Collective vs Individual Takeback

The argument put forward for individual take back systems over collective ones is that it is to avoid free riding and also give producers feedback on their products. However, consumers tend to think in terms of types of waste and not in terms of brands when disposing old equipment. Consequently, individual systems, or brand specific collection systems would be extremely inconvenient for a consumer, to have to dispose different brands at different locations or at different times. For collectors and retailers it is also an unnecessary effort to separately collect and store appliances according to different brands. It is generally considered that individual take back programs are more expensive than collective ones, mainly due to high logistics costs. Both HP and Xerox, who have individual take back programs for their printer supplies, have substantial expenditure on account of the collection of used cartridges, spending an average of CHF 7 in postal charges alone for every returned cartridge. In comparison, the ARF on a whole printer, which could cost upto CHF 1000, is only CHF 6.

Retail Take- back and Collection Points

The SWICO system was started with only the retail outlets and the transporter's logistics centres serving as collection points. Retail take back was considered the most viable and economic option for an EPR system because the retailers, with over 4000 outlets, had a wide coverage and were the interface between the consumer and manufacturer. Also, they already had in place storage and transportation logistics. In addition, it was seen as an additional service and customer building opportunity when a consumer brought back an old appliance or exchanged old for new. However, it was soon noticed that the low rates of collection was because of a combination of consumer reluctance to take back an old product without buying a new one, and distance to retailer. Therefore, collection points at railway stations and community collection centres were added in 1996. The ORDEE further strengthened the role of the retailer, obligating take back, and in the recent amendment, mandating it be at least at no cost.

Historical & Orphan products

One of the most debated topics when implementing an e-waste system based on EPR is the issue of historical products - those that have been sold in the past, and orphan products - those whose producers have ceased to exist. The SWICO and SENS systems resolved both issues by accepting all electronic and electrical products irrespective of the brands, or when they were sold. This is, again, keeping in mind consumer convenience and habits. Therefore, today's ARF pays for today's e-waste, regardless of its origin. Charging an ARF at the point of sale eliminates the issue of orphan products in the future. Other systems, such as the EU's WEEE directive, distinguish products sold after the introduction of the ARF from those that were sold before.

Industry coverage

Ideally, an e-waste management system should be as comprehensive as possible to include all electrical and electronic products. In determining the scope of the program, the consumer's ability to distinguish the difference between the products covered by an EPR and those uncovered should be considered. An EPR program that covers all similar products may help avoid confusion and free riders.

However, given that electronics and electrical products span such a wide array of industries - from consumer electronics to telecommunication to household appliances; it is rather unrealistic to wait to start a system until all the players are on board. The SWICO Recycling Guarantee was originally thought to start for both IT and Consumer Electronics. However, since not all consumer electronics producers were willing to participate, the system was launched in 1994 only for IT and office equipment. It was easier to build consensus among the IT and office equipment manufacturers since they were relatively fewer in number and also because their users were already used to paying for recycling. While on the one hand it was good that the IT industry went ahead with the system and showed the way, it caused some degree of confusion for ordinary consumers who could bring back IT and office equipment such as monitors for free to retailers, but could be charged for consumer electronics such as TVs.

SENS also faced some initial difficulties in bringing about consensus among the various household product manufacturers and retailers. The lengthy negotiations even forced the postponement of the launch of the new system by a year.