An Evolving Industry

Producer responsibility is a phrase that can make electronics OEMs cringe. It can mean different things to different people, including manufacturers, government and consumers.

As electronics equipment, and more specifically, computers, become quickly outdated, disposal of these units becomes a larger issue for all those involved. Progress is being made as industry infrastructure grows. A question now being debated is whether the producer responsibility model will become a joint responsibility model between several parties.

 Finding a Middle Ground

As the electronics recycling industry develops, a framework for the relationship between manufacturers, government and consumers will emerge. And within that framework is the question of whether or not state or federal legislation is needed to manage electronics waste.

Steve Levetan, an Atlanta-based lobbyist who works regionally on behalf of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) Inc., says manufacturers typically do not favor government involvement for managing electronics waste. “I think in general our position would be not favoring government mandates, but rather trying to work with all of the involved parties to develop reasonable incentives to accomplish what we want to accomplish.

“The whole approach of manufacturer responsibility seems to be based on the assumption that the purchaser or owner has no responsibility. I think we as a consumer have some responsibility for the products we buy. There needs to be a balance.”

Levetan says the challenge is now to strike a balance for the financial burden for end of life (EOL) management between manufacturers, consumers and government. “When I purchase a product, I am purchasing the product, not leasing it. I do think that they [manufacturers] have a responsibility to make sure that the products they sell are safe and to move more and more toward the concept of design for recycling.”

Although manufacturers can take steps to make products as recyclable as possible, Levetan says that does come at a price. “There are no easy answers to any of this and there are competitive issues that have to be taken into account [as far as] products that can be made greener. Clearly if there is a mandated take-back program, there is a cost associated with it and that cost will ultimately be born by the consumer.”

 Designing A Greener Machine

The emerging shared responsibility model has grown from the more narrowly defined producer responsibility models that had evolved in the past few years. This shared model is one Sharp Electronics Corp. feels is the most equitable for everyone.

“Sharp believes in the shared responsibility model and that everyone in the chain has some responsibility, from the purchaser who willingly buys the product and basically takes all rights associated with the product to the retailer who is the contact between the consumer to the municipality who already has an existing infrastructure to collect these items,” says Frank Marella, manager of corporate environmental affairs, Sharp Electronics Corp., Mahwah, N.J.

Marella says Sharp Electronics’ biggest contribution to the process is to design products more conducive to recycling. “Our responsibility, as far as we see, is to use our ability to design the product and to include in the product design items that would make the product easy to disassemble.”

Designing products that are easier to recycle is something David Thompson, general manager, corporate environmental department, Panasonic, Secaucus, N.J., says is a strength of OEMs. “I think what we can do best is design products to be more easily recycled and can use our purchasing power and our suppliers to create demand for materials for a longer term approach.”

Using recycled content when available is another contribution Marella says Sharp can offer to make products more environmentally responsible. The company has toner bottles for copiers that have 25 percent post-consumer content and has done so since the mid-1990s.

One roadblock to incorporating more recycled feedstock into its equipment, Marella says, is having a consistent supply of feedstock. “One issue with the recycled plastic is you need a consistent supply,” he says. “You have to know you are getting ‘X’ amount every day. And that’s not there.”

Part of incorporating more recycled plastics into units is having more uniform types of plastics used in those pieces of equipment. Marella says Sharp has made headway on this. “We have reduced the number of plastics. We are working with other manufacturers to make them more uniform. The housings on TVs are pretty uniform already,” he says.

Thompson says Panasonic has also reduced the number of plastic resins used in products. “We worked with our resin suppliers in 1997-98 and looked at the different grades of resins we were using. For example, with respect to polystyrene, we were using 120 different grades. We have standardized that to 10 grades. We looked at ABS plastic and were using 200-plus and now are using 12 grades.”  

The European Way

Currently, there are two directives for EOL management of electronic equipment in Europe—the Waste Electrical and Electronics Equipment directive (WEEE) and the Restriction on Hazardous Substances (ROHS). The ever-evolving directives were originally one directive, but were split and introduced separately in June 2000, says Jason Linnell, assistant manager of environmental affairs, Electronics Industry Alliance, Arlington, Va.

The WEEE directive is a producer responsibility directive saying producers of electronic equipment are financially responsible for collection, recovery and EOL management for units, including historical products. The inclusion of responsibility for historical units, many of which were manufactured by companies no longer in business, is part of the directive the EIA does not support, Linnell says. “It is making a collective responsibility for anything ever made and we have a problem with that. They weren’t thinking about that when they were designed. It is a retroactive clause and that is a problem.”

Marella agrees that requiring manufacturers to also be responsible for historical products may not be the best decision. “I don’t think it’s fair,” he says. “When you sold the item originally you set the price and that was set up where the purchaser pays for the rights [for that product]. But suddenly you are telling me I have to take back a product with the responsibility transferred? There is no way for me to get the value of that back.”

The ROHS concentrates on hazardous substances in computers such as lead, mercury and cadmium, Linnell says, and the phase out of their use in electronics by 2007, a deadline he says he is not sure is realistic. “We don’t think 2007 is the right date, and you do have to look at some of the exemptions. I am not sure of what the cost impact will be, but it will definitely have an impact.

“They have gone through with this even though they have not done a risk assessment of what the risks are,” adds Linnell. If they are properly handled then there is no risk. They have also not looked at alternatives.”

Linnell says there are very specific reasons why certain materials are used in a product. A material such as lead can be dangerous, but it is used in very small quantities for computer monitors and it prevents radiation from being released from the monitor, he says. Mercury is a very efficient material energy-wise and again, Linnell points out, very small amounts are used that result in large environmental savings for reduced energy consumption.

 Moving Forward

It is uncertain whether trends in Europe  will follow to the United States. “I think that in the U.S. there hasn’t been a big push for the type of producer responsibility [as there has been in Europe], but as of right now, they are just talking about it on a theoretical level,” Linnell says. “It hasn’t [been put in practice] in Europe yet and they don’t know if it will have the benefits they say.”

He says the U.S. seems to be looking more at shared responsibility models instead of a producer responsibility scheme. “In the U.S. there is work to get everyone together, not just producers, to take the different pieces and look at who can best handle each portion,” Linnell says. “Producers aren’t in a process to do collection economically, but we can design [equipment] to make it easier to recycle.

“All the work going on seems to be following the shared responsibility model, so that is promising. Hopefully we will see something that works. Having all the shareholders focus on their strengths is the better way to go.”

It appears that more of those involved in or affected by the disposal of electronics equipment are starting to take note of activity around the U.S., says Kerry Fennelly, director of communications, EIA. “A core competency in the recycling realm would be to design products that can more easily be recycled or reused and to be broken down better at the end of life. That is where we think we can be the most successful with this issue.”

The EIA is also set to launch an industry pilot project to look at several models for collection of used electronics for recycling. Canon, Hewlett Packard, JVC, Kodak, Nokia, Panasonic, Phillips Electronics, Sharp, Sony and Thomson are all contributing manufacturers to the program. Participants hope to generate data to further guide development of a cost-effective collection infrastructure.

The EIA’s Electronics Recycling Pilot Program will take place in select states and several models will be tested for one year. Panasonic’s Thompson says, “We are trying to look for opportunity to work with other retailers, government, producers and recyclers so they can hopefully better recycle.”  

A Uniform Playing Field

Having some sort of program, no matter what that ends up being, on a national level is very important, Linnell says. Although each area’s individual needs have to be considered, having a program or model on a national scale would “level the playing field” he says. The way materials are collected is an issue that would have to be looked at regionally, based on that particular area’s demographics. “That is something we are still working on and are trying to find out in our pilot project. Although you need economies of scale, you need to cater to the needs of that region.”

The potential of 50 states with 50 different take-back programs or systems for recycling is a concern for many. Having some sort of uniform model overall seems to be something everyone agrees on. Thompson says the evolution from separate state programs to a national, uniform collection program was seen with the rechargeable battery industry. Electronics could follow the same path.

“Back in the early 1990s you had a number of different states addressing the issue and they came up with different labeling requirements and different collection requirements and placed the burden on different people,” Thompson says. “They [industry] responded by forming the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Council.”

One model for take-back mentioned is incorporating a deposit into the price of the unit or a fee paid by the consumer. Marella says this could be realistic, as long as the fee is reasonable. “The people who want to recycle will be willing to pay,” he says. “I think they will be willing to pay something reasonable. I am not sure what that fee is. The data says to keep it below $20 and they [consumers] will be willing to pay. An advance disposal fee has its merits. One of the things I am not sure of is whether that that would have to be mandated. I don’t think there is any legislation in the U.S. at this point willing to do that.”

Robin Ingenthron says no matter what programs or polices result, not everyone is going to be happy. “There will be winners and losers no matter how you do it, and we think the most cost effective way is the best,” says Ingenthron, vice president, Electronicycle, Gardner, Mass. He suggests manufacturers could do things to help recyclers more, such as providing access to the manuals of older machines. Electronicycle repairs, recycles and refurbishes computer equipment. Not having the original manual can make recycling a computer harder, he says.

One electronics recycler says while there is pressure for manufacturers to become involved with product take-back, she does not see it as something high on OEMs’ agendas. “It’s what I’d call a very low priority for these people,” says Jill Vaske, vice president sales and marketing, Redemtech, Hilliard, Ohio. “There’s a lot of pressure right now and they are not going to do it unless they are forced to, and it has to be easy to do.”

Vaske says for any kind of take-back program to be successful it must be easy to do. “It has to be efficient, easy and cheap or they won’t do it.”

 Jump-starting a Response

In an attempt to start more dialog among city and government officials, one San Francisco organization has announced plans to push for a resolution requiring manufacturers who sell computers within the San Francisco jurisdiction to manage and fund the take-back of those units.

“It’s a resolution passed by the board of supervisors for the city and county and urges the state legislators to introduce support legislation requiring producer responsibility for electronics products,” says Robert Haley, residential and special projects coordinator, Solid Waste Management Program, San Francisco. “We think it should happen at the state level.”

The resolution is a policy statement, he says, the group would like to become a local ordinance. There are several area jurisdictions considering it. “As a group we are looking at what Europe is doing.”

Haley says the resolution would have an affect on businesses selling electronics. “I think it affects businesses in that it urges them to change the way they do business. We are looking for a level playing field … and would rather it happen at the state and national level and San Francisco is use to leading the way so we are doing what we can to jump-start the issue.”

The organization would like to see recycling costs internalized into the price of computers, Haley says, and to have the manufacturer more responsible for EOL management. “We would love to see industry accomplish it on their own,” he says. “They are very good at research and development and would like to see them take care of their product on the back end. We see imperfections and we want to fix those.”

Sharp’s Marella says while he applauds the San Francisco effort, there are more barriers in California in particular to implementing such a program. “One of the problems with California is that California has put in such regulatory barriers that to implement a program would be costly,” he says. “The bottom line is consumers will pay for it, whether it is in the price, an advanced disposal fee, or a pay as you throw program.”  

No matter what shakes out in the end, Haley says he sees the burden being pushed onto the consumer. “I think what is happening is that we are going to pay the price one way or another. Government will pay the tab through taxes and it is a matter of shifting the cost to where it belongs to the cost of the unit.”