Efficient Implementation of Collective Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that holds producers financially responsible for the post-use collection, recycling, and disposal of their products. Many EPR implementations are collective—a large collection and recycling network (CRN) handles multiple producers’ products in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Management science 2016-04, Vol.62 (4), p.1098-1123
Hauptverfasser: Gui, Luyi, Atasu, Atalay, Ergun, Özlem, Toktay, L. Beril
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1123
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1098
container_title Management science
container_volume 62
creator Gui, Luyi
Atasu, Atalay
Ergun, Özlem
Toktay, L. Beril
description Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that holds producers financially responsible for the post-use collection, recycling, and disposal of their products. Many EPR implementations are collective—a large collection and recycling network (CRN) handles multiple producers’ products in order to benefit from scale and scope economies. The total cost is then allocated to producers based on metrics such as their return shares by weight. Such weight-based proportional allocation mechanisms are criticized in practice for not taking into account the heterogeneity in the costs imposed by different producers’ products. The consequence is cost allocations that impose higher costs on certain producer groups than they can achieve independently. This may lead some producers to break away from collective systems, resulting in fragmented systems with higher total cost. Yet cost efficiency is a key legislative and producer concern. To address this concern, this paper develops cost allocation mechanisms that induce participation in collective systems and maximize cost efficiency. The cost allocation mechanisms we propose consist of adjustments to the widely used return share method and include the weighing of return shares based on processing costs and the rewarding of capacity contributions to collective systems. We validate our theoretical results using Washington state EPR implementation data and provide insights into how these mechanisms can be implemented in practice. This paper was accepted by Serguei Netessine, operations management.
doi_str_mv 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2163
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A450998318</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A450998318</galeid><jstor_id>43835040</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A450998318</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c587t-f898ec6d0407df59367a40fee97dee15a627107fd4cff05a0b662eac7a129aa53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkt-L1DAQx4MouJ6--iYUBJ_smrRNkz4ey6oHC4o_nkM2ndQsbbJm0uPuvzd1xXNhQQJJCJ_vTGbmS8hLRteskuLd5NGsK8r4umJt_YisGK_aknPKHpMVpRUvWUe7p-QZ4oFSKqRoV-Tr1lpnHPhU3EzHEaZ808kFXwRbbMI4gknuFortXQLfQ198jqGfDcTiC-AxeHR7N7p0X-xgcDj-lj4nT6weEV78Oa_I9_fbb5uP5e7Th5vN9a40XIpUWtlJMG1PGyp6y7u6FbqhFqATPQDjuq0Eo8L2jbGWck33bVuBNkKzqtOa11fk9SnuMYafM2BShzBHn1OqqhWSUZmLf6AGPYJy3oYUtZkcGnXdcNp1smYyU-UFagAPUY_Bg3X5-YxfX-Dz6mFy5qLgzZkgMwnu0qBnRHUOvv0H3M_oPGDe0A0_Ep74Sx8xMSBGsOoY3aTjvWJULb5Qiy_U4gu1-CILXp0EB0wh_qWbWtY8j-KhE0tRccL_xfsFAp3CaQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2678108550</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficient Implementation of Collective Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation</title><source>INFORMS PubsOnLine</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Gui, Luyi ; Atasu, Atalay ; Ergun, Özlem ; Toktay, L. Beril</creator><creatorcontrib>Gui, Luyi ; Atasu, Atalay ; Ergun, Özlem ; Toktay, L. Beril</creatorcontrib><description>Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that holds producers financially responsible for the post-use collection, recycling, and disposal of their products. Many EPR implementations are collective—a large collection and recycling network (CRN) handles multiple producers’ products in order to benefit from scale and scope economies. The total cost is then allocated to producers based on metrics such as their return shares by weight. Such weight-based proportional allocation mechanisms are criticized in practice for not taking into account the heterogeneity in the costs imposed by different producers’ products. The consequence is cost allocations that impose higher costs on certain producer groups than they can achieve independently. This may lead some producers to break away from collective systems, resulting in fragmented systems with higher total cost. Yet cost efficiency is a key legislative and producer concern. To address this concern, this paper develops cost allocation mechanisms that induce participation in collective systems and maximize cost efficiency. The cost allocation mechanisms we propose consist of adjustments to the widely used return share method and include the weighing of return shares based on processing costs and the rewarding of capacity contributions to collective systems. We validate our theoretical results using Washington state EPR implementation data and provide insights into how these mechanisms can be implemented in practice. This paper was accepted by Serguei Netessine, operations management.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-1909</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-5501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2163</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Linthicum: INFORMS</publisher><subject>Collective responsibility ; cost allocation ; Cost analysis ; Costs ; Economies of scale ; environment ; Environmental policy ; extended producer responsibility ; Legislation ; Management ; Product management ; Recycling ; regulation ; Resource allocation ; Social responsibility ; Weighing</subject><ispartof>Management science, 2016-04, Vol.62 (4), p.1098-1123</ispartof><rights>2016 INFORMS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences</rights><rights>Copyright Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences Apr 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c587t-f898ec6d0407df59367a40fee97dee15a627107fd4cff05a0b662eac7a129aa53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c587t-f898ec6d0407df59367a40fee97dee15a627107fd4cff05a0b662eac7a129aa53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43835040$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2163$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginforms$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,3690,27923,27924,58016,58249,62615</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gui, Luyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atasu, Atalay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ergun, Özlem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toktay, L. Beril</creatorcontrib><title>Efficient Implementation of Collective Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation</title><title>Management science</title><description>Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that holds producers financially responsible for the post-use collection, recycling, and disposal of their products. Many EPR implementations are collective—a large collection and recycling network (CRN) handles multiple producers’ products in order to benefit from scale and scope economies. The total cost is then allocated to producers based on metrics such as their return shares by weight. Such weight-based proportional allocation mechanisms are criticized in practice for not taking into account the heterogeneity in the costs imposed by different producers’ products. The consequence is cost allocations that impose higher costs on certain producer groups than they can achieve independently. This may lead some producers to break away from collective systems, resulting in fragmented systems with higher total cost. Yet cost efficiency is a key legislative and producer concern. To address this concern, this paper develops cost allocation mechanisms that induce participation in collective systems and maximize cost efficiency. The cost allocation mechanisms we propose consist of adjustments to the widely used return share method and include the weighing of return shares based on processing costs and the rewarding of capacity contributions to collective systems. We validate our theoretical results using Washington state EPR implementation data and provide insights into how these mechanisms can be implemented in practice. This paper was accepted by Serguei Netessine, operations management.</description><subject>Collective responsibility</subject><subject>cost allocation</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Economies of scale</subject><subject>environment</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>extended producer responsibility</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Product management</subject><subject>Recycling</subject><subject>regulation</subject><subject>Resource allocation</subject><subject>Social responsibility</subject><subject>Weighing</subject><issn>0025-1909</issn><issn>1526-5501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N95</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkt-L1DAQx4MouJ6--iYUBJ_smrRNkz4ey6oHC4o_nkM2ndQsbbJm0uPuvzd1xXNhQQJJCJ_vTGbmS8hLRteskuLd5NGsK8r4umJt_YisGK_aknPKHpMVpRUvWUe7p-QZ4oFSKqRoV-Tr1lpnHPhU3EzHEaZ808kFXwRbbMI4gknuFortXQLfQ198jqGfDcTiC-AxeHR7N7p0X-xgcDj-lj4nT6weEV78Oa_I9_fbb5uP5e7Th5vN9a40XIpUWtlJMG1PGyp6y7u6FbqhFqATPQDjuq0Eo8L2jbGWck33bVuBNkKzqtOa11fk9SnuMYafM2BShzBHn1OqqhWSUZmLf6AGPYJy3oYUtZkcGnXdcNp1smYyU-UFagAPUY_Bg3X5-YxfX-Dz6mFy5qLgzZkgMwnu0qBnRHUOvv0H3M_oPGDe0A0_Ep74Sx8xMSBGsOoY3aTjvWJULb5Qiy_U4gu1-CILXp0EB0wh_qWbWtY8j-KhE0tRccL_xfsFAp3CaQ</recordid><startdate>201604</startdate><enddate>201604</enddate><creator>Gui, Luyi</creator><creator>Atasu, Atalay</creator><creator>Ergun, Özlem</creator><creator>Toktay, L. Beril</creator><general>INFORMS</general><general>Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201604</creationdate><title>Efficient Implementation of Collective Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation</title><author>Gui, Luyi ; Atasu, Atalay ; Ergun, Özlem ; Toktay, L. Beril</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c587t-f898ec6d0407df59367a40fee97dee15a627107fd4cff05a0b662eac7a129aa53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Collective responsibility</topic><topic>cost allocation</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Economies of scale</topic><topic>environment</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>extended producer responsibility</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Product management</topic><topic>Recycling</topic><topic>regulation</topic><topic>Resource allocation</topic><topic>Social responsibility</topic><topic>Weighing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gui, Luyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atasu, Atalay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ergun, Özlem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toktay, L. Beril</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Business: Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Management science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gui, Luyi</au><au>Atasu, Atalay</au><au>Ergun, Özlem</au><au>Toktay, L. Beril</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficient Implementation of Collective Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation</atitle><jtitle>Management science</jtitle><date>2016-04</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1098</spage><epage>1123</epage><pages>1098-1123</pages><issn>0025-1909</issn><eissn>1526-5501</eissn><abstract>Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that holds producers financially responsible for the post-use collection, recycling, and disposal of their products. Many EPR implementations are collective—a large collection and recycling network (CRN) handles multiple producers’ products in order to benefit from scale and scope economies. The total cost is then allocated to producers based on metrics such as their return shares by weight. Such weight-based proportional allocation mechanisms are criticized in practice for not taking into account the heterogeneity in the costs imposed by different producers’ products. The consequence is cost allocations that impose higher costs on certain producer groups than they can achieve independently. This may lead some producers to break away from collective systems, resulting in fragmented systems with higher total cost. Yet cost efficiency is a key legislative and producer concern. To address this concern, this paper develops cost allocation mechanisms that induce participation in collective systems and maximize cost efficiency. The cost allocation mechanisms we propose consist of adjustments to the widely used return share method and include the weighing of return shares based on processing costs and the rewarding of capacity contributions to collective systems. We validate our theoretical results using Washington state EPR implementation data and provide insights into how these mechanisms can be implemented in practice. This paper was accepted by Serguei Netessine, operations management.</abstract><cop>Linthicum</cop><pub>INFORMS</pub><doi>10.1287/mnsc.2015.2163</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0025-1909
ispartof Management science, 2016-04, Vol.62 (4), p.1098-1123
issn 0025-1909
1526-5501
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A450998318
source INFORMS PubsOnLine; Business Source Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Collective responsibility
cost allocation
Cost analysis
Costs
Economies of scale
environment
Environmental policy
extended producer responsibility
Legislation
Management
Product management
Recycling
regulation
Resource allocation
Social responsibility
Weighing
title Efficient Implementation of Collective Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T02%3A22%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficient%20Implementation%20of%20Collective%20Extended%20Producer%20Responsibility%20Legislation&rft.jtitle=Management%20science&rft.au=Gui,%20Luyi&rft.date=2016-04&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1098&rft.epage=1123&rft.pages=1098-1123&rft.issn=0025-1909&rft.eissn=1526-5501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2163&rft_dat=%3Cgale_cross%3EA450998318%3C/gale_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2678108550&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A450998318&rft_jstor_id=43835040&rfr_iscdi=true