Product stewardship: Can it drive green design?

Environmental Quality Management

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 25-41

  Stitzhal, David ^a  

^a Full Circle Environmental Inc ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; FOOTPRINT; GREEN REVOLUTION; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; STAKEHOLDER; TOXICITY; WASTE DISPOSAL;

EID: 79952648267     PISSN: 10881913     EISSN: 15206483     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tqem.20287     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. This article is based on information contained in a May 2010 white paper entitled "Swimming Upstream: Product Stewardship and the Promise of Green Design," by David Stitzhal, which was originally prepared on behalf (and under the direction) of the 2010 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Product tewardship Stakeholder Group. Funding was provided by Metro, Resource Conservation and Recycling Division. Both the white paper and this article received significant insight, support, assistance, and guidance from Scott Klag, senior planner, Metro, and Jan Whitworth, senior policy analyst, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.2010
2. For more information on this process, see http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/prodstewardship/stakeholdergroup.htm
3. The definition of product stewardship assumed in this article is covered in other papers prepared for the Oregon stakeholder process, as are discussions of other key policy elements that address "downstream" stages (such as convenience standards and disposal bans)http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/prodstewardship/stakeholdermeetings.htm
4. This article does not explore other expanding calls for transparency with regard to nutrition, labor organizing, and additional attributes associated with production and use.
5. For a broader discussion on issues of sustainable consumption, see the Journal of Industrial Ecology special issue on sustainable consumption and production (SCP), available online at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123296535 /issue
6. For the complete directive, see Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament.
7. For more information on Top Runner, see Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. (2010). Top Runner program: Developing the world's best energy-efficient appliances. Available online at2010 http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/policy /saveenergy/toprunner2010.03en.pdf.
8. Welcome to EPEAThttp://www.epeat.net
9. Oregon E-Cycleshttp://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ecycle/index.htm
10. For more information on the Oregon Paint program, see: Product Stewardship Institute. (2009). PSI fact sheet on the Oregon Paint Product Stewardship law. Available online at http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw /PSIFactSheetOregonPaintLaw.pdf. Additional information on the program can be found on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality website at http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/prodstewardship/paint.htm.
11. Oregon Laws Chapter 777, Section 1. In this context, reducing the generation of post-consumer paint refers to achieving waste prevention through avoiding overpurchasing by the consumer2008
12. Seattle's New Food Packaging Requirements. Available online at http://www.resourceventure.org/foodpluscompostables
13. Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle Climate Action Now. (2008). City of Seattle disposable shopping bags green fee and expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam food container ban, frequently asked questions. Available online at http://www.seattle.gov/util/stellent/groups/public/@spu/@csb/documents/webcontent/spu02_014614.pdf
14. Packaging waste reduction, international packaging regulations: An introduction to what you need to know, at2-3http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/packaging/intlpkgregulations.pdf
15. The Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse was established by the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) in 1992 to encourage adoption of the CONEG-developed Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation. Thus far, 19 states have adopted this model law. The legislation requires reductions in the amount of four heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium) in packaging and packaging components sold or distributed within the adopting state. The legislation, which aims to phase out the use and presence of these four metals, requires certificates of compliance and allows for certain exemptions (which must be approved by the individual states). For more information, see http://www.toxicsinpackaging.org
16. In addition to the packaging regulations discussed in the previous section, it is worth noting that the famed German Green Dot program shows evidence of having reduced the overall volume of packaging used in commerce as a direct result of its fee structure and take-back program requirements
17. In the United States, state laws governing manufacturer take-back for electronics typically have been unable to broadly regulate toxicity components or export issues related to recycling standards
18. As a side note, it is worth mentioning that upstream design changes can either constrain or open downstream recycling options and the resultant product life-cycle impacts. In other words, not all recycling is equal. Glass recycled to cullet has a lower life-cycle impact than glass recycled to aggregate. Likewise for e-waste recycled according to high environmental standards versus that exported to areas with unmonitored conditions. In other words, upstream design choices can later ease the entry of recovered materials into market channels that allow and facilitate high-value "upcycling."
19. Though not explored in this article, labeling and information disclosure requirements are also being used to facilitate consumer scrutiny and decision making. Examples include France's eco-label (see http://www.marque-nf.com/pages.asp?ref=gp_reconnaitre_nf_nfenvironnement and Lang=English) and Japan's carbon label requirement for consumer goods (see http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20090529_01.html
20. For example, one of the key findings of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 2020 Vision Workgroup is a need to shift from waste management to materials management. Specific recommendations from US EPA are laid out in a 2009 document entitled "Sustainable Materi als Management: The Road Ahead," available online at http:// In Oregon, adoption of the state's Integrated Resource and Solid Waste Management Plan in 1994 and revisions to the state's solid waste laws in 2001 signaled a somewhat similar shift. More recently, planning efforts by Oregon local governments (including Portland, Eugene, and Metro, the regional government for the Portland metropolitan area) have all redirected- or are in the process of redirecting-some emphasis to "upstream" actions that address the larger life-cycle impacts of materials, as opposed to concentrating primarily on the management of discardswww.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/pubs/vision2.pdf
21. van Rossem, C., Tojo, N., and Lindhqvist, T.2006, September). Lost in transposition: A study of the implementation of individual producer responsibility in the WEEE directive, at p. vi. Amsterdam and Brussels: Greenpeace International Friends of the Earth Europe, and the European Environmental Bureau
22. For local governments that pursue measures aimed at shifting end-of-life management costs to producers, a major driver is the desire to provide financial relief to local ratepayers who currently fund disposal and recycling activities through rather blunt financing mechanisms
23. Five Winds International. (2009, March). Design for Environment (DfE) best practices: Lessons for British Columbia's Ministry of Environment. Available online athttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/reports/pdf/DfE.pdf
24. For example, Oregon DEQ's life-cycle analysis of e-commerce shipping options was instrumental in demonstrating that: recycled content and recyclability are not necessarily good indicators of life-cycle benefits when comparing dissimilar materials; "mass matters," with lighter weight options almost always being preferable to heavier options, regardless of material use; and shipping bags generally are preferable to boxes for nonbreakable items.