cases already established in Europe and to the basic scheme chosen by the directives.
Well-known cases are recycling fee (The Netherlands) or deposit-refund (Sweden), for end- of-life vehicles. They assume a foundation/agency, financed by the first purchasers with a fee (linked to visible costs) or deposit (established by the government), which takes charge of recovering, directly paying dismantlers/shredders (The Netherlands), or supplying a fixed amount to last owners (Sweden) that could be the dismantlers. Both approaches are questioned, as the producers responsibility is bypassed through third-party intervention, in- terfaced downstream, thus possibly implying state-aid to dismantlers/recyclers. The basic EU scheme aims at free-take-back by the sellers; allocating full costs to producers, final owners are relieved from any charges at dismissal. The financial resources are directly transferred from manufacturers to dismantlers/recyclers, with no third party biasing. The incentives, to improve recovery/reuse/ recycle figures, concern producers, leaving bureaucratic out cost or scope tax. This scheme is mainly used in Germany, where, for example, several carmakers compete, making monopolistic drifts unlikely, and externalities could only move to other countries, with no or weaker car-makers. This might be at fault, if transposed into free price, full reimbursement scheme, such as: the last owner is totally discharged at dismissal, and dismantlers can freely establish recovery costs (acquitted by an agency, directly founded by producers). The interposition of a third party creates higher charges, turned to local buyers, but allows inter-industry incentive transmission for fostering process and method innova- tions on the whole supply chain (forward and backward loop). Thus, the EU free-take-back scheme is consistent with overseeing bodies (foundations or agencies); it simply assumes that: the producers shall internalise all or most of the reverse logistics costs; the established agreements, published in an official document, are enforceable, equally binding all parties;
the competent agency ought to monitor the progress and provide transparent records; in case of non-compliance, the local State must strictly apply regulatory and administrative measures. The German carmakers prefer autonomous negotiation of the recycling fees for newly-registered cars, at least. A similar position is taken by the French carmakers, even if established on separate networks. The burden of the scheme can follow stable progression, with possible unequal cost distribution, reflecting the market power of each company more than objective recoverability properties of the individual artefact.
Example.Cases:.The.European.Regulation
The recourse to economic instruments, with mandatory recovery/reuse/recycle targets, is be- coming standard procedure. In June, 2001, the Economics Ministers of the UE Member States agreed on environmental policy goals, establishing set of priorities, as it follows, to:
• Lower.the.recourse.to.potentially.noxious.materials.(a.series.of.plastics,.etc.),.
and.forbid.the.use.of.others.(mercury,.etc.):.See the Directive RoHS, Restriction on Hazardous Substances (Directive, 2002 L 0095).
• Oblige.the.manufacturers/dealers.of.electrical.and.electronic.devices.to.collect.
the.dismissed.items.and.to.mark.every.new.product:.See the Directive WEEE, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Directive, 2002 L 0096).
• Impose.on.automotive.manufacturers/dealers.compulsory.recover/reuse/recycle.
targets,.with.controlled.registration.of.the.achievements: See the Directive ELV, End of Life Vehicles (Directive, 2000 L 0053).
• Promote.eco-conservative.design,.specifying.the.list.of.recommendations.and.
warnings:.See the Directive EEE, Eco-design of End-use Equipment (Directive 2003).
• Enact a series of restrictions on landfill management: on waste handling and pro- cessing, and so forth, and to require healing and reclamation operations, with safety thresholds
These are preliminary examples, as environmental acts should progressively cover the totality of durables and consumables on the market. Today goods distinguish into classes, such as:
civil artefacts, meaning buildings, houses, roads, bridges, dams, and so forth; instrument buildings, meaning factories, shops, military plants, and so forth; special structures, mean- ing naval, aeronautic, constructions, and so forth; durables, meaning pieces of furniture, cars, household appliances, and so forth; instrumental deliveries, meaning packaging, spare parts, and so forth; consumables, meaning house-furnishings, linen, clothes, garments, and so forth; commodities, meaning foodstuffs, loose/packed provisions, and so forth; auxiliary deliveries, meaning virgin materials, chemicals, semi-finished items, and so forth; other goods, meaning work-tools, plastic, glass, paper, objects, and so forth . In every case, backward paths exist, from building demolition or rags digestion, to dump or recovery. The preliminary regulations specially address only subsets of artefacts.
Recovery, indeed, is fostered as an antidote of the affluent society, with the inherent task of educating the consumers towards more conservative behaviours. At first, broadband actions are chosen, such as the ones which deal with the ELV or WEEE concerning mass-produced goods, typically feeding the replacement market with high environment impact. Conserva- tiveness is achieved through the manufacturers’ responsibility, by setting out regulations with enforceable targets and visible fees, still easy to run and to control. The end-of-life vehicles regulation provides explanatory hints to this new trend. The 2000/53/EC Directive, enacted September 18, 2000, and requiring acknowledgement by the Member States before April, 2002, defines the rules to be followed by national authorities for vehicles dismissal, and by automotive manufacturers for selling cars respectful of the legal requests. The Com- mission further modified and integrated the rules by special specifications, for example, the 2003/138/EC, to establish standard codes for parts and materials. It needs to be mentioned that the EU is concerned by final issues, not about how these achievements are obtained according to the different Member States laws. Actually, this creates drawbacks to car-mak- ers, which ought to comply with possibly uneven rules; a Guidance Document is added, to collect harmonisation hints. The literature is fast growing (Michelini & Razzoli, 2003;
Stahel, 1989) and, by now, with open doubts. The reading of the documents leads to a few comments, such as the following:
• Regulation.addresses.environment.protection: by explicit producers’ responsibility charges
• Design:.for disassembly, for recovering, for recycling, and so forth, become standard request
• Extensive.recourse.to.re-manufacturing: to re-use of parts, materials, and so forth, is stimulated
• Proper.aids: (modularity, identifying codes, etc.) are suggested for easier dismantling, and so forth
• Life-cycle.monitoring.and.reporting: disclose on-duty conformance-to-specification checks
• Not-justified high-impact non-consistent behaviours are heavily taxed or totally for- bidden.
The sample notices show that new business paradigms are fostered based on different design patterns, with concern on point-of-service performance and commitment for withdrawal.
The focus on growth sustainability is the basic driver and, obviously, it leads to the reverse logistics entrepreneurship, with competitiveness played by the incumbents of the backward cycle.
The automotive field is a paradigmatically-noteworthy case, with a widely-spread market of registered goods, thus: falls-off affect a large amount of people; and items end-of-life have individual acknowledgement and recording. The EU approach, by already-enacted directives and advices, gives detailed prescribing issues for the end-of-life vehicles opera- tions, such as:
• Member states shall establish collecting systems for exhausted vehicles and parts, at authorised sites, where preliminary treatments will grant safety and security fitting- out, by removing noxious and harmful parts.
• Withdrawal needs to be assured without charge on the final owners (prescription to be fully enabled from January 1, 2007), but included in the product and service delivery, as an inherent attribute.
• Dealers and manufacturers shall bear complete responsibility for the delivery life cycle, dismissal included, answering for the environment impact and resource consumption according to established schemes.
• Users’ co-responsibility could be invoked, for special non-conservative behaviours, when critical pieces are damaged, removed, or modified, altering the original setting of the supply.
• The dismantling and destruction incumbents ought to be certified, with full assessment of recovery parts, recycled materials, thermo-recovery and residuals dumping, to be notified to the European Council.
The compulsory targets are quite severe, such as:
• From.January.1,.2006: 85% by weight of the vehicle ought to be recovered or re- cycled, 10% can be dumped to landfills (after suitable neutralisation), and 5% can be used as auxiliary fuel.
• From.January.1,.2015: Figures are modified, allowing 10% for fuel use, but only 5% to landfills.
The WEEE case, already in force since mid-2005, is partially different since it deals with non-registered goods. Without entering into details, producers/dealers again are required for items withdrawal, collection, and dismantling; different recovery and recycling targets apply, depending on appliances size and on lighting rigs; and a visible fee can be collected when a new device is sold. The EU prescriptions, with some modifications, have been transferred to the national acts, and one country is still considering transient alternatives for legal (data registration and vaulting, etc.) and technical (withdrawal, dismantling, recycling, dumping, etc.) incumbents. The role of manufacturers is fundamental to support reverse logistics by product-data management aids for enhanced dismantling and selective recycling, and turns to be critical, in the short term, to enable design-for-recycling paradigms (modularity and material segregation, disassembly pre-setting, etc.) and to take profit of sustainable manu- facture (high recourse to recovered or recycled provisions, etc.) and maintenance (proactive upkeeping, reintegration, etc.) options.