Electronic Waste and Extended Physical vs. Financial Producer Responsibility: A Case Study of Japanese and Canadian Business Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic waste is the fastest-growing domestic waste stream globally, and actual e-waste generated continues to outstrip projections. With increasing ubiquity and complexity of computing, many non-renewable metals are tied up in end-of-life electronics, creating a vast urban mine of resources ripe for recovery potential, yet hazardous unrecovered. Current legislation at national and international levels widely employs Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) to control collection and recycling practices, but lack of a clear and universal definition of what constitutes e-waste, well-exploited regulatory loopholes, and complexity of recycling all contribute to poor global management performance. This study explores the effects of physical vs. financial Extended Producer Responsibility on producer practice in two countries – Japan and Canada – favouring different applications of EPR legislation but the same international requirements as parties to the Basel Convention. It further aims to determine and compare the drivers and barriers in each case. Interviews with electronic waste management stakeholders were conducted with a focus on how EPR regulation in each country affects producer practice. In total, 8 interviews were held in Japan and 9 in Canada, as well as one interview with an international ENGO. This study finds that Japan tends to favour the physical application of EPR, while Canada favours financial, however in both cases, regulation is the greatest driver for producer implementation of EPR, consistent with existing literature on the subject. This study presents new drivers and barriers including: pre-emptive legislation and no incentive to improve. Furthermore, the Japanese and Canadian scenarios are classified as suffering from externalities on an insular system and lack of harmonization, respectively. This research addresses a gap in comparative studies across regions which focus on how physical vs. financial EPR affects producer practice. The findings are thus relevant to academia and future studies as well as policymakers seeking to understand how various EPR theoretical mechanisms function in praxis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".