Advertisement

Product Take-Back Legislation and Its Impact on Recycling and Remanufacturing Industries

  • Gökçe Esenduran
  • Eda Kemahlioğlu-Ziya
  • Jayashankar M. Swaminathan
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 174)

Abstract

Take-back legislation holds producers financially responsible for handling and treating their products at end of life. A growing number of countries around the world have enacted such legislation, especially for electrical and electronic products. Clearly, such legislation impacts the strategic and operational decisions of companies operating in the affected industries and the operations management literature recently started to analyze these problems. In this chapter, we provide an overview of existing take-back legislation and the papers that have studied various research questions associated with them. Our focus is particularly on papers that have studied the impact of these regulations on the recycling and remanufacturing industries.

Keywords

Collection Rate Cost Allocation Original Equipment Manufacturer Extended Producer Responsibility Collection Target 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Atasu A, Subramanian R (2009) Competition under product take-back laws: Individual or collective systems? Working Paper, College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. Atasu A, Van Wassenhove L (2010) Closed-loop Supply Chains: New Developments to Improve the Sustainability of Business Practices, chapter Environmental Legislation on Product Take-back and Recovery. CRC Press, FrozenGoogle Scholar
  3. Atasu A, Van Wassenhove L (2011) An operations perspective on product take-back legislation for e-waste: Theory, practice and research needs. Technical report, Prod Oper Manag forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  4. Atasu A, Guide D, Van Wassenhove LN (2008a) Product reuse economics in closed-loop supply chain research. Prod Oper Manag 17(5):483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atasu A, Sarvary M, Van Wassenhove LN (2008b) Remanufacturing as a marketing strategy. Manag Sci 54(5):1731–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atasu A, Sarvary M, Van Wassenhove LN (2009) Efficient take-back legislation. Prod Oper Manag 18(3):243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atasu A, Guide D, Van Wassenhove LN (2010a) So what if remanufacturing cannibalizes my new product sales? Calif Manage Rev 52(2):56–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atasu A, Ozdemir O, Van Wassenhove L (2010b) Stakeholder perspectives on e-waste take-back legislation. Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  9. Clean Production Action (2007) How producer responsibility for product take-back can promote eco-design. Technical report, Tides Center, URL http://www.cleanproduction.org/pdf/cpa$\_$ecodesign$\_$Apr08.pdfGoogle Scholar
  10. Debo LG, Toktay LB, Van Wassenhove LN (2005) Market segmentation and technology selection for remanufacturable products. Manag Sci 51(8):1193–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) Quantitative Models for Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Springer Verlag, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Dempsey M, Van Rossem C, Lifset R, Linnell J, Gregory J, Atasu A, Perry J, Sverkman A, Van Wassenhove LN, Therkelsen M, Sundberg V, Mayers K, Kalimo H (2010) Individual producer responsibility: A review of practical approaches to implementing individual producer responsibility for the WEEE Directive. Technical report, URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698695Google Scholar
  13. Esenduran G, Kemahlioglu-Ziya E (2011) Complying with take-back legislation: A cost comparison and benefit analysis of three compliance schemes. Working Paper, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, OhioGoogle Scholar
  14. Esenduran G, Kemahlioglu-Ziya E, Swaminathan JM (2011) The impact of take-back legislation on remanufacturing. Working Paper, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, OhioGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferguson M (2009) Strategic issues in closed-loop supply chains with remanufacturing. In: Ferguson M, Souza G, (eds) Closed-Loop Supply Chains: New Developments to Improve the Sustainability of Business Practices. Taylor and Francis. OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferguson M, Toktay LB (2006). The effect of competition on recovery strategies. Prod Oper Manage 15(3):351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson M, Guide D, Koca E, Souza GC (2009) The value of quality grading in remanufacturing. Prod Oper Manage 10(3)Google Scholar
  18. Ferrer G, Swaminathan J (2006) Managing new and remanufactured products. Manage Sci 52(1):15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferrer G, Swaminathan J (2009) Managing new and differentiated remanufactured products. Eur J Oper Res page ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferrer G, Whybark DC (2001) Material planning for a remanufacturing facility. Prod Oper Manag 10:112–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galbreth MR Blackburn JD (2006) Optimal acquisition and sorting policies for remanufacturing. Prod Oper Manag 15(3)Google Scholar
  22. Galbreth MR Blackburn JD (2010) Optimal acquisition quantities in remanufacturing with condition uncertainty. Prod Oper Manag 19(1)Google Scholar
  23. Gray C, Charter M (2007) Remanufacturing and product design: Designing for the 7th generation. Technical report, The Center for Sustainable Design, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  24. Groenevelt H Majumder P (2001) Procurement competition in remanufacturing. Working Paper, Simon School of Business, University of Rochester, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  25. Gui L, Atasu A, Ergun O, Toktay B (2010) Fair and effcient implementation of collective extended producer responsibility legislation. Technical report, Georgia Insitute of Technology, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  26. Guide D Srivastava R (1997) Buffering from material recovery uncertainty in a recoverable manufacturing environment. J Oper Res Soc 48:519–529Google Scholar
  27. Guide D, Teunter RH, Van Wassenhove LN (2003). Matching demand and supply to maximize profits from remanufacturing. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 5(4):303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guide D, Souza G, van der Laan E (2005) Performance of static priority rules for shared facilities in a remanufacturing shop with disassembly and reassembly. Eur J Oper Res 164:341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. HECC (2005) Electronic waste: An examination of current activity, implications for environmental stewardship, and the proper federal role. Technical report, house of committee on energy and commerce, URL http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/pdf/109hrg/22988.pdfGoogle Scholar
  30. Heese HS, Cattani K, Ferrer G, Gilland W, Roth AV (2005) Competitive advantage through take-back of used products. Eur J Oper Res 164:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Inderfurth K, Flapper SDP, Lambert AJD, Pappis CP, Voutsinas TG (2004) Production planning for product recovery management in reverse logistics. Springer Verlag, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  32. IPR Works Press Release (2007) Alliance of NGOs and companies express strong criticism on electronic waste report. http://www.iprworks.org/documents/Press%20Release%20IPR%20Alliance%2014% 20November.pdfGoogle Scholar
  33. Kekre S, Rao US, Swaminathan JM, Zhang J (2003) Reconfiguring a remanufacturing line at visteon, mexico. Interfaces 33(6):30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Majumder P, Groenevelt H (2001) Competition in remanufacturing. Prod Oper Manage 10(2):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nagurney A, Toyasaki F (2005) Reverse supply chain management and electronic waste recycling: a multitiered network equilibrium framework for e-cycling. Transportation Res Part E 41:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plambeck EL, Wang Q (2009) Effects of e-waste regulation on new product introduction. Manag Sci 55:333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ray S, Boyaci T, Aras N (2005) Optimal prices and trade-in rebates for durable, remanufacturable products. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 7(3):208–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sander K, Schilling S,  Tojo N, Van Rossem C, Vernon J, George C (2007) The producer responsibility principle of the WEEE Directive. Technical report, URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_okopol.pdfGoogle Scholar
  39. Savaskan RC, Van Wassenhove LN (2006) Reverse channel design: The case of competing retailers. Manag Sci 52(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Savaskan RC, Bhattachaya S, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) Closed loop supply chain models with product remanufacturing. Manag Sci 50(2):239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sodhi MS Reimer B (2001) Models for recycling electronics end-of-life products. OR Spectrum, pages 97–115Google Scholar
  42. Souza GC (2008) Closed-loop supply chains with remanufacturing. In: ZL Chen, R Raghavan (eds) Tutorials in Operations Research. INFORMS, HanoverGoogle Scholar
  43. Souza GC Ketzenberg ME (2002) Two-stage make-to-order remanufacturing with service-level constraints. Int J Prod Res, 40(2)Google Scholar
  44. Tojo N (2003a) EPR programmes: Individual versus collective responsibility. Technical report, The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  45. Tojo N (2003b). EPR programmes: Individual vs. collective responsibility. Technical report, Industrial Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  46. Toktay B, Wein L, Zenios S (2000).Inventory management for remanufacturable products. Manag Sci, 46(11):1412–1426Google Scholar
  47. Toyasaki F, Boyaci T, Verter V (2010) An analysis of monopolistic and competitive take-back schemes for WEEE recycling. Production Operations Management, page ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  48. van der Laan E, Dekker R, Salomon M, Van Wassenhove L (1999) Inventory control in hybrid systems with remanufacturing. Manag Sci 45(5)Google Scholar
  49. van der Laan E, Kiesmuller G, Kuik R, Vlachos D, Dekker R (2004) Stochastic inventory control for product recovery in reverse logistics. Springer Verlag, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Rossem C (2008) Individual producer responsibility in the WEEE directive: From theory to practice? PhD thesis, the international institute for industrial environmental economics, Lund University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Rossem C, Tojo N, Lindhqvist T (2006) Lost in transposition? A study of the implementation of individual producer responsibility in the WEEE Directive. Technical report, URL http://iprworks.org/documents/file/lost-in-transposition.pdfGoogle Scholar
  52. Walther G, Schmid E, Spengler T (2008) Negotiation-based coordination in product recovery networks. Int J Prod Econ 111:334–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Webster S, Mitra S (2007) Competitive strategy in remanufacturing and the impact of take-back laws. J Oper Manage 25(6)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gökçe Esenduran
    • 1
  • Eda Kemahlioğlu-Ziya
    • 2
  • Jayashankar M. Swaminathan
    • 2
  1. 1.Fisher College of BusinessThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Kenan-Flagler Business SchoolUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations