Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle?

AM King, SC Burgess, WL Ijomah, CA McMahon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

246 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Between 1980 and 1997, municipal waste in OECD countries increased by around 40%. This paper outlines the very real negative effects of this increase and then introduces the two main European Union policies that have been established to address this problem: a landfill directive and legislation on extended producer responsibility (EPR). The paper then describes and compares the four alternative strategies to reducing end-of-life waste within the context of extended producer responsibility: namely repairing, reconditioning, remanufacturing or recycling. It also introduces a more robust definition of remanufacturing, validated by earlier research, which differentiates it from repair and reconditioning. From a consideration of the different factors involved, it concludes that remanufacturing may well be the best strategy. This is because it enables the embodied energy of virgin production to be maintained, preserves the intrinsic added value of the product for the manufacturer and enables the resultant products to be sold as new with updated features if necessary. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Translated title of the contributionReducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle?
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)257 - 267
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Sustainable Development
Volume14 (4)
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2006

Bibliographical note

Publisher: Wiley Interscience

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this