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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Management science 2016-04, Vol.62 (4), p.1098-1123 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 |