ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

While Australia has traditionally relied on obtaining metals from primary sources (namely mined natural resources), there is significant potential to recover metals from end-of-life-products and industrial waste. Although any metals recycling value chain requires a feasible technology at its core, many other non-technical factors are key links in the chain, which can compromise the overall viability to recycle a commodity and/or product. The “Wealth from Waste” Cluster project funded by the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Flagship Collaboration Fund and partner universities is focusing on identifying viable options to “mine” metals contained in discarded urban infrastructure, manufactured products and consumer goods. A key aspect of this research is to understand the critical non-technical barriers and system opportunities to enhance rates of metals recycling in Australia. Work to date has estimated the mass and current worth of metals in above ground resources. Using these outcomes as a basis, a typology for different options for (metal) reuse and recycling has been developed to classify the common features, which is presented in this article. In addition, the authors investigate the barriers and enablers in the recycling value chain, and propose a set of requirements for a feasible pathway to close the material loop for metals in Australia.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Typology of Options for Metal Recycling:
Australia’s Perspective
Artem Golev * and Glen D. Corder
Received: 31 July 2015; Accepted: 22 December 2015; Published: 30 December 2015
Academic Editor: Damien Giurco
Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland,
St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; g.corder@smi.uq.edu.au
*Correspondence: a.golev@uq.edu.au; Tel.: +61-7-3346-4136; Fax: +61-7-3346-4045
Abstract:
While Australia has traditionally relied on obtaining metals from primary sources (namely
mined natural resources), there is significant potential to recover metals from end-of-life-products
and industrial waste. Although any metals recycling value chain requires a feasible technology at its
core, many other non-technical factors are key links in the chain, which can compromise the overall
viability to recycle a commodity and/or product. The “Wealth from Waste” Cluster project funded
by the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Flagship Collaboration
Fund and partner universities is focusing on identifying viable options to “mine” metals contained in
discarded urban infrastructure, manufactured products and consumer goods. A key aspect of this
research is to understand the critical non-technical barriers and system opportunities to enhance rates
of metals recycling in Australia. Work to date has estimated the mass and current worth of metals in
above ground resources. Using these outcomes as a basis, a typology for different options for (metal)
reuse and recycling has been developed to classify the common features, which is presented in this
article. In addition, the authors investigate the barriers and enablers in the recycling value chain, and
propose a set of requirements for a feasible pathway to close the material loop for metals in Australia.
Keywords: metal flows; recycling; supply chain; circular economy; Australia
1. Introduction
Australia remains a strong net exporter of a wide range of mineral commodities, and especially
metallic minerals. The multibillion revenue generated by the mining sector [
1
] allowed the country’s
economy to stably grow over the last few decades. This is illustrated by recent export revenue of
metals and metal concentrates (58% in 2012/13, worth AUD101.2 billion), energy resources such
as coal, natural gas and uranium (38%, worth AUD67.4 billion) and other minerals exports (worth
AUD7.3 billion) totaling over AUD175 billion [
2
]. At the same time, being among the most developed
countries in the world and allowing for higher level of resources consumption, Australia generates
a significant amount of waste materials per capita [
2
], which could provide the economy with the
secondary resources and partially offset the need for virgin raw materials.
The amount of metals in the extracted and exported mineral concentrates in the last decade was
about 30 times higher than Australia’s needs in metals. From our research in the “Wealth from Waste”
Cluster project we ascertained that that net export of metal concentrates (in 100% metal content) grew
from about 114 Mt in 2002 to 289 Mt in 2011, while the domestic consumption of metals accounted
for 8.8 Mt and 12.3 Mt of metals in the corresponding years [
3
]. While not denying the dependence
of Australia on mining and minerals industry revenue for economic growth, we believe that a better
understanding of metal cycles in the economy can provide a pathway to Australia’s leading role in
resources stewardship, including accounting and highlighting the need for both primary and secondary
Resources 2016,5, 1; doi:10.3390/resources5010001 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources
Resources 2016,5, 1 2 of 10
resources in the economy, and comprehensively targeting the associated economic, environmental,
and community related impacts from resources supply. Moreover, Australia is well placed given its
expertise in developing primary resources from mineral deposits to help develop innovative and more
effective processes for recovering metals from secondary resources, such as end-of-life products and
industrial waste.
The current level of waste metal generation in Australia equals approximately 50% of the country’s
metals consumption [
2
]. In comparison with primary smelter production, the annually generated
scrap covers more than 100% of iron production, and from 10% to 30% of aluminium, copper and
lead smelting [3]. The recent statistics on metal recycling, however, indicate that the recycled content
in metal production in Australia remains relatively low, ranging from 0%–5% for major non-ferrous
metals to about 25%–30% for crude steel [3].
The overall aim of this article is to demonstrate that there is a need for a more systematic
categorization of the possible recycling value chains which enable a sufficient level of understanding
of the barriers and enablers to access a larger alternative source of metals through the processes of
“urban mining” which will result in higher levels of metals recycling in the Australian context.
To achieve this aim, the article presents a guiding framework that comprises a new classification
of metals recycling for end-of-life (EoL) products and an associated typology of different options to
help select the feasible pathways for (metal) reuse and recycling of the more problematic waste streams
to increase the level of metals circularity in the Australian economy.
2. Metal Inputs and Outputs in the Economy
Unlike metals and minerals from primary sources, there is limited information on the type of
metal and metal contained products consumed and scrapped in Australia. A detailed investigation
for a specific metal or commodity cycle in the economy is a very intensive and complex process.
However, it is evident that the majority of metals are consumed for buildings, infrastructure, machinery,
and vehicles, and locked in there for an extended period of time. The lack of information and data of
metals in waste products presents challenges in producing an overall picture of the metal usage in the
Australian economy. Based on a combination of data analysis techniques presented elsewhere [
4
], the
overall amount of consumed metals in Australia in 2012/13 was estimated to be 12 million tonnes or
about 520 kg per person; the amount of generated scrap, waste metal and other losses is seven million
tonnes or about 300 kg per person (Figure 1).
Resources 2016, 5, 1 2 of 9
resources in the economy, and comprehensively targeting the associated economic, environmental, and
community related impacts from resources supply. Moreover, Australia is well placed given its
expertise in developing primary resources from mineral deposits to help develop innovative and
more effective processes for recovering metals from secondary resources, such as end-of-life products
and industrial waste.
The current level of waste metal generation in Australia equals approximately 50% of the
country’s metals consumption [2]. In comparison with primary smelter production, the annually
generated scrap covers more than 100% of iron production, and from 10% to 30% of aluminium,
copper and lead smelting [3]. The recent statistics on metal recycling, however, indicate that the
recycled content in metal production in Australia remains relatively low, ranging from 0%5% for
major non-ferrous metals to about 25%30% for crude steel [3].
The overall aim of this article is to demonstrate that there is a need for a more systematic
categorization of the possible recycling value chains which enable a sufficient level of understanding
of the barriers and enablers to access a larger alternative source of metals through the processes of
urban mining which will result in higher levels of metals recycling in the Australian context.
To achieve this aim, the article presents a guiding framework that comprises a new classification
of metals recycling for end-of-life (EoL) products and an associated typology of different options to
help select the feasible pathways for (metal) reuse and recycling of the more problematic waste
streams to increase the level of metals circularity in the Australian economy.
2. Metal Inputs and Outputs in the Economy
Unlike metals and minerals from primary sources, there is limited information on the type of
metal and metal contained products consumed and scrapped in Australia. A detailed investigation
for a specific metal or commodity cycle in the economy is a very intensive and complex process.
However, it is evident that the majority of metals are consumed for buildings, infrastructure,
machinery, and vehicles, and locked in there for an extended period of time. The lack of information
and data of metals in waste products presents challenges in producing an overall picture of the metal
usage in the Australian economy. Based on a combination of data analysis techniques presented
elsewhere [4], the overall amount of consumed metals in Australia in 2012/13 was estimated to be 12
million tonnes or about 520 kg per person; the amount of generated scrap, waste metal and other
losses is seven million tonnes or about 300 kg per person (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Estimation of metal inputs and outputs in the Australian economy by major sectors (2012/13).
Source: [4].
The official classification for waste materials in Australia is based on the waste collection system
and includes three major groups: municipal solid waste (MSW), commercial and industrial (C & I)
waste, and construction and demolition (C & D) waste [5]. There are some variations in the reporting
system used by municipalities in different states across the country, as well as there are different
reporting requirements for waste processors and metal recyclers.
From our research to date we consider the recovery of metal from C & D waste, C & I waste, and
end-of-life (EoL) vehicles to be operating in well-established businesses. On the other hand, the
Figure 1.
Estimation of metal inputs and outputs in the Australian economy by major sectors (2012/13).
Source: [4].
The official classification for waste materials in Australia is based on the waste collection system
and includes three major groups: municipal solid waste (MSW), commercial and industrial (C & I)
waste, and construction and demolition (C & D) waste [
5
]. There are some variations in the reporting
system used by municipalities in different states across the country, as well as there are different
reporting requirements for waste processors and metal recyclers.
From our research to date we consider the recovery of metal from C & D waste, C & I waste,
and end-of-life (EoL) vehicles to be operating in well-established businesses. On the other hand, the
Resources 2016,5, 1 3 of 10
collection and recycling of EoL consumer products is a relatively new area. The consumer products,
including different electronic devices, are becoming an important category for metal reuse and recycling
due to their high annual growth rates, relatively short life cycle, and significant metal content, including
the presence of precious and critical metals [
6
]. For instance, in 2014 Australia had the highest electronic
waste, or e-waste, generation in the Oceania region both in absolute terms (0.47 Mt) and per capita
(20 kg) [7].
A significant part of the data used for investigating metal flows in the economy still relies on
expert assumptions. While the official reported metal collection rates in Australia exceed 90% [
8
],
we believe from our research analysis that the real metal recycling rates (EoL-RR) are below 70% [
4
].
This is due to a certain metal loss in obsolete (degraded) stocks and unaccounted losses during the
waste metal collection and processing. Therefore, there are still opportunities for enhancing the
collection and recovery, including preventing metal losses at the disposal and stimulating secondary
metal production within the country versus importing scrap overseas, including metal recovery from
consumer products. In addition, it is worth highlighting that there is significant metals value in
EoL products. A recent report stated the gold content from e-waste worldwide in 2014 was roughly
300 tonnes, which represents 11% of the global gold production from mines in 2013 (2770 tonnes) [
7
].
The same report also estimated that the value of a range of key metals (iron/steel, copper, aluminium,
gold, silver, palladium) in e-waste worldwide in 2014 was about 36 billion Euros (AUD53 billion) [7].
3. Depicting the Value Chain for Recycling
The concept of the circular economy is based on the model where the EoL products form the
basis for continuous resource value chains, ranging from repair and reuse to remanufacturing and
recycling [
9
]. The product design for reuse and recycling becomes an imperative to enable the
circulation of resources. The idea of circular use of resources, however, is applicable at a global level
rather than a separate region or country level. When developing national policy and targets for reuse
and recycling, it is important to recognise the boundaries for recoverable resources circulation within
and outside the domestic borders.
In general terms, the recycling of metal starts with EoL products collection, followed by
product disassembly and basic separation. The metal containing parts have to undergo several
stages of transformation (such as crushing, separation, leaching, smelting, refining), including waste
management for losses and/or by-products. The final output can be refined metal or alloy, or fabricated
metal products. Several value chain options can occur in relation to recycling of collected EoL products
as shown in Figure 2:
1. direct export (a);
2. separated into metal scrap and other materials, and exported (b);
3. metal scrap can be smelted into refined metal products, and exported (c);
4. recovered metal is used for product fabrication, for export and/or domestic consumption (d).
Resources 2016, 5, 1 3 of 9
collection and recycling of EoL consumer products is a relatively new area. The consumer products,
including different electronic devices, are becoming an important category for metal reuse and
recycling due to their high annual growth rates, relatively short life cycle, and significant metal
content, including the presence of precious and critical metals [6]. For instance, in 2014 Australia had
the highest electronic waste, or e-waste, generation in the Oceania region both in absolute terms (0.47 Mt)
and per capita (20 kg) [7].
A significant part of the data used for investigating metal flows in the economy still relies on
expert assumptions. While the official reported metal collection rates in Australia exceed 90% [8], we
believe from our research analysis that the real metal recycling rates (EoL-RR) are below 70% [4]. This
is due to a certain metal loss in obsolete (degraded) stocks and unaccounted losses during the waste
metal collection and processing. Therefore, there are still opportunities for enhancing the collection
and recovery, including preventing metal losses at the disposal and stimulating secondary metal
production within the country versus importing scrap overseas, including metal recovery from
consumer products. In addition, it is worth highlighting that there is significant metals value in EoL
products. A recent report stated the gold content from e-waste worldwide in 2014 was roughly
300 tonnes, which represents 11% of the global gold production from mines in 2013 (2770 tonnes) [7].
The same report also estimated that the value of a range of key metals (iron/steel, copper, aluminium,
gold, silver, palladium) in e-waste worldwide in 2014 was about 36 billion Euros (AUD53 billion) [7].
3. Depicting the Value Chain for Recycling
The concept of the circular economy is based on the model where the EoL products form the
basis for continuous resource value chains, ranging from repair and reuse to remanufacturing and
recycling [9]. The product design for reuse and recycling becomes an imperative to enable the circulation
of resources. The idea of circular use of resources, however, is applicable at a global level rather than
a separate region or country level. When developing national policy and targets for reuse and
recycling, it is important to recognise the boundaries for recoverable resources circulation within and
outside the domestic borders.
In general terms, the recycling of metal starts with EoL products collection, followed by product
disassembly and basic separation. The metal containing parts have to undergo several stages of
transformation (such as crushing, separation, leaching, smelting, refining), including waste management
for losses and/or by-products. The final output can be refined metal or alloy, or fabricated metal
products. Several value chain options can occur in relation to recycling of collected EoL products as
shown in Figure 2:
1. direct export (a);
2. separated into metal scrap and other materials, and exported (b);
3. metal scrap can be smelted into refined metal products, and exported (c);
4. recovered metal is used for product fabrication, for export and/or domestic consumption (d).
Figure 2. Value chain for EoL products recycling.
Figure 2 presents the authors’ schematic interpretation of the economic value for EoL products
recycling along the recycling value chain. It shows that for every subsequent step in the value chain
Figure 2. Value chain for EoL products recycling.
Resources 2016,5, 1 4 of 10
Figure 2presents the authors’ schematic interpretation of the economic value for EoL products
recycling along the recycling value chain. It shows that for every subsequent step in the value chain
the economic value of recovered materials becomes higher, contributing to gross domestic product in
the country. Establishing collection systems for EoL products is the first element in the recycling value
chain. The economic value derived from exporting waste products (for material recovery overseas) is
usually very low if not negative, excluding savings on landfill levies and/or higher processing costs in
the country of origin. The separation and recovery of materials from EoL products creates new jobs
and revenue within the country [
6
,
10
,
11
]. Depending on the depth of processing and final output, the
economic value can vary from relatively low (e.g., metal scrap export) to very high (e.g., fabrication
of new products). The preferred or best route in Figure 2for any EoL product will depend on the
associated costs for each of the options in that region and/or the country.
Only the recovery of materials into new products (maintaining the original quality of recycled
materials) can be characterised as a true circular use of resources. While this may be desirable to
occur within one country, it is mainly achievable at the global scale due to the fact that many products
are imported from overseas, and not all recovered materials/metals may be needed for domestic
production. In every case, there should be a distinction for the appropriate supply loop for materials
recovered from EoL products [12].
The recovered materials (and/or new products) at the separation, smelting and fabrication stages
can also be characterised with lower, similar or higher quality and value, if compared to the original
input materials in the product. These are called downcycling, cycling, and upcycling respectively
in Figure 2. Common examples of downcycling include the use of mixed streams of high-purity
aluminium alloys to create less pure casting alloys, and the loss/waste of alloying elements in the
processing of mixed streams of stainless steel scrap [
13
]. Downcycling can also be viewed through the
cascading theory, explaining the gradual decrease in resource quality over time after different reuse and
recycling applications before final disposal and-or dissipation [
14
,
15
]. Many examples can be found
for metal recycling (cycling) where the recovered metal has similar value and/or aimed for the same
application, e.g., aluminium cans recycling. The examples for metal upcycling, however, are relatively
rare, especially considering that any new application (with upcycled metal) has to allow/maintain
the same quality (value) of resources for the next round of recycling. Nevertheless, there are strong
economic and environmental benefits for promoting the cyclical use of resources via cycling (also
referred to as high-grade recycling) and upcycling versus downcycling, but this distinction is rarely
highlighted in the regulation and underrepresented in the academic literature.
4. Classifying Options for Reuse and Recycling
As mentioned in the Introduction, Australia has a wealth of natural resources as well as generating
a significant amount of waste materials per capita. Historically, this abundance of natural resources
has contributed to Australia being less concerned about recycling compared with other countries such
as those in the European Union or Japan. Most of waste reuse initiatives in Australia over the last
20 years were primarily focusing on industrial (pre-consumer) waste [16].
At an international level, initiatives related to the circular economy and metals recycling are being
advocated through the World Economic Forum [
12
] and through the United National Environment
Programme [
6
]. Circular economy approaches, such as industrial ecology or industrial symbiosis, have
been developed and are operating in China, through its Eco-industrial Park (EIP) network; in the UK,
through the UK’s National Industrial Symbiosis Programme; and in Europe more broadly, through its
Resource Efficiency Flagship Initiative [
16
]. In addition, there are several research initiatives, such as
the Center for Resource Recovery and Recycling (a multi-university initiative—Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, Colorado School of Mines, and KU Leuven) and the Critical Minerals Institute in the U.S.
Department of Energy, focusing on materials efficiency and recycling [
2
]. It is beyond the scope of
this article to review the different approaches and issues encountered in other countries related to
recycling and the related move towards circular economy thinking. Many of the issues regarding
Resources 2016,5, 1 5 of 10
recycling are dependent on contextual circumstances and environments, such as geography, population
density, social norms, infrastructure systems, regulations, etc., within the country or region in question.
For this reason in this article, we have focused our efforts on identifying the distinctive features and
characteristics pertinent to Australia for metals recycling. While we recognize that other parts of the
world are more advanced in their approaches to metals recycling, there are still significant limitations
and potential opportunities for metals recycling that have been brought about by the increasing
complex nature of products that contain metals, particularly electrical and electronic equipment [
5
].
The approach presented in article is a new attempt to identify the feasible pathways to increase metals
recycling of complex and problematic EoL products.
The collection system for waste metal in Australia can be characterised as being
well-established [
10
], although a significant part of metal scrap is still present in the mixed municipal
waste stream (domestic general waste bins) and ends up at landfills [
8
]. The opportunities for
improvement exist at different stages in the recycling supply chain [
4
], but achieving higher levels
of domestic recycling for already collected materials could deliver the most immediate and tangible
benefits. However, a key question remains: how to innovate the recycling sector and benefit the
economy through cyclical use of resources?
The existing practices and opportunities for material recovery from EoL products depend on the
complexity of the products as well as the scale of processing operations. Some consumer products
are relatively simple in terms of metal and other material mix; the conventional recycling operations
for these products include shredding, magnetic separation and eddy current (e.g., fridges, washing
machines) [
6
,
17
]. However, many electronic wastes (e.g., EoL computers, TVs, and mobile phones) are
very complex often containing high concentrations of precious and rare metals; the recovery of the latter
requires a separate advanced processing through pyro- and/or hydrometallurgical operations [
17
].
With insufficient scale, feasible options for recycling are significantly limited.
An overview of the existing recycling practices in Australia and worldwide through the
workshops and industry contacts, as a part of the Wealth from Waste Cluster work [
18
,
19
], has
allowed us to classify and map main strategies for metal recycling from EoL products in Figure 3.
It is based on two main paramaters—scale and EoL product complexity; both of them are used as
relative characteristics defining economic feasibility for metal recovery rather than absolute weight
based figures. It should also be noted that it is rather challenging to make a direct comparison between
Figures 1and 3. It is obvious that a major part of metal flows associated with EoL products (perhaps
more than 70%) goes through conventional recycling (sector #1 in Figure 3). This includes most
of metal scrap arising from construction and demolition waste, EoL vehicles and machinery, and
some large EoL consumer products. Nevertheless, the remaining part which is difficult to quantify on
a product-by-product by basis due to the lack of available data in the Australian context, still represents
an area of great importance to improve metal recycling rates, especially that part associated with waste
electronic products.
Resources 2016, 5, 1 5 of 9
recognize that other parts of the world are more advanced in their approaches to metals recycling,
there are still significant limitations and potential opportunities for metals recycling that have been
brought about by the increasing complex nature of products that contain metals, particularly electrical
and electronic equipment [5]. The approach presented in article is a new attempt to identify the
feasible pathways to increase metals recycling of complex and problematic EoL products.
The collection system for waste metal in Australia can be characterised as being well-established [10],
although a significant part of metal scrap is still present in the mixed municipal waste stream (domestic
general waste bins) and ends up at landfills [8]. The opportunities for improvement exist at different
stages in the recycling supply chain [4], but achieving higher levels of domestic recycling for already
collected materials could deliver the most immediate and tangible benefits. However, a key question
remains: how to innovate the recycling sector and benefit the economy through cyclical use of resources?
The existing practices and opportunities for material recovery from EoL products depend on the
complexity of the products as well as the scale of processing operations. Some consumer products
are relatively simple in terms of metal and other material mix; the conventional recycling operations
for these products include shredding, magnetic separation and eddy current (e.g., fridges, washing
machines) [6,17]. However, many electronic wastes (e.g., EoL computers, TVs, and mobile phones)
are very complex often containing high concentrations of precious and rare metals; the recovery of
the latter requires a separate advanced processing through pyro- and/or hydrometallurgical operations
[17]. With insufficient scale, feasible options for recycling are significantly limited.
An overview of the existing recycling practices in Australia and worldwide through the workshops
and industry contacts, as a part of the Wealth from Waste Cluster work [18,19], has allowed us to
classify and map main strategies for metal recycling from EoL products in Figure 3. It is based on two
main paramatersscale and EoL product complexity; both of them are used as relative characteristics
defining economic feasibility for metal recovery rather than absolute weight based figures. It should
also be noted that it is rather challenging to make a direct comparison between Figure 1 and Figure 3. It
is obvious that a major part of metal flows associated with EoL products (perhaps more than 70%)
goes through conventional recycling (sector #1 in Figure 3). This includes most of metal scrap arising
from construction and demolition waste, EoL vehicles and machinery, and some large EoL consumer
products. Nevertheless, the remaining part which is difficult to quantify on a product-by-product by
basis due to the lack of available data in the Australian context, still represents an area of great importance
to improve metal recycling rates, especially that part associated with waste electronic products.
Figure 3. Main strategies for metal recycling from EoL products depending on scale, product complexity,
and metal mix.
The basis of diagram in Figure 3 is as follows:
Sector #1 represents collection and recycling of bulk waste metal streams and metal contained
commodities, this type of recycling is a well established area in most countries.
In contrast, the advanced recovery of high-tech and precious metals from EoL products in Sector #2,
including from waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE), is usually concentrated in a few
locations in the world. The types and value of WEEE vary greatly, and in many cases additional
Figure 3.
Main strategies for metal recycling from EoL products depending on scale, product
complexity, and metal mix.
Resources 2016,5, 1 6 of 10
The basis of diagram in Figure 3is as follows:
Sector #1
represents collection and recycling of bulk waste metal streams and metal contained
commodities, this type of recycling is a well established area in most countries.
In contrast, the advanced recovery of high-tech and precious metals from EoL products in
Sector #2
, including from waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE), is usually concentrated
in a few locations in the world. The types and value of WEEE vary greatly, and in many cases
additional finanical support is required to collect and recycle these products. In Australia, the
National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme partly covers the collection and separation
costs for old TVs and computers. However, the collected WEEE are mainly shipped to large
e-waste processing plants elsewhere, such as SIMS metal e-waste recycling facility in Singapore,
and the Umicore plant in Europe [17].
Recycling of special alloys in
Sector #3
is an example of a niche (“boutique”) strategy. While the
volumes can be rather small, the value of these alloys make it feasible to track and recover them
from EoL products. Examples of this strategy in Australia include the recovery/remanufacturing
of mining equipment parts made of stainless steel.
Sector #4
represents problem EoL products, and is the sector that is relevant to many EoL
consumer products in Australia. With a lack of domestic recycling opportunities, the transitional
strategies include temporary accumulation (in a personal garage, or centralized stockpile), export
to third countries (where there is a scale of operations), collection and recycling under additional
public costs and/or stewardship programs. In many cases, however, the landfill option still can
be tolerated. It is this sector that is the key focus of the remainder of this article.
EoL products that fall into Sector #4 suffer from several common characteristics. Often there is
temporary accumulation of these waste products (including for future recovery), and despite being
acknowledged in practice, they are not yet a part of a systematic government environmental policy or
circular economy thinking. Furthermore, the strong desire on short-term financial benefits is a likely
key reason for preventing wider acceptance of (valuable) waste accumulation and storage, as potential
future “anthropogenic resource deposits”.
There are potential preventive measures to mitigate the loss of resources with EoL products
disposal such as:
identifying and encouraging different reuse options;
enabling disassembly for parts;
designing and creating preference amongst consumers for products with longer life cycles;
as well as developing and promoting new innovative solutions for recycling.
The schematic representation of the value chain for EoL products recycling in Figure 2highlights
that greater economic value is generated if EoL products can be collected and recycled through as
many steps as possible provided the associated costs are manageable. The aim of the developed
typology of options presented in Table 1is to determine the potential for progressing along the value
chain for recycling and re-use of an EoL product, and if there are points of influence that would enable
this progression to occur. Even though this typology could be used for any of the metal recycling
categorizations in Figure 3, its key aim is to help with identifying opportunities for problematic EoL
products (Sector #4). Depending on the product characteristics, collection system and reuse/processing
route, not all options in Table 1(and Figure 2) will be applicable and/or feasible for each EoL products.
Resources 2016,5, 1 7 of 10
Table 1. Typology of options for reuse and recycling.
Criteria Options Point(s) of Influence
Re-use and recycling route
Reuse, repair, refurbishment
Disassembly for parts
Disassembly for material streams
Bulk recycling
Product design, recycling
technology
Resource recovery approach
Product centric
Material centric Product design, recycling
technology
Reuse channels
Formal/regulated
Informal Regulation, business model,
public education
Regulatory regime for recycling
Voluntary
Co-regulation
Regulation
Regulation, stewardship programs
Infrastructure and collection
system
Centralised collection
Special outlets for collection
Take-back schemes
Regulation, stewardship programs
Typical consumer behaviour for
EoL product
No interest in reuse and recycling (disposal)
Giving away (for reuse)
Centralised recycling (e.g., kerbside collection)
Self-delivery for recycling
Long-term storage of obsolete devices
Public education, regulation
Collection and recycling costs
covered by
Producer
Consumer
Recycling company
Government
Regulation, stewardship
programs, public education
Relative recovery value
Negative
Low to zero
Medium
High
Product design, recycling
technology
The most recent efforts in managing problematic waste streams in Australia under the Product
Stewardship Act 2011, such as EoL household batteries, mobile phones, and TVs and computers
can illustrate the developed approach in this article. For example, they highlight the key role of
co-regulatory agreements and stewardship programs for establishing and funding the collection of
EoL electronic products [
20
,
21
]. A further progression along the recycling supply chain is however
still hindered by a lack of scale for establishing the full recovery operations in the country.
The presented typology (Table 1) can be used to both describe the existing situation in recycling
of a specific EoL product stream, and to analyse the alternatives. The development of alternatives
includes analysing of different barriers and enablers affecting higher reuse, collection and recycling
rates within the value chain (refer to Figure 2), including:
1. availability and awareness of reuse channels;
2. brand recognition for product reuse and disassembly;
3. availability and affordability of collection and recycling infrastructure;
4. available solutions for dangerous contaminants treatment;
5. opportunity to treat as bulk commodity (e.g., no separation or special care is required);
Resources 2016,5, 1 8 of 10
6.
economic incentives and regulatory obligations for collection and recycling (e.g., stewardship
programs such as the Extended Producer Responsibility policy [22]);
7. environmental and educational campaigns to raise consumer awareness;
8. promoting recycling supply chain networking and collaboration.
Overall, to achieve positive environmental and economic outcomes, the main criteria for
establishing a viable business case for metal recycling in Australia should include:
1. high recovery rates for all major constituents/materials;
2. scalability (to be able to cover growing amounts of EoL products, and their complexity);
3. the potential to achieve the same or better quality of recovered materials (upcycling).
Other important factors to be considered are the total economic value for recovery, presence
and removability of hazardous elements, maturity of industry, and consumer behaviour. The full
processing of waste materials domestically (versus exporting collected waste for processing overseas)
depends on the presence of a market for recovered materials, and competiveness compared with
primary production (including imported products).
5. Conclusions
The progression towards a circular economy has to undergo significant changes in the main
drivers of the current economy: from maximising of economic value and preferred simple technology,
to strengthening of environmental regulation, rising of public awareness about environmental impacts
and emphasizing the crucial importance of business reputation. In addition, there needs to be a greater
focus on designing products with minimal ecological footprint over the product life cycle, and ensuring
the supply of secondary resources in a closed loop economy. Other contributing factors include
national targets (as set in environmental legislation), regulation and policies (for different actors in
the resource supply chain and recycling), producer responsibility (e.g., product stewardship), existing
recycling infrastructure and technology, consumer behaviour, information availability (to allow for
making rational decisions), and finally actual recycling rates for the overall waste material recovery in
the economy.
Domestic application for recovered metals in Australia is still lacking, and limits the closing
of material loops. To uncover the opportunities for circular use of resources, new innovations and
incentives at different stages in the recycling supply chain are needed. The typology of options
presented in this article assists in identifying these opportunities, coupled with the classification of
main recycling strategies for different EoL products and emphasizing the potential for creating higher
economic value in progressing upstream through the recycling value chain. Specifically, this approach
is aimed at targeting complex and Australian EoL consumer products that are currently problematic for
recycling. This work will form the basis for producing a maturity model in the subsequent research to
provide a further contribution for increasing metals recycling levels. Finally, Australia’s knowledge and
expertise from extracting, recovering and producing metals from primary sources should be utilized
and adapted to develop the necessary innovative technologies and approaches that will help overcome
the current barriers to metals recycling and contribute to the evolution towards a circular economy.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Wealth from Waste Research
Cluster, a collaborative program between the Australian CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research
Organisation), University of Technology Sydney, The University of Queensland, Swinburne University of
Technology, Monash University and Yale University.
Author Contributions:
Artem Golev led the development of the concepts and outcomes presented in this article
and led the writing of this article. Glen Corder contributed to and reviewed the presented concepts and outcomes
as well as providing additional writing of the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Resources 2016,5, 1 9 of 10
References
1.
BREE. Resources and Energy Statistics 2013; Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE): Canberra,
Australia, 2013.
2.
Corder, G.D.; Golev, A.; Giurco, D. “Wealth from metal waste”: Translating global knowledge on industrial
ecology to metals recycling in australia. Miner. Eng. 2015,76, 2–9. [CrossRef]
3.
Golev, A.; Corder, G. Modelling metal flows in the Australian economy. J. Clean. Product.
2016
,112, 4296–4303.
[CrossRef]
4.
Golev, A.; Corder, G.D. Global Systems for Industrial Ecology and Recycling of Metals in Australia: Research
Report; Prepared for Wealth from Waste Cluster, by the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining,
Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia. Available online:
http://wealthfromwaste.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/WfW_IE_Global_Systems_Report-2014.pdf
(accessed on 31 May 2014).
5.
Rajaratnam, T.; Lamb, G. Waste Classifications in Australia: A Comparison of Waste Classifications in the Australian
Waste Database with Current Jurisdictional Classifications; Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities: Sydney, Australia, 2011.
6.
UNEP. Metal Recycling: Opportunities, Limits, Infrastructure; A Report of the Working Group on the Global
Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel; Reuter, M.A., Hudson, C., van Schaik, A., Heiskanen, K.,
Meskers, C., Hagelüken, C., Eds.; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Paris, France, 2013.
7.
Baldé, C.P.; Wang, F.; Kuehr, R.; Huisman, J. The Global e-Waste Monitor—2014; United Nations University,
IAS-SCYCLE: Bonn, Germany, 2015.
8.
Randell, P.; Pickin, J.; Grant, B. Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia; Blue Environment Pty
Ltd.; Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Available online:
http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/waste-generation-and-resource-recovery-australia-report-and-
data-workbooks (accessed on 30 June 2014).
9.
O’Brien, M.; Miedzinski, M.; Giljum, S.; Doranova, A. Eco-Innovation and Competitiveness: Enabling
the Transition to a Resource-efficient Circular Economy; Annual Report 2013; European Commission:
Luxembourg, 2014.
10.
Brulliard, C.; Cain, R.; Do, D.; Dornom, T.; Evans, K.; Lim, B.; Olesson, E.; Young, S. The Australian Recycling
Sector; Net Balance; Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities:
Canberra, Australia, 2012.
11.
EEA. Earnings, Jobs and Innovation: The Role of Recycling in a Green Economy; EEA Report No. 8/2011; European
Environment Agency (EEA): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011.
12.
WEF. Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the Scale-up Across Global Supply Chains; Prepared
in collaboration with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company; World Economic
Forum (WEF): Geneva, Switzerland; Available online: http://reports.weforum.org/toward-the-circular-
economy-accelerating-the-scale-up-across-global-supply-chains (accessed on 30 June 2014).
13.
Allwood, J.M. Chapter 30—Squaring the circular economy: The role of recycling within a hierarchy of
material management strategies. In Handbook of Recycling; Worrell, E., Reuter, M.A., Eds.; Elsevier: Boston,
UK, 2014; pp. 445–477.
14.
Yamashita, H.; Kishino, H.; Hanyu, K.; Hayashi, C.; Abe, K. Circulation indices: New tools for analyzing the
structure of material cascades. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2000,28, 85–104. [CrossRef]
15.
Sirkin, T.; Houten, M.T. The cascade chain: A theory and tool for achieving resource sustainability with
applications for product design. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1994,10, 213–276. [CrossRef]
16. Corder, G.D.; Golev, A.; Fyfe, J.; King, S. The status of industrial ecology in australia: Barriers and enablers.
Resources 2014,3, 340–361. [CrossRef]
17.
Khaliq, A.; Rhamdhani, M.; Brooks, G.; Masood, S. Metal extraction processes for electronic waste and
existing industrial routes: A review and australian perspective. Resources 2014,3, 152–179. [CrossRef]
18.
Corder, G.D.; Golev, A. Industrial Ecology Forum “Shifting the Australian Resources Paradigm”; Outcomes and
Findings Report; Prepared for Wealth from Waste Cluster, by the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining,
Sustainable Minerals Institute; The University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia; 28 March 2014; Sydney,
Australia, 2014.
Resources 2016,5, 1 10 of 10
19.
Corder, G.D.; Golev, A. Second Industrial Ecology Workshop “Shifting the Australian Resources Paradigm”;
Outcomes and Findings Report; Prepared for Wealth from Waste Cluster, by the Centre for Social
Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute; The University of Queensland: Brisbane,
Australia; Available online: http://wealthfromwaste.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/WfW-Workshop-
2-Report-Dec-2014.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2014).
20.
Gumley, W. An analysis of regulatory strategies for recycling and re-use of metals in australia. Resources
2014,3, 395–415. [CrossRef]
21.
Lane, R. Understanding the dynamic character of value in recycling metals from australia. Resources
2014
,3,
416–431. [CrossRef]
22.
OECD. Extended Producer Responsibility: A guidance Manual for Governments; Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD): Paris, France, 2001.
©
2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... Circular economy within the country is practiced among a wide range of industries ranging from agriculture, metallurgy, plastic, mining, construction to textile industries and many more. Several published studies particularly between 2014 and 2018 indicate that in fact a large proportion of Australia's circular economy practices is focused on metal reuse and recycling [11][12][13]. The desire to create high-performance alloys and technological solutions using processes and innovations that are sustainable explains why a vast number of circular economy publications in the country focus on the metallic industries. ...
Article
Full-text available
Australia has intensified its circular economy (CE) efforts that demonstrate designing out waste while creating wealth. It has developed eco-industrial parks in metallurgy/metal industries, eco-cities and small-scale waste-to-wealth creation strategies. Mining has taken the lead in CE development with the eco-industrial areas at Kwinana, Western Australia, and Gladstone, Queensland. Easing up the waste burden, eco-efficiency and value addition are the direct benefits of circularizing the economy. Shortsightedness in looking up for opportunities across the supply chain, technological constraints, lack of policy coordination for business innovation, economic recession induced by the COVID-19 pandemic and lack of incentives to change behavior from linear to circular economy are among the barriers pointed out. A systematic review of published literature in Australian context was conducted to assess the state-of-the art circular economy development. We have found that Australia has to look into overcoming the barriers by putting in place policies and guidelines to nurture the current synergies, business relationships and trust among the firms in partnership, and more R & D to meet the demand for complementing technologies and to have cohesion over the current CE strategies, among others.
... Circular economy within the country is practiced among a wide range of industries ranging from agriculture, metallurgy, plastic, mining, construction to textile industries and many more. Several published studies particularly between 2014 and 2018 indicate that in fact a large proportion of Australia's circular economy practices is focused on metal reuse and recycling [11][12][13]. The desire to create high-performance alloys and technological solutions using processes and innovations that are sustainable explains why a vast number of circular economy publications in the country focuses on the metallic industries. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Australia has intensified its circular economy (CE) efforts that demonstrate designing out waste while creating wealth. It has developed eco-industrial parks in metallurgy/metal industries, eco-cities, small-scale waste-to-wealth creation strategies. Mining has taken the lead in CE development with the eco-industrial areas at Kwinana, Western Australia and Gladstone, Queensland. Easing up the waste burden, eco-efficiency and value addition are the direct benefits of circularizing the economy. Shortsightedness in looking up for opportunities across the supply chain, technological constraints, lack of policy coordination for business innovation, economic recession induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of incentives to change behaviour from linear to circular economy are among the barriers pointed out. A systematic review of published literature in Australian context was conducted to assess the state-of-the art circular economy development. We have found that Australia has to look into overcoming the barriers by putting in place policies and guidelines to nurture the current synergies, business relationships and trust among the firms in partnership, and more R&D to meet the demand for complementing technologies and to have cohesion over the current CE strategies, among others.
... Despite the differences mentioned above, the main three objectives of EPR and its variations include a reduction in pollution prevention, decline in the extraction of natural resources and a drop in energy use for extracting and processing new materials [17,24,25]. The implementation of EPR and similar schemes has been repeatedly mentioned as an effective policy approach in the management of C&D waste in previous studies [17,19,[26][27][28][29][30]. Until now, there is no universal and standard policy approach to implement and take advantage of EPR objectives for the C&D waste stream. ...
Article
Full-text available
With the COVID-19 outbreak across the world, policymakers and authorities have realised that they cannot solve the emerging issues using conventional policies and practices. COVID-19 has severely affected many industries, including construction and demolition (C&D) waste management and C&D waste resource recovery sector. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and schemes alike are policy instruments that prevent waste generation and promote a circular economy in the construction industry. These schemes are long adopted in various countries for different waste streams. EPR policy development and implementation, particularly for C&D waste, is still at an early stage in Australia. This study aims to review the Australian regulatory environment and practice to identify barriers and enablers towards successful policy development and implementation of C&D waste-related EPR. This study is based on secondary data that are publicly available. The document analysis was conducted to identify the level of regulatory and other stakeholders support in Australia. Following three rounds of examination of sources and applying multiple selection criteria, 59 different sources were reviewed in total. The results showed that there is widespread support among different stakeholders to develop EPR and expand the existing regulation to other materials. The barriers were cost and time implications for EPR policy establishment and enforcement , diversity of stakeholders involved, construction product lifecycle, responsibility of manufacturers , complexity in implantation of EPR regulations, modification inbuilt facilities and health and safety issues. Recommendations are made to alleviate these challenges. The outcome of this study could serve as a guideline for designing effective EPR policies.
... To deploy circular strategies effectively it is essential that they can be linked to outcomes that address structural waste (EMF, 2013;Blomsma, 2018), and their contribution to value creation (EMF, 2013;Widmer et al., 2018), as well as that it is understood how associated business risks can best be managed (Linder and Williander, 2017). Moreover, a range of technical requirements need to inform the feasibility and desirability of circular strategies, such as resource quality and conservation Golev and Corder, 2016), and energy investment (Cullen, 2017). In addition, the systemic impact needs to be understood, in particular the phenomenon of circular rebound (Zink and Geyer, 2017;Hollingsworth et al., 2019). ...
Article
This paper draws on material entropy and life cycle thinking to develop the Resource States framework. This framework clarifies and systematises the language around resources within the circular economy (CE) discourse, such that insights from different tools and approaches that investigate different aspects of CE can be aggregated and a more comprehensive picture of complex circular systems can be compiled. Currently, progress of the CE discourse is hampered by a lack of a clear and systematic approach to what we refer to as the particle state and the product state. That is: whether to approach resource circulation from the perspective of elements, molecules or materials; or whether to adopt the perspective of products or finished goods. As these two perspectives are often implicit in current contributions to CE, we first articulate both approaches, before assessing their respective contributions and limitations. Next, we draw on material entropy and life cycle thinking to integrate both perspectives and develop a more comprehensive way of conceptualising resource states, in the form of the Resource States framework. We furthermore present how this framework can be used A) to clearly distinguish between circular strategies, as well as between different implementation scenarios of the same circular strategy; B) to systematically explore and map synergies and trade-offs between combinations of circular strategies; and C) to link circular strategies with structural waste present in a given context. Lastly, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the framework and reflect on how it advances the CE field.
... At present, many researchers are engaged in developing a circular economy industry and recovery techniques of valuable metals from spent LIBs, although an ideal recovery system, which is both highefficient and environmentally friendly, is yet to be established. Therefore, issues regarding availability and sustainability of the corresponding metal resources that are closely connected with the long-term survival and continuation of the manufacturing industry must be solved effectively (Alonso et al., 2012;Golev and Corder., 2015;Graedel, 2011). Thus, the risk involved in securing a sustainable supply of raw materials containing valuable metals needs to be identified. ...
Article
With the rapid development of the lithium-ion battery (LIB) industry, the demand for core valuable elements in LIB has increased dramatically. A safe supply of corresponding metals is crucial to ensure the industry’s sustainability. However, quantitative evaluation to reveal the supply risk including criticality of LIBs in China is still not available. In this regard, criticality analysis was carried out to identify the importance of a specific metal in the current LIBs supply chain of raw materials. Subsequently, a comprehensive methodology to evaluate supply sustainability is established in this research by considering the combined effects of material supply, economic fluctuations, and technology innovation in the time frame from 2015 to 2030. An integrated index called Chinese supply resilience is introduced, indicating that a low Chinese supply resilience has a high possibility of supply shortage of the corresponding metal while a high resilience level represents minor supply risk. The results show that insufficient material supply has already induced a severe shortage for lithium (Li) and cobalt (Co). Specifically, Chinese supply resilience of lithium moves from the threshold to the low resilience zone, whereas that for cobalt remains in the low area, both implying a high risk of supply shortage. Furthermore, three appropriate mitigation measures, that is, recycling of spent LIBs, substitution of raw materials, and an increase in domestic raw materials production are considered. Recycling demonstrates the most effective solution to alleviate the potential supply risk of corresponding materials. With this research, it may promote management efficiency on end-of-life LIBs for policy makers.
... Product flexibility and reconfigurationTolio et al., 2017) User-centered design/focus on people (behavioral approach)(Lin, 2018;Lofthouse and Prendeville, 2018;Sinclair et al., 2018;Wastling et al., 2018) System of indicators aligned with the CE (recycling rate, resource efficiency, ecoefficiency, circularity)Braun et al., 2018;Di Maio et al., 2017;Diaz Lopez et al., 2019;Husgafvel et al., 2016;Jiliang and Chen, 2013;Ma et al., 2015b;Muñoz-Torres et al., 2018; Dematerialization strategies(Dente and Tavasszy, 2018;Kasulaitis et al., 2019) Cooperation/Collaboration(Flygansvaer et al., 2018;Huybrechts et al., 2018;Leising et al., 2018;Mangla et al., 2018;Milios et al., 2018;Sousa-Zomer et al., 2018a;Yazan et al., 2018;Zhu et al., 2011Zhu et al., , 2010 Partnerships/Collaborative BusinessLieder and Rashid, 2016;Ridaura et al., 2018;Romero-Hern andez and Romero, 2018). Interfirm culture(Flygansvaer et al., 2018) Capability of setting up and improving symbiotic industrial exchangesProsman et al., 2017) Governance support (top-bottom)(Genovese et al., 2017;Ghisellini et al., 2016;Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018;Mangla et al., 2018;Moktadir et al., 2018;van Buren et al., 2016) Manufacturing-centered take-back systems instead of waste management (DjuricPerey et al., 2018;Singh and Ordoñez, 2016) Availability and awareness of reuse channelsGolev and Corder, 2015;Vlajic et al., 2018) Traceability and transparency(Milios et al., 2018;Sousa-Zomer et al., 2018a) New work procedures ...
Article
This article examines and conceptualizes the implications of the adoption of circular economy (CE) business models on operations management (OM) decision-making processes, in the areas of product design, production planning and control, and logistics/supply chains. A systematic literature review was conducted in order to identify and examine the following key areas: (1) the new demands faced by OM decision-making regarding changes in capability, work procedures, intra- and inter-organizational relationships and technologies; (2) the specific changes OM decision-making must make in order to support CE business models (based on the ReSOLVE framework); and (3) guidelines which will help designers and operations and logistics/supply chain managers develop the necessary skills to meet society and the global market's emerging demands. The findings of this research will allow operations managers to foresee the unfolding needs for capacity building in CE, and scholars can build on the results of this article to develop new research themes. Furthermore, this is the first article to describe the ways in which OM knowledge can support the transition towards the circular economy based on the perspective of dynamic capabilities.
... Product flexibility and reconfigurationTolio et al., 2017) User-centered design/focus on people (behavioral approach)(Lin, 2018;Lofthouse and Prendeville, 2018;Sinclair et al., 2018;Wastling et al., 2018) System of indicators aligned with the CE (recycling rate, resource efficiency, ecoefficiency, circularity)Braun et al., 2018;Di Maio et al., 2017;Diaz Lopez et al., 2019;Husgafvel et al., 2016;Jiliang and Chen, 2013;Ma et al., 2015b;Muñoz-Torres et al., 2018; Dematerialization strategies(Dente and Tavasszy, 2018;Kasulaitis et al., 2019) Cooperation/Collaboration(Flygansvaer et al., 2018;Huybrechts et al., 2018;Leising et al., 2018;Mangla et al., 2018;Milios et al., 2018;Sousa-Zomer et al., 2018a;Yazan et al., 2018;Zhu et al., 2011Zhu et al., , 2010 Partnerships/Collaborative BusinessLieder and Rashid, 2016;Ridaura et al., 2018;Romero-Hern andez and Romero, 2018). Interfirm culture(Flygansvaer et al., 2018) Capability of setting up and improving symbiotic industrial exchangesProsman et al., 2017) Governance support (top-bottom)(Genovese et al., 2017;Ghisellini et al., 2016;Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018;Mangla et al., 2018;Moktadir et al., 2018;van Buren et al., 2016) Manufacturing-centered take-back systems instead of waste management (DjuricPerey et al., 2018;Singh and Ordoñez, 2016) Availability and awareness of reuse channelsGolev and Corder, 2015;Vlajic et al., 2018) Traceability and transparency(Milios et al., 2018;Sousa-Zomer et al., 2018a) New work procedures ...
Article
This article examines and conceptualizes the implications of the adoption of circular economy (CE) business models on operations management (OM) decision-making processes, in the areas of product design, production planning and control, and logistics/supply chains. A systematic literature review was conducted in order to identify and examine the following key areas: (1) the new demands faced by OM decision-making regarding changes in capability, work procedures, intra- and inter-organizational relationships and technologies; (2) the specific changes OM decision-making must make in order to support CE business models (based on the ReSOLVE framework); and (3) guidelines which will help designers and operations and logistics/supply chain managers develop the necessary skills to meet society and the global market's emerging demands. The findings of this research will allow operations managers to foresee the unfolding needs for capacity building in CE, and scholars can build on the results of this article to develop new research themes. Furthermore, this is the first article to describe the ways in which OM knowledge can support the transition towards the circular economy based on the perspective of dynamic capabilities.
... Given the recyclable nature of the material itself, steel scrap is an important resource for steelmaking which can be recovered from products (Wübbeke and Heroth, 2014;Broadbent, 2016;Diener and Tillman, 2016). Despite having huge potential for increased profits, the literature highlights several barriers ranging from economic, policy, information, and technology-related barriers in recycling value chains, which prevent firms recycling and reusing metals (Wübbeke and Heroth, 2014;Golev and Corder, 2016;Densley Tingley et al., 2017). On the other hand, better regulations and effective use of taxation, encouraging R&D in metals, establishment of extended producer responsibilities systems (Mo et al., 2009;Gumley, 2014) and use of robust forecasting models (Gauffin et al., 2016) were discussed as the possible remedies to the lack of metal recycling. ...
Article
Full-text available
Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) account for 97.4% of all businesses in Australia and, contribute, by revenue, 32% to the country’s economy. In the last decade, Australian SMEs have become increasingly aware of the importance of sustainability and need to shift away from a linear to circular economy (CE). Since 2019, there has been considerable growth on CE adoption research in SMEs, but empirical research examining Australian SMEs has yet to be undertaken. This study has used a survey and aims to understand the enablers and barriers of CE adoption in Australian SMEs. The research addresses three specific research questions—What are the barriers that impact CE adoption in Australian SMEs?; What enablers facilitate CE adoption in Australian SMEs?; and What is the effect of industry type, geographic location and job roles on enablers and barriers identification for CE adoption in Australian SMEs? Based on 352 responses from the survey of Australian SMEs, the paper identifies and analyses the enablers and barriers that these organizations face as they transition towards circular economy. The impact that location, industry sector and the role respondents undertake within the organization provides some interesting insights into how Australian SMEs are managing the process of adoption of CE. The research demonstrates that there is an overwhelming need for the development of consistent, sectoral, industry and location-specific policies by the federal and state governments to support internal policy development and the acquisition of new technologies in order to stimulate Australian SME CE adoption. In addition, Australian SMEs need to have a better understanding of how budgetary constraints, the lack of customer awareness and an absence of clearly defined business process impact CE adoption.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Eco-innovation and competitiveness Enabling the transition to a resource-efficient circular economy: annual report 2013 Eco-Innovation will fuel the transition to a circular economy. This report presents evidence of changes already happening across the EU and highlights some of the key barriers and future challenges toward mainstreaming a circular economic model. It argues that the circular economy concept offers a model of resource flows through the economy that may underpin the vision of a resource-efficient Europe. Eco-innovation will enable the transition by changing dominant business models, transforming the way citizens interact with products and services, and developing improved systems for delivering value. This report looks at five activities that are crucial to building up resource-efficient material flows across the EU: design, repair, reuse, remanufacturing and recycling.
Article
Full-text available
Drawing on current international industrial ecology thinking and experiences with Australian initiatives, this article critically overviews the current status of industrial ecology in Australia and examines the barriers and potential strategies to realise greater uptake and application of the concept. The analysis is conducted across three categories: heavy industrial areas (including Kwinana and Gladstone), mixed industrial parks (Wagga Wagga and Port Melbourne), and waste exchange networks, and identifies the past and future significance of seven different types of barriers—regulation, information, community, economic, technical, cooperation and trust, commitment to sustainable development—for each of the three categories. The outcomes from this analysis highlight that regulation, information, and economic barriers for heavy industrial area and mixed industrial parks, and economic and technical barriers for waste exchange networks are the current and future focus for industrial ecology applications in Australia. These findings appear to be consistent with recently published frameworks and learnings. The authors propose key questions that could enhance greater adoption of industrial ecology applications in Australia and acknowledge that international research and experiences, while partly providing answers to these questions, need to be adapted and refined for the Australian context.
Article
Full-text available
This article considers regulatory strategies that promote more efficient use of material inputs within the Australian economy, with particular focus on recycling and recovery of metals, drawing upon the concept of a “circular economy”. It briefly reviews the nature of regulation and trends in regulatory strategies within changing policy contexts, and then examines the regulatory framework applicable to the various phases in the life cycle of metals, ranging from extraction of minerals to processing and assimilation of metals into finished products, through to eventual disposal of products as waste. Discussion focuses upon the regulatory strategies applied in each phase and the changing roles of government and business operators within global distribution networks. It is concluded that the prevailing political agenda favoring deregulation and reduced taxation may be a major barrier to development of new styles of regulation and more effective use of taxation powers that is needed to support a more circular economy in metals. The implication for future research is the need to substantiate the outcomes of reflexive regulatory strategies with well-designed empirical studies.
Technical Report
Full-text available
This monitor aims to present the first comprehensive assessment of e-waste volumes, their corresponding impacts and management status on a global scale. This is measured using an internationally-adopted measuring framework that has been developed by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (Baldé et al., 2015). The methodology calculates the amount of e-waste generated from harmonised modelling steps and data sources. The outcomes show an unprecedented level of accuracy and harmonisation across countries and are very useful for international benchmarking. It is estimated that the total amount e-waste generated in 2014 was 41.8 million metric tonnes (Mt). It is forecasted to increase to 50 Mt of e-waste in 2018. This e-waste is comprised of 1.0 Mt of lamps, 6.3 Mt of screens, 3.0 Mt of small IT (such as mobile phones, pocket calculators, personal computers, printers, etc.), 12.8 Mt of small equipment (such as vacuum cleaners, microwaves, toasters, electric shavers, video cameras, etc.), 11.8 Mt of large equipment (such as washing machines, clothes dryers, dishwashers, electric stoves, photovoltaic panels, etc.) and 7.0 Mt of cooling and freezing equipment (temperature exchange equipment).
Article
Full-text available
Industrial ecology (IE) argues the need for an efficient materials economy based on recycling where environmental degradation associated with inputs of new materials and outputs of waste or pollution is minimal. There is often an assumption that efficiency in the use of materials equates to economic efficiency; however, this is not necessarily the case. Central to this tension between engineering and economic approaches to materials efficiency are different conceptual framings of value. Because a large scale shift towards valuing waste materials as future resources involves changes to existing practices of a great many actors and organizations, ranging from consumers and household disposal practices, through to government agencies and multi-national corporations, it cannot be assumed that all operate with similar conceptions of value. This paper reviews current understandings of value in IE and argues that they need to be expanded to accommodate approaches to valuing used goods and materials that manifest across different spatial scales, from household disposal practices to national policy to global production networks (GPNs). The paper focuses, in particular, on understandings of value relevant to metals recycling in Australia and contrast material flow models from IE with other models of material flows and transformations available in the social sciences, including anthropological analysis of the movement of objects through different regimes of value within society and analysis in economic geography that highlights spatial and structural dimensions influential in commodity chains and networks for used products and materials. It concludes by reflecting on the significance of the dynamic and creative tensions inherent in the production of value for recycled metals from Australia.
Article
Full-text available
The useful life of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) has been shortened as a consequence of the advancement in technology and change in consumer patterns. This has resulted in the generation of large quantities of electronic waste (e-waste) that needs to be managed. The handling of e-waste including combustion in incinerators, disposing in landfill or exporting overseas is no longer permitted due to environmental pollution and global legislations. Additionally, the presence of precious metals (PMs) makes e-waste recycling attractive economically. In this paper, current metallurgical processes for the extraction of metals from e-waste, including existing industrial routes, are reviewed. In the first part of this paper, the definition, composition and classifications of e-wastes are described. In the second part, separation of metals from e-waste using mechanical processing, hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical routes are critically analyzed. Pyrometallurgical routes are comparatively economical and eco-efficient if the hazardous emissions are controlled. Currently, pyrometallurgical routes are used initially for the segregation and upgrading of PMs (gold and silver) into base metals (BMs) (copper, lead and nickel) and followed by hydrometallurgical and electrometallurgical processing for the recovery of pure base and PMs. For the recycling of e-waste in Australia, challenges such as collection, transportation, liberation of metal fractions, and installation of integrated smelting and refining facilities are identified.
Article
The modelling of metal flows provides a comprehensive picture of metal use in the economy and allows for effective investigation into barriers and enablers to increase the recycling rates. In the export-oriented economy, such as Australia, the modelling requires clearly distinguishing the cycles within and outside of a country, and needs an adequate metrics to assess the country's targets in “closing the material loop”. This article investigates Australian position in the global cycles of metals production and use, and assesses the potential for circularity of metals within the country based on data from 2002 onwards. The analysis shows that over the period from 2002 to 2011 the overall estimate of metals final consumption grew from 8.8 million tonnes to 12.3 million tonnes, or from 445 to 551 kg per person. Similarly, the amount of generated waste metal is estimated to have grown from approximately 5 million tonnes to 6 million tonnes, or 250–270 kg per person respectively. The amount of collected metal scrap grew from 3.3 Mt to 3.9 Mt, with the overall collection rates being relatively stable at about 70%. However, the domestic processing of collected scrap decreased significantly – from 67% in early 2000s to 41% in early 2010s, while the export of scrap increased accordingly. The current levels of waste metal generation, metal scrap collection, and domestic processing of metal scrap in Australia equal approximately 50%, 35%, and 15% of the country's metals final consumption respectively.
Article
Australia’s rich stocks of mineral resources have been the source of national wealth and competitive advantage in the past. However, the security of this wealth is not guaranteed into the future, and what were once considered waste materials from mining, infrastructure and products are now becoming accessible and valuable as ‘above-ground’ mineral resources. Globally there is growing capacity and innovation in recycling, closed-loop supply chains and Australia’s role as a global leader in primary production must anticipate and adapt to the implications of a rise in the importance of recycling. However, both at a global level and in Australia, there are a broad range of factors and local influences affecting the successful application and implementation of industrial ecology beyond technical re-use solutions. This paper presents the initial outcomes from a major collaborative research project (Wealth from Waste Cluster), funded by the CSIRO Flagship Collaboration Fund and partner universities, focused on identifying viable options to ‘mine’ metals contained in discarded urban infrastructure, manufactured products and consumer goods. This paper presents initial estimates of the mass and current worth of metals in end-of-life products. Results from this analysis have identified that the value of metals in end-of-life products is more than AUD6 billion per year, and assuming existing recovery rates, the estimated potential for recovering metals from “waste” or end-of-life products is of the order of AUD2 billion per year. In addition a metal flow analysis of the Australian economy identified that approximately half the scrap metal collected in Australia (approximately 2.5 million tonnes per year) is currently being transported overseas which potentially could be recycled in Australia if suitable technology were available.
Article
The article is a revised version of the findings from a research investigation carried out at the Interfaculty Department of Environmental Science, University of Amsterdam, for the Dutch Ministry of Environment (Sirkin and Ten Houten, 1993). The general aim of the research was to investigate the implications and applications of the concept and the principles of cascading (Sirkin, 1990) as a tool for the appropriate design of products and production processes; and furthermore, as a possible foundation for a sustainable resource management policy.Among the questions set out to be answered were the following: (1) What possibilities lie in the application of the cascade concept for the appropriate exploitation of the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of resources, substances, materials and products? (2) What does the appropriate use of resource potential and resource quality mean for the design of products? (3) What examples can be found in industrial practices, product design or in resource utilization systems where the principles of cascading are already applied? (4) Is it possible to apply the principles of cascading at the industrial or company level; and what kinds of problems arise when attempting to do so? How can they be solved? (5) What are the implications of cascading for the concept of integral chain control, and its applications for environmental policy? (6) What are the implications of cascading in relationship to an eventual sustainable resource management policy? And what strategic policy measures can be derived?Answering these questions, and attempting to set cascading into an operational framework within the context of sustainability, required revisions and further development of previously formulated cascade principles. The cascade chain concept, presented in this article, is the result of these revisions. The theoretical foundations of the cascade chain model as a tool for achieving resource sustainability are presented in Part I. Part II presents various examples of cascade systems and discusses the cascade chain implications related to product design, industrial practices and subsequent resource management policies. Part III consists of a summary and conclusions with policy recommendations and recommendations for further areas of investigation. A glossary of terms has been attached at the end of the article.