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.

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.

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.

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.

This paper proposes a new value-based indicator to assess the performance of actors in the supply chain in terms of resource efficiency and circular economy. Most of the methodologies developed so far measure resource efficiency on the basis of the environmental burden of the resource relative to the value of output. However, the key point of circular economy is keeping resources within the economy when products no longer serve their functions so that materials can be used again and therefore generate more value. The unit in which resource efficiency and circular economy are measured greatly affects both the ease of acceptance by policymakers and the direction in which green policy will change our society. Whereas the most common approaches to assessing resource efficiency and circular economy use mass, in this paper we advocate measuring both resource efficiency and circular economy in terms of the market value of ‘stressed’ resources, since this value incorporates the elements of scarcity versus competition as well as taxes representing urgent social and environmental externalities. The market value of resources is well-documented and responds automatically to the locality and time at which resources are used. Applying this unit, circularity is defined as the percentage of the value of stressed resources incorporated in a service or product that is returned after its end-of-life. Resource efficiency is the ratio of added product value divided by the value of stressed resources used in production or a process thereof. It is argued that precisely the concept of a free market, in which materials, parts and components are exchanged purely on the basis of their functionality and cost, allows the resource efficiency of a process (KPI for industry and governance) to be distinguished from the resource efficiency of a product (KPI for consumers and governance). Using standard industry data from Statistics Netherlands, the resource efficiency of several Dutch industries were evaluated using the new methodology and compared with a traditional mass-based approach.