84
considers the steps of logistics management in reverse order (from consumption to
the origin) and adds the appropriate destination and the recapturing value as main
purposes. Nonetheless, the value maximization, logistics steps and product life
cycle are emphasized by Guide and Van Wassenhove (2009) reverse logistics’
definition.
Reverse logistics concept was previously presented as the take-back system
adopted in the environmental European directives, in which each state member
developed the specific regulation. Some examples of these European directives are
the End of Life Vehicles and Directive 2000/53/European Community, the Battery
Directive 2006/66/European Community, Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Directive 2012/96/European Community and Restriction of Certain
Hazardous Substances Directive 2011/65/European Community. This procedure
was carried on for e-waste and other categories of post-consumer products.
Nowadays, the reverse logistics concept merged the closed-loop supply chain
proposal (Govindan and Soleimani 2017) and can even be interpreted as one of the
tools of circular economy concept. Likewise, the concept of urban mining emerges
as a derivation of the proposed circularity. This concept contributes by reducing the
exploitation of natural resources and prioritizing the use and reuse of products and
materials. The urban mining works on as an alternative to obtaining inputs (precious
metals) from secondary resources from E-waste.
The most recent database on E-waste was published in Global E-waste Monitor
(Baldé et al. 2017). This report states that in 2016 Asia produced over 18 metric
tonnes of E-waste, followed by Europe (12.3 metric tonnes), the Americas (11.3
metric tonnes), Africa (2.2 metric tonnes) and Oceania (0.7 metric tonnes).
Therefore, some attention needs to be direct to provide priority to environmental
regulation in Asian countries. In fact, developing countries generally lack actions to
regulate and to prevent negative environmental impacts resulting from E-waste
handling (Kumar et al. 2017).
In addition, Table 5.1 presents the main studies related to reverse logistics and
management of E-waste in developing countries.
5.2.2 Barriers to Implementation of Reverse Logistics of Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (E-waste)
While Achillas et al. (2010) have attempted to emphasize the importance to consider the development of a reverse network, several studies deal on barriers to
implementing reverse logistics in developed countries. In general, the barriers for
E-waste recycling alternatives have its origin in different aspects, such as economic,
political or technical issues, and are managed according to the particularities of each
country.
Abdulrahman et al. (2014) studied the barriers of reverse logistics in China and
found four categories: (i) management, (ii) financial, (iii) policy and (iv) infrastrucP. Guarnieri et al.
considers the steps of logistics management in reverse order (from consumption to
the origin) and adds the appropriate destination and the recapturing value as main
purposes. Nonetheless, the value maximization, logistics steps and product life
cycle are emphasized by Guide and Van Wassenhove (2009) reverse logistics’
definition.
Reverse logistics concept was previously presented as the take-back system
adopted in the environmental European directives, in which each state member
developed the specific regulation. Some examples of these European directives are
the End of Life Vehicles and Directive 2000/53/European Community, the Battery
Directive 2006/66/European Community, Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Directive 2012/96/European Community and Restriction of Certain
Hazardous Substances Directive 2011/65/European Community. This procedure
was carried on for e-waste and other categories of post-consumer products.
Nowadays, the reverse logistics concept merged the closed-loop supply chain
proposal (Govindan and Soleimani 2017) and can even be interpreted as one of the
tools of circular economy concept. Likewise, the concept of urban mining emerges
as a derivation of the proposed circularity. This concept contributes by reducing the
exploitation of natural resources and prioritizing the use and reuse of products and
materials. The urban mining works on as an alternative to obtaining inputs (precious
metals) from secondary resources from E-waste.
The most recent database on E-waste was published in Global E-waste Monitor
(Baldé et al. 2017). This report states that in 2016 Asia produced over 18 metric
tonnes of E-waste, followed by Europe (12.3 metric tonnes), the Americas (11.3
metric tonnes), Africa (2.2 metric tonnes) and Oceania (0.7 metric tonnes).
Therefore, some attention needs to be direct to provide priority to environmental
regulation in Asian countries. In fact, developing countries generally lack actions to
regulate and to prevent negative environmental impacts resulting from E-waste
handling (Kumar et al. 2017).
In addition, Table 5.1 presents the main studies related to reverse logistics and
management of E-waste in developing countries.
5.2.2 Barriers to Implementation of Reverse Logistics of Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (E-waste)
While Achillas et al. (2010) have attempted to emphasize the importance to consider the development of a reverse network, several studies deal on barriers to
implementing reverse logistics in developed countries. In general, the barriers for
E-waste recycling alternatives have its origin in different aspects, such as economic,
political or technical issues, and are managed according to the particularities of each
country.
Abdulrahman et al. (2014) studied the barriers of reverse logistics in China and
found four categories: (i) management, (ii) financial, (iii) policy and (iv) infrastrucP. Guarnieri et al.