Although environmental awareness is increasing every year, and most people say they prefer to buy more sustainable products, many still do not act on their promise at the cash counter. Sustainable products are often still perceived to have lower quality or reduced performance. Recom- mendations of sustainable buyers might reduce this perceived risk of sustainability. In this research, the Net-Promotor-Scores (NPS) and the underlying reasons for such recommendations of 888 vacuum cleaner buyers were analyzed. The buyers of energy-efficient vacuum cleaners were found to be significantly less positive about their purchase. A difference in scores is, however, not caused by the difference in the energy efficiency of the products, but by differences in other drivers to recommend a product, such as perceived cleaning performance, ease of use and value for money. Additionally, higher suction power and increased weight positively mediated NPS ratings, irrespective of energy efficiency. Focusing design and communication on these aspects rather than on energy efficiency alone can be used to reduce the perceived green risk and increase trust in sustainable products. In this way, recommendations of buyers of energy-efficient appliances can be an effective additional tool in increasing sustainable consumption.@en

This chapter is the third of four chapters covering the e-waste development cycle. Based on the e-waste development cycle approach and country status of Chapter 2 and the structured impact assessment and factual basis of Chapter 3, this Chapter 4 forms the heart of the policy development process. Development of take-back systems is a time-consuming and complex process. An iterative approach is recommended due to the heterogeneous character of e-waste, its quickly changing material compositions and economic values, combined with different cultural and socioeconomic conditions and organizational and technical capabilities. The chapter provides many possible interventions and experiences in the domains of Policy and Legislation, Business and Finance and Technologies and Skills useful for countries starting their e-waste policies, those with systems in place, and established countries with many years of experience. In all cases, the "à la carte” action-based approach provides an overview of experiences and background information to enable the later selection of key interventions that depend on the different needs and development stages of countries. The listing of all intervention options in turn forms the input for a coherent and feasible national action plan for practical and successful implementation as described in Chapter 5.

@en

This chapter is the second from four chapters, detailing the role of environmental, economic and social impact assessment of WEEE collection and treatment. It forms the second step of a dynamic and iterative e-waste development cycle intended to provide guidance on the complexity of the development process. The chapter also describes detailed assessment steps for evaluating collection and recycling infrastructure for both starting, emerging and established countries improving their national e-waste systems. Secondly, the comprehensive impact assessment specifically targets the identification of improvement potential and societal priorities for (re)defining legislative and other interventions. The outcomes form the necessary factual basis for the heart of the development cycle as presented in Chapter 4 describing options for advancing Policy and Legislation, Business and Finance, Technologies and Skills. This in turn is the basis for successful national implementation roadmaps following in Chapter 5.

@en

This chapter is the last from four chapters. Based on the e-waste development cycle approach introduced in Chapter 2 and the structured impact assessment of Chapter 3, Chapter 4 provided many possible interventions and experiences in the domains of Policy and Legislation, Business and Finance, and Technologies and Skills. These intervention options are placed in perspective in Chapter 5, representing part 4 of the e-waste development cycle. It provides guidance for the actual decision processes by listing all intervention options, the selection and grouping of options, and translation of the results into a national roadmap. The value of the road map is that all key information, the allocation of roles and responsibilities, plus timing and resources are converging into one reference document. When implemented, three additional development areas are crucial conditions to success: “Monitoring and Control” is required to monitor performance and to intervene in case of noncompliance. “Awareness and Education” is vital for both collection and long-term societal acceptance. “Design Feedback” is relevant as a key prevention area, requiring continuous attention. The new iterative "á la carte” e-waste development approach allows a more focused, forward-looking and fact-based decision process that can be implemented in a flexible, feasible, and faster way. This contributes directly globally to the SDG-12 of Sustainable Production and Consumption for the electronics sector.

@en

This chapter is the first from four chapters, introducing a dynamic and iterative e-waste development cycle. It provides structured guidance to the complexity of the development process. It illustrates the key building blocks needed for both countries starting with e-waste systems, those having some policies implemented already, as well as for further enhancement in established countries. The chapter also describes the first step of the development cycle by assessment of the country status. The steps involved are evaluating the role of stakeholder analysis; review of existing policies and problem (re)definition forming the basis for subsequent impact assessment (Chapter 3); policy, financial, and technological interventions (Chapter 4); and an implementation road map including conditions for success (Chapter 5). The proposed new "á la carte” approach allows for a more forward-looking, more-focused, as well as flexible approach with a higher feasibility of reaching sustainable development goals in a timely manner.

@en