno-aleman-sddr).
Enforcement and Economic Incentives
Published in Rengasamy Kasinathan, Environmental Compliance Guide for Facility Managers and Engineers, 2023
These bring together the idea of charges and subsidies. The main form of this incentive is a deposit-refund system. The most widely recognized deposit-refund systems are can and bottle returns that exist in many states. At the time of purchase, the consumer is charged a fee. However, if the bottle is deposited at a recycling center, the fee is returned, acting as a subsidy. This system is implemented on a larger scale as well, for items such as pesticide containers, propane tanks, or mechanical parts.
Optimal choice of power battery joint recycling strategy for electric vehicle manufacturers under a deposit-refund system
Published in International Journal of Production Research, 2022
Xin Li, Jianbang Du, Pei Liu, Chao Wang, Xiaoqian Hu, Pezhman Ghadimi
A deposit-refund system is a combination of two policies: a tax on the purchase of new products and a subsidy on the collection used products (Tang et al. 2021; Wojanowski, Verter, and Boyaci 2007). Many studies have indicated that a deposit-refund system can effectively boost the recovery of used products (Bohm 1981; Numata 2009; Saphores and Nixon 2014). For instance, it has been shown to be effective in increasing the recycling of bottles, such as those used in beverage packaging (Calabrese et al. 2021; Oosterhuis, Papyrakis, and Boteler 2014; Zhou et al. 2020) and waste polyethylene terephthalate bottles (Wang et al. 2020a). In addition, the application of deposit-refund systems to common materials (paper, plastic, metals, and glass) (Cui and Sošić 2019), electronics (Gong et al. 2021) and packaging waste (Abejón et al. 2020; Oke et al. 2020; Warrings and Fellner 2019) has been explored. Empirical studies have investigated the effects of a deposit-refund system in the context of battery recycling. Sigman (1995) confirmed the effects of a deposit scheme on the recycling of lead from automobile lead-acid batteries. The questionnaire survey results in Sun et al. (2015) indicated that consumers are willing to pay deposits equal to 15.6% and 13.6% of the sales price for collecting and recycling used batteries, respectively. The effectiveness of deposit-refund systems for small electric appliances and batteries has also been examined (Linderhof et al. 2019).
Refund policies and core classification errors in the presence of customers’ choice behaviour in remanufacturing
Published in International Journal of Production Research, 2021
Ou Tang, Yang Liu, Zhengang Guo, Shuoguo Wei
Research efforts have been made to improve the process of core returns and remanufacturing (Yang, Wang, and Ji 2015; Mitra 2016; Yang et al. 2016; Kurilova-Palisaitiene, Sundin, and Poksinska 2018; Arredondo-Soto et al. 2019). In the collection and recycling of used electronic products, Esenduran, Kemahlıoğlu-Ziya, and Swaminathan (2017) studied the competition between an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and an independent manufacturer (IR), considering remanufacturing levels, consumer surplus, and the OEM profit. Despite the progress, significant challenges remain in core acquisition and returns. Mismatching core supply and demand is one serious barrier that damages the profitability of both IRs and OEMs (Liao et al. 2020). To encourage the core return quantity and quality in practice, OEMs apply different take-back policies. A deposit-refund system is claimed to be cost-efficient and operationally effective compared to other take-back incentives in e-waste management, such as disposal fees and recycling subsidies (Esenduran, Kemahlıoğlu-Ziya, and Swaminathan 2012). This policy is then the focus of the current study.