Senior CE Executives to Intervene in Industry E-Waste Dispute

Calling itself the Electronics Manufacturers’ Coalition for Responsible Recycling, the pro-ARF group includes Panasonic, Sony, JVC, Thompson, Samsung, Hitachi, Philips and computer major IBM. Computer makers like Hewlett-Packard and Dell oppose tacking a recycling fee on to products’ sale prices; they want individual companies to take responsibility for recycling their products. Representatives of state agencies welcomed the coalition proposal, but CE retailers said they opposed a fee-based approach.

Last month, the EIA convened senior executives from major players and a senior member of Congress to “talk candidly about innovative ways to reach a consensus within the industry that’s also politically feasible,” said Rick Goss, EIA dir. of environmental policy. The goal, he said, was to raise the issue as “high up as we could” at the firms involved, and “make sure it was on the radar screen at the highest level.” With companies at odds, he said, the states were proceeding without industry input. “The industry is cancelling itself out because we don’t have a unified position.” With EIA’s move, the problem is being treated as a business matter, not merely an environmental issue, he said: “So it needs to be discussed and decided at the highest level.”

Goss said he couldn’t guarantee consensus. But he said the issue has moved to the highest levels at companies: “The will is there among the companies to try to find an innovative and flexible solution that recognizes the different business models.” The message was that if states write and pass laws without industry input on financing, “someone else will decide for us what we will have to do,” he said.

In a white paper circulating among state agencies, the TV coalition again stressed a national solution. But with accord elusive, the group said it had devised an approach for state-level implementation that would “work effectively and can transition to an eventual national system.” “This is a tremendous effort by manufacturers to put forth a viable proposal for state implementation,” said Scott Cassel, dir. of the Mass.-based Product Stewardship Institute, which advises states and local govts. on recycling policy. He said the coalition model varies only slightly from one developed at the EPA- initiated National Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) dialog. After more than 3 years, NEPSI folded last year without agreement on a national system, owing to internecine disputes.

TV makers and computer majors doubt compromise will emerge. “We just do not support a one size fits all fee solution,” said David Isaacs, HP dir. of global public policy. Isaacs holds out hope for amity, but told us it’s hard to come by. He said that by pushing separate state- level models, the industry groups were working at cross purposes. HP doesn’t want to obstruct companies that prefer a fee approach, he said. But HP and other computer makers bristle at having a fee-based solution “foisted” on them because “we don’t think it meets the needs of the IP industry.” Noting supporters of fees mainly make TVs, Isaacs said: “Maybe it’s a good solution for them, but it’s not good for the IP industry.”

The coalition hasn’t begun lobbying state legislatures in a “mass fashion,” said David Thompson, dir. of Panasonic’s corporate environment dept. “We have just begun working with state agencies.” A bill based on the coalition model was introduced in Minn., he added. The model legislation is being circulated to state officials who took part in the NEPSI dialog, he added.

Odds of a federal law passing the next few years are very slim, said PSI’s Cassel. He said more fee-based bills would follow if the coalition’s state-level lobbying succeeds: “To the extent that state legislators would be interested in a solution, this is the only one that explains how it might happen.” HP’s Isaac said he was “mystified” by the claim that state agencies and legislators didn’t have an alternative: “We have an actual bill that we have updated and provided to many states.” Cassel said PSI supported manufacturer responsibility. But the stance at HP and Dell would leave local govts. to absorb a significant portion of the costs, he added. He said the coalition proposal’s main flaw is its lack of provision for a transition to cost internalization. However, he said, the proposal “seems to leave the door open for further discussion on that topic.”

To gauge individual states’ preferences, Cassel said he soon would convene a meeting of state agencies on the coalition’s fee-based proposal. He said he’s asked the white paper’s authors to give a presentation -- an offer he’s willing to extend to HP and Dell. HP’s Isaacs said his company was willing to “engage” state agencies on the model it advocates. He said in Cal., the first state to enact e-waste legislation, a fee-based approach was “very, very expensive and very bureaucratic.” Minn., Tex. and some New England states are weighing legislation akin to HP’s do-it-yourself approach, he said. HP also has backing from the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC), which has “strongly come out” against a fee proposal, he added.

Calling for a federal solution, CERC said in a paper that CE retailers believe a national system for electronics recycling can be created without point of sale fees, a new “complex administrative structure” and without mandates that “discourage innovation.” CERC Exec. Dir. Marc Pearl called the Cal. law an “administrative nightmare” and “tremendously costly” for retailers. Retailers must collect the recycling fee only for certain products, making administrative set-up “enormously burdensome and tremendously costly.” He said the pro-fee coalition doesn’t want a govt. body but an independent body to manage the funds and the system. Were states to adopt fee-based solutions, he said, variances in fee structures and different products covered would cause an “absolute economic nightmare.”