Technological advancements have shifted the musical market from LPs, to cassette-tapes, to compact discs, to present day iPods and MP3s. But innovations in these electronic advancements and others are increasing exponentially and an estimated 20 to 50 million tonnes of electronic waste (e-waste) is generated annually. E-waste is full of hazardous chemicals that pose severe health and environmental problems when improperly disposed.

The global community has addressed the financial incentives that encourage the illegal and improper disposal of e-waste, thereby exposing children and workers to these chemicals. Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the Basel Convention and Rotterdam Agreement have successfully addressed the increasing threat of e-waste. However, compliance with and enforcement of these agreements remains a challenge. These challenges stem from the difficulties of developing countries regulating the import of e-waste among a wide spectrum of actors – both domestically and abroad – coupled with the high costs of creating an infrastructure capable of enforcing the proper disposal of e-waste.

But the European Union is diminishing these challenges through its Directives on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations (RoHS).

While most MEAs focus on the proper disposal and transportation of e-waste, WEEE and RoHS focus on minimizing the source and creation of e-waste by banning certain hazardous chemicals and shifting the costs and responsibility for e-waste disposal to electronic industries. The theory behind shifting the responsibility of e-waste disposal to the industries is often referred to as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Under EPR, when manufacturers and industry participants are forced to bear the costs of reducing the environmental risks posed by their products, these groups will eventually create more efficient and environmentally-friendly products. EPR initiatives induce more innovative eco-friendly products than stringent regulations that externalize the cost of compliance to local governments.

WEEE takes an EPR approach by establishing “producer responsibility” as one of the Directive’s “means of encouraging the design and production of electrical and electronic equipment which take into full account and facilitate their repair, possible upgrading, reuse, disassembly and recycling.” For example, article 4 of WEEE directs appropriate measures be taken “so that producers do not prevent, through specific design features or manufacturing processes, WEEE from being reused,” except under exceptional circumstances. Additionally, article 5 addresses the collection of electronic waste and requires distributors to be “responsible for ensuring that such waste can be returned to the distributor at least free of charge . . .” WEEE also has guidelines controlling the transboundary movement of used electrical and electronic appliances. These guidelines are representative of the EU’s mission to cover all areas of potential e-waste noncompliance. Altogether, the many provisions of the WEEE Directive address the product design, collection, treatment, recovery, and consumer information of electronic waste in order for the product to be sold on the European market.

But another obstacle for electronic producers to meet in order to enter the EU regulated market is the RoHS, which prohibits many hazardous substances from production altogether with the exception of rare unfeasible situations. The legislative text of RoHS prohibits the entry of electronics made with many of the chemicals that make e-waste particularly hazardous. The legislative text of RoHS reads, “A producer shall ensure that new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market on or after 1st July 2006 does not contain hazardous substances.” The main hazardous substances targeted are lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavelent chromium, and certain BFRs. By prohibiting the use of these chemicals, the EU has eliminated many of the risks that make e-waste so dangerous in the first place.

Although many EU Member States are still in the process of implementing the WEEE and RoHS Directives, the electronics industry has already begun to redesign their products to comply with the Directives. The threat of being shut out from the European market is inducing compliance among electronic companies. The WEEE and RoHS have also impacted the rest of the electronics supply chain, including producers, small-parts producers, end-use manufacturers, and distributors. These companies do not want to lose their place in the European market and are joining WEEE compliance schemes approved by European Environmental Agencies.

Member States, such as the Netherlands, are taking the initiative to implement these Directives. While European authorities are still deciding on a guidance document applicable to the shipment of used appliances under warranty, the Dutch have adopted waste legislation aligned with the guidance document. Under specific circumstances, this legislation exempts electronics from being considered as waste if it is under warranty “with the intention of re-use for the original purpose.” By exempting under-warranty electronic appliances from being classified as waste, the life of these products may be extended. In turn, this may result in a lesser need for replacement products that would decrease the creation of replacement products destined for e-waste concern.

The WEEE and RoHS Directives have their criticisms, but overall—if implemented properly by EU Member States—they serve as exemplary models for addressing the hazards created by e-waste. These Directives have re-distributed the expenses and responsibility associated with e-waste compliance and enforcement by tightening the environmental standard that electronics must meet in order to enter the European market.