Beverley Thorpe

1

• Beverley Thorpe
• Bev_at_cleanproduction.org
• 1514 933 4596
• www.cleanproduction.org

2

• We should recycle, but it is not the first thing
  we should do, it is the last. Redesign first,
  then reduce, reuse and finally recycle, if there
  is no other alternative.
• Bill McDonough, Co-author of Cradle to Cradle

3
What is eco-design?

• Products designed from a life cycle perspective
• Designed with non toxic materials (green
  chemistry)
• Has low energy consumption (ideally renewable)
• Designed for durability, re-use and ability to
  be upgradable (lower consumption)
• Uses materials designed for easy disassembly and
  recycling (closed loop design)
• Where applicable, designed with sustainable
  renewable materials and safe composting at end of
  life

4
Eco-design included in original intent of
European EPR legislation

• I am particularly pleased we could convince
  member states to strengthen the individual
  responsibility for waste from their products.
  This will be an important incentive for
  producers to take environmental consequences into
  account already when they stand around the design
  table.
• European Environment Commissioner at launch of
  WEEE Directive

5
Does take-back catalyze eco-design?

• Only if feedback loop from end of life materials
  management goes directly back to producer - the
  key decision maker on product design
• Individual Producer Responsibility(IPR) achieves
  this collective producer responsibility with a
  flat fee on products, irrespective of brand, does
  not.
• Collective responsibility,where all producers
  are jointly responsible for the recycling of all
  products, including the products sold in the
  future - does not provide an incentive to a
  producer to design products to be easier to
  recycle. joint industry statement
  www.iprworks.org

6
(No Transcript)
7
Other incentives for eco-design

• Regulatory incentives necessary to promote
  eco-design and level the playing field
• restrictions on hazardous substances (RoHS-2)
• enforced recycling standards no export
• occupational health and safety standards

8
Consortium of companies and groups promoting IPR

• www.iprworks.org
• AB Electrolux
• Braun
• European Environmental Bureau
• Greenpeace International
• Hewlett Packard
• Länsförsäkringar Insurance
• Sony Europe
• Stena Technoworld AB
• European Recycling Platform promoting IPR since
  2002

9
Companies who support IPR

• HP, Dell, Apple, Sony, Samsung, Sony Ericsson,
  Lenovo, LG, Fujitsu-Siemens, Nokia, Acer,
  Electrolux, Braun, .all have statements on their
  website supporting IPR.
• Visit www.greenpeace.org Guide to Greener
  Electronics (updated quarterly)

10
(No Transcript)
11
IPR can be achieved in collective systems

• Collective systems are not the same as collective
  responsibility
• Producers can achieve direct feedback loops in
  collective systems through
• Brand sampling
• Brand recognition
• as well as own brand take-back and recycling
  systems

12
(No Transcript)
13
Brand sorting in collective systems can be done

• ICT Milieu, N L
• individual producers received a monthly invoice
  directly from the recycler based on the weight of
  the recycled products
• Each brand was hand sorted, weighed on a scale
  and logged using a touch screen panel.
• Any name which was not part of ICT Milieu would
  be registered as a "free rider"
• The cost of manual sorting was a few cent/kg

14
Return Share in collective systems can be done
(ME and WA)

• Return share manufacturers percentage, by
  weight, of identified brands of electronic
  products returned for recycling.
• Maine and Washington States use return share to
  make computer and TV manufacturers individually
  responsible for collection and recycling
• Maine Municipalities collect WEEE and pass it
  to a consolidator
• Every product is counted and weighed
• producers finance recycling of returned brands
• Manufacturers can collect a representative pile
  of WEEE from consolidator and undertake recycling
• OR, pay the consolidator to undertake recycling
  incl share of orphans
• OR, have branded product separated orphans
• Orphans currently estimated at less than 2 per
  cent
• Orphans divided pro rata between those with over
  1 return share

15
Return Share Washington

• Manufacturers may/must join Standard Plan to
  manage and finance recycling program OR may start
  an independent plan on own or with others (if
  combined return share above 5)
• Dept of Ecology determines the return share for
  each manufacturer. Info calculated by the
• Brand Data Management System developed by the
  National Center for Electronics Recycling
• Orphan brands divided among all manufacturers
  according to their return share percentages.
• Return share systems to be established in
  Connecticut and Oregon

16
Brand recognition can be done

• Research in Nordic countries to separate and
  identify product and model specific info
• Results (www.iprworks.org)
• Possibility to establish dismantling service
  based on actual products and their specific
  design and component structure
• IPR based on product sorting is achievable at a
  cost if more IPR, then more competition among
  recyclers would drive innovation and lower costs

17
RFID tags allow brand separation and will become
more common
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Evidence of design change

• Research on impact of impending EPR legislation
  on manufacturers of electronics and autos in
  Japan and Sweden revealed distinct proactive
  design change
• Extended Producer Responsibility
• An examination of its impact on innovation
• and greening products. Chris van Rossem,
• Naoko Tojo and Thomas Lindhqvist. 2006
• Commissioned by Greenpeace, FoE, EEB.
• Report also available at www.iprworks.org

21
(No Transcript)
22
IPR is evolving

• Kieren Mayers, Sony Entertainment

23
Thank you

• More information on EPR available at
  www.cleanproduction.org