978-0134731889 Related Article Abstract On Remanufacturing And Recycling

Reducing End-of-life Waste: Repair, Recondition, Remanufacture or

Recycle?

Dr Andrew M King*

Lecturer in Engineering Design

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Bristol

Bristol, BS8 1TR

United Kingdom

Email: andrew.king@bris.ac.uk

Tel: 44 (0) 117 928 8213

* Corresponding author

Dr Winnie Ijomah

Research Officer

Dept of Mechanical Engineering

University of Bath

Bath, BA2 7AY

United Kingdom

Email: enxwli@bath.ac.uk

Tel: 44 (0) 1225 386355

Abstract

Between 1980 and 1997, municipal waste in OECD countries increased by around 40%. The European

Union has responded by introducing two major policies: a landfill directive and legislation on extended

producer responsibility (EPR). EPR is the logical extension of the “polluter pays” principle and rests on the

argument that environmental impacts are substantially determined at the point of design where key choices

are made—on materials, processing, finishing technology, etc.—that is, with the producer.

This paper further explains the context of this new legislation and describes, compares and then contrasts

the four alternative strategies to reducing end-of-life waste: repairing, reconditioning, remanufacturing, or

recycling. It also introduces a more robust definition of remanufacturing, validated by earlier research,

which differentiates it from repair and reconditioning.

From a consideration of the different factors involved, it concludes that remanufacturing may well be the

best strategy. This is based on the fact that it enables the embodied energy of virgin production to be

maintained and also preserves the intrinsic “added value” of the product for the manufacturer.

1. The Context

1.1 The waste problem

Between 1980 and 1997, municipal waste in OECD countries increased by around 40%. Perhaps most

1. Firstly, it results in the permanent loss of material and energy resources. The potential loss of resource

1997). However, whilst it is widely agreed that natural resources will become more expensive due to

2. Secondly, as the current landfill sites are filling up, this leads to pressure to use new sites with the loss

3. And thirdly, the additional waste left in these landfill sites increases air, water, and land pollution. For

1.2 The policy solution

In the early 1990s some European Union member states, notably the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden

developed their own national policy measures to deal with their growing waste problems. However, in order

to provide a workable single market throughout the EU (such that production and trade measures were

1. waste reduction (such as extending product durability),

3. waste recovery (such as raw material recycling), and lastly

4. waste landfill (as the last resort).

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is defined by the OECD as “the principle that manufacturer and

importers of products should bear a significant degree of responsibility for the environmental impacts of

2003). Electronic and electrical waste contains substances that may have a damaging impact on the

environment when it is disposed of either in landfill sites or by incineration. In addition, the volume of

2. improving and maximizing recycling, re-use and other forms of recovery of wastes from end–of-life

electrical and electronic equipment, and

3. minimizing the impact on the environment from their treatment and disposal.

A recent analysis on the likely effect of the WEEE Directive in the UK concludes that it may only reduce

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) by 0.1% because high levels of WEEE waste is already recycled

(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2002). But this overlooks the fact that end–of-life waste also generates

Although the Directive gives 11 categories of electronic and electrical waste, a recent study of present waste

levels found that large household appliances (such as fridges, cookers, and washing machines) and IT

equipment (such as PCs, mainframes, printers, and copiers) accounted for 43% and 39% respectively

(ICER, 2000). The study also found that whilst 88% of large household appliances were recycled, only 40%

(approximately) of IT equipment is currently recycled. The principal reasons given for this difference were

firstly that it is easier to separate large appliances in the waste stream and secondly that it is harder to

separate out the ferrous metal from IT equipment.

2. The Practical Solutions

In order to achieve a step change in practice, designers need to consider the entire “lifecycle” of a product

from raw material extraction, through manufacturing, product use, and final disposal. And from doing this,

2.1 Repairing

The most logical approach to closing the loop on product use is simply to repair and extend the product’s

life. However, whilst this is intrinsically a simple concept, its practice is low and little research has been

undertaken to understand this closed loop option. Repairing is simply the correction of specified faults in a

product. Generally, the quality of repaired products is inferior to those of remanufactured and reconditioned

different/additional features). Planned obsolescence is one way in which capitalist markets generate a

demand for new sales; B Earl Puckett, former head of Allied Stores Corporation said “We must accelerate

obsolescence … It is our job to make women unhappy with what they have … We must make them so

unhappy that their husbands can find no happiness or peace in their excessive savings” (Packard V, 1963).

Indeed, a growing body of literature cites the fact that consumerism is the dominant social paradigm to be

the fundamental cause of the world’s sustainability problems (Halliday S V, 2002). This is seen to be

encouraged by a culture of individualism and a relaxation in credit controls (Cooper T, 1994). In contrast to

this view, planned obsolescence (and the consumerism it generates) has been defended “as an engine of

technological progress” (Fishman, Gandal, & Shy, 1993). Although flawed in terms of economic efficiency

and environmental sustainability, the argument that planned obsolescence represents progress is often

politically expedient (Cooper T, 2002).

2.2 Reconditioning

Reconditioning involves less work content than remanufacturing, but more than that of repairing. This is

because reconditioning usually requires the rebuilding of major components to a working condition that is

generally expected to be inferior to that of the original model. All major components that have failed or that

2.3 Remanufacturing

Remanufacturing is the only process where used products are brought at least to Original Equipment

Manufacturer (OEM) performance specification from the customer’s perspective and, at the same time, are

given warranties that are equal to those of equivalent new products (Ijomah W, 2002). The reasoning here

being that if a remanufactured product has quality equal to that of a new equivalent then its warranty must

Ijomah et al. describe current remanufacturing activity by the following activities (Ijomah W et al., 1998):

1. Receive the “core”, that is the parts of the product to be remanufactured. The term “core” is used, as

typical remanufactured parts are larger core items of the product.

2. Strip and clean the core into individual elements. As the used parts may be dirty, they are

dismantled and appropriately cleaned. A visual inspection would discard badly damaged elements.

3. Estimate and quote remanufacturing costs. As many remanufacturing companies are sub–

5. Build, test, and dispatch. Finally, the remanufactured components are reassembled (together with

Arguably the most well-known (and certainly the most referred to) example of remanufacturing is that of

photocopiers made by Rank-Xerox; their process is shown in figure (Xerox, 2003).

Figure 2: Xerox’s equipment recovery and parts reuse/recycle process (Xerox, 2003)

In 1987, Rank-Xerox started a new program called “asset recovery” and created a new, wholly owned

Aware of the growing interest in remanufacturing within the UK, Oakdene Hollins undertook a UK-wide

survey of activities to better understand what current happens and identify issues for future development

product), and evolution rate (how quickly new product variations appeared on the market). The

recommendations include changes to legislation to allow reused components in new products, further

research to enable design for remanufacture, and the development of product-service systems that include

upgrade/maintenance with initial purchase.

2.3 Recycling

saved 2.7 million tons of iron ore from needing to be extracted to form new materials (NERC, 1999). Thus,

it is clear that it is environmentally better to recycle materials rather than take them to a landfill site. Indeed,

for aluminum, the energy saving can be as high as 91% by recycling scrap compared with the process of

using the primary raw material, bauxite (Ogilvie S M, 1992).

3. Discussion: Which Return Loop Is “Best”?

Returning to the idea of closing loops, Stahel states that the smaller the loop, as shown in Figure 3, the more

Figure 3: Self-replenishing system loops: 1 = reuse, 2 = repair, 3= remanufacture, 4 = recycle

According to Stahel, the reason for this reality has been due to a lack of product lifetime liability. Until the

recent introduction of extended producer responsibility legislation (such as the WEEE directive) a

manufacturer had no liability (outside of a short warranty period) for the product sold. Therefore, as

Another way of understanding these issues is through the first two laws of thermodynamics. The first law

states that no energy or material can either be created or destroyed, merely transformed. This promotes the

idea of closed loops to transform material back into useful products rather than into useless (and harmful)

waste. However, the second law of thermodynamics shows that this transforming process itself requires

additional energy. The second law states that for a closed system, the entropy (disorder) will always

So, what will promote a move toward remanufacturing, reconditioning, and/or repair? The answer is

extended producer responsibility legislation. With the introduction of such legislation, manufacturers are

now liable for their products through and beyond their end–of-use life. Whilst a strategy to ensure recycling

product is made) and desirable to consumers. As shown earlier, remanufacturing could lead to lower waste

levels and require less energy than recycling making it a micro-level solution to the growing waste problem.

But clearly, the most fundamental barrier at present is the lack of a credible and stable demand for

remanufactured products. This was seen to be the greatest policy barrier to initiate new remanufacturing

Conclusion

This paper has compared and contrasted four different waste avoidance strategies, namely: repairing,

reconditioning, remanufacturing, and recycling. Stahel’s argument for smaller return loops has been

discussed and supported from a thermodynamic/energy viewpoint. Thus, recycling (using highly disordered

References

AEA Technology (1997), Recovery of WEEE: Economic and Environmental Impacts, AEA Technology, Abingdon,

Oxon. UK June 1997.

Ayres R & Simonis U (1993), Industrial Metabolism, University Press, Tokyo, Japan, 1993.

Ayres R et al (1997), Eco-Efficiency, Asset Recovery and Remanufacturing, European Management Journal, Vol. 15,

No. 5, pp 557-574, 1997.

Cooper T (2002), Attached to this World? Waste and “the most materialistic of the great religions”, Consumption,

Consumers International (1998), Green guidance: how consumer organisations can give better advice on putting

sustainable consumption into practice, Consumers International, ISBN 1-902391-09-8, pp 14–31.

DARP (2003), DARP (Devon Appliance Recycling project) Environmental: WEEE Remarket Final Report, 2003

http://www.darpenvironmental.com/downloads/weeeremarketfinalreport.pdf (accessed February 10, 2004).

DEFRA (2003a), Municipal Waste Management Survey 2001/02, Summary,

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/mwb0102/wbsummary.htm (visited October 10,

2003).

DEFRA (2003b), Press Release: Living close to a landfill site cuts property values,

1–19.

276–283.

Fishman A, Gandal N, & Shy O (1993), Planned Obsolescence as an engine of technological progress, The Journal of

Jacobs (1991), The Green economy: environment, sustainable development and the politics of the future, London:

Pluto Press, 1991, pp 110–116.

Kerr W & Ryan C (2001), Eco-efficiency gains from remanufacturing. A case study of photocopier remanufacturing at

Fuji Xerox Australia, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9, pp 75–81, 2001.

King AM & Burgess SC (2004), Understanding the barriers to remanufacturing: restoring used products to a like–

new condition. Submitted to International Design Conference—DESIGN 2004 Dubrovnik, May 18–21, 2004.

Lund R (1985), Remanufacturing: The experience of the United States and implications for developing countries.

Ogilvie S M (1992), A review of the environmental impact of recycling, Warren Spring Laboratory, Stevenage UK.

Packard V (1963), The Waste Makers, Longmans, 1961, pp 68–77.

Parker D (2003), Remanufacturing in the UK: A significant contributor to sustainable development? Oakdene Hollins

101–123.

Welsh D (2002), Sustainable Development: Meeting the Challenge, Visiting Professor Lecture, University of Bristol,

Xerox (2003), Environment, Health & Safety Progress Report 2003, Xerox. www.xerox.com.

Villalba G et al (2002), A proposal to quantify the recyclability of materials, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,

Vol. 37, Issue 1, 2002, pp 39–53.