Abstract
The circular economy (CE) emphasises closing material loops to retain material value. The current practice of tyre recycling in the Netherlands, through a system of extended producer responsibility (EPR), appears an overwhelming success, with claims of 100% recovery. Yet, there is limited critical understanding regarding the system’s circularity, considering alternative value retention options and resource recovery outcomes. This study analyses this Dutch tyre EPR system and reflects on how it can be improved from a systemic CE perspective. It uses a qualitative case study approach, using interviews and a review of policy, legal and EPR reporting documents. This paper assesses the governance of this sector and reflects on the existing system, including its circularity and value retention outcomes. Our analysis reveals seven central issues concerning how the EPR system currently functions, resulting in limited circularity and sustainability outcomes, despite high material recovery levels. To address these issues we recommend the continuous improvement of recovery and sustainability targets beyond a single product life cycle, a more transparent and inclusive governance system, as well as a greater focus on sufficiency strategies, e.g. design for durability and a broader transformation of transport models. This paper adds a practical understanding of the capacity of EPR to contribute to CE.
Highlights
National, regional and local governments have recently begun to present the concept of circular economy (CE) as a new pathway to sustainability and economic prosperity
A limitation of a case study approach of a single extended producer responsibility (EPR) system is that it cannot lead to generalizable recommendations, even though the analysis provides useful practical insights for other cases
This paper examined and evaluated the structure, organisation, performance and potential limitations of the Dutch EPR system as a case study to explore how this older CE 2.0 systems can be adapted to fulfil the broader societal concerns embedded in the current CE 3.0 debates
Summary
Regional and local governments have recently begun to present the concept of circular economy (CE) as a new pathway to sustainability and economic prosperity. The championing of this inconsistent and contested concept (cf Korhonen et al, 2018) comes amid increasing concerns over resource depletion, waste generation and overshoot of planetary limits induced by human activities on the biosphere (Henckens et al, 2014; Rockstro€m et al, 2009). K. Campbell-Johnston et al / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122042 including increased recycling targets, waste legislation and extended producer responsibility (EPR) commitments (European Commission, 2015; Milios, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
