Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Swedish producer responsibility for paper packaging: an effective waste management policy?
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9270-8767
2007 (English)In: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, ISSN 0921-3449, E-ISSN 1879-0658, Vol. 51, no 2, p. 314-344Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The main purpose of this study is to analyze the incentive structure and the effectiveness of the Swedish producer responsibility ordinance, i.e., the ability of the system to induce producers to economize with cardboard packaging and to fulfill the related environmental goals cost effectively. A secondary purpose is to discuss if the empirical evidence in any way suggests that an alternative supply chain management regime, i.e., the UCTS-system, could be more effective. According to the results, both the Swedish producer responsibility scheme and the UCTS system fulfill two important cost effectiveness criteria. The packaging fee in the present Swedish system and the packaging tax in the UCTS system provide similar incentives to an output effect. Furthermore, both systems also give rise to input substitution effects. For instance, both systems encourage the use of secondary materials at the expense of virgin materials by subsidizing collection and recycling activities. However, in the Swedish producer responsibility system, waste collection entrepreneurs in areas with high marginal costs of collection also often obtain high refunds. This implies a violation of the cost effectiveness principle. Neither of the systems tends to encourage enough of design for recyclability, but here the Swedish producer responsibility seems to be somewhat more effective than the UCTS system. Our analysis of the transformation and transaction costs involved in the two waste management systems suggests that it is hard to a priori determine which system will minimize waste management costs. It will depend on, for instance, households’ valuation of sorting efforts, and the presence of economies of scale in the waste collection system. This implies that different systems can be preferred in different parts of the country.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007. Vol. 51, no 2, p. 314-344
National Category
Economics
Research subject
Economics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-14604DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.10.003ISI: 000247291100004Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-34248595733Local ID: e00a82a0-5ac3-11dc-8a1d-000ea68e967bOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-14604DiVA, id: diva2:987577
Note
Validerad; 2007; 20070904 (pafi)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Hage, Olle

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hage, Olle
By organisation
Social Sciences
In the same journal
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Economics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 58 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf