Search

In 2019 the EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive documented a sizable increase in e-waste collection targets alongside widening the scope of electrical and electronic products covered by the legislation. These changes have significant impact for the UK, where e-waste collection has been below the levels necessary to meet the targets. Understanding the flows and fates of products on and off the market becomes of paramount importance, especially for producer-led organisations who have the responsibility to achieve the targets and cover the operational costs. Historic e-waste estimation methods often assume that one product on the market will equate to one product in the waste stream. In this article, we introduce our research commissioned by one of the largest UK producer-led organisations, REPIC Ltd, to explain the gap in products on the market and WEEE collected, and the relationship between the two. We argue that we should move away from the “one-in-one-out” estimation to include a wider set of parameters that are tailored specifically for the UK, including those linked with the state of the market for electronic and electrical products and a broader range of socioeconomic indicators. We show how this can be achieved by adapting a state-of-the-art e-waste estimation model, Waste Over Time, to the UK context and developing it further to include additional drivers.

In the West, limited government capacity to solve environmental problems has triggered the rise of a variety of “nonstate actors” to supplement government efforts or provide alternative mechanisms for addressing environmental issues. How does this development - along with our efforts to understand it - map onto environmental governance processes in China? China's efforts to address environmental issues reflect institutionalized governance processes that differ from parallel western processes in ways that have major consequences for domestic environmental governance practices and the governance of China “going abroad.” China's governance processes blur the distinction between the state and other actors; the “shadow of the state” is a major factor in all efforts to address environmental issues. The space occupied by nonstate actors in western systems is occupied by shiye danwei (“public service units”), she hui tuanti (“social associations”) and e-platforms, all of which have close links to the state. Meanwhile, international NGOs and multinational corporations are also significant players in China. As a result, the mechanisms of influence that produce effects in China differ in important ways from mechanisms familiar from the western experience. This conclusion has far-reaching implications for those seeking to address global environmental concerns, given the importance of China's growing economy and burgeoning network of trade relationships.