Understanding the Factors Influencing Extended Producer Responsibility in Indonesia

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3683935/v1

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) of Electronic Waste (e-waste) in Indonesia urgently needs comprehensive and enforceable regulations that hold the producers to have responsibility for the entire lifecycle of electronic products, ensuring proper management, and disposal. This study focuses on analyzing factors influencing the EPR of e-waste and emphasizes the critical need for such analysis in building enforceable regulations. This study utilizes the Analytic Network Process (ANP) to analyze the influencing factors. Key stakeholders, including experts, government officials, waste management authorities, producers, consumers, and academics, were involved as respondents. Data collection involved interviews and questionnaires. The study’s findings reveal that administrative instruments are considered a priority factor in the implementation of EPR for e-waste (0.368), followed closely by economic factors (0.362) and informative factors (0.271). Specifically, the collection aspect of administrative instruments emerges as the most dominant factor (0.387). In terms of economic and informative instruments, priority factors include product development subsidies (0.278) and awareness campaigns targeting producers (0.332). Furthermore, all respondents prefer to involve producer responsibility organizations in the EPR mechanism (0.343). By understanding the significant influencing factors, policymakers can focus on strengthening administrative instruments, offering economic incentives, and enhancing information dissemination. The involvement of producer responsibility organizations also emerges as a crucial aspect of effective EPR of e-waste implementation in Indonesia.

extended producer responsibility

electronic waste

influencing factors

analytic network process

This study focuses on the analysis of factors influencing EPR of e-waste and emphasizes the critical need for such analysis in building enforceable regulations.
The study’s findings reveal that administrative instruments are considered a priority factor in the implementation of EPR for e-waste
By understanding the significant influencing factors, policymakers can focus their efforts on strengthening administrative instruments, offering economic incentives, and enhancing information dissemination.
The involvement of producer responsibility organizations also emerges as a crucial aspect of effective EPR implementation.

Indonesia is one of the largest producers of electronic waste (e-waste) in Sout-Eastern Asia (Forti et al., 2020). The Global E-waste Monitor (2020) estimates that Indonesia generated 1.618 kt (kilo tonnes) of e-waste in 2019. In Indonesia, the generation of electronic waste in 2020 reached 448,989.44 tonnes per year and it is projected to reach 4,204,545.43 (4.2 million) tons in 2040 (Widyarsana et al., 2021). The average annual growth rate of e-waste in Indonesia is 14.91% (Santoso et al., 2019).

The management of e-waste is a major challenge in Indonesia, as the country lacks the infrastructure to collect, recycle, and dispose of e-waste in an environmentally sound manner. The mapping results showed that the Island of Java contributes 56% of the total generation of electronic waste in Indonesia (Mairizal et al., 2021).

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is one of the key approaches in the management of e-waste, aiming to protect human health and the environment, reduce the waste generation in landfills, and foster sustainable competition (Esenduran et al., 2019). EPR is a policy principle that encourages the creation of a product by considering environmental aspects from the products’ lifecycle by extending the responsibility of producers to the entire life cycle of the components making up the product, especially the take-back, recycling and final disposal of the product(Lindhqvist, 2000).

Globally, the electronics sector has emerged as the most dominant industry embracing the concept of EPR (OECD, 2016). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report, small consumer electronics products are the most commonly covered goods under EPR policies. This category includes products such as mobile phones, rechargeable batteries, thermostats, and automatic switches. These products account for 35% of EPR policies, surpassing packaging (17%), tires (18%), vehicles and batteries (12%), and other categories (18%).

In Indonesia, the term “producer responsibility” is mentioned in Article 15 of Law Number 18 of 2008 concerning Waste Management which mandates producers to manage packaging and/or goods that are non-decomposable or difficult to decompose through natural processes. Additionally, the government has issued Minister of Environment Regulation Number 75 of 2019, outlining a roadmap for waste reduction by producers. While there is no specific policy dedicated to EPR in Indonesia's electronic waste sector, an academic paper on the formulation of EPR policies has been published by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Indonesia and the Ministry of Industry of the Republic of Indonesia.

The concept of EPR was devised to avoid situations where no entity takes responsibility for waste management (Damanhuri, Enri et al., 2019). Therefore, fostering a shared understanding among all stakeholders is crucial to relieve any misconceptions that EPR might burden the industry further. Consequently, identifying the factors influencing EPR implementation becomes imperative. Analyzing these factors serves as a crucial initial step in designing an effective EPR scheme and building enforceable regulations for electronic and electrical waste management in Indonesia.

Previous literature studies have identified the successful factors of EPR for e-waste management. Perspectives play a pivotal role in promoting EPR within specific countries or regions, and driving factors may vary across different contexts (Zheng et al., 2017). For instance, in China, regulatory factors strongly influence EPR implementation, prompting the central government and local authorities to collaborate with the industry in formulating, implementing, and monitoring relevant environmental laws and regulations (Peng et al., 2018). In Ghana, operational factor have a greater impact on the implementation of EPR principles than strategic factors (Faibil et al., 2023). Conversely, in Indonesia, administrative incentives emerge as a significant factor influencing producers' intentions to implement EPR in the country (Ardi and Purwojatmiko, 2019).

The e-waste EPR system has not been implemented in Indonesia. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the factors that can influence the development of the e-waste EPR system in the country. Understanding the factors that will influence Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Indonesia is of utmost importance in order to develop effective policies and regulations for the management of electronic waste. Despite the growing concern and increasing generation of e-waste in the country, there is a lack of comprehensive research on the factors that drive or hinder the implementation of EPR in Indonesia's specific context.

Through a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods, including interviews and Analytical Network Process analysis, this research seeks to provide evidence-based insights into the factors influencing EPR of e-waste in Indonesia. The findings of this study will contribute to the existing literature on EPR and provide practical recommendations for policymakers, industry associations, and other stakeholders involved in the management of electronic waste.

In this study, the influencing elements of EPR for e-waste in Indonesia were examined using the Analytical Network Process (ANP). A multi-criteria decision-making technique called the Analytical Network Process (ANP) can be used to examine complicated systems. ANP is based on the concept of feedback loops, which allows for the consideration of the interdependencies between different factors (Saaty and Vargas, 2001).

ANP was selected for this study instead of other central decision methods such as ISM, TOPSIS, SAW, and WPM due to its prominent advantage, namely its ability to simplify complex problems. ANP is capable of quantitatively describing subjective judgments, generating priority indicators, and establishing reciprocal relationships within hierarchies (Gu et al., 2018). In comparison to AHP, ANP yields more objective results as per real-life cases and considers the interdependent relationship among criteria items and alternatives. On the other hand, AHP treats elements in the hierarchy as independent of each other, including the decision criteria and alternatives.

The process of determining the criteria and sub-criteria, constructing the ANP network model was carried out through discussions and in-depth interviews with experts (Ascarya, 2005). Various approaches can be employed to develop the ANP network model, including relying on expert opinions, conducting literature studies, and conducting stakeholder surveys (Prasad et al., 2019). Additionally, the development of the ANP network can be combined with quantification methods such as Interpretative Structural Modelling (ISM) and/or the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (Kadoić, 2018). This study involved discussions and consultations with stakeholders through interview and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) who were experts in the field of EPR and waste management to determine the relevant criteria and sub-criteria.

In this study, 21 respondents were selected to represent several categories based on their roles in the EPR mechanism of electronic waste in Indonesia. The categories include:

Experts (E) - Experts in the field of waste management, specifically EPR for electronic waste.
Government (G) - Policy stakeholders or government representatives, including relevant ministries and environmental services.
Waste Management Authorities (WMA)- Practitioners involved in waste management, particularly in electronic waste management.
Consumers (C) - Individuals who are consumers of electronic products and possess sufficient knowledge about EPR and waste management in general.
Academicians (A) - Researchers and scholars who have conducted studies related to EPR for electronic waste in Indonesia.

This study used in-depth interviews with respondents in addition to ANP surveys to identify obstacles to and strategies for EPR of e-waste implementation in Indonesia.

2.1 Criteria and Sub criteria identification

After consulting and engaging in discussions with various stakeholders, three influential factors were identified that shape the EPR policy for e-waste in Indonesia. Additionally, within each of these factors, four sub-factors were selected to further refine the analysis. Furthermore, four alternative schemes for implementing electronic waste EPR in Indonesia were also identified. The EPR method is compatible with a variety of policy instruments, including those that are regulatory, economic, and information-based instruments (Lindhqvist, 2000; OECD, 2016).

Administrative instruments (A) play a crucial role in implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for electronic waste. These instruments encompass the regulatory framework and guidelines that form the foundation for effective waste management practices. The sub-criteria within the Administrative instruments category include (Damanhuri, Enri et al., 2019):

Collection system (A1): This refers to the e-waste collection system from the household sector to designated e-waste collection points.
Reuse and recycling targets (A2): These are the targets set for the reuse and recycling of materials in electronic products.
Environmental processing standards (A3): This refers to the electronic waste processing standards that prioritize environmental aspects, aiming to minimize the risk of pollution.
Standard for the minimum content of recyclable materials (A4): This entails establishing standards for the minimum content of materials in electronic products that can be recycled, thereby promoting the return of electronic products within their life cycle.

Economic instruments are an important factor in the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanism for e-waste. These instruments involve the financial aspects and incentives that encourage producers to take responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the entire life cycle. The economic instruments aim to internalize the environmental costs associated with e-waste management and motivate producers to adopt more sustainable practices. The sub-criteria within the Economic instruments category include (Damanhuri, Enri et al., 2019):

Material/product tax (E1): Taxes on raw materials or products that are difficult to recycle and contain toxic materials, creating an incentive to use secondary (recycled) materials or materials with lower toxicity levels. Ideally, taxes should be set at a level where the marginal cost of the tax equals the marginal cost of treatment. The taxes should be allocated and used for the collection, sorting, and post-consumer processing of electronic products (OECD, 2016).
Environmental product development subsidies (E2): Government-provided subsidies that can be claimed by sectors involved in e-waste collection, including manufacturers. These subsidies aim to motivate producers to change material inputs and product designs to be more environmentally friendly.
Treatment and final treatment cost (E3): A fee charged to the electronic product at the time of purchase, which is based on an estimated collection and processing fee. These fees may be collected by a public or private entity and used to finance post-consumer maintenance of the specified product.
Deposit-Refund (E4): An initial payment (deposit) made at the time of purchase, which is fully or partially refunded when the product is returned to a specified collection location (OECD, 2016).

Information-based instruments (I) in the EPR mechanism are designed to provide relevant information to various stakeholders involved in the electronic waste management process. These instruments aim to enhance transparency, awareness, and knowledge regarding the environmental impact of electronic products and the proper management of e-waste. The sub-criteria within the Information-based instruments category include (Damanhuri, Enri et al., 2019):

Outreach to producers (I1): Dissemination of information to producers regarding their responsibilities under the EPR system, including their obligations for collection, recycling, and proper disposal of electronic products.
Labeling (I2): Implementation of labeling systems or certifications to indicate the environmental attributes of electronic products. These labels inform consumers about the product's environmental performance, such as energy efficiency, recyclability, or hazardous substance content. Labels provide a visual cue for consumers to make environmentally conscious choices.
Consumer Information (I3): Provision of clear and accessible information to consumers about the environmental impact of electronic products, recycling options, and responsible disposal methods. This information empowers consumers to make informed choices and encourages them to participate in the proper management of e-waste.
Recycler Information (I4): Provision of relevant information to recyclers regarding the proper handling, processing, and recycling techniques for different types of electronic waste. This information helps recyclers optimize their operations, ensuring effective and environmentally sound e-waste management.

Table 1 presents the list of factors (criteria and sub-criteria) influencing the EPR of e-waste in Indonesia.

Table 1

Factors that influence the implementation of the EPR for electronic waste.
Criteria	Sub-criteria	References
Administrative (A)	Collecting system (A1)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); Gupt and Sahay, (2015); Gui et al. (2016); Kazancoglu et al., (2021)
	Reuse and recycling target (A2)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); Gupt and Sahay, (2015); OECD (2016); Horta Arduin et al. (2019); Bouvier and Wagner (2011); Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Text with EEA relevance (2012); Fizaine, (2020); Wagner (2013)
	Environmental processing standards (A3)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019)
	Standard of the minimum content of materials that can be recycled (A4)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); OECD (2016); (Yi et al., 2021)
Economic (E)	Material/product tax (E1)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); OECD (2016); Gupt and Sahay (2015); Yi et al. (2021); Huo et al. (2021)
	Environmental product development subsidies (E2)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); OECD (2016); Bo et al. (2019); Gupt and Sahay, (2015); Faibil et al. (2023)
	Treatment and final treatment cost (E3)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); OECD (2016); Kang and Schoenung, (2006); Macauley et al. (2003); Gupt and Sahay (2015)
	Deposit-Refund System (E4)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019)
Informative (I)	Outreach to producers (I1)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); OECD (2016); H. Yi et al. (2009)
	Labelling (I2)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); Gupt and Sahay, (2015)
	Consumer Information (I3)	Gupt and Sahay, (2015)
	Recycler Information (I4)	Damanhuri, Enri et al. (2019); OECD (2016); Gupt and Sahay (2015); Huo et al. (2021; Y. Yi et al. (2021)

The strategy for EPR implementation in Indonesia was carried out by identifying the relationships between factors and alternative implementations (T). The strategy was structured in a network model that shows the relationship between factors. The alternatives for implementing EPR in Bandung in this model include:

EPR system involving Producer Responsibility Organizations (T1).
EPR system involving decentralized Waste Processing Facility and Waste Bank (T2).
EPR system involving centralized Hazardous Waste Processing Facility (T3).
EPR system involving informal sectors (T4).

3.2 ANP Analysis

Data from the ANP questionnaire results were processed using Super Decision software version 2.10 to determine the priority of influential factors in the implementation of electronic waste EPR in Indonesia. The stages of ANP data analysis were as follows:

1) The construction of the network model was based on literature reviews and interviews with experts to examine information on the factors influencing EPR implementation and the relationships between these factors. The network model created in Super Decision 2.10 software is depicted in Fig. 1 below.

2) Pairwise comparisons were conducted by respondents who are experts in the field of waste management and EPR, including government, experts, Waste Management Authorities, customers, and academics. The respondents provided input on the weighting using the Saaty scale, ranging from 1 to 9 (Saaty, 2004).

3) The supermatrix formation was processed using Super Decision software version 2.10 to determine priorities. The data from Super Decision was further analyzed in Microsoft Excel to calculate the geometric mean and rater agreement. The geometric mean formula used was as follows (Prasad et al., 2019).

$${{({\Pi }}_{i}^{n}={1}_{i})}^{\frac{1}{n}}=\sqrt[n]{{a}_{1},{a}_{2},\dots , {a}_{n}}$$

The geometric mean was calculated to show a trend at a certain value. The normalized by cluster value and the limiting value were among the values produced by this ANP. The value normalized by cluster is comparable to weighting since it takes into account the priority value inside each cluster, which, when added together, equals one or 100%.

All respondents evaluate the main and supporting factors that influence the EPR mechanism. Furthermore, geomean and weight are provided in Table 2. The findings shown in Table 2 indicate that the Administrative instruments (A) have the most influence on the plan of the EPR scheme for e-waste in Indonesia. Additionally, the alternative EPR scheme that received priority among the respondents is the one involving a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO).

4.1 Priority Cluster of Criteria

The graphic in Fig. 2 (a) is used to assess the factor influencing the EPR of electronic waste in Indonesia. It is clear that Indonesia should prioritize administrative instruments while implementing e-waste EPR. The weighted results show that informational instruments come in second rank, followed by economic instruments. According to the administrative criteria, there is 0.368 weight or agreement among responders.

This result aligns with Zheng et al. (2017) that regulatory and legal factors are crucial in the EPR mechanism. In practice, regulatory factors, take-back initiatives, and financial responsibilities also play significant roles in EPR implementation (Gupt and Sahay, 2015).

To successfully implement the EPR of e-waste mechanism in Indonesia, it is crucial for the government to prioritize strengthening administrative factors, especially considering the absence of specific regulations pertaining to EPR of e-waste in this country. While economic and informational factors are also significant, the focus on administrative factors is key due to their influence on other aspects of the implementation process. By establishing comprehensive administrative frameworks, such as regulatory guidelines and operational rules, the government can effectively coordinate and monitor the various stakeholders involved in e-waste management. This will create a solid foundation for the successful integration of economic incentives and informational campaigns, resulting in a more robust and sustainable EPR of e-waste system in Indonesia. Therefore, to achieve this transformative policy, outward-facing policies are necessary so that economic and informative instruments can be driven by strong regulations accompanied by robust business models that can support EPR (Sutasurya, 2022).

4.2 Cluster Priority of Sub-criteria and Alternatives

4.2.1 Sub-criteria Priority in Administrative Instruments

Administrative instruments are essential because they are concerned with regulations that form the basis for EPR implementation. Without clear regulations, the implementation of EPR will not be optimal. Within the administrative instrument, there are several sub-criteria that support the administrative process of the EPR mechanism, such as collection systems, reuse-recycle targets, environmentally sound management standards, and standards for the minimum content of recyclable materials.

Among these sub-criteria, the study results show that the collection system (A1) has the highest priority with the level of agreement or weight is 0.387 while the standard for the minimum content of recyclable materials (A2) has the lowest priority (0.194).

The collection system, which is a priority among the administrative instruments, is supported by the statement of Zheng et al. (2017), indicating that the development of EPR systems is still limited in many developing countries with underdeveloped collection and recycling systems. In addition, collection locations play a crucial role in the supply chain (Sagnak et al., 2021). Therefore, a clear collection system is necessary to facilitate stakeholders in properly and correctly collecting e-waste in Indonesia.

The collection system in Indoensia e-waste management is very crucial. In Indonesia, the provinces with relatively good e-waste management practices is only DKI (Daerah Khusus Ibukota) Jakarta as the capital city of Indonesia. The waste management in DKI Jakarta is primarily handled by the Jakarta Regional Government through manual methods such as pick-up service that collects e-waste directly from households, drop-box, and wast bank (Soesanto et al., 2022). Therefore, a well-organized collection system can help establish a sustainable e-waste recycling system in Indonesia (Wibowo et al., 2021).

The collection system for electronic waste in Indonesia faces several obstacles that hinder its effectiveness and efficiency. These challenges arise from various factors, including inadequate infrastructure, limited awareness among stakeholders, and the absence of comprehensive regulations.

One of the major obstacles in collecting system in Indonesia is the lack of sufficient collection infrastructure across the country. In many regions of Indonesia, especially outside of major cities, there is a scarcity of designated collection points or facilities for e-waste. Currently, the electronic waste processing industry is predominantly concentrated on the island of Java. This limited access to collection services makes it difficult for individuals and businesses to properly dispose of their electronic waste. As a result, e-waste often ends up in regular waste streams or is improperly discarded, leading to environmental and health hazards. Therefore, the first stage to implement the administrative aspect is the mechanism for collecting electronic waste near the sources by procuring the dropping box system (Widyarsana et al., 2021).

Table 2

Respondent vs. Factor, geomean, and weights
Respondent	A				E				I				T
Respondent	A1	A2	A3	A4	E1	E2	E3	E4	I1	I2	I3	I4	T1	T2	T3	T4
E1	0.049	0.084	0.030	0.020	0.020	0.049	0.084	0.030	0.083	0.049	0.020	0.030	0.084	0.049	0.030	0.020
E2	0.091	0.022	0.059	0.010	0.096	0.028	0.014	0.044	0.086	0.012	0.056	0.029	0.045	0.045	0.045	0.045
E3	0.074	0.016	0.074	0.016	0.010	0.076	0.076	0.020	0.073	0.018	0.073	0.018	0.045	0.045	0.045	0.045
E4	0.021	0.096	0.044	0.021	0.098	0.025	0.047	0.012	0.022	0.116	0.022	0.022	0.045	0.045	0.045	0.045
E5	0.049	0.019	0.084	0.030	0.084	0.019	0.030	0.049	0.020	0.031	0.082	0.049	0.077	0.024	0.041	0.041
G1	0.076	0.051	0.034	0.020	0.078	0.031	0.051	0.022	0.074	0.022	0.051	0.035	0.079	0.032	0.023	0.048
G2	0.060	0.031	0.031	0.060	0.031	0.060	0.060	0.031	0.081	0.026	0.048	0.026	0.051	0.051	0.051	0.030
G3	0.099	0.012	0.024	0.047	0.012	0.090	0.058	0.023	0.024	0.098	0.047	0.013	0.037	0.091	0.037	0.017
G4	0.048	0.021	0.083	0.031	0.019	0.079	0.050	0.033	0.079	0.020	0.033	0.050	0.050	0.079	0.033	0.019
G5	0.071	0.011	0.071	0.029	0.052	0.052	0.052	0.026	0.029	0.019	0.083	0.050	0.077	0.041	0.041	0.023
WMA 1	0.099	0.024	0.047	0.012	0.024	0.099	0.047	0.012	0.099	0.012	0.024	0.047	0.078	0.044	0.044	0.016
WMA 2	0.031	0.031	0.031	0.090	0.023	0.092	0.033	0.033	0.067	0.024	0.067	0.024	0.024	0.062	0.062	0.033
WMA 3	0.048	0.083	0.020	0.031	0.060	0.031	0.060	0.031	0.054	0.021	0.054	0.054	0.072	0.015	0.072	0.023
WMA 4	0.096	0.030	0.039	0.018	0.048	0.020	0.083	0.031	0.088	0.043	0.021	0.030	0.083	0.020	0.048	0.031
C1	0.083	0.030	0.049	0.019	0.080	0.048	0.027	0.027	0.045	0.045	0.045	0.045	0.071	0.071	0.010	0.030
C2	0.096	0.045	0.025	0.016	0.023	0.030	0.049	0.080	0.040	0.032	0.087	0.023	0.018	0.018	0.073	0.073
C3	0.088	0.026	0.053	0.015	0.047	0.030	0.016	0.090	0.046	0.031	0.018	0.087	0.021	0.054	0.054	0.054
C4	0.096	0.010	0.028	0.048	0.121	0.027	0.020	0.013	0.011	0.099	0.018	0.053	0.096	0.028	0.048	0.010
Ac1	0.019	0.082	0.049	0.031	0.025	0.095	0.019	0.043	0.083	0.031	0.049	0.019	0.085	0.035	0.051	0.011
Ac2	0.051	0.033	0.079	0.019	0.083	0.048	0.031	0.021	0.079	0.020	0.050	0.033	0.083	0.048	0.031	0.021
Ac3	0.083	0.049	0.020	0.030	0.050	0.019	0.081	0.032	0.083	0.033	0.050	0.016	0.084	0.015	0.050	0.032
Geomean	0.062	0.031	0.042	0.025	0.041	0.043	0.041	0.029	0.052	0.031	0.042	0.032	0.056	0.039	0.041	0.028
Sum	0.159				0.154				0.157				0.164
Weight	0.387	0.194	0.262	0.157	0.257	0.265	0.278	0.267	0.332	0.196	0.267	0.205	0.343	0.235	0.252	0.171

4.2.2 Sub-criteria Priority in Economic Instruments

Economic instruments are a category that requires attention as they play an important role in EPR. This instrument is closely related to the financing mechanism in EPR, as it involves shifting the responsibility of financing from the public and government to producers (OECD, 2016). The results of determining the priority of sub-criteria in economic instruments reveal that the most crucial sub criteria is product development subsidies, with an agreement level value or weight of 0.278 (see Table 2.c). This priority is closely comparable to taxes and costs of final processing (E4) with an agreement level or weight of 0,267. On the other hand, the sub-criterion with the lowest score is deposit-refund (E1).

Subsidies can incentivize producers to adopt sustainable practices in the design, production, and disposal of electronic products. This can include reducing the use of hazardous materials, designing products for easy repair and recycling, and investing in sustainable e-waste management practices (Faibil et al., 2023). While the deposit-refund system still challenging in Indonesia because it compared to other countries, awareness of e-waste problems in Indonesia is still relatively low. Therefore, it may be difficult to encourage consumers to participate in deposit-refund systems (Konstantoglou et al., 2023). If the mechanism for charging deposits and paying refunds can be operated at an acceptable cost relative to the gains from achieving high rates of return of the products in question, deposit-refund systems can be used to ensure high rates of recovery of certain tightly defined and specific products. Nevertheless, despite the concept's relative simplicity, implementing a deposit-refund systems may be very difficult and expensive to run, placing a load on manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. In this part, important choices and practical processes for implementing a deposit-refund systems are covered, including commodity coverage, the option between a single producer and an industry-wide plan, how to treat smaller producers and importers, determining the amount of the deposit, and the necessity of a deposit-refund systems (OECD, 2015).

The aim of the EPR policy is not only to achieve full internalization of environmental costs but also to provide incentives for producers to internalize environmental costs throughout the product life cycle, including the design stage (OECD, 2016). Therefore, the results of this study indicate that product development subsidies are of utmost importance to motivate producers to design more environmentally friendly products.

The economic aspect is of utmost importance to consider in the e-waste Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanism in Indonesia. Clear calculation of economic indicators is essential for the optimal implementation of EPR (Esenduran et al., 2019). Without a thorough understanding of the economic implications and considerations, the effectiveness and efficiency of the EPR system may be compromised. It is crucial to accurately assess the financial aspects, such as the costs of collection, recycling, and disposal, as well as the allocation of financial responsibilities among stakeholders. By carefully evaluating the economic factors, policymakers and stakeholders can develop a sustainable and viable EPR framework that ensures proper management of e-waste while considering the economic feasibility for all involved parties.

In regards with the nominal EPR fee for each product, it also varies based on factors such as scope, incurred costs, and actual costs of collection and processing. However, limited research has been conducted in this area due to the sensitivity of company data. For instance, in France, the expenditure for municipal waste management amounts to approximately 9.7 billion EUR, with 630 million EUR allocated specifically for collection and processing costs. Producer organizations contribute 230 million EUR towards product processing (OECD, 2016).

In Asian countries like Taiwan, on the other hand, recycling costs are covered by producers, and a significant portion of the funds is allocated to collection or processing subsidies. Taiwan operates a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) known as the Recycling Fund Management Committee under the Environmental Protection Agency (Chung and Murakami, 2008; Gupt and Sahay, 2015).

4.2.3 Sub-criteria Priority in Informative Instruments

This informative instrument is crucial as a connector between producers and other stakeholders. The results of determining the local priority sub-criteria in the informative instrument indicate that providing information to producers is a top priority. This is supported by the findings of Pazoki and Zaccour (2021), highlighting the use of campaigns or outreach activities to raise awareness about collection and recycling programs and foster environmental responsibility. One example of such efforts, as described in the 2001 OECD report, is the "Charge Up to Recycle" program initiated by the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC) in the United States. This company informs consumers about the presence and benefits of recycling Ni-Cd batteries (OECD, 2001).

Figure 2.d provided the priority sub-criteria of the informative instrument. It demonstrates that providing information to producers is the foremost priority in EPR implementation, with a weight of 0.332, followed by sub-criteria for providing information to consumers (0.267), recyclers (0.205), and labeling (0.196).

Outreach to producers about Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a crucial factor because it plays a significant role in raising awareness and ensuring their active participation in the proper management of electronic waste. It can help identify promoting factors for the adoption of the EPR principle from the perspectives of both external and internal stakeholders (Zheng et al., 2017), ensure that they comply with EPR policies and take responsibility for the collection, recycling, and disposal of their end-of-life products.

4.2.4 Priority of Alternatives

Alternative priorities are determined by considering the weights assigned to the criteria and sub-criteria of each alternative. These criteria not only have a hierarchical relationship but also exhibit interdependencies that influence the synthesis of alternative priorities. Based on the rankings and average results, it is evident that the implementation of EPR involving fund management organizations (T1) emerges as the top priority for implementation in Indonesia, with an agreement value of 0.343 (see Table 2.e).

The findings from interviews conducted with respondents through the ANP questionnaire indicate that the implementation of EPR in Indonesia should be conducted under the supervision of a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). The presence of a PRO plays a crucial role in effectively implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for e-waste in the country. As emphasized in the EPR report titled "Producer Responsibility in Indonesia" by Systemiq (2021), PROs are vital in ensuring the efficient and sustainable management of e-waste throughout the entire product lifecycle.

4.3 Challenges, Strategies, and Schemes for Implementing EPR of E-Waste in Indonesia

4.3.1 Challenges for EPR of Electronic Waste

Based on observations from various interviews, the implementation of e-waste Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Indonesia faces a significant challenge: a lack of a uniform understanding of the EPR concept among stakeholders. The Ministry of Industry has expressed the viewpoint that EPR should not be solely the responsibility of producers. In the context of electronic waste, the EPR concept has the potential to encourage the emergence of new businesses that provide electronic waste collection services. Furthermore, electronic products that still hold value can be directed towards the recycling industry. Manufacturers should prioritize product design and production processes to ensure that products can be reused or recycled. This paradigm has emerged partly due to statements from five Indonesian electronics manufacturers' associations, which assert that electronic products that become waste are the responsibility of consumers.

An alliance comprising five related associations, namely the Asosiasi Industri Perangkat Telematika Indonesia (AIPTI), Asosiasi Industri Teknologi Indonesia (AITI), Asosiasi Produsen Peralatan Listrik Indonesia (APPI), Gabungan Elektronika (Gabel), and Gabungan Industri Manufaktur Lampu Terpadu Indonesia (GAMATRINDO), has responded by asserting that waste should not be solely the responsibility of producers. According to them, producers should be accountable for creating products that adhere to government-regulated environmental and recycling requirements, thereby minimizing waste generation. Hence, the associations argue that it is not appropriate to place the entire life cycle responsibility, including take-back when products become waste, solely on the producers.

The associations' perspective has led to an agreement that the cost of managing electronic waste when products become waste should be paid by consumers. They propose that EPR funds be collected at retailers and subsequently transferred to producer responsibility organizations to ensure an effective and efficient process. Consumers, as the parties who change the status of products to waste, are responsible for delivering electronic waste to certified electronic waste management centers, while the costs associated with recycling and recovery have already been accounted for at the time of purchase.

The Indonesian electronics manufacturers association agrees that manufacturers should primarily focus on designing products that are environmentally friendly, aiming to minimize the use of hazardous and toxic materials. The association argues that assigning product life cycle responsibility, including take-back when products become waste, solely to the producers would be highly inefficient, especially if they are expected to establish e-waste collection centers nationwide.

The EPR concept for electronic waste has undergone internal review by the Environmental Fund Management Agency or Badan Pengelola Dana Lingkungan Hidup (BPDLH) of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia. Interviews with BPDLH revealed that a proposed financing mechanism for EPR is a levy system. However, manufacturers, as indicated in the interviews, have expressed opposition to this concept. The electronics manufacturers' association has cited several reasons for rejecting the EPR concept, particularly the system of collecting recycling and recovery funds from producers or importers when their products are in Indonesia:

The recycling and recovery funds, amounting to approximately 3%, are attached to the products. If the products do not reach consumers due to factors such as the export process, damage, loss, and other circumstances, the funds cannot be refunded to the producer or importer.
Levies would impose additional financial burdens that producers or importers find impractical to accept.
The presence of parallel-import origin products would undermine or entirely eliminate the competitiveness of products manufactured by producers or importers who comply with all legal obligations.

Another challenge in implementing EPR in Indonesia is the lack of specific regulations specifically addressing electronic waste EPR. Producers' obligations related to EPR are already outlined in Law No. 18 of 2008 concerning Waste Management. Article 15 of this law states that producers are required to manage the packaging and/or goods they produce that are non-biodegradable or difficult to decompose through natural processes. Furthermore, Government Regulation Number 81 of 2012 Article 12 mandates that producers must minimize waste generation by implementing reduction programs and utilizing packaging that is easily decomposable with minimal waste.

To provide more practical guidance for producers in waste reduction, the Indonesian government has issued Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation Number 75 of 2019, which outlines the Road Map for Reducing Waste by Producers. This regulation serves as an accountability framework for producers to report their waste reduction efforts. However, a more specific road map for e-waste is still in the process of being developed.

4.3.2 Strategy for EPR of E-Waste in Indonesia

The implementation of EPR generally involves three stages (Gui et al., 2018). The first stage is the identification of appropriate policy instruments that align with the principles of EPR and the development of a legislative framework. The second stage involves incorporating laws and regulations into the EPR program, including the design of operational rules that govern program financing, monitoring of legal compliance, and the involvement of relevant entities. The final stage is the execution of the EPR program, which entails stakeholder interactions and the implementation of operational strategies guided by EPR regulations. Each stakeholder has a unique perspective on the EPR program, leading to diverse approaches.

In Indonesia, the implementation of EPR is guided by a prioritization of administrative instruments or policies. While specific regulations concerning electronic waste are still being developed, existing regulations such as Government Regulation Number 27 of 2020 on Specific Waste Management provide a foundation. Once the regulatory factors are established, the next step involves formulating detailed operational plans for EPR, including financing mechanisms and the roles of various stakeholders. These plans can be presented in the form of roadmaps, technical manuals, or guidebooks specific to e-waste EPR in Indonesia.

Another crucial aspect is information dissemination and outreach to ensure that all stakeholders are well-informed about the EPR program. However, it is essential to prioritize communication with producers, as indicated by the results of the factor priority calculations in this study. Political factors, including stakeholder lobbying, play a significant role in the acceptance and adoption of the EPR concept (Gui et al., 2013). Therefore, effective communication strategies and lobbying efforts are necessary to garner acceptance and demonstrate the benefits of EPR to all stakeholders.

Figure 3 depicts the e-waste EPR approach from the standpoint of the waste management framework. Based on the waste management aspect framework, the following strategies are recommended for the implementation of EPR for e-waste in Indonesia:

Develop and enforce regulations and derivative regulations related to electronic waste EPR, focusing on targets such as EPR standards, implementation roadmap, and management standards (Indonesian National Standard/Best Available Technique/Best Environmental Practice).
Strengthen the institutions involved in the e-waste EPR ecosystem, including producers (importers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers), consumers (community), central and regional governments, academics, and waste management professionals. Providing education to producers on e-waste EPR is crucial as they play a significant role in the implementation.
Establish operational technical systems that support e-waste EPR, such as providing environmentally friendly infrastructure for collection, transportation, and processing.
Develop a financing scheme that includes cost sources, incentive and subsidy systems, and unit EPR costs for specific products.
Implement a participatory campaign and outreach system by utilizing social media platforms, activating community-based organizations, and integrating the informal sector.

4.3.3 The Scheme of EPR for E-Waste

Based on the results of interviews and ANP questionnaires, a proposed EPR scheme for implementation in Indonesia is presented in Fig. 4. It is important to note that the EPR mechanism may vary in different countries. As a developing country, Indonesia needs to adapt to the existing electronic waste management governance conditions, taking into account the socio-cultural factors of its citizens.

The operational aspect of the proposed scheme is primarily carried out by recycling industry, which should obtain government-issued management permits as part of their new business activities. On the other hand, the organizational aspect, including the management of EPR funds, is assigned to the Environmental Fund Management Agency or Badan Pengelola Dana Lingkungan Hidup (BPDLH) through a mandate from the

central government. BPDLH has confirmed its ability to fulfill the role of an EPR fund management organization (Badan Pengelola Dana Lingkungan Hidup, 2021).

Further examination is required to determine the source of EPR funds. Based on the interviews with various stakeholders, particularly the electronic manufacturer association, it was concluded that including EPR costs in the product price might pose disadvantages for producers if the products do not reach customers (Asosiasi Industri Perangkat Telematika Indonesia, 2021). To find a strategic solution, this study proposes that customers pay additional costs for environmental management when purchasing electronic products from retailers. This approach aligns with the "polluter pays" principle, where funds are ultimately transferred to producers, while acknowledging the shared responsibility of customers (OECD, 2016).

According to the OECD (2016), in several cities, the role of the city government is involved in the EPR scheme, for example, in collection and processing, but there are also those that do not involve the city government. For example, in the EPR packaging schemes in Austria, Germany, and Sweden, the operational and financing obligations are assigned to the producers. PRO and the city government manage part of the collection system. Municipalities may act as contractors for the PRO, providing local services but not having an automated role in the EPR system. Stakeholders must stimulate innovation by focusing more on results rather than achievements, so that manufacturers can be flexible in implementing EPR. The role of the local government should be consulted for clarification regarding the EPR program.

Because of the government's involvement in this program, e-waste is appropriately collected and disposed of, and makers and users are encouraged to be accountable for the end-of-life management of their devices. Compared to Denmark, Hungary, and Iceland, which impose charges, governments can really play a significant role in subsidizing collection and payment, as seen in the EPR e-waste plan in China, some US states, and Alberta, Canada. tax on goods. Processing charges are paid for in part with the tax. If producers lack the resources to design and operate an EPR system, the government's intervention is especially beneficial (OECD, 2016).

One case study of government involvement in EPR of e-waste in Indonesia is the e-waste collecting program by the Environmental Office or Dinas Lingkungan Hidup of Jakarta. The program collects e-waste through three mechanisms: e-waste direct pickup, e-waste dropbox, and waste bank.The collected e-waste is then sorted and taken by a private company. After the dismantling process, the recyclable waste will be recycled, and the other waste will have treatment before being taken to the dumping site. (Wibowo et al., 2021).

The EPR scheme proposed in Fig. 4 is flexible and needs to be tested for its efficiency and effectiveness in Indonesia, especially regarding the role of the local government in taking over the operational technical aspects as well as funding. In the early stages, the focus of EPR should be on specific products, such as handphones. Similar to European Union member states, the EPR targets specific waste streams, including packaging, batteries, and electronic and electrical waste, as identified in EU Directives. Recycling targets are still under review as part of the European Union's waste management policy, and EPR policies vary significantly across EU member states. In Canada, the EPR program is implemented at the sub-national level, such as in states and provinces. Similarly, in Latin America and the Caribbean, several states are beginning to implement EPR with an initial focus on e-waste (OECD, 2016).

In the implementation of EPR, it is not solely the responsibility of producers, and it may no longer be necessary for a producer to be accountable for every aspect of the program. In many EPR initiatives, the involvement of retailers with extensive networks is essential for product take-back from consumers and raising awareness among customers about the service. In some cases, retailers may also bear the cost of collection. Monitoring and enforcement roles are often carried out collectively, with the involvement of Producer Responsibility Organizations (Manomaivibool, 2009).

Actors' and stakeholders' responsibilities within the EPR ecosystem should be distinct from one another (OECD, 2016). It is difficult to ensure that all actors carry out their agreed-upon tasks, which is one hard component of the EPR system. In Switzerland, all stakeholders exhibit a high level of compliance, which aids in addressing the problem of free riding. This is made possible through independent control, monitoring, and the united efforts of all interested parties to establish checks and balances.

Various collector parties play a crucial role in the implementation of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanism for e-waste in Indonesia. These parties include retailers, Waste Banks, Dropping Boxes, Reparation Shops, the informal sector, and start-ups, each contributing to the collection and proper management of e-waste. First, retailers, such as electronic stores and online marketplaces, serve as important collection points for e-waste. They provide convenient drop-off locations where consumers can return their old or unwanted electronic products for proper disposal or recycling. Second, Waste Banks are community-based initiatives that encourage the collection, segregation, and management of various types of waste, including e-waste. These institutions collaborate with individuals and households to collect and store e-waste, ensuring its proper handling and disposal. Third, Dropping Boxes are another effective collection method for e-waste. These designated containers are strategically placed in public areas, allowing individuals to conveniently drop off their small electronic devices or components for recycling. In addition, Reparation Shops in Indonesia play a role in prolonging the lifespan of electronic products and reducing e-waste generation by repairing and refurbishing items that would otherwise be discarded. Furthermore, the informal sector, including scavengers and waste pickers, plays a significant role in e-waste collection. They collect e-waste from various sources, such as households and businesses, and sell the recovered materials to recyclers or other intermediaries.

Lastly, start-ups have emerged in the e-waste sector to address the challenges of collection and recycling. These innovative companies utilize technology and digital platforms to facilitate the collection, transportation, and processing of e-waste. They offer convenient pickup services, often through mobile applications or online platforms, allowing consumers to request the collection of their e-waste. Several start-ups in Indonesia are actively involved in collecting electronic waste. These companies utilize technology and innovative approaches to facilitate the collection and recycling of e-waste. Some notable start-ups in Indonesia's e-waste sector include Waste4Change, Duitin, Octopus, Jagatera, Smash, Mall Sampah, Angkuts, etc.

These collector parties, along with proper infrastructure and coordination, contribute to the efficient and effective collection of e-waste in Indonesia. Their involvement in the EPR mechanism helps ensure that electronic products reach appropriate recycling facilities and that valuable materials are recovered and reused.

The application of the Analytic Network Process (ANP) in this study provided valuable insights into the priority factors influencing the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for electronic waste in Indonesia. The analysis revealed that administrative instruments emerged as the most crucial factor, emphasizing the need for comprehensive regulations to support electronic waste EPR (weight: 0.368). Economic factors (0.362) and informative factors (0.271) also demonstrated significant importance in driving effective EPR implementation.

Within the administrative instruments category, the collection aspect (0.387) was identified as the most dominant priority factor. Regarding economic and informative instruments, product development subsidies (0.278) and outreach to producers (0.332) were highlighted as key factors for success. Moreover, all respondents emphasized the importance of involving Producer Responsibility Organization (0.343) in the electronic waste EPR mechanism to ensure effective implementation.

Based on the prioritization analysis, a recommended EPR scheme suitable for implementation in Indonesia suggests the utilization of customer payments for EPR funds, collected at the point of purchasing electronic products from retailers. This approach ensures the sustainable financing of EPR activities.To advance the implementation of electronic waste EPR in Indonesia, it is crucial to reinforce the regulatory framework, provide economic incentives, and enhance information dissemination efforts. Additionally, the involvement of producer responsibility organizations is essential for the effective management and disposal of electronic waste.

Author Contribution

I.M.W.W. (Author 1) wrote the introduction and discussion sections, and edited the entire manuscript. H.N. (Author 2) authored the methods and results sections, conducted data collection and processing, prepared figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Ardi, R., Purwojatmiko, B.H., 2019. Producer Perspective on Extended Producer Responsibility Concept: An Indonesian Case Study, in: Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering. Presented at the ICIBE 2019: 2019 The 5th International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering, ACM, Hong Kong Hong Kong, pp. 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364335.3364341
Ascarya, 2005. Analytic Network Process (ANP): Pendekatan Baru Studi Kualitatif. Pusat Pendidikan dan Studi Kebanksentralan, Bank Indonesia.
Asosiasi Industri Perangkat Telematika Indonesia, 2021. Challenge of impelementing EPR of E-Waste based on producer perception.
Badan Pengelola Dana Lingkungan Hidup, 2021. Current status of EPR fo e-waste in Indonesia.
Bo, Y., Wang, Y., Wan, Z., 2019. Optimizing the WEEE Recovery Network Associated with Environmental Protection Awareness and Government Subsidy by Nonlinear Mixed Integer Programming. Journal of Advanced Transportation 2019, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9858670
Bouvier, R., Wagner, T., 2011. The influence of collection facility attributes on household collection rates of electronic waste: The case of televisions and computer monitors. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55, 1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.019
Chung, S.-W., Murakami, S.R., 2008. A comparative study of E-waste recycling systems in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan from the EPR perspective Implications for developing countries. Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization.
Damanhuri, Enri, Dewiandratika, Maryam, Wahyudi, Hamdi, 2019. Laporan Final Extended Producer Responsibility Limbah Elektronik-Elektrikal. UNDP.
Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Text with EEA relevance, 2012. , OJ L.
Esenduran, G., Atasu, A., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2019. Valuable e-waste: Implications for extended producer responsibility. IISE Transactions 51, 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725854.2018.1515515
Faibil, D., Asante, R., Agyemang, M., Addaney, M., Baah, C., 2023. Extended producer responsibility in developing economies: Assessment of promoting factors through retail electronic firms for sustainable e-waste management. Waste Manag Res 41, 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221105433
Fizaine, F., 2020. The economics of recycling rate: New insights from waste electrical and electronic equipment. Resources Policy 67, 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101675
Forti, V., Baldé, C.P., Kuehr, R., Bel, G., 2020. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020.
Gu, W., Saaty, T.L., Wei, L., 2018. Evaluating and Optimizing Technological Innovation Efficiency of Industrial Enterprises Based on Both Data and Judgments. Int. J. Info. Tech. Dec. Mak. 17, 9–43. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622017500390
Gui, L., Atasu, A., Ergun, Ö., Toktay, L.B., 2018. Design Incentives Under Collective Extended Producer Responsibility: A Network Perspective. Management Science 64, 5083–5104. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2897
Gui, L., Atasu, A., Ergun, Ö., Toktay, L.B., 2013. Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation: A Multi-stakeholder Case Analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17, 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00574.x
Gupt, Y., Sahay, S., 2015. Review of extended producer responsibility: A case study approach. Waste Manag Res 33, 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15592275
Horta Arduin, R., Grimaud, G., Martínez Leal, J., Pompidou, S., Charbuillet, C., Laratte, B., Alix, T., Perry, N., 2019. Influence of scope definition in recycling rate calculation for European e-waste extended producer responsibility. Waste Management 84, 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.12.002
Huo, L., Wang, J., Huang, Y., Li, Y., Pan, W., Li, Z., Shi, H., 2021. Research on the tax support policy for implementing the Extended Producer Responsibility – Taking End-of-Life Vehicle Collecting and Dismantling Enterprises as an Example. E3S Web Conf. 245, 02013. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202124502013
Kadoić, N., 2018. Characteristics of the Analytic Network Process, a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Cro.Oper.Res.Rev. 9, 235–244. https://doi.org/10.17535/crorr.2018.0018
Kang, H.-Y., Schoenung, J.M., 2006. Economic Analysis of Electronic Waste Recycling: Modeling the Cost and Revenue of a Materials Recovery Facility in California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1672–1680. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0503783
Kazancoglu, Y., Ozbiltekin, M., Ozkan Ozen, Y.D., Sagnak, M., 2021. A proposed sustainable and digital collection and classification center model to manage e-waste in emerging economies. JEIM 34, 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2020-0043
Konstantoglou, A., Fotiadis, T., Folinas, D., Falaras, A., Rotsios, K., 2023. Accessing Consumer Perceptions of the Effectiveness of the Deposit Refund System. Sustainability 15, 9429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129429
Lindhqvist, T., 2000. Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems (Doctoral Thesis (monograph)). IIIEE, Lund University.
Macauley, M., Palmer, K., Shih, J.-S., 2003. Dealing with electronic waste: modeling the costs and environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal. Journal of Environmental Management 68, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00228-1
Mairizal, A.Q., Sembada, A.Y., Tse, K.M., Rhamdhani, M.A., 2021. Electronic waste generation, economic values, distribution map, and possible recycling system in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production 293, 126096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126096
Manomaivibool, P., 2009. Extended producer responsibility in a non-OECD context: The management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.10.003
OECD (Ed.), 2016. Extended producer responsibility: updated guidance for efficient waste management. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256385-en
OECD, 2015. Deposit-refund systems: Design and implementation, in: Creating Incentives for Greener Products, OECD Green Growth Studies. OECD, pp. 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264244542-7-en
OECD, 2001. Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264189867-en
Pazoki, M., Zaccour, G., 2021. Dynamic strategic interactions between a municipality and a firm in the presence of an extended producer responsibility regulation. Journal of Cleaner Production 292, 125966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125966
Peng, B., Tu, Y., Elahi, E., Wei, G., 2018. Extended Producer Responsibility and corporate performance: Effects of environmental regulation and environmental strategy. Journal of Environmental Management 218, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.068
Prasad, M.N.V., Vithanage, M., Borthakur, A., 2019. Handbook of Electronic Waste Management: International Best Practices and Case Studies. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Saaty, T.L., 2004. Fundamentals of the analytic network process — Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13, 129–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0158-y
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 2001. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer US, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1665-1
Sagnak, M., Berberoglu, Y., Memis, İ., Yazgan, O., 2021. Sustainable collection center location selection in emerging economy for electronic waste with fuzzy Best-Worst and fuzzy TOPSIS. Waste Management 127, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.054
Santoso, S., Yuri M Zagloel, T., Ardi, R., Suzianti, A., 2019. Estimating the Amount of Electronic Waste Generated in Indonesia: Population Balance Model. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 219, 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/219/1/012006
Soesanto, H., Maarif, M.S., Anwar, S., Yurianto, Y., 2022. Current status of household e-waste management in Jakarta, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1109, 012042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1109/1/012042
Sutasurya, D., 2022. In depth interview about the crucial factor of EPR for e-waste in Indonesia.
Systemiq, 2021. Extended Producer Responsibility in Indonesia: What to know, what stakeholders think, and what could happen next. Jakarta.
Wagner, T., 2013. Examining the concept of convenient collection: an application to extended producer responsibility and product stewardship frameworks. Waste management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.06.015
Wibowo, N., Piton, J.K., Nurcahyo, R., Gabriel, D.S., Farizal, F., Madsuha, A.F., 2021. Strategies for Improving the E-Waste Management Supply Chain Sustainability in Indonesia (Jakarta). Sustainability 13, 13955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413955
Widyarsana, I.M.W., Supramono, D.S., Tambunan, S.A., Mulyadi, A.A., 2021. Identification of electronic waste (e-waste) generation from the household and non-household sectors in Indonesia and its sustainable management system (preprint). In Review. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-391423/v1
Yi, Y., Liu, S., Fu, C., Li, Y., 2021. A joint optimal emissions tax and solid waste tax for extended producer responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production 314, 128007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128007
Zheng, X., Xu, F., Feng, L., 2017. Analysis of Driving Factors for Extended Producer Responsibility by Using Interpretative Structure Modelling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). Sustainability 9, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040540

No competing interests reported.

Understanding the Factors Influencing Extended Producer Responsibility in Indonesia

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Highlight

Introduction

Material And Methods