Original Equipment Manufacturers’ Participation in Take‐Back Initiatives in Brazil

Abstract

Summary Lax legislation and increasing demand for electronics are driving relentless growth in electronic waste (e‐waste) in the developing world. To reduce the damage caused by e‐waste and recover value from end‐of‐life (EoL) electronics, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have created, over the past decades, programs to divert e‐waste from landfills to recycling and reuse. Although the subject of intense debate, little is known about such initiatives in terms of levels of participation by OEMs or the extent to which they have succeeded in reducing e‐waste in developing economies. To broaden our understanding of these issues, we investigate take‐back initiatives in the thriving market of personal computers (i.e., desktop and laptop computers) in Brazil. Using a multimethod approach (electronic archival data collection and semistructured interviews with manufacturers), we find evidence that large multinational manufacturers are at the forefront of take‐back programs. However, these initiatives in many ways lag behind those implemented in the United States, a more developed market as far as product take‐back is concerned. We find the main reasons for the low levels of participation by OEMs in take‐back programs to be high collection costs, low residual values, and lax, unclear, and conflicting legislation. Moreover, we propose new avenues of research, in light of our scant knowledge of country‐specific, company‐specific, and product‐specific determinants that moderate participation.

India's E‐Waste Rules and Their Impact on E‐Waste Management Practices: A Case Study

“…As discussed extensively earlier, India's e‐waste Rules, by mandating take‐back by producers without any targets for collection and/or recycling, did not create enough incentives for producers to take their responsibilities seriously. On the implementation side, the unwillingness on the part of the regulatory agencies to enforce the EPR regulations and the issue of lack of clarity in regulatory enforcement that our analysis demonstrates could potentially reduce the effectiveness of the regulation by providing an excuse for producers to not comply (e.g., Quariguasi Frota Neto and van Wassenhove ). This is particularly pertinent in a developing country such as India because of the already weak regulatory structure with regards to enforcement of environmental regulations (e.g., Priyadarshini and Gupta ; Prasad ; OECD ).…”

“…These laws require mandatory take‐back by producers. Lack of operationalization of the take‐back requirements and poor enforcement of these laws make them ineffective in improving the collection and recycling of e‐waste in Brazil (Quariguasi Frota Neto and van Wassenhove ).…”

On the Attractiveness of Product Recovery: The Forces that Shape Reverse Markets

“…Because companies’ voluntary participation in product recovery hinges on the profit potential of remarketing (Quariguasi Frota Neto and van Wassenhove ), the existence of a secondary market is essential. Secondary markets can be internal, involving substitution of recovered for primary inputs and generation of spare parts (Toffel ), as in the aerospace sector, in which use of recovered components enables primary product to be maintained without diverting manufacturing capabilities to spare parts production (C7), or external, in which recovered products are offered on external secondary markets.…”

Extended Producer Responsibility

“…In “Original Equipment Manufacturers’ Participation in Voluntary Product Take‐Back Initiatives in Brazil: Engagement Levels, Determinants, and Deterrents,” Quariguasi Frota Neto and Van Wassenhove () analyze the engagement of personal computer manufacturers in Brazil, where take‐back of computers discarded by consumers has not been fully mandated by legislation. Based primarily on archival data collection methods supplemented by interviews, the authors conclude that the level of manufacturers’ engagement in take‐back initiatives is low compared to the situation in the United States.…”