194
C. Dalhammar et al.
recycling practices and targets may be compromised due to rules on chemicals. For
example, many companies are hesitant to use recycled materials in new products, out
of fear that these products will not comply with rules on chemicals in products, e.g.
the rules found in the RoHS Directive, the Toy Safety Directive, and the REACH
Regulation (Tojo and Thidell 2018). This means that there is not sufficient ‘pull’ on
the market of recyclates (for use in new production) that would result in increasing
the recycling output—and thus the recycling input as well, with collected waste often
redirected to other treatment options (Milios et al. 2018).
More recently, proposed rules on allowed levels of persistent organic pollutants
(POPs)—and especially decaBDE—in recycled plastics may imply that it will not
be economically viable to recycle such plastics from electronics and vehicles, as
the cost for compliance is too high. One proposed level of allowed decaBDE—
10 ppm—would probably not be possible to guarantee (EuRIC 2018). This means
that the proposed rules on POPs are in direct conflict with EU’s vision that by 2030,
more than half of plastics waste generated in Europe will be recycled (European
Commission 2018).
Can such conflict be resolved? Clearly, there is no perfect solution. Stringent rules
on chemicals in products and recycled materials will compromise recycling targets;
whereas striving for high recycling targets means that higher levels of chemicals than
desired from a health/safety perspective must be allowed. Yet, some compromises
are possible (Sevelius 2019). For instance, one solution would be to apply strict
levels of POPs in recycled materials to be used in toys, kitchen utensils, and other
applications where the users may be vulnerable (e.g. children) or where the risk of
contamination is high. In contrast, it may be less risky to allow higher levels of POPs
in applications where this risk is low (e.g. heavy machinery).
14.3.3 Conflicting Criteria in GPP
GPP has been practiced for a couple of decades in environmental policy frontrunner countries (Jänicke 2005; Dalhammar and Mundaca 2012). During that time
period, the number of sustainability criteria applied have increased to cover an
increasing number of sustainability aspects, including chemical content, energy efficiency requirements, recyclability, and raw materials. The CE has led to an increasing
interest for addressing various raw material and resource-related aspects, and to apply
GPP criteria that relate to inter alia product lifetime, rare earth elements, and bio
based materials. Examples of concrete practices in Sweden include the procurement
of bio based (as opposed to previously fossil based) healthcare products (Leire and
Dalhammar 2018), and procurement of remanufactured ICT products (Crafoord et al.
2018) and remanufactured furniture (Öhgren et al. 2019).
Here, we will exemplify some trade-offs using the case of remanufactured
furniture, building on a study by Öhgren (2017).
Design furniture typically is durable, and it can often be upgraded, repaired, refurbished, washed, and reconditioned to a ‘like new’ condition. Buying reconditioned
C. Dalhammar et al.
recycling practices and targets may be compromised due to rules on chemicals. For
example, many companies are hesitant to use recycled materials in new products, out
of fear that these products will not comply with rules on chemicals in products, e.g.
the rules found in the RoHS Directive, the Toy Safety Directive, and the REACH
Regulation (Tojo and Thidell 2018). This means that there is not sufficient ‘pull’ on
the market of recyclates (for use in new production) that would result in increasing
the recycling output—and thus the recycling input as well, with collected waste often
redirected to other treatment options (Milios et al. 2018).
More recently, proposed rules on allowed levels of persistent organic pollutants
(POPs)—and especially decaBDE—in recycled plastics may imply that it will not
be economically viable to recycle such plastics from electronics and vehicles, as
the cost for compliance is too high. One proposed level of allowed decaBDE—
10 ppm—would probably not be possible to guarantee (EuRIC 2018). This means
that the proposed rules on POPs are in direct conflict with EU’s vision that by 2030,
more than half of plastics waste generated in Europe will be recycled (European
Commission 2018).
Can such conflict be resolved? Clearly, there is no perfect solution. Stringent rules
on chemicals in products and recycled materials will compromise recycling targets;
whereas striving for high recycling targets means that higher levels of chemicals than
desired from a health/safety perspective must be allowed. Yet, some compromises
are possible (Sevelius 2019). For instance, one solution would be to apply strict
levels of POPs in recycled materials to be used in toys, kitchen utensils, and other
applications where the users may be vulnerable (e.g. children) or where the risk of
contamination is high. In contrast, it may be less risky to allow higher levels of POPs
in applications where this risk is low (e.g. heavy machinery).
14.3.3 Conflicting Criteria in GPP
GPP has been practiced for a couple of decades in environmental policy frontrunner countries (Jänicke 2005; Dalhammar and Mundaca 2012). During that time
period, the number of sustainability criteria applied have increased to cover an
increasing number of sustainability aspects, including chemical content, energy efficiency requirements, recyclability, and raw materials. The CE has led to an increasing
interest for addressing various raw material and resource-related aspects, and to apply
GPP criteria that relate to inter alia product lifetime, rare earth elements, and bio
based materials. Examples of concrete practices in Sweden include the procurement
of bio based (as opposed to previously fossil based) healthcare products (Leire and
Dalhammar 2018), and procurement of remanufactured ICT products (Crafoord et al.
2018) and remanufactured furniture (Öhgren et al. 2019).
Here, we will exemplify some trade-offs using the case of remanufactured
furniture, building on a study by Öhgren (2017).
Design furniture typically is durable, and it can often be upgraded, repaired, refurbished, washed, and reconditioned to a ‘like new’ condition. Buying reconditioned