Did Europe Move in the Right Direction on E‐waste Legislation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents an analytical framework of the product take back legislation in the context of product reuse. We characterize existing and proposed forms of E‐waste legislation and compare their environmental and economic performance. Using stylized models, we analyze an OEM's decision about new and remanufactured product quantity in response to the legislative mechanism. We focus on the 2012 waste electrical and electronic equipment directive in Europe, where the policy makers intended to create additional incentives for the product reuse. Through a comparison to the Original 2002 version of the directive, we find that these incentives translate into improved environmental outcomes only for a limited set of products. We also study a proposed policy that advocates a separate target for the product reuse. Our analysis reveals that from an environmental standpoint, the Recast version is always dominated either by the Original policy or by the one that advocates a separate target for product reuse. We show that the benefits of a separate reuse target scheme can be fully replicated with the aid of fiscal levers. Our main message is that there cannot be a single best environmental policy that is suitable for all products. Therefore, the consideration of product attributes is essential in identification of the most appropriate policy tool. This can be done either by the implementation of different policies on each product category or by implementation of product‐based target levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".