Evolution of the electronic waste management system in Spain

Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Evolution of the electronic waste management system in Spain D. Queiruga*, J. González Benito, G. Lannelongue University of Salamanca, Dpto. Administración y Economía de la Empresa, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, 37007 Salamanca, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 23 May 2011 Received in revised form 15 November 2011 Accepted 15 November 2011 Available online 26 November 2011

The vastly increasing amounts of waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) has made it imperative to develop systems that can guarantee selective collection and correct treatment of such waste. The European Union (EU) Directive 2002/96/EC applies to WEEE, but some countries still lack legislation or have not yet devised a waste management system to comply with the law. In this setting, studies that provide information about how WEEE is managed in specific countries or regions can help facilitate shared experiences and increased learning about effective methods. Therefore, this study analyzes how WEEE management systems in Spain emerged, from the earliest drafts of the WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC to its full implementation. The chronological analysis reveals the gradual implementation of each requirement, the problems involved, and the attempted solutions. This analysis in turn indicates which factors have played fundamental roles in the development of a waste management system and indicates conclusions of interest to managers throughout the world who must deal with WEEE. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Electrical and electronic equipment Recycling Waste management system Spain

1. Introduction The collection and proper treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) requires a substantial management system that includes multiple operators, as well as substantial logistical and technical resources. Since environmental concerns about WEEE first emerged, many researchers have investigated consumer attitudes toward recycling (Darby and Obara, 2005; Huang et al., 2006; Nnorom et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011), local government perspectives (Davis and Heart, 2008), and manufacturers’ positions toward legislative requirements (Ciocci and Pecht, 2006; Goosey, 2004; Stevels et al., 1999). In addition, extended producer responsibility (EPR) has been shown to have enormous impacts on the system (Forslind, 2009; Khetriwal et al., 2009; Manomaivibool, 2009; McKerlie et al., 2006; Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008; Spicer and Johnson, 2004; Wagner, 2009; Widmer et al., 2005; Cahill et al., 2011). Logistic models, featuring different operators and material flows, have been studied extensively for different types of WEEE (Ammons et al., 1999; Krikke et al., 2001; Shih, 2001; Sodhi and Reimer, 2001; Walther et al., 2008). Other research has investigated the economic and environmental feasibility of recycling and reuse (Kiatkittipong et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2009; Tasaki et al., 2006), the ecological impacts

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 923294400x3329. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Queiruga). 0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.043

of end-of-life WEEE (Barba-Gutierrez et al., 2008; Robinson, 2009; Wager et al., 2011), and the management of e-waste in general (Georgiadis and Besiou, 2008). The evolution and development of WEEE management systems has varied by country. Some countries began to collect and recycle WEEE even before regulations mandated they do so, whereas others took their first steps only after the passage of related legislation. Others still have not taken any measures. Multiple case studies in different countries allow for comparisons (Gutowski et al., 2005; Kahhat et al., 2008; Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008; Terazono et al., 2006; Widmer et al., 2005) that show companies, politicians, and academics how they can perform waste management in specific environments and situations; these investigations also can identify the main operators involved in this management effort. Systems that succeed in some countries do not necessarily succeed in others, yet it is important to understand existing systems and learn from others’ experiences (Kahhat et al., 2008; Khetriwal et al., 2009). For example, EU legislation is likely to be extrapolated to other countries without current legislation (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008). In turn, with our study of the Spanish case, we aim to identify factors that have been instrumental to the development of waste management practices, which should help other countries anticipate potential problems, identify appropriate courses of action, prioritize, and ensure compare progress. In Spain, we find a situation marked by poor initial WEEE policies, which underwent a transformation driven by legislation.

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

We explore how this transformation developed, starting from the introduction of early drafts of the WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC up until its full implementation. The goal thus is not to provide a perfect or best practices model but rather to discuss the characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of the system introduced by legislation in Spain. Existing case studies on the WEEE management tend to adopt a static view of waste management systems, whereas we adopt a longitudinal view to examine the highlights in the development of the Spanish WEEE system over time. Thus we can determine what efforts took place at each moment and identify stages strongly influenced by legislative developments. This approach clarifies the different circumstances and cause-and-effect relationships that have produced the current situation.

Suppliers

Producer

57

Retailer

Users

Collection Point of WEEE and Furniture (Management by Administration) Only metal

Metal Manager Other material (including toxic material) Landfilled

2. Conceptual framework

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the Spanish WEEE management system before reform. The arrows indicate the usual direction for materials and waste.

2.1. Entities involved Logistic models and case studies in a particular country take into account specific characteristics (Ammons et al., 1999; Krikke et al., 2001; Shih, 2001; Sodhi and Reimer, 2001; Walther et al., 2008); thus, no single model is applicable to all geographical contexts. However, three key economic agents appear in all WEEE management systems: producers, governments, and recycling plants. Other agents, such as distributors or social agents, and other activities, such as recycling, are though important, play a lower significant role (Truttmann and Rechberger, 2006). Furthermore, after the system has been designed, these actors can collaborate on specific initiatives, such as transport. In Spain, prior to the legislative changes at EU level, the three main stakeholders that appear in every system were present as well:  Producers. Without any official registration system, the exact number of producers was unknown. However, multiple joined associations1 performed market research, encouraged cooperation among manufacturers, and defended producers’ rights.  Governments. Spain was composed of three main levels of government: central, autonomous communities, and local authorities. The central government issued legislation about urban waste, without specifying WEEE. It was responsible for formulating the decree to implement the EU directive and monitor compliance. It had to provide producers with a national registry and inform the EU of the quantities of WEEE collected and recycled and the recycling quotas reached. The autonomous communities managed the collection points and were responsible to grant approval for new systems. Finally, at the local level, municipalities collected household waste and transported it to collection points.  Recycling plants. There were two types: metal managers and WEEE plants. Approximately 24 metal managers treated all kinds of metal waste, including WEEE. In these plants, waste was not classified by category, so there was no selective treatment of materials and components or removal of hazardous materials, nor did they reach high recycling quotas. Only two WEEE plants were operational at this time: Indumetal

1 Some important Spanish appliance manufacturer associations include ANFEL (National Association of Manufacturers and Importers; white goods such as washing machines, refrigerators or dishwashers), ANIEL (National Electrical Industries and Telecommunications Association; televisions), and ASIMELEC (MultiSector Association of Spanish Electronic and Communications; telephone equipment and batteries).

Recycling, SA, in Basque Country and Refrigerators Treatment Centre in Catalonia. Fig. 1 graphically summarizes the major stakeholders involved in the production and return of WEEE and their activities. 2.2. Origin and waste flow According to the European Union, 6 million tonnes of WEEE were generated in 1998, and this volume was expected to increase by at least 3e5% annually. Of this waste, 90% was sent to landfills, incinerated, or recovered without pretreatment (COM, 2000). By 2015, the amount of WEEE could be as high as 12 million tones e equivalent to approximately 14 kg per person per year (Goosey, 2004). In Spain, prior to the legislation, 75% of large household appliances were collected by retailers when consumers purchased a new model. The remaining 25% went to collection points or entered municipality take-back system, which then transferred the material to metal managers. Lightweight, small appliances were taken to collection points more often, then transported to metal managers or thrown into municipal solid waste containers and landfilled. Metal managers thus treated about 207,377 metal tonnes/year of WEEE, equivalent to 4.8 kg per inhabitant per year. However, this waste was not treated as required by the EU directive; rather, the disposal followed standard procedures in the metal industry, because the waste was treated not by specialist WEEE plants but by metal managers (FER, 2004). 2.3. Relationship between stakeholders The relationships among the agents that constitute waste management systems vary according to the responsibilities assigned. When the producer is responsible for management, it becomes a link across other stakeholders. For example, integrated management systems (IMS) in Spain manage the waste stream and information about the quantities of WEEE produced, collected, and recycled. This scenario suggests the need for operator meeting and communication platforms. At the European level, the WEEE Forum, founded in 2002, is a voluntary group of representatives of WEEE take-back systems that addresses individual producers’ responsibility in Europe. Spain had to create connecting links or sites to share progress in waste management issues, because only by doing so could it reveal

58

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

the current state of its technology and WEEE waste management system, as well as facilitate dialog among different stakeholders. 2.4. Legislation By 1998, the increase in WEEE had become a notable concern for the European Commission. Therefore, in April 1998, it published the first Proposal for a European Directive on WEEE, followed by five additional drafts, the most recent in 2000, before the directive went into effect in February 2003 (European Parliament and Council, 2003). This directive covers the prevention, reuse, recycling, and other forms of recovery of WEEE in an effort to reduce the need for its disposal. It refers to 10 product categories: (1) large household appliances; (2) small household appliances; (3) IT and telecommunications equipment; (4) consumer equipment; (5) lighting equipment; (6) electrical and electronic tools; (7) toys, leisure, and sports equipment; (8) medical devices; (9) monitoring and control instruments; and (10) automatic dispensers. The directive gives member states the freedom to determine the precise structure of their national take-back system; however, it mandates that producers must take-back devices from collection points. In this sense, the producers are responsible for the collection, treatment, evaluation, and, if applicable, elimination of waste related to their products. To finance the take-back of historical waste (i.e., devices that entered the market before August 13, 2005), each producer was assigned responsibility in proportion to its respective market share. For new products (that entered the market after August 13, 2005), each producer was responsible for the WEEE of its own products. It could finance its waste management individually or through a collective scheme. Each year, member states must establish a register of producers and collect information, including substantiated estimates, about the quantities and categories of electrical and electronic equipment on their markets and collected through all routes to be reused, recycled, or recovered. Consumers could return products to a distributor when buying a similar product. The deadlines set for the associated regulations were as follows:  By August 13, 2004, member states should apply the directive on their national level.  By August 13, 2005, producers should mark all electrical and electronic equipment they send to market and take responsibility for financing the costs of WEEE management. The member states should have had the necessary collection facilities in place already, determined on the basis of their population density.  As of December 31, 2006, WEEE collection was to be separated by category and reach a collection quota of 4 kg per inhabitant each year. The process also should be in compliance with specified recycling and recovery targets (e.g., 75% of the average weight of a washing machine must be recycled, 80% rate of recovery).  On December 31, 2008, the states should have completed a review of the collection goals and the percentages of recycling and recovery achieved. In Spain, Royal Decree (RD) 208/2005, “concerning electrical and electronic appliances and their waste management,” transformed the European Directive into national legislation as of February 25, 2005. The decree mandated that manufacturers develop and finance a collection and treatment system. The collection of older appliances would be financed collectively by all producers on the market, according to their market share. For new appliances, the producers were required to establish and finance individual or collective waste management systems to ensure all products on the

market were collected and recycled correctly, without added cost to consumers. Specifically, an individual financing system required the producer to create a management system for its products; declare its condition as a producer to the pertinent community; guarantee the waste management of its products; and report annually on the products it sent to market, the waste it had collected, and its management efforts. In contrast, producers who adopted a collective approach to their responsibility relied on a section of the Royal Decree that introduced integrated management systems (IMS). These IMS had to be authorized by the governments of autonomous communities in which they were territorially implemented. Then producers must register with the National Register of Electrical and Electronic Equipment Producers (REI-RAEE) of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce, and report their status as a producer to the autonomous community in which their head office was located. The 1067 municipalities with populations of more than 5000 persons were responsible to ensure selective collection of WEEE; however, smaller municipalities were not subject to this obligation, because of the costly logistics for them. 2.5. Studies in other countries Europe, the United States, and several Asian countries continue to work on their WEEE management systems. Case studies have described their tactics for managing the collection, recycling, reuse, and financing of these systems, which we can compare with the Spanish case. In addition, multiple articles and reports describe various take-back systems, often in comparative terms (Ongondo et al., 2011; Gaidajis et al., 2010; Sinha-Khetriwal et al., 2005; Step, 2009; European Commission, 2006; Cahill et al., 2011). Our goal is not to repeat this work or provide a detailed comparison of the case studies conducted in other countries; rather, we rely on the findings from the previous studies to develop recommendations that are based in the Spanish system. Table 1 summarizes relevant information from other countries. In Europe, the 25 EU member states have adopted the European Directive. Switzerland’s successful WEEE management system, for example, provides for the responsibility for different equipment. Studies have concluded that Switzerland’s significant experience applying the extended producer responsibility (EPR) concept in WEEE management provides a compelling example for other countries (Streicher-Porte, 2005; Hischier et al., 2005). The United Kingdom, after many delays and difficulties in its implementation of the EU Directive, adopted the main obligations and definitions contained in that directive with little additional development. Thus there is no clear scheme for the return or recycling of WEEE, and U.K. manufacturers, importers, exporters, and sales representatives do not know how the legislation will be applied in practice. In turn, it seems likely that the U.K. schemes are far from implementation, because they can be applied only after the government fills in the gaps in its existing legislation (Turner and Callaghan, 2007). In the United States, WEEE conventionally have been deposited in landfills and incinerated; many collected devices also get exported. Although local governments play important roles related to the collection and recycling of WEEE, U.S. manufacturers, recyclers, non-governmental organizations, and scrap merchants have developed a wide range of programs. With its short history, WEEE management in the United States still requires a suitable infrastructure, which demands the choice of an appropriate collection system (Kang and Schoenung, 2005; Wagner, 2009). Studies of waste management in China began relatively late, but they have gained increasing interest in the face of that country’s rapid economic and consumption growth. Systematic work on

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

59

Table 1 Some relevant information about different take-back systems (adapted from Ongondo et al., 2011). Country

Per capita generation (kg/inhabitant)

Reported discarded items

Collection and treatment routes

WEEE specific legislation

Approach

66,042 (2003) 940,000 (2003)

9 15.8

Diverse range of WEEE Domestic WEEE

SWICO, S.EN.S, SLRS DTS and PCS

EPR EPR

USA

2,250,000 (2007)

7.5

TVs, mobile phones, computer products

China

2,212,000 (2007)

1.7

Japan

860,000 (2005)

6.7

Computers, printers, refrigerators, mobile phones, TVs TVs, air conditioners, washing machines, refrigerators; computers

Municipal waste services; a number of voluntary schemes Mostly informal collection and recycling

ORDEE (January 1998) UK WEEE regulations (July 2007) None at federal level; several states have drafted/enacted regulations CEPLPRCh (2009)

HARL (2001); LPERU

EPR, post-paid recycling fee

Switzerland UK

Generation (tonnes/year)

Collection via retailers

EPR, ARF, voluntary EPR, centralized recovery system

WEEE: waste electrical and electronic equipment; TV: television; SWICO: Swiss association for information, communication and organization technology; S.EN.S.: Seiss foundation for waste management; SLRS: Swiss light recycling foundation; DTS: distributor take-back scheme; PCS: producer compliance scheme; ORDEE: Ordinance on the return, the take-back and the disposal of electrical and electronic equipment; CEPLPRCh: Circular Economy Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China; HARL: home appliance recycling law; LPERU: Law for Promotion of Effective Resource Utilization; ARF: advanced recycling fee; EPR: extended producer responsibility. Source: Adapted from Ongondo et al. (2011)

WEEE management is still nascent, and several challenges restrict qualified recycling operations. For example, many recycling processes are inadequate, pollute the environment, or endanger human health. The qualified recycling plants are associated with higher costs. Moreover, researchers have learned little about the WEEE flows, because no formal governance or official statistics collection system exists in China (Veenstra et al., 2010). Therefore, cost considerations appear to be hindering the possibility of profitable treatment and sale of recycled materials. Until WEEE-related legislation goes into effect, qualified plants likely cannot operate successfully (He et al., 2006). China’s capability for recycling also must increase if it is to treat all the waste produced within its borders (Jianxin et al., 2008). This development likely requires regulations that clearly define producers’ responsibility and establish cooperative networks among recycling plants and producers (Hicks et al., 2005). Studies of Japan reveal that, in line with that nation’s legal definition of recycling, only recycled materials sold as resources on the market are eligible for recycling. Aizawa et al. (2008) thus argue that the law has forced manufacturers to adopt eco-designs (see also Terazono et al., 2006; Widmer et al., 2005). In most of these cases, the legislation is recent; Switzerland is notable for its long history, which corresponds with the satisfactory results of its take-back system. Furthermore, in some countries, the law does not cover all WEEE (e.g., Japanese law does not refer to mobile phones) and thus leaves open the possibility to continue adding waste to landfills. The comparison of these studies highlights striking differences in the e-waste amounts generated in each country. The cause of these differences according to Terazono et al. (2006) is the lack of standardized methods for estimating WEEE quantities across countries. Ongondo et al. (2011) agrees that such variation might contribute to disparities in reported figures and that there is a lack of data about quantities of illegally exported WEEE. In the Spanish case this type of information could be obtained from official registers of producers, though not all producers are registered. Thus, all these reasons indicate that comparisons could not be as precise as expected. 3. Methodology Each social research method has advantages and disadvantages, which vary with the type of problem being addressed and the surrounding circumstances. For example, statistical methods appear highly accurate, because they rely on mathematical bases. In

addition, studies of the design and management of waste return systems often rely on quantitative approaches, with mathematical models that aim to optimize the number of recycling plants or waste streams (Ammons et al., 1999; Cabria and Queiruga, 2005; Mar-Ortiz et al., 2011; Shih, 2001; Sodhi and Reimer, 2001) or estimate future WEEE quantities (Matthews and Matthews, 2003). These mathematical models are necessary and very useful but they tend to focus on solutions to specific or partial problems. In contrast, case studies support deeper, more detailed investigations and thus can better address how and why questions (Yin, 1994). In this sense, case studies are a valuable method for observing and understanding a broader environment (Rowley, 2002). In turn, many authors prefer a qualitative approach and present case studies of WEEE management, as the examples in Section 2.5 show. Such an approach gives researchers, companies, and politicians a broader, more comprehensive view of the situation they must face, including the stakeholders involved, their relationships, the pertinent material flows, and financial data. A case study also can suggest recommendations for a particular country, identify limitations of existing legislation, reveal means to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of waste collection, indicate which agents should be involved, and identify barriers to be overcome. These researches focus on static approaches to specify and to analyze the link organization-environment (Venkatraman, 1989). This methodology provides stability (Chakravarthy and Doz, 1992), but it cannot reveal dynamic behavior by organizations or pertinent changes (Volberda, 1997; Pettigrew, 1997). Accordingly, research that aims to describe and explain a sequence of activities that develop during a change process cannot rely on static tools. Instead, methods such as process analysis should provide insights into the nature of the dynamics of change. To understand how change occurs in an organization, a historical perspective can uncover the sequence of activities, detail the stages that arise, and describe or explain various incidents during the process (Van de Ven, 1992). Because our aim is to analyze a change process, we consider time and history central topics (Pettigrew, 1997). Longitudinal case studies provide effective analyses of a change in the context in which it occurs (e.g. Dewhurst et al., 2002; Hope-Hailey and Balogun, 2002; Manikutty, 1987; Van der Bent et al., 1999;). Thus, this presented case study examines a history of events. 3.1. Case study design To analyze the evolution of the development of WEEE management system in Spain, we conduct a longitudinal study to

60

Table 2 Most important events in the evolution of the E-waste management system in Spain. In brackets: WEEE category manage by each IMS. Legislation: EU directive

until 2000

2003

Entry in force

2004

Transpose the Directive at the national level Producers have financial responsibility. Installation of selective collection Obligation to collect 4 kg/inhabitant and to reach recycling rates

2007 2008

2010

WEEE recycling plants

Indumental Recycling in the Basque Country

Indumental Recycling (Basque Country). TPA (Catalonia)

Creation of plants

TRAGAMOVIL in Madrid and nationally ECOFIMATICA (3); ERP (1e10)

ECOLEC (1,2,6,9,10); TRAGAMOVIL (3)

Transpose the EU Directive to Spanish law Entry into force of Royal Decree 208/2005

Waste flow: collection pilot program

ECOTIC (1e9); ECOLUM (5) ECOASIMELEC (3,7,8,9); AMBILAMP (5); ECO-RAEE (1e10)

ECOFIMATICA in Galicia and Andalusia. Egmasa (a public company) in Andalusia Electrorecycling in Catalonia. Continuation of the Egmasa campaign ANIEL in Catalonia, Madrid and Navarra ECOLUM in Saragossa

Opinions and actions

The recycling quota favors large WEEE. More information and training are necesary

Electrorecycling (Catalonia)

Recilec (Andalusia). Recytel (Madrid)

7 autonomous communities authorize IMSs. National Register goes into effect 5 autonomous communities authorize IMSs The autonomous communities that implemented pilot projects, serve as a reference. Not known amounts of WEEE arriving at the recycling plants It is necessary to standardize the control and monitoring of information and flows

WEEE management protocols are performed. The degree of compliance with the Directive is estimated

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

Catalonia finances part of a recycling plant and the collection Andalusia writes a propose for the Decree

2002

2006

Productor: Creation of IMS and individuell financial system

Last Proposal

2001

2005

Government

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

identify its development over the time, as well as the related actions and decisions of significant agents. The case study design spans 10-years, and the changes produced each year are assigned to each of the agents involved. This 10-year span encompasses the first draft of the directive and its full implementation. The unit of analysis is the national level.

61 REI-RAEE Office (Producer Registry)

Supplier

Producer

Distributor

Information amount on the market

3.2. Data collection

IMS

Archival sources, such as annual reports and other public and internal documents, provide objective measures of environmental conditions and the organization, as well as the initial goals of any change undertaken, the actions taken, and variations in the results; they also provide a useful cross-reference for building the chronology of key events (Dawson, 1997; Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1997). A document analysis thus establishes the chronology of the change process and identifies key actors and transition points (Pettigrew, 1997). Typically case studies draw on multiple sources of evidence, including documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, and participant observation (Rowley, 2002). For the present case study, we accordingly pursued information from various sources. The main data source is the communication among stakeholders who participate in the Technical Conference on Electrical and Electronic Equipment Recycling, organized by the University of Cadiz. These conferences represent meeting points for leading experts in WEEE management, including manufacturers, recyclers, metal managers, researchers, and politicians, all of whom participate and provide diverse points of view. To examine the evolution of waste management, we consulted papers published in association with the annual Conference on Recycling from 2000 to 2010 (Jornadas RELEC, 2010). No 2009 conference took place. From 2000 to 2006, ten papers were presented at each session. Since 2006, five Working Groups also have been formed to address organizational, technical, financial, legal, and environmental/social issues. Considering the increasing importance of the Internet as a means for companies to communicate information to their stakeholders, particularly in EPR settings (Fishbein et al., 2000), we consulted the websites of the IMS, including annual reports.2 We also referred to reports issued by public authorities.3 Lindblom (1987) and Weick (1989) indicate that knowledge of the social world mainly derives from inquiries by nonprofessionals. Thus in social science disciplines, professional research often offers only a modest increase in the validity of a nonprofessional proposition. Therefore, we considered the information gathered from experts participating in the conferences highly valuable, especially as a means to complement the industryprovided information. 3.3. Data analysis In the document analysis, to establish the chronology of the change process and identify key actors and transition points (Pettigrew, 1997), each author separately reviewed and analyzed all available documentation. In turn, we prepared a document that included annual summaries of all data, including events, actions, pilot projects, and programs. To sort the extensive information in a systematic and comprehensible way, the available information was entered into a table, structured according to the key elements of the conceptual framework. First, changes in legislation provided

2 Specifically, www.ecotic.es; www.ecolec.es; www.ecoasimelec.es; ecofimatica.es; and www.tragamovil.com. 3 Specifically, the WEEE Forum, 2010 and European Commission, 2006.

www.

Information amount collected

Users

Collection Point with specific container (Management by Administration)

Material quality improvement Information product features

Information amount treated

Specific recycling plant for WEEE

IMS+agreements with social entities Collection and transport

Fig. 2. Infrastructure established in Spain for WEEE management between 2005 and 2009.

the driving force for actions conducted by stakeholders. Second, the stakeholders involved included administrators, producers, and recyclers. Third, the activities related to the waste stream. Each row featured events reported by the stakeholders; we summarized the information that reflected the evolution of the system (Table 2). The table construction revealed clear stages, beginning with the initial draft of the directive (see Section 4). The subsequent stages emerged according to several criteria, including intense moments in the development of the management system, years with notable IMS creation levels, higher numbers of pilot projects, and increased creation of recycling plants e that is, increased activities by all stakeholders. The moment at which the number of these activities declined, implying that all the plants needed had been installed, then marked the end of the stage. 4. Evolution of Spain’s electronic waste management system Spain comprises 17 autonomous communities and more than 47 million people. In a few years, it moved from collecting WEEE together with furniture and sending it to metal managers to establishing a specific WEEE collection and recycling system. However, the system remains incomplete in some areas. The chronological analysis reveals four distinct stages through which WEEE management systems developed. 4.1. Observation (2001) In 2001, agents observed the legislative process, performed calculations, and studied ways they could participate in the management system. Although the European Directive had not yet entered into force, its implementation was imminent. Economic stakeholders prepared by using pilot experiences, such as the collection of mobile phones in Madrid by the first IMS. This effort revealed the likely costs and quantities of equipment that they would collect in the future. The creation of the IMS was not always immediate though. For example, in 2002, four associations of manufacturers created an unnamed IMS, which gained the name ECOLEC in 2003 and changed associations. In 2004, it consolidated and changed the associations back (Jornadas RELEC, 2001). In this stage that we have labeled as “observation stage”, the economic agents wondered about how to meet the requirements of the directive. They were taking few real actions, but they had plenty of comments to share.

62

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

4.2. Development (2002e2004) Manufacturing associations choose a collective or individual approach to meet their financial responsibilities. The first IMS featured collective funding, but the ERP platform used individual funding. Pioneering companies from the recycling industry participated in collection and recycling projects taking place throughout in Spain. Three new plants, specializing in WEEE recycling, arose in Catalonia, Seville, and Madrid (Jornadas, 2002e2004). In this stage that we have labeled “development stage”, most IMS emerged, including those with the highest market share (ECOLEC, ECOTIC, and two IMS created by ASIMELEC: ECOFIMATICA and TRAGAMOVIL). In addition, pilot projects for the collection of waste initiated, and new recycling plants were built. 4.3. Consolidation (2005e2009) The major IMS had been created, so this stage emerged from the need to share information on computer platforms. In 2005 ECOTIC designed a Technological Information System, and in 2006 the Office for Logistics Coordination (later renamed OfiRAEE) took over WEEE management from collection points, as promoted by IMS and European Recycling Platform. Tests of the OfiRAEE office began in Basque Country and CastileLa Mancha; then it spread to Catalonia. In addition, various IMS begin to create their own Internet platforms, such as the “Platform of WEEE Management” by ASIMELEC, and specific computer tools, such Umberto.4 Of the 10,000 producers estimated to exist in Spain, only around 1000 have been registered, which implies a gap of at least 15 million Euros. The Producers Register Observatory was created by producers to control those who had not registered (Jornadas RELEC, 2005; 2007e2009). In this stage that we have labeled “consolidation stage”, the infrastructure required to meet WEEE recycling needs reached virtual completion. For example, information needs were met by the logistics coordination office (OfiRAEE), and the state registry was operational (REI-RAEE). The implementation of the directive also took place in this stage and provided a strong push to further developments of WEEE management. Without the mandatory nature and time limit established by the directive, the various stakeholders likely would not have worked to coordinate their efforts. Without the directive, producers also might not have agreed to cover the costs of recycling, and recycling plants would not have focused as much on achieving high recycling quotas. Fig. 2 summarizes the agents, materials, and information flows at this point in the process. The thicker lines represent an increase in the waste stream; dashed lines represent the flow of information. 4.4. Assessment and control (2010) The economic agents involved in the process eventually began to analyze the operation of the existing infrastructure and found a serious problem: Although the infrastructure had been established, most WEEE remained unaddressed. In addition, too many unregistered manufacturers (i.e., free-riders) remained. Thus, the infrastructure and legislation appeared insufficient as means to control WEEE.

4 Umberto software can model, calculate, and depict life cycle assessments and material flow analyses for products and process systems. As a powerful tool, it has become the leading life cycle assessment software programme in Europe.

In 2010, Spanish consumers purchased 651,895,410 kg of WEEE, or 13.86 kg per person (REI-RAEE, 2010). The total WEEE collected and processed correctly through registered IMS equaled 199,922,000 kg, or only 2.55 kg per person in 2010 (WEEE Forum, 2010). Thus, when current products reach the end of their life cycles, the amount of e-waste is likely to be much higher. In the stage that we have labeled “control stage”, few new activities have begun, but stakeholders are working to analyze the infrastructure they have created. 5. Key development factors The chronological analysis has suggested a series of features that determined the development of the WEEE management system in Spain. First, there were marked differences among autonomous communities in terms of efforts to undertake pilot projects, build recycling plants, and manage WEEE in general. The autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country were pioneers in waste management; Andalusia was the first to draft a royal decree. In Catalonia, the local administration sought a solution to WEEE management without waiting for the implementation of the directive, so when the deadlines for compliance occurred, it already possessed the necessary infrastructure. This community also went beyond its legal obligations, out of concern about issues such as equipment donations, repair, and reuse. In Basque Country, the Indumetal Recycling plant had a long tradition of waste treatment experience, which enabled it to identify potentially hazardous components and perform environmentally friendly recycling e a competence that has been very difficult for new companies to achieve. In addition, it initiated pilot collection campaigns and participated in building other WEEE recycling plants throughout the country. Other autonomous communities instead waited for the implementation of the directive before making any significant progress. In developing waste management systems, other countries might consider the benefits of a centralized decision-making authority, which could be involved from the outset in the support of early initiatives and promote compliance with impending legislation. Such a process would avoid the intra-country inequities could delay the entire country’s compliance with legislation, such that regions that performed their work in advance might become discouraged. Second, manufacturers expressed significant concerns to avoid free-riders, especially because of their mandated financial responsibility. Free-riders caused harm to manufacturers that complied with the law. Finding government interventions inadequate, manufacturers in Spain created the Producers’ Registration Observatory in an attempt to prevent unregistered manufacturers from benefiting from the “good work” of registrants. Thus nations likely need to find ways to control free-riding. If government fails in this effort, manufacturers might consider normative controls through an association. Third, the ongoing development of waste management created a need to transfer information among agents (IMS, recycling plants, administration) about the amounts of waste collected, transported, and treated. This need has been met with computer tools (e.g., Ecotool, Umberto) and Internet platforms. Similar information requirements are likely in any countries, so they should plan for software and platforms that can facilitate information exchanges. By developing these tools from the outset, countries can help define and encourage the producers’ efforts. Fourth, because so many operators are involved in waste management systems, they need a means to come together to interact, enter into agreements, engage in dialog, and recognize the performance of others involved. The Recycling Technical Congress, organized by the Innovation and Technology Circles at the

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

University of Cadiz since 2000, has been instrumental in supporting such objectives. In recent years, working groups have enabled experts to gather and evaluate the features needed to achieve organizational, technical, financial, social, and environmental goals. In addition, stakeholders gain comprehensive and accurate information about the status of the waste management system. In their analysis of WEEE flow according to international market policies, Shinkuma and Minh Huong (2008) similarly conclude that different Asian countries need to cooperate to implement an effective return and recycling system. The meetings of experts could offer an effective method to do so. Fifth, Spain included metal managers, prior to implementing any waste management system, and both recyclers and manufacturers in this study mentioned the benefits of having an existing infrastructure and agents, rather than starting from scratch. In particular, many metal managers were able to improve their technology and treat WEEE in accordance with the new legislation. Though no national comparative studies clarify the costs of the various options for establishing systems. Therefore, countries that aim to establish a waste management system should assess their existing agents and what would be required to transform them, versus the costs of creating a new infrastructure. Sixth, actions in this field took significant time to develop. Although the necessary strategic decisions would affect businesses for many years and be difficult to change, the agents still needed to work cooperatively. Furthermore, the development of the necessary infrastructure was slow because few stakeholders saw the need to act until the directive came into force. Thus the creation of the IMS required several years. In addition to pilot projects, actors need to conduct extensive tests and undertake collaborations with other, possibly unfamiliar companies. Thus other countries should recognize in advance that starting new waste management systems requires significant time and perhaps begin well in advance to develop their solutions. Seventh, and in a related point, the Spanish case reveals the potential for administrative delays, when government agencies hindered company action instead of facilitating or encouraging them (e.g., delayed approval from autonomous communities for IMS). National governments thus must commit to setting the standards that require other agents to meet their recycling obligations, as well as to supporting and encouraging recycling by setting an example of efficiency. 6. Strengths and weaknesses of the Spanish case Spain was able to create a meeting point for all economic agents involved. The resulting intense dialog among stakeholders supported the development of the waste management system, which relies largely on agreements and relationships among agents. In addition, the manufacturer associations (e.g., ANFEL, ASIMELEC) played important roles by initiating pilot projects to collect household equipment and forming the first IMS, in which sense they set an example for others to follow. The evidence from this case study suggests the need for a pioneer that can blaze a trail for others to follow. Some recyclers also had significant impacts. For example, Indumetal Recycling took equipment from across Spain and participated in numerous pilot projects. Without its long tradition and experience, recycling plants might not have realized their capability to treat waste collected in the pilot projects. The Spanish experience thus implies that in countries like the United Kingdom, China, or the United States, stakeholders must begin pilot experiences and gather information that will reveal the estimated logistical costs and the likely amounts of waste they will collect. Otherwise, the system will be delayed and less efficient than it could be.

63

However, two weaknesses of the Spanish WEEE management system are extremely important. Legislation was the primary driver of change, so the infrastructure and related demands have been limited simply to compliance with legislation. Much of the WEEE collected goes to unauthorized and uncontrolled actors, to be treated outside the channels provided for this purpose. In a related concern, the system includes too many free-riders. In other countries, such as Switzerland, most manufacturers are registered, but in Spain, the measures taken by government and manufacturers have not been sufficient to ensure widespread compliance with regulation demands. This situation remains detrimental to the manufacturers that are responsible, registered on the state registry, belong to an IMS, and finance WEEE management. 7. Conclusions and further work The article documents the implementation of the European WEEE Directive in Spain by detailing the specific steps taken to achieve it, as well as the influences and contributions of the government, manufacturers, and recyclers to this implementation. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first longitudinal study of the development of a WEEE management system. By adopting a longitudinal approach, we provide insights that would be impossible from a static case study. In particular, the longitudinal approach revealed the separate stages, highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of this case, and led to pertinent conclusions. A static case study could not have confirmed that the management system had been developed solely to meet the directive, so it would have been difficult to explain the choices made. The legislation motivated the structure of the management system, and therefore, the actors involved worked to meet the demands of the legislation, not to maximize recycling. This scenario helps explain why the waste management system in Spain contains unregistered producers and informal waste managers who are willing to free ride on the efforts of others. We perceive several routes for further research in this field. First, the large number of unregistered producers suggests another path for research, namely, to estimate the amount of WEEE that would be recycled if all producers were registered, as well as the losses induced by unregistered producers. Second, few studies address the possible advantages and disadvantages of the reuse of equipment at the end of a product’s life cycle from economic, environmental, and social perspectives. Further studies should cover each point of view and perhaps combine them to provide an integrative assessment. Third, the product life cycle represents an important topic. The development and application of life cycle analysis methods in waste management has grown out of the search for a more environmentally friendly way to handle waste. Few studies consider product life cycles in the context of WEEE (Johansson and Luttropp, 2009; Truttmann and Rechberger, 2006; Barba-Gutierrez et al., 2008). Barba-Gutierrez concluded that the advantages of recycling depend on the distance traveled to collect the particular waste. Interesting topics for investigation include measures of the distance between collection points and recycling plants; is the distance short enough that a system, such as Spain’s, actually is environmentally friendly? If not, research should work to discover algorithms to identify more appropriate locations that reduce waste transport distances. References Aizawa, H., Yoshida, H., Sakai, S., 2008. Current results and future perspectives for Japanese recycling of home electrical appliances. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (12), 1399e1410.

64

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65

Ammons, J., Realff, M., Newton, D., 1999. Infrastructure determination for electronic assembly reverse production systems. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign Conference. IEEE, Tokyo. Barba-Gutierrez, Y., Adenso-Díaz, B., Hopp, M., 2008. An analysis of some environmental consequences of European electrical and electronic waste regulation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 481e495. Cabria, I., Queiruga, D., 2005. Improvement of the Koradi parallel algorithm for molecular dynamics and application to the economic organization and optimization of recycling costs of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Europhysics Letters 71 (5), 845e851. Cahill, R., Grimes, S.M., Wilson, D.C., 2011. Extended producer responsibility for packaging wastes and WEEE- a comparison of implementation and the role of local authorities across Europe. Waste Management & Research 29 (5), 455e479. Chakravarthy, B., Doz, Y., 1992. Strategy process research: focusing on corporate self-renewal. Strategic Management Journal 13, 5e14. Ciocci, R., Pecht, M., 2006. Impact of environmental regulations on green electronics manufacture. Microelectronics International 23 (2), 45e50. COM, 2000. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Brussels, 13.6.2000, COM/2000/ 0347 final. Darby, L., Obara, L., 2005. Household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards the disposal of small electrical and electronic equipment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44, 17e35. Davis, G., Heart, S., 2008. Electronic waste: the local government perspective in Queensland, Austria. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 1031e1039. Dawson, P., 1997. In at the deep end: conducting processual research on organisational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13, 389e405. Dewhurst, F., Spring, M., Arkle, N., 2002. Environmental change and supply chain management: a study exploration of the impact of Y2000. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 5, 245e260. European Commission, 2006. Technical Report Series: Implementation of the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in the EU EU 22231 EN. European Parliament and Council, 2003. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Brussels 2003. FER (Federación Española de Recuperación y Reciclaje), 2004. Estudio sobre la recuperación de residuos de Aparatos Eléctricos y electrónicos. www. recuperacion.org/?p¼mp2_4Index (accessed October 2011). Fishbein, B., Ehrenfeld, J., Young, J., 2000. Extended Producer Responsibility: a Materials Policy for the 21st Century. INFORM Reports. www.informinc.org/ eprpolicy.php (accessed October 2011). Forslind, K.H., 2009. Does the financing of extended producer responsibility influence economic growth? Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 297e302. Gaidajis, G., Angelakoglou, K., Aktsoglou, D., 2010. E-waste: environmental problems and current management. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 3 (1), 193e199. Georgiadis, P., Besiou, M., 2008. Sustainability in electrical and electronic equipment closed-loop supply chains: a system dynamics approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1665e1678. Goosey, M., 2004. End-of-life electronics legislation e an industry perspective. Circuit Word 30 (2), 41e45. Gutowski, T., Murphy, C., Allen, D., Bauer, D., Brass, B., Piwonka, T., Sheng, P., Sutherland, J., Thurston, D., Wolf, E., 2005. Environmentally benign manufacturing: observations from Japan, Europe and the United states. Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 1e17. He, W., Li, G., Ma, X., Wang, H., Huang, J., Xu, M., Huang, Ch, 2006. WEEE recovery strategies and the WEEE treatment status in China. Journal of Hazardous Materials 136 (3), 502e512. Hicks, C., Diezmar, R., Eugster, M., 2005. The recycling and disposal of electrical and electronic waste in China- legislative and market responses. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25, 459e471. Hischier, R., Wagner, P., Gauglhofer, J., 2005. Does WEEE recycling make sense from an environmental perspective? The environmental impacts of Swiss take-back and recycling systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (5), 525e539. Hope-Hailey, V., Balogun, J., 2002. Devising context sensitive approaches to change: the example of Glaxo Wellcome. Long Range Planning 35, 153e178. Huang, P., Zhang, X., Deng, X., 2006. Survey and analysis of public environmental awareness and performance in Ningbo, China: a case study on household electrical and electronic equipment. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1635e1643. Jianxin, Y., Lu, B., Xu, Ch, 2008. WEEE flow and mitigating measures in China. Waste Management 28, 1589e1597. Johansson, J., Luttropp, C., 2009. Material higiene: improving recycling of WEEE demonstrated on dishwashers. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 26e35. Jornadas RELEC, September 2001e2010. Jornadas Técnicas sobre Reciclado de Aparatos Eléctricos y Electrónicos. Universidad de Cádiz. www2.uca.es/grupinvest/cit/relec/index.html (accessed October 2011). Kahhat, R., Kim, J., Xu, M., Allenby, B., Williams, E., Zhang, P., 2008. Exploring ewaste management systems in the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 955e964. Kang, H.-Y., Schoenung, J.M., 2005. Electronic waste recycling: a review of U.S. infraestructura and technology options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45, 368e400.

Khetriwal, D.S., Kraeuchi, Ph., Widmer, R., 2009. Producer responsibility for e-waste management: key issues for consideration e learning from the Swiss experience. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (1), 153e165. Kiatkittipong, W., Wongsuchoto, P., Meevasana, K., Pavasant, P., 2008. When to buy new electrical/electronic products? Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1339e1345. Krikke, H., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Wassenhove, L.V., 2001. Design of Closed Loop Supply Chains: A Production and Return Network for Refrigerators. Working Paper Erasmus University. Lindblom, C.E., 1987. Alternatives to validity. Some thoughts suggested by Campbell’s guidelines. Knowledge Creation, Difusion, Utilization 8, 509e520. Liu, X., Tanaka, M., Matsui, Y., 2009. Economic evaluation of optional recycling processes for waste electronic home appliances. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 53e60. Manikutty, S., 1987. ECIL: A case study of environmental change and organizational response in the public sector. UMI Dissertation Services. Manomaivibool, P., 2009. Extended producer responsibility in a non-OECD context: the management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53, 136e144. Mar-Ortiz, J., Adenso-Diaz, B., Gonzalez-Velarde, J.L., 2011. Design of a recovery network for WEEE, collection: the case of Galicia, Spain. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62 (8), 1471e1484. Matthews, H.S., Matthews, H.D., 2003. Information technology products and the environment. In: Kuehr, R., Williams, E. (Eds.), Computers and the Environment: Understanding and Managing Their Impacts. Kluwer Academic Publishers/ Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 17e39. McKerlie, K., Knight, N., Thorpe, B., 2006. Advancing extended producer responsibility in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 616e628. Nnorom, I.C., Osibanjo, O., 2008. Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices and legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 843e858. Nnorom, I.C., Ohakwe, J., Osibanjo, O., 2009. Survey of willingness of residents to participate in electronic waste recycling in Nigeria e A case study of mobile phone recycling. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1629e1637. Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., Cherrett, T.J., 2011. How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Management 31, 714e730. Pettigrew, A., 1997. What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal Management 13, 337e348. Rajagopalan, N., Spreitzer, G., 1997. Toward a theory of strategic change: a multilens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review 22, 48e79. REI-RAEE (Registro de Aparatos Eléctricos y Electrónicos), 2010. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. www.mityc.es/industria/RAEE/Consultas/ Paginas/consultasPublicas.aspx (accessed october 2011). Robinson, B., 2009. E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment 408, 183e191. Rowley, J., 2002. Using case studies in research. Management Research News 25 (1), 16e27. Royal Decree (Real Decreto) 208/2005, de 25 de febrero sobre aparatos eléctricos y electrónicos y la gestión de sus residuos. Shih, L., 2001. Reverse logistics system planning for recycling electrical appliances and computers in Taiwan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32, 55e72. Shinkuma, T., Minh Huong, N.T., 2008. The flow of E-waste material in the Asian region and a reconsideration of international trade policies on E-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (1), 25e31. Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Kraeuchi, Ph., Schwaninger, M., 2005. A comparison of electronic waste recycling in Switzerland and in India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25, 492e504. Sodhi, M.S., Reimer, B., 2001. Models for recycling electronics end-of-life products. OR Spectrum 23, 97e115. Spicer, A.J., Johnson, M.R., 2004. Third-party demanufacturing as a solution for extended producer responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production 12, 37e45. Step (Solving the E-Waste Problem), 2009. White Paper: E-Waste Take-Back System Design and Policy Approaches. Stevels, A.L.N., Ram, A.A.P., Deckers, E., 1999. Take-back of discarded consumer electronic products from the perspective of the producer. Conditions for success. Journal of Cleaner Production 7, 383e389. Streicher-Porte M., 2005. WEEE recycling systems: the Swiss solution SWICO. In: Proceedings of the second national institute for environment studies (NIES) workshop on e-waste, 57e66. Tasaki, T., Hashimoto, S., Moriguchi, Y., 2006. A quantitative method to evaluate the level of material use in lease/reuse systems of electrical and electronic equipment. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1519e1528. Terazono, A., Murakami, S., Abe, N., Inanc, B., Moriguchi, Y., Sakai, S., Kojima, M., Yoshida, A., Li, J., Yang, J., Wong, M.H., Jain, A., Kim, I., Peralta, G.L., Lin, Ch., Mungcharoen, Th., Williams, E., 2006. Current status and research on E-waste issues in Asia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 8, 1e12. Truttmann, N., Rechberger, H., 2006. Contribution to resource conservation by reuse of electrical and electronic household appliances. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 48, 249e262. Turner, M., Callaghan, D., 2007. UK to finally implement the WEEE Directive. Computer Law and Security Report 23, 73e76. Van de Ven, A., 1992. Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note. Strategic Management Journal 13, 169e188.

D. Queiruga et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 24 (2012) 56e65 Van der Bent, J., Paauwe, J., Williams, R., 1999. Organizational learning: an exploration of organizational memory and its role in organizational change processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management 12, 377e404. Veenstra, A., Wang, C., Fan, W.J., Ru, Y.H., 2010. An analysis of E-waste flows in China. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 47 (5e8), 449e459. Venkatraman, N., 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review 14, 423e444. Volberda, H.W., 1997. Building flexible organizations for fast-moving markets. Long Range Planning 30, 169e183. Wager, P.A., Hischier, R., Eugster, M., 2011. Environmental impacts of the Swiss collection and recovery systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): a follow-up. Science of the Total Environment 409 (10), 1746e1756. Wagner, T.P., 2009. Shared responsibility for managing electronic waste: a case study of Maine, USA. Waste Management 29, 3014e3021.

65

Walther, G., Spengler, Th., Queiruga, D., 2008. Facility location planning for treatment of large household appliances in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 8 (4), 405e425. Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Yin, J., Zhang, X., 2011. Willingness and behavior towards ewaste recycling for residents in Beijing city, China. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 977e984. WEEE Forum, 2010. Annual report 2010. Weick, K.E., 1989. Theory construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review 14, 516e531. Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, A., Scnellmann, M., Boni, H., 2005. Global perspectives on the e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25, 436e458. Yin, Robert K, 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.