A Case Discussion on Market‐Based Extended Producer Responsibility: The Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act

• DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12721
• Publication Date: 2018-01-25T15:02:46Z
• Authors: Işıl Alev; Ximin (Natalie) H...; Atalay Atasu; L. Beril Toktay
• Keywords: Extended producer responsibility; Unintended consequences; Stakeholder Engagement; Industrial Ecology

Summary In this article, we analyze the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act to explore benefits and potential drawbacks of a market‐based extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation implementation with operational flexibility for manufacturers. Based on publicly available reports stakeholder interviews, find that attains two key goals EPR (i.e., higher cost efficiencies substantial landfill diversion); however, may come at expense selective collection recycling, an increased burden local governments, loss balance in contractual power between stakeholders. We observe these concerns arise because specific provisions afforded manufacturers allow them operationalize their compliance cost‐efficiency focus. Thus, conclude must be carefully translated into operating rules order achieve while avoiding unintended consequences.