seventh framework programme - newinnonet 1.1_rp_report summarizing the st… · matchpoint...

D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis

Start date of project: 2015/02/01 Duration: 30 Months

Identifier: D 1.1. _PNO_ Report on Stakeholder Analysis

Date: 2016/08/26

Class: Final

Responsible Partner: PNO

Annexes: 4

Distribution: Public

Title: Report on Stakeholder Analysis

The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no 642231

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE NEW_InnoNet CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR

WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE NEW_InnoNet CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT


NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | of 59

AUTHORS & INFORMATION

Miranda Verboon, MSc (PNO Consultants): Miranda Verboon is a NEW_InnoNet project member and works for PNO’s

Energy & Environment team since 2016. She holds a degree in Political Science (BA) and Industrial Ecology (MSc) from

Leiden University. During her studies, she worked at Leiden University’s Centre for Innovation and participated in several

European research projects related to resource efficiency and production of metals. Her thesis research, which studied

the environmental impacts of nickel production in different metal demand scenarios until 2050, was conducted at Yale

University.

Tjerk Wardenaar, PhD (PNO Consultants): Tjerk Wardenaar is project coordinator of the NEW_InnoNet project. Since

2014, he works as an innovation consultant for PNO Consultants with a special focus on water technology, climate

action, and integral sustainability projects (e.g. industrial ecology, circular economy). Tjerk has a multidisciplinary

background: Industrial Ecology (MSc), Philosophy (MA, BA) and Political Sciences (BA). After working as an

environmental researcher for Leiden University, Tjerk joined the Rathenau Instituut. For this organization, he conducted

research on the organization of large-scale climate programmes. In 2015, Tjerk obtained his PhD after publication of his

thesis “Organizing Collaborative Research: The dynamics and long-term effects of multi-actor research programs”.

More information: for more information on this report or the NEW_InnoNet project, please contact Tjerk Wardenaar

([email protected]) or visit the project website (www.newinnonet.eu).

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.newinnonet.eu/



TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUTHORS & INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction & objectives ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2. Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.4. Reading guide .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

2. Stakeholders’ perspectives on Near-Zero Waste ......................................................................................... 8 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2. (Perceived) knowledge of zero-waste concepts ......................................................................................................... 8 2.3. Attitudes ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.4. Barriers towards a circular economy ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.5. Research priorities ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

3. Plastic packaging ..................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2. Key collaboration ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3. Most influential actors ............................................................................................................................................... 14 3.4. Matchpoint analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 17

4. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ................................................................................................ 21 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.2. Key collaboration ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.3. Most influential actors ............................................................................................................................................... 22 4.4. Matchpoint analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 25

5. End-of-Life Vehicles ................................................................................................................................ 28 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.2. Key collaboration ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.3. Most influential actors ............................................................................................................................................... 29 5.4. Matchpoint analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 32

6. Towards a Near-Zero Waste Europe .......................................................................................................... 35 6.1. Stakeholder expectations .................................................................................................................................. 35 6.2. Towards a platform structure ............................................................................................................................ 35

References ...................................................................................................................................................... 39

Annexes .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 Annex 1: Survey methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Annex 2: Matchpoint methodology ................................................................................................................................. 45 Annex 3: Full questionnaire .............................................................................................................................................. 47 Annex 4: Stakeholder list .................................................................................................................................................. 52



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Europe generates around three billion tonnes of waste each year – and it is expected that this amount will increase

further. Approximately half of this waste is not reused or recycled, and aside from the environmental impacts associated

with incinerating or landfilling this waste, a significant amount of potential secondary raw materials is lost (EC 2015a).

Ambitious targets for a zero-waste Europe have been laid down in a number of policy initiatives, and have recently been

updated, bundled and specified in the Circular Economy Package. While innovative recycling technologies have been

successfully developed, market uptake is limited and varies drastically among EU member states and regions. Without

market uptake of new technologies, the development of more innovations, and elimination of non-technological market

hurdles, the targets for a near-zero waste Europe will not be fulfilled.

The Near-zero European Waste Innovation Network (NEW_InnoNet) stimulates the development and implementation

of near-zero waste technologies. NEW_InnoNet believes that in this respect, cooperation is essential. Not only will

cooperation stimulate knowledge dissemination, it will also result in optimization of the use of raw materials and

increasing collection and recycling rates. In order to induce more cooperation within value chains, NEW_InnoNet

develops a European stakeholder platform (www.newinnonet.eu).

NEW_InnoNet focuses first on implementing near-zero waste and circular economy approaches in three specific value

chains and their three associated waste streams:

Electronics and electric equipment (WEEE: Waste Electronics and Electric Equipment).

Automotive (ELV: End-of-Life Vehicles).

Fast moving consumer goods (Plastic packaging).

In order to gain a more detailed overview of the (perspectives of the) stakeholders of these value chains a targeted study

has been conducted. The study consists of analyses of the responses of 184 stakeholders and of the compositions of 226

European projects. Participating stakeholders represent the full value chain, i.e. from material production to product

manufacturing, waste collection, waste managing and recycling. The stakeholder analysis enables NEW_InnoNet to

develop its platform in line with the opinions, needs and expertise of stakeholders in the value chains.

The stakeholder analysis shows that:

Stakeholders are familiar with near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts. However,

levels of expertise differ strongly among stakeholders and technological expertise is lagging behind.

Stakeholders have positive attitudes towards (and expectations of) the circular economy. A positive correlation

exists between level of expertise and attitude, i.e. more knowledgeable stakeholders have a more positive

attitude.

A strong correlation exists between the level of collaboration of stakeholders and their expertise of zero-waste

concepts. This confirms the importance of collaboration and knowledge-sharing and underwrites the purpose of

the NEW_InnoNet project.

Stakeholders in different value chains share challenges: commonalities between value chains provide

opportunities for cross-fertilization. At the same time, it is important to note that the value chains are also very

different; observed bottlenecks, main research priorities and key stakeholders differ strongly per value chain.




The concepts of near-zero waste and circular economy are increasingly important on the European research

agenda. Since 1982, 226 European projects have already been developed – with 1777 partners – resulting in a

large body of knowledge and innovation.

Stakeholders have positive expectations of a European stakeholder platform, especially with regard to

networking opportunities and providing visibility of front-runners.

The stakeholder analysis provides the NEW_InnoNet project with clear recommendations – and three main platform

pillars:

(Technological) information sharing:

Although stakeholders are aware of near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts, the

average level of expertise should be considered as relatively low and knowledge is fragmented in different

sectors and among stakeholders. The lack of knowledge hampers progress in this area because: (1) stakeholders

are not aware of possible solutions for their problems, and (2) stakeholders with less expertise are more

pessimistic about the circular economy. Therefore, the platform should actively disclose available information

on existing and developing technologies. A specific focus should be placed on the large body of knowledge that

is (and has been) developed in the context of European projects.

Networking and front-runners:

Stakeholders expect networking opportunities from a European platform. In addition, stakeholders indicate

that the platform should provide visibility for frontrunners in the field of recycling and sustainability. These

expectations are in line with the current activities of the NEW_InnoNet project, e. g. on 8-9 June 2016 the

project organized a stakeholder conference where stakeholders could network and frontrunners were provided

an opportunity to present themselves as key-note speakers (for a report on the conference, see NEW_InnoNet

2016a). The project will continue these activities as well as stimulating on-line networking activities and

providing front-runners a digital platform.

Facilitating bottom-up actions:

The differences between the value chains indicate that there is not a silver bullet solution for implementation of

circular economy concepts. The NEW_InnoNet project will therefore support bottom-up initiatives and actions.

By facilitating stakeholders to put issues on the agenda and to develop their ideas in collaboration with other

stakeholders, NEW_InnoNet will not only increase commitment but (more importantly) induce actions for

actual change. The platform will in this respect serve as a safe haven or incubator for innovative collaborations

for near-zero waste technologies and a circular Europe.

The methodology, results and detailed conclusions of the NEW_InnoNet stakeholder analysis are described in this

report.



1. INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES

1.1. BACKGROUND

Europe generates around three billion tonnes of waste each year – and it is expected that this amount will increase

further. Approximately half of this waste is not reused or recycled, and aside from the environmental impacts associated

with incinerating or landfilling this waste, a significant amount of potential secondary raw materials is lost (EC 2015a).

Although innovative recycling technologies and processes have been successfully implemented for many years, market

uptake varies drastically amongst the 28 Member States of the EU as well as within individual Member States.

NEW_InnoNet therefore develops a stakeholder platform to stimulate market uptake of zero waste technologies and

processes. Starting point of the platform is the recognition that in order to reach a European near-zero waste economy,

value chain stakeholders must increase interactions and collaborations. Through collaboration and communication,

generated knowledge, valuable insights and hands-on experiences can be more rapidly shared and spread. In addition,

potential knowledge gaps and innovation needs can be identified and addressed. In this way, the NEW_InnoNet

platform will enable stakeholders to enforce the required changes in the value chain structure collaboratively.

NEW_InnoNet is a Horizon 2020 project started in 2015. In addition to developing the platform, the project drafts a

Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) on waste reduction for the European Commission. The SRIA builds on

a set of sequential and complementary project activities: (1) identify and analyze existing bottlenecks for the transition

from linear to circular approach in value chains, (2) develop roadmaps for three selected value chains that define where

and how a difference can be made; and (3) initiated future use case to set the ground for building a transition towards

circular economy.1

1.2. OBJECTIVES

In order to be able to develop and reinforce solid foundations for an European Near-Zero Waste Platform, a stakeholder

analysis has been conducted by the NEW_InnoNet project. This stakeholder analysis contributes to the development of

the platform by identifying the main stakeholders in three value chains and taking stock of their perspectives and

expectations. The main objectives of the stakeholder analysis are:

Getting insight into stakeholders’ perspectives and expertise on the circular economy and near-zero waste

technologies (Chapter three).

Identification of (the main) stakeholders in three value chains:

o Electronics and electric equipment (Chapter three).

o Plastic packaging (Chapter four).

o Automotive (Chapter five).

Assessing stakeholder needs and expectations of next steps of NEW_InnoNet (Chapter six).

1 Reports on the value chain and bottleneck analyses are available via: http://www.newinnonet.eu/ReportsList.aspx. Keeping track of

the progress on the roadmaps – and providing input – is possible via: http://www.newinnonet.eu/ShowEvent.aspx?eveid=1021.

http://www.newinnonet.eu/ReportsList.aspx

http://www.newinnonet.eu/ShowEvent.aspx?eveid=1021



1.3. METHODOLOGY

The stakeholder analysis is based on two research steps2:

A survey was disseminated among 670 European stakeholders: The list was composed by the partners of the

NEW_InnoNet project and is attached (anonymized) to this report as annex 4. The survey contains questions on

the perspectives, actions and expectations of stakeholders with regard to the circular economy and near-zero

waste technologies. The questionnaire served two purposes: first of all, to map the current playing field in terms

of organizations’ knowledge, influence, interest and attitude towards zero-waste concepts. Secondly, to gain

insight into stakeholders’ expectations and needs of a European platform on near-zero waste.

A Matchpoint analysis of CORDIS-data for the period 1983 – 2015: In order to get an overview of (active)

individual stakeholders involved in the different value chains, an analysis was made of all European projects

related to the topics of WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging. Specifically, an analysis was made of the number of

projects over time, the type and amount of project partners and the amount of funding over time. This enabled

identification of the most active stakeholders (in European projects) and the salience and amount of funding of

certain topics over time. The analysis was performed by using the Matchpoint tool developed by PNO

Consultants.

1.4. READING GUIDE

This report contains six chapters, 4 annexes and an executive summary. The first chapter provides an introduction to the

background, objectives and methodology of the NEW_InnoNet project. Chapter two analyzes stakeholders’ knowledge

of - and attitudes towards - circular economy concepts, as well as perceived barriers towards the transition to a circular

economy and main research- and development priorities. Chapters three through five contain analyses of the value

chains in terms of collaboration, influence and innovation for the three value chains: plastic packaging (chapter three),

waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE; chapter four) and end-of-life vehicles (ELV; chapter five). Chapter six

concludes with an analysis of stakeholders’ expectations of a near-zero waste platform and recommendations for a

platform structure.

2 A detailed description of the applied methodologies, survey questionnaires and conducted analyses is provided in Annex 1 (survey

methodology), 2 (Matchpoint methodology) and 3 (full questionnaire).



2. STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON NEAR-ZERO WASTE

Main findings:

Knowledge: Stakeholders are familiar with near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts. However,

levels of expertise differ strongly among stakeholders and technological expertise is lagging behind.

Attitude: Stakeholders have positive attitudes towards (and expectations of) the circular economy. A positive correlation

exists between level of expertise and attitude, i.e. more knowledgeable stakeholders have a more positive attitude.

Barriers: Barriers identified by experts in the bottleneck analysis (NEW_InnoNet 2016b; 2016c 2016d) are also recognized

by the majority of stakeholders. Most important barriers for the value chains are: ‘bad’ product design (plastic

packaging); miniaturization, complexity, integration of functions (WEEE); and low-cost alternatives such as landfilling

(ELV).

Research priorities: Stakeholders in different value chains share challenges but identify different research priorities for

their value chain.

2.1. INTRODUCTION

The European Union has formulated ambitious targets with respect to waste reduction and the circular economy. These

targets are formulated in the EU action plan for the Circular Economy (EC 2015b) as well as several directives on specific

waste streams (e.g. directive 94/62/EC on packaging waste, directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life-vehicles and directive

2012/19/EU on electronic waste). In order to reach these targets, stakeholders throughout Europe will need to take

action and change their working practices. The perspectives of stakeholders are therefore crucial for achieving a near-

zero waste Europe. This part of the report discusses: (1) how knowledgeable stakeholders already are on these topics, (2)

what their attitudes are with regards to feasibility and desirability, (3) what they see as main barriers, and (4) what

research priorities they identify.

2.2. (PERCEIVED) KNOWLEDGE OF ZERO-WASTE CONCEPTS

The concepts near-zero waste and circular economy have been around since the 1970s. Despite their growing popularity,

however, they are not mainstream concepts and especially their practical implementation might be unknown by

stakeholders. At the same time, knowledge is a condition for organizational change as well as an indispensable

requirement for implementing new technologies. The questionnaire therefore asked stakeholders for a self-assessment

of knowledge of different topics on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 indicated ‘Very low’ and 6 ‘Very high’.

The response on the survey shows that with an average score of 3.8 (N = 133) stakeholders indicate that they are familiar

with near-zero waste and circular economy concepts. It should be noted, however, that the level of reported expertise

varies largely between stakeholders (standard deviation is 1.08). Stakeholders from the ELV-chain report the highest

level of expertise (4.1, N = 22), followed by WEEE (3.9, N = 60) and subsequently plastic packaging (3.6, N = 51). The

highest score for the ELV-value chain is in line with expectations; after all, recycling and circular economy measures are

already (to a large extent) established in this value chain (NEW_InnoNet 2016b).


1 2 3 4 5 6

Total

Plastics

WEEE

ELV

Technical knowledge Soc. org. Knowledge

Figure 1 distinguishes between two different types of

knowledge regarding the circular economy, i.e. technical

knowledge and socio-organizational knowledge. The latter

category encompasses economic knowledge, regulatory

knowledge, environmental knowledge and organizational

knowledge. On average, all value chains report to have higher

knowledge of socio-organizational issues than technical issues

regarding the circular economy. This discrepancy is highest in

the WEEE value chain, with a difference of 0.6 points.

Stakeholders in the plastic packaging and WEEE value chains

report on average that their level of technological expertise is

closer to “Low” than to “High”.

Analysis of the knowledge topics show that the highest levels of expertise are reported in all value chains for: (1)

environmental impact of waste disposal (4.0 – 4.4), and (2) expertise on national and European directives regarding their

value chain (4.0 – 4.6). This may point to stakeholders’ awareness regarding the reasons for - and the urgency of - the

circular economy. In all value chains, knowledge on tracking and marker technologies and circular business models are

lowest. In addition, all value chains, especially WEEE, report to have less knowledge of product (eco- or re)design aspects

(3.1 – 3.9).

2.3. ATTITUDES

The reported knowledge levels indicate that – on average – stakeholders have an understanding of near-zero waste and

circular economy concepts. In this part of the report, the focus is on the attitudes of stakeholders towards this change.

Attitude is defined as an expression of favour, disfavour or ambivalence towards a specific “attitude object” (person,

place, concept). Attitude was measured by two different concepts.

First of all, respondents were asked to complete a semantic differential question in order to directly measure their

attitude on different aspects of the circular economy. Figure 3 shows that the average attitude towards circular economy

is very positive (4.9, N = 130). The plastics (5.1, N = 50) and WEEE (4.9, N = 57) value chains score on or above average,

while the ELV (4.6, N = 23) value chain is slightly less positive. Analysis of the individual items shows that “feasibility”

scored lowest in all value chains (4.2 – 4.7), “importance” highest in plastics and WEEE (resp. 5.4 and 5.2), and

“desirability” in the ELV value chain (5.0). It can thus be concluded that stakeholders in all value chains have a very

positive attitude towards the circular economy, although they may perceive some barriers to the transition to a circular

economy. These potential barriers will be addressed in paragraph 3.4.

4.9

5.1

4.9

4.6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Total

Plastics

WEEE

ELV

4.9

5.0

4.8

4.5

1 2 3 4 5 6

Total

Plastics

WEEE

ELV

Figure 1. Technical and socio-organizational knowledge.

Figure 3. Perceived benefits of circular economy

over linear economy.

Figure 2. Average attitude towards circular economy



Secondly, respondents were asked to rate the perceived benefits of the circular economy over the linear economy with

regards to different social and organizational levels. The results are presented in figure 3. Overall, stakeholders expect

that the benefits of a circular economy are higher compared to the linear economy (4.9, N = 127). Similarly to the

measure of attitude presented above, the benefits are perceived to be larger by the plastic packaging value chain (5.0, N

= 49). Stakeholders in the ELV value chain seem to be slightly more critical, yet still positive overall (4.5, N = 22).

In addition, a comparison was made between stakeholders’ knowledge and attitude. It was shown that, on average,

stakeholders with low scores on knowledge (≤3.5) scored lower on attitude than stakeholders with high (>3.5) knowledge

of circular economy concepts. This difference was most pronounced in the plastic packaging value chain, where

stakeholders with less knowledge scores 0.6 points lower on attitude than stakeholder with high reported levels of

knowledge. The WEEE value chain also has a 0.5 point difference, while in the ELV value chain there is only a small

difference (0.3) between the attitude scores of stakeholders with reported low- and high levels of knowledge.

2.4. BARRIERS TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY

As demonstrated in the previous section, stakeholders in this study have positive attitudes on the circular economy.

Stakeholders are least positive (although still positive) on the feasibility of the circular economy. This result is in line with

previous value chain analyses of the NEW_InnoNet project (NEW_InnoNet 2016b; 2016c, 2016d). In these analyses,

several bottlenecks were identified by value chain experts. In the survey, respondents were asked to what extent they

recognized these barriers. All barriers in all value chains were confirmed to be barriers by stakeholders, with a range of

55% - 82% of respondents choosing an option that agreed with the statement. In order to be able to distinguish the most

important barriers and prioritize measures to overcome them, an analysis is made of the amount of respondents that

agree or completely agree (i.e. excluding “slightly agree”)..

Figure 4 shows the top five barriers identified by the ELV bottleneck analysis and the percentage of respondents that

either agree or strongly agree to the existence of the barrier (N = 22). The largest barrier according to respondents is the

low cost of energy recovery versus material recovery from ELV (45%), followed by the limited applications of non-

metallic materials from ELV (38%). A number of stakeholders stressed that while the framework for collection and

monitoring of ELV is adequate, practical implementation and enforcement are often lacking.

Figure 4. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the ELV value chain.

Figure 5 shows the top five barriers to achieving a circular economy in the plastic packaging value chain (N = 50).

Compared to the ELV value chain, the general level of agreement is significantly higher. Ranking highest are product

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Low-cost of energy recovery and landfill versus materialrecovery;

Limited and low quality applications of non-metallic ELVmaterials;

Inadequate performance of ELV collection and monitoring;

Inadequate performance of the separation, sorting andrefining technology;

Inadequate performance of vehicle dismantling and reuse;

Agree Completely agree



design aspects (63%) and the limited source separation of plastic packaging waste (56%). Similarly to the ELV chain, the

plastic packaging value chain also experiences contradictory incentives regarding end-of-life processing due to the

financial advantages of energy recovery. However, multiple stakeholders mentioned the absence of support of

governments and legislation, for example in the form of appropriate legislation and financing mechanisms.

Figure 5. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the plastic packaging value chain.

Figure 6 shows the barriers identified in the WEEE value chain (N = 57). Scoring highest are product design aspects

(61%), closely followed by the lack of incentives to develop recyclable materials and products (60%). Additional input

from stakeholders often concerned the lack of standardization in design as well as end-of-life treatments. Several

stakeholders also identified the scarce information on product composition and monitoring of material flows as a

significant barrier.

Figure 6. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the WEEE value chain.

2.5. RESEARCH PRIORITIES

In order to overcome the barriers explored in the previous paragraph, stakeholders were asked to rate and prioritize different areas of research and development. These R&D priorities were divided into seven areas of interest displayed below. In line with the analysis of barriers to a circular economy, only the share of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing is displayed.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Bad product design;

Limited source separation of plastic packaging waste;

Performance of separation and sorting technology;

Export of plastic packaging waste for recycling outside EU;

Performance of recycling technology;


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Product design aspects: Miniaturisation, complexity,integrating of multiple functions;

No incentives to develop recyclable materials and products;

Illegal export of WEEE outside EU;

Rapid changes in designs and materials;

Fluctuating raw material prices.




Figure 7. R&D priorities in all value chains

In general, the level of agreement is quite high, especially in the plastic packaging value chain. Design for recycling is

regarded as a top priority in the value chains of plastic packaging (N = 50) and WEEE (N = 56), an issue that is also

emphasized by stakeholders in the open responses. In ELV (N = 20), design for recycling is prioritized least.

More research into waste prevention and reduction is also encouraged, especially in the plastic packaging value chain,

where it is perhaps also most easily achieved. In addition, and overlapping with both waste prevention and design for

recycling, stakeholders stressed the necessity of remanufacturing and reuse and urged to improve the preconditions for

establishing these concepts successfully.

While confirming its importance, stakeholders in the ELV and WEEE chain prioritize the performance of collection

schemes least. As outlined in the previous chapter, stakeholders in the ELV chain are relatively content with the

regulatory and organizational framework of the monitoring and collection schemes. However, stronger enforcement is

required in order to optimize the system and to enable a transition to a fully circular value chain. In the plastic packaging

value chain, however, the performance of collection schemes is among the top priorities.

Something that was not included in the survey, but was emphasized by several stakeholders, is the role of consumer

behaviour in the transition to a circular economy. Consumers make choices daily about the amount and type of products

they purchase. Taking into account global population and welfare growth, consumers constitute a driving force behind

global demand for products and materials. Since demand for products and materials must first stabilize before a fully

circular economy can be achieved, the role of consumers in the circular economy is paramount.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Design for recycling

Waste prevention/reduction

Market dynamics

Performance of separation and sorting technology

Policy and regulation

Monitoring of waste streams

Performance of collection schemes

Plastic packaging WEEE ELVAgree Strongly agree



3. PLASTIC PACKAGING

Main findings:

Collaboration: The overall level of collaboration in the value chain is high. One collaboration cluster can be identified at

the beginning of the value chain and one cluster at the end. In terms of collaboration, the most important actors are

situated at the end-of-life part of the value chain: waste collecting agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies.

Influence: Product manufacturers and waste managers are the stakeholders who report sufficient influence to induce

change in the value chain. While supporting stakeholders (funding- knowledge- and regulatory agencies) have little

influence in the value chain, they may prove valuable partners for support and collaboration.

Innovation: research organizations have been dominant in European projects on plastic packaging innovation. In terms

of participation, the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Germany) is most innovative. The European Plastic Converters (Belgium)

is the most innovative industrial stakeholder.

3.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the plastic packaging value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is

defined in three different ways: key collaboration partner (section 3.2); most influential stakeholder (section 3.3); and

most innovative stakeholder (section 3.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of

different stakeholders are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 68 stakeholders and 102

European projects. Respondents are from eleven EU-Member States. No stakeholders in the phases of retail/distribution

and waste collection participated in this survey, and thus were not included in the results; except for in the network

analysis, where the external assessment of collaboration provided the data.

3.2. KEY COLLABORATION

In order to map the level and direction of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain, stakeholders were asked to

indicate the frequency of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the categorization

described in Annex 1. These data were converted into a network graph, displayed below. For purposes of clarity, only the

primary stakeholder categories are included in this graph; supporting stakeholders (funding, knowledge- and regulatory

agencies) were omitted. In addition, since this analysis is about collaboration between different stakeholder types in the

value chain, collaborations within the same phase in the value chain are not displayed.

The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in figure 8 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors

in the value chain; the size and opacity of the flows stemming from the colored bars represents collaboration as reported

by stakeholders themselves. Thus, it can be seen that most stakeholders collaborate fairly regularly with each other. The

colored bars in the inner ring indicate which types of actors have reported to collaborate with the types of organizations

represented by the bar on the accompanying outer ring. The other end of the flow represents the frequency of the

collaboration according to the source. Following this logic, stakeholders who have a broad flow originating from their

side that narrows on the other side have indicated to collaborate more frequently than has been indicated about their

collaboration externally. Likewise, flows with similar sizes on both ends represent collaboration that was gauged almost

equally.



The tabulated results show that the average level of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain is highest of all

value chains, with a score of 4.0 (N = 50). The strongest mutual collaborators in the plastic packaging value chain are raw

material producers and product manufacturers; and waste managers and recyclers. The presence of these two ‘clusters’

of collaboration (one at the ‘beginning’ and one at the ‘end’ of the value chain) may point to the fact that, in terms of

collaboration, the linear economy is still the dominant principle in the plastic packaging value chain.

In addition, product manufacturers report the highest collaboration with other stakeholders, especially with

distributors, waste collecting agencies and waste managers. Excluding the missing stakeholder types, waste managers

report the least collaboration overall. More specifically, the least collaboration takes place with product manufacturers

and retailers and distributors.

Comparing the level of collaboration as reported by stakeholders and reported externally (by other stakeholders) shows

that raw material producers and component manufacturers tend to overestimate their collaboration with value chain

partners. The greatest discrepancy is found in the self-assessment and external assessment of collaboration of raw

material producers and product manufacturers. Raw material producers report high levels of collaboration with all

partners in the value chain. However, this is only confirmed by product manufacturers and recyclers. In fact, raw material

producers are the least collaborated with according to other stakeholders.

Waste managers and recyclers, however, tend to underestimate their frequency of collaboration with other

stakeholders. Waste managers self-report the lowest level of collaboration; however, external rating shows the

complete opposite - waste managers are most selected as collaboration partner by other stakeholders.

3.3. MOST INFLUENTIAL ACTORS

It is important to identify the (types of) stakeholders likely to play a role in the transition to a circular economy. Two

analyses were therefore made: (1) an analysis of the influence of stakeholders in the current situation (status quo); and,

(2) an analysis of their position towards transition. The analysis of the status quo is based on stakeholders’ influence and

their willingness to exert that influence (activity). The analysis of the position towards transition is based on the one

Figure 8. Collaborations between actors in the plastic packaging value chain.



hand on a comparison of stakeholders’ embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the perceived effects of change

on their organization; and on the other hand, an analysis of stakeholders’ interest in change compared to their influence.

3.3.1. Position in status quo

To assess the current state of affairs in the value chain, an analysis has been made of stakeholders’ influence and the

willingness to exert that influence. Influence, or the ability of an actor to change or control the behaviour of others, can

be derived from different sources; for example, from access to financial resources or knowledge. The willingness to exert

influence was defined as the activity level, and measured by stakeholders’ frequency of participation in different types of

activities, such as collaborative research projects or lobbying activities.

In the plastic packaging value chain the average level of influence is 4.0 (N = 56). Funding agencies report the lowest

level of influence (3.1, N = 3), while product manufacturers report the highest (4.6, N = 7). In general, stakeholders derive

and exert their influence through their knowledge and the size of their network. Fewer stakeholders (approximately half)

report having influence on regulatory issues. The average level of activity is quite high with a value of 4.0 (N = 55). The

least active stakeholders are funding organizations (3.3, N = 3), while the recycling agencies (4.8, N = 12) are extremely

active. Stakeholders are most active in dialogues and collaborations with other organizations (4.8; 4.7), and least active

in lobbying activities (3.7).

When putting these characteristics in a grid, it becomes clear that both product manufacturers and waste managers

have the potential to induce change in the value chain. However, product manufacturers are less interested in this than

waste managers, who are very willing to exert influence in the value chain. Actors with low influence, but who can play a

supporting role, are displayed in the bottom row. Of these, especially knowledge organizations and regulatory agencies

are willing to participate in activities related to the circular economy.

Table 1. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the plastic packaging value chain.

3.3.2. Position towards the future

Now an assessment of current affairs has been made, it is important to look at the potential effects of the transition to a

circular economy on stakeholders; will they experience benefits from the transition, as they have already embedded

circular economy principles to a large extent? Having a high level of embeddedness ensures that stakeholders are

sufficiently prepared or have sufficient adaptability in order to perform well in a circular landscape. While the perceived

effects of change do not predict anything about the actual effects of change, the perception of stakeholders is what is

Willingness to exert influence

Low High

Infl

uen

ce

Hig

h

C – Product manufacturers F – Waste managers

Lo

w

A – Raw material producers

G – Recycling agencies H – Funding agencies

I – Knowledge organizations J – Regulatory agencies



relevant, since this determines the role they will assume in either facilitating or obstructing the transition to a circular

economy. In order to measure these aspects, stakeholders have been asked to indicate the level of embeddedness of

circular economy concepts in different aspects of their organisation, such as communication activities or daily work

practices. In addition, the perceived effect of change and the direction of change that will occur during the transition to a

circular economy are measured.

The plastics value chain reports the highest level of embeddedness of circular economy concepts (4.2) of all value chains.

After regulators (3.4, N = 4), product manufacturers (N = 7) and raw material producers (N = 3) report the lowest level of

embeddedness (3.5) and waste managers (4.9, N = 9) the highest. Stakeholders report to have circular economy

concepts mainly incorporated in the communication activities (4.5), and to a lesser extent in the training of employees

(3.7).

Similarly, the perceived effects of change are the most positive of all value chains (4.0, N = 50). The independency of the

organization is assumed to be most negatively affected (3.2). Both the societal legitimacy and the network of the

organization are expected to be most positively affected (4.4). This indicates stakeholders expect a tradeoff between

independency and the size of their network, most likely due to increased collaboration. The organizations that report the

most positive perception of change are recycling agencies (4,5, N = 9), while regulatory agencies are less positive (2.8, N

= 4).

Plotting these characteristics against each other yields in a typology displayed in Table 2. Assuming a high level of

embeddedness of circular economy principles will lead to positive results in the transition to a circular economy, the

absence of stakeholders in the top left section indicates there may be no prepared losers. However, there are quite some

stakeholders who expect the transition to the circular economy to affect their organization negatively. Combining this

aspect with the low level of embeddedness would make these stakeholders unprepared losers. Recycling agencies, who

have low embeddedness of circular economy principles, would become unprepared winners; while waste managers and

knowledge organizations would become prepared winners.

Expected effects of change

Negative Positive

Em

be

dd

edn

ess H

igh

F – Waste managers

I – Knowledge organizations

Lo

w

A – Raw material producers C – Product manufacturers

H – Funding agencies J – Regulatory agencies

G – Recycling agencies

Table 2. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for the plastic packaging value chain.

3.3.3. Champions, obstructers and bystanders

In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the effects of change

towards a circular economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the interest stakeholders have in



the change towards a circular economy. Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of change

have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may have interest in maintaining the status quo.

Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according to the typology in Box 1. Stakeholders with low

scores on interest, but high on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while actors with high scores on

both interest and influence have the potential to become key champions of the transition to a circular economy.

Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to play a significant role in the transition to a circular economy

would be limited to the role of bystander.

Raw material producers: Raw material producers report to have little

interest in change. In addition, they have limited influence and

participate in few activities in the value chain, making them sceptic

bystanders.

Product manufacturers: Product manufacturers have high influence

in the value chain. While they do not explicitly exert their influence in

joint research projects or collaborations, they have potential to

obstruct the transition process towards a circular economy.

Waste managers: With a high score on all aspects, waste managers

are likely to be the key champions of circularity in the value chain.

Recycling agencies: While recycling agencies have positive interest in

change, they have less influence in the value chain, limiting them to

the role of enthusiastic bystander.

Supporting stakeholders (funding-, knowledge- and regulatory

agencies): Supporting stakeholders generally have low influence in the

value chain, but may play a supporting role in the transition to a circular economy. Especially knowledge organizations,

with high interest and high levels of activity, may be valuable collaboration partners.

This analysis makes clear that it is essential that incentives are developed that will stimulate raw material producers’ and

product manufacturers’ interest in the change towards circularity. While product manufacturers do not explicitly exert

their influence through collaborative projects, they already derive influence solely from their position in the value chain;

manufacturers’ choices with regard to product composition and design will influence the ability of waste managers and

recyclers to process it successfully. While waste managers are a powerful actor in the value chain, initiatives for effective

waste management (such as increased separation or more efficient recycling) are only one aspect of a circular economy.

Without the inclusion of design- and production aspects into the transition process, the development of circular

economy will be significantly hampered.

3.4. MATCHPOINT ANALYSIS

In this section, key stakeholders will be identified by their participation in European projects. This was done by

performing an analysis of (participation in) European projects using the Matchpoint tool by PNO Consultants. The full

methodology can be found in Annex 2. In the analysis of funded European projects on the topic of plastic packaging, in

total, 102 projects were found in the period between 1984 and 2015. These projects received more than € 117 million in

funding with an average of € 1.5 million per project. In Figure 9, the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized.

“Key obstructers”: Stakeholders with enough influence to hinder the transition to a circular economy – intentionally or unintentionally - due to interest in the status quo or absence of interest in change. “Key champion”: Stakeholders who have both the interest and influence to become front-runners in the transition to a circular economy. “Bystanders”: Stakeholders who lack the influence to induce any change in the value chain. These actors can still have an interest in change (“Enthusiastic bystanders”) or interest in the status quo (“Sceptic bystanders”).

Box 1. Stakeholder typology



A remarkable trend can be observed in Figure 9; the number of projects conducted increases up until FP4 and then

decreases again until FP7, where a peak number of projects was conducted. It must be noted, however, that FP7 covers

seven years instead of the previous programmes, which covered 5 years. The projects conducted in the H2020

programme are not at the FP7-levels yet due to the fact that the funding scheme is still in progress.

Figure 10 shows the participation in EU projects for the plastic packaging value chain per country. It was composed by

counting the countries of origin of the organizations in the project corpus. Overall, the most active participants are

located in Western Europe. Spain and the UK rank first, with respectively 103 and 95 projects participated in. These

countries are followed by Germany and Italy, and to a lesser extent, The Netherlands, Belgium and France.

As for the participants in these projects, in total 661 partners were involved, of which 524 different organizations. 83

organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project was 6. The most active

organizations are tabulated below.

# Organization Count

1 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V (DE) 15

2 The UK Materials Technology Research Institute Limited (UK) 7

3 Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos Y Conexas (ES) 6

4 European Plastics Converters (BE) 5

5 Fundacion Gaiker (ES) 5

6 Nederlandse Organisatie Voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek – TNO (NL) 5

7 VTT Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus (FI) 5

8 Gospodarsko Interesno Zdruzenje Grozd Plasttehnika - Giz Grozd Plasttehnika (PL) 4

9 Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible Sl (ES) 4

10 KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE) 4

Table 3. Top participants in projects on the topic of plastic packaging

2 3 2

7

16

13

4

37

14

0

10

20

30

40

No

. of

pro

ject

s

Figure 9. Number of EU projects on the topic of plastic

packaging (per funding scheme)

Figure 10. Project participation in European countries



Table 3 is mostly composed of universities and RTOs. This is in line with the overall division between knowledge and

industry participants, i.e. 58% of the participants are knowledge organizations versus 42% industry participants. The

division is similar to the one in the ELV value chain, with a slight majority of organizations involved in knowledge-related

activities. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) European Plastic Converters; (2) Gospodarsko

Interesno Zdruzenje Grozd Plasttehnika - Giz Grozd Plasttehnika; (3) Lajovic Tuba Embalaza d.o.o; (4) Biopac (UK) Ltd;

and (5) Omniform S.A.

At present, 20 European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon 2020. More information on the projects can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects available for its stakeholders: GREEN PACK (coordinator: AVEP): Fully recyclable 100% PET package for food contact with O2 barrier, improved transparency and low CO2 footprint (www.greenpack-project.eu). ECOPET (coordinator: Holfeld Plastics): Demonstration of innovative, lightweight, 100% recyclable PET prototype formulations and process tooling for low carbon footprint packaging to replace current industry standard virgin plastics (http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/59204_en.html). WHEYLAYER 2 (coordinator: Lajovic Tuba Embalaza): WHEYLAYER2: barrier biopolymers for sustainable packaging (www.wheylayer.eu). POLYMARK (coordinator: Petcore Europe): Novel Identification Technology for High-value Plastics Waste Stream (www.polymark.org). SUPERCLEANQ (coordinator: The British Plastics Federation): Development of processes and quality procedures for the valorisation of recycled plastics for food contact applications (www.supercleanq.eu). SYNPOL (coordinator: Agencia Estatal Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas): Biopolymers from syngas fermentation (www.synpol.org). BANUS (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos y Conexas): Definiton and development of functional barriers for the use of recycled materials in multilayer food packaging (www.banus-project.eu). LEGUVAL (coordinator: Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible): Valorisation of legumes co-products and by-products for package application and energy production from biomass (www.leguval.eu). PHBOTTLE (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de la Industria Agroalimentaria): New sustainable, functionalized and competitive PHB material based in fruit by-products getting advanced solutions for packaging and non-packaging applications (www.phbottle.eu). BIO4MAP (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos y Conexas): Transparent and high barrier biodegradable film and sheet for customized Modified Atmosphere food Packaging (www.bio4map.eu). SUCCIPACK (Association de Coordination Technique pour l’Industrie Agroalimentaire): Development of active, intelligent and sustainable food PACKaging using PolybutyleneSUCCInate (www.succipack.eu). EUROPHA (Federacion de Cooperativas Agrariasde Murcia S Coop): Novel technology to boost the European Bioeconomy: reducing the production costs of PHA biopolymer and expanding its applications as 100% compostable food packaging bioplastic (http://164.138.208.83/~europha/). FILMSORT (coordinator: Fundacion Gaiker): Enhanced recycling of post-consumer film waste from light packaging by automatic sorting of trapped improper and degradable polymers (www.filmsort.eu).



OLI-PHA (coordinator: Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible): A novel and efficient method for the production of polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer-based packaging from olive oil waste water (www.olipha.eu). N-CHITOPACK (coordinator: Mavi Sud): Sustainable technologies for the production of biodegradable materials based on natural chitin-nanofibrils derived by waste of fish industry, to produce food grade packaging (www.n-chitopack.eu). NANOBIOCOMP (coordinator: Universidade da Coruna): Novel Nano-Reinforced Biodegradable Composites: Design and Characterization (http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/144371_en.html). SCALEPHA (coordinator: Bio-On): Industrial and commercial SCALE-up of Bio-on technology for the production of PHA polymers from sugar industries waste, co- and by-products (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/196414_en.html). P4SB (Rheinisch-Westfälische Techische Hochschule Aachen): P4SB: From Plastic waste to Plastic value using Pseudomonas putida Synthetic Biology (www.p4sb.eu). FLEXI-PYROCAT (coordinator: University of Leeds): Development of flexible pyrolysis-catalysis processing of waste plastics for selective production of high value products through research and innovation (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194023_en.html). NANOBARRIER (coordinator: Stiftelsen SINTEF): Extended shelf-life biopolymers for sustainable and multifunctional food packaging solutions (http://www.sintef.no/nanobarrier).

Box 2. On-going European projects on plastic packaging



4. WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

Main findings:

Collaboration: The overall level of collaboration in the WEEE value chain is lower compared to that in other value chains.

In terms of collaborations, the most important stakeholders are once again situated at the end-of-life part of the value

chain; collecting agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies. Least collaborations take place in the value chain

with raw material producers and retailers and distributors.

Influence: Waste managers and recycling agencies have the most influence in the WEEE value chain. While recycling

agencies report high interest in change, waste managers do not. Combined with their willingness to exert influence,

waste managers thus are a potentially powerful stakeholder that can obstruct the transition towards a circular value

chain.

Innovation: Research organizations have also been dominant in European projects on WEEE-innovation. In terms of

participation, the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Germany) is most innovative. Indumetal Recycling (Spain) is the most

innovative industrial stakeholder.

4.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the WEEE value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is defined in

three different ways: key collaboration partner (section 4.2); most influential stakeholder (section 4.3); and most

innovative stakeholder (section 4.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of different

stakeholders are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 83 stakeholders and 55 European

projects. Respondents are from twenty EU-Member States and represent all phases of the value chain except “retail and

distribution”. They were thus not included in the results; except for in the network analysis, where the external

assessment of collaboration provided the data.








The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in Figure 11 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors








equally.



In Figure 11, the collaborations in the WEEE value chain are displayed. The overall level of collaboration is lower than the other value chains, with an average of 3.7 (N = 56). There is also more fluctuation between different levels of collaborations between value chain partners. In addition, all stakeholders tend to self-report slightly lower levels of collaboration than the external valuation of collaboration.

As is also visible in Figure 11, slight clustering occurs in the front and end of the value chain. The highest level of

collaboration is reported by recycling agencies; they most frequently collaborate with waste managers and waste

collecting agencies. Raw material producers and product manufacturers report the lowest levels of collaboration overall.

Raw material producers collaborate least with stakeholders at the end-of-life part of the value chain: waste collecting

agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies. Product manufacturers collaborate least with retailers and

distributors and waste collecting agencies.

The stakeholders reported to collaborate least are raw material producers and retailers and distributors. For raw material

producers, this corresponds with the self-assessment of collaboration. For component manufacturers, the external

rating shows the largest discrepancy with the self-assessment. The highest levels of collaboration as selected by other

stakeholders are waste managers, recycling agencies and waste collecting agencies.








Figure 11. Collaborations between actors in the WEEE value chain.




The first step to assess the current state of affairs is to look at stakeholders’ influence (the ability to change or control

the behavior of others) and the willingness to exert that influence (activity). In the WEEE value chain, the average level of

influence is 3.9 (N = 61), comparable to the average level of influence in other value chains. The lowest is reported by

funding agencies (2.9, N = 2), followed by product manufacturers (3.3, N = 5), and the highest by waste managers (4.5, N

= 11). Similarly to the other value chains, stakeholders mostly exert influence through their knowledge and their

network, and least through the market share and influence on regulatory issues.

The average level of activity is 4.2 (N = 61). The lowest activity level was reported by product manufacturers (3.4, N = 5);

the highest is reported by recycling agencies (4.7, N = 11). Stakeholders in the WEEE value chain mainly engage in

dialogues with other organizations (4.8) and collaborations with other organizations (4.6). Stakeholders report less

engagement in lobbying activities (4.3).

In Table 4, influence and the willingness to exert that influence are plotted. It shows that waste managers and recycling

agencies have both the influence and the willingness to exert that influence. Since part of the activity level is defined by

the level of collaboration, these results are in line with the network analysis, which showed that waste managers and

recycling agencies were among the top collaborating organisations.


Low High

Infl

uen

ce

Hig

h

E – Waste collecting agencies J – Regulatory agencies

F – Waste managers G – Recycling agencies

Lo

w A – Raw material producers

C – Product manufacturers H – Funding agencies


Table 4. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the WEEE value chain.

4.3.2. Position towards future

To determine potential future consequences of the transition to a circular economy and stakeholders’ stance towards

the transition, the characteristics of embeddedness and the perceived effects of change have been studied. As outlined

previously, the level of embeddedness of circular economy concepts determines stakeholders’ preparedness for the

circular economy; stakeholders’ perception of change is important in determining the role stakeholders will play in the

transition.

With a value of 3.8 (N = 58), the embeddedness of circular economy concepts is lowest in the WEEE value chain.

Extremely low embeddedness is reported by product manufacturers (2.8, N = 5), while extremely high levels are reported

by recycling companies (5.0, N = 10).Stakeholders report to have circular economy concepts mainly embedded in the

communication activities (4.2), and least in the training of employees (3.4). The overall effects of change are expected to

be quite positive (4.0, N = 56). Once again, the independency of the organization is assumed to be most negatively



affected (3.5). The network is assumed to be most positively affected (4.5). Extremely positive changes are expected by

raw material producers (5.2, N = 1), while the least positive changes are expected by funding- and regulatory agencies

(2.5; N = 2 and N = 4).


Negative Positive

Em

be

dd

edn

ess H

igh

J – Regulatory agencies G – Recycling agencies

Lo

w C – Product manufacturers

E – Waste collecting agencies F – Funding agencies

A – Raw material producers F – Waste managers


Table 5. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for stakeholders in the WEEE value chain.


In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the effects of change

towards a circular economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the interest stakeholders have in

the change towards a circular economy. Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of change

have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may have interest in maintaining the status quo.

Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according

to the typology in Box 3. Stakeholders with low scores on interest, but

high on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while

actors with high scores on both interest and influence have the

potential to become key champions of the transition to a circular

economy. Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to

play a significant role in the transition to a circular economy would be

limited to the role of bystander. Below, the aspects of influence,

interest and the resulting typology will be discussed per stakeholder.

Raw material producers: With a positive interest in change, but

limited levels of influence and activity, raw material producers are

limited to the role of “enthusiastic bystander”.

Product manufacturers: Product manufacturers report to have less

influence in the value chain. On top of that, they have limited interest

in the transition to a circular economy. Potentially, these types of

actors will take on the role of “sceptic bystander”.

Waste collecting agencies: With a high level of influence in the value chain, but low interest in change, waste collecting

agencies have the potential to become obstructers to the transition to circularity.


Box 3. Typology of stakeholders



Waste managers: Waste managers report high scores on both influence and activity. They score just below the average

for interest, something that is not in line with general expectations nor with the results from other value chains. Analysis

shows that waste managers do expect positive changes from a move towards circularity in the WEEE value chain;

however, waste managers’ score on embeddedness is very low.

Recycling agencies: Recycling agencies score high on all aspects, thus earning them the role of potential key champion

in the transition process.

Supporting stakeholders (funding-, knowledge- and regulatory agencies): Supporting agencies mostly have limited

influence in the value chain. Funding agencies will likely become sceptic bystanders, while knowledge- and regulatory

agencies have more potential to fulfil a supportive role in the transition process.




methodology can be found in Annex 2. In the analysis of EU-funded projects for WEEE, total, 55 projects were found in

the period between 1984 and 2015. These projects received more than € 85 million in funding with an average of € 2.6

million per project. In Figure 13 the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized. Figure 12 depicts the

participation in EU projects per country for the WEEE-value chain.

Once again more projects were initiated in the Fourth Framework Programme than in the previous programmes as well

as in the Fifth and Sixth Programmes. FP7 once again marks a large increase in the number of projects. Remarkably, the

number of projects in the Horizon 2020 Programme has almost reached FP7 levels, even though it is only halfway its

duration. Figure 13 illustrates the dominance of Germany on the topic of WEEE. Germany is closely followed by the UK;

however, most other countries seem to have a low count of WEEE-related projects.

3

1

3

1

9

6 7

13 12

0

5

10

15

No

. of

pro

ject

s

Figure 13. WEEE project participation in European countries. Figure 12. Number of EU projects on the topic of WEEE (per

funding programme)



As for the participants in these projects, in total 451 partners were involved, of which 350 different organizations. 58

organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project was 8. The most active

organizations are tabulated below.


1 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V. (DE) 8

2 Österreichische Gesellschaft fuer System- und Automatisierungstechnik (AT) 7


4 Indumetal Recycling S.A. (ES) 5

5 Technische Universiteit Delft (NL) 5

6 Chalmers Tekniska Hoegskola AB (SE) 4

7 Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation (ES) 4

8 Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek – TNO (NL) 4

9 Stiftelsen SINTEF (NO) 4

10 Technische Universitaet Wien (CH) 4

Table 6. Top participants in projects on the topic of WEEE

Table 6 lists the top participants in projects related to WEEE. With only one industry partner and 9 knowledge- and

research organizations, the list illustrates the dominance of knowledge institutes in the WEEE research projects. This is

in line with the overall division between knowledge and industry participants, i.e. 62% of the participants are knowledge

organizations versus 38% industry participants. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) Indumetal

Recycling S.A. (2) Coolrec B.V. (3) European Plastics Converters, (4) Greentronics, (5) Relight S.R.L.

It is interesting to note that in the top ten most active industrial participants only one product manufacturer is present

versus six WEEE recyclers. This indicates that, at least at EU project-level, the focus is on the end-of-life treatment of

the products rather than the design and manufacturing phases of the value chain.

At present, fifteen European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon 2020. More information on the projects can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects available for its stakeholders: CloseWEEE (coordinator: Fraunhofer): Integrated solutions for pre-processing electronic equipment, closing the loop of post-consumer high-grade plastics, and advanced recovery of critical raw materials antimony and graphite (www.closeweee.eu). EREAN (coordinator: KU Leuven): European Rare Earth Magnet Recycling Network (www.erean.eu). HYDROWEEE DEMO (coordinator: KOPACEK KEG): Innovative Hydrometallurgical Processes to recover Metals from WEEE including lamps and batteries – Demonstration (www.cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105213_en.html). ProSUM (coordinator: WEEE Forum): Prospecting Secondary raw materials in the Urban mine and Mining waste (www.prosumproject.eu). RECLAIM (coordinator: TNO Netherlands): Reclamation of Gallium, Indium and Rare-Earth Elements from Photovoltaics, Solid-State Lighting and Electronics Waste (www.re-claim.eu). RECYVAL-NANO (coordinator: L’Urederra): Development of recovery processes for recycling of valuable components from FPDs (In, Y, Nd) for the production of high added value NPs (www.recyval-nano.eu/). REECOVER (coordinator: NTNU): Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from magnetic waste in the WEEE recycling industry and tailings from the iron ore industry (www.reecover.eu).



REMANENCE (coordinator: C-Tech Innovation): Rare Earth Magnet Recovery for Environmental and Resource Protection (www.project-remanence.eu). ADIR (coordinator: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft): Next generation urban mining - Automated disassembly, separation and recovery of valuable materials from electronic equipment (www.adir.eu). GREENET (coordinator: Coventry University): Globally Recoverable and Eco-friendly E-equipment Network with Distributed Information Service Management (www.greenet.eu). BIOLIX (coordinator: Comet Traitements S.A.): Bio-hydrometallurgical beneficiation of non-ferrous concentrate from Polymetallic shredder residue (http://www.comettraitements.com/biolix). ZEROWIN (coordinator: Osterreichische Gesellschaft fuer System- und Automatisierungstechnik): Towards zero waste in industrial networks (www.zerowin.eu). EWIT (coordinator: Consorzio Remedia): EWIT: Developing an e-waste implementation toolkit to support the recycling and the secondary raw material recovery strategies in metropolitan areas in Africa (www.ewit.site). REE4EU (coordinator: Stiftelsen SINTEF): REE4EU: integrated high temperature electrolysis (HTE) and Ion Liquid Extraction (ILE) for a strong and independent European Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain (www.ree4eu.eu). CABRISS (coordinator: CEA): Implementation of a CirculAr economy Based on Recycled, reused and recovered Indium, Silicon and Silver materials for photovoltaic and other applications (https://www.sintef.no/en/projects/cabriss-implementation-of-a-circular-economy-based/).

Box 4. On-going projects on WEEE

http://www.ree4eu.eu/

https://www.sintef.no/en/projects/cabriss-implementation-of-a-circular-economy-based/

https://www.sintef.no/en/projects/cabriss-implementation-of-a-circular-economy-based/



5. END-OF-LIFE VEHICLES

Main findings:

Collaboration: In terms of collaborations waste managers and recycling companies are the most important stakeholders

in the ELV-value chain. Least collaborations take place with raw material producers and retailers/distributors.

Influence: Key champions of change in the ELV value chain are product manufacturers and recycling agencies. However,

product manufacturers have less interest in change, and can therefore pose a threat toward the development of a fully

circular economy.

Innovation: Research organizations have been dominant in European projects on ELV innovation. In terms of

participation, however, Fiat Research Centre (Italy) is the most innovative stakeholder.

5.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the ELV value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is defined in three

different ways: key collaboration partner (section 5.2); most influential stakeholder (section 5.3); and most innovative

stakeholder (section 5.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of different stakeholder

are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 33 stakeholders and 68 European projects.

Respondents are from nine EU-Member States and represent all phases from the value chain excluding raw material

producers and retailers and waste collecting agencies.








The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in Figure 14 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors








equally.

With an overall collaboration level of 4.0 (N = 23), the ELV value chain has the highest level of collaboration together

with the plastic packaging value chain. Less clustering of collaboration is apparent in the ELV value chain, although

strong cooperation exists between waste management and recycling agencies.



The figure shows that collaboration takes place between all phases of the value chain. The highest level of collaboration

is reported by retailers and distributors, who report very frequent collaboration with partners in all value chains. The

least collaboration is reported by waste managers; they report to cooperate especially rarely with retailers and

distributors.

The external assessment of collaboration shows the complete opposite of the results described in the previous

paragraph; retailers overestimate their collaboration by a whole point, and are, in fact, the least reported collaboration

partner along with raw material producers. Waste managers underestimate their level of collaboration by the same

amount.









The first step to assess the current state of affairs is to look at stakeholders’ influence (the ability to change or control

the behavior of others) and the willingness to exert that influence (activity). Influence, or the ability of an actor to change

or control the behaviour of others, can be derived from different sources; for example, from access to financial resources

Figure 14. Collaborations between stakeholders in the ELV value chain.



or knowledge. The willingness to exert influence was defined as the activity level, and measured by stakeholders’

frequency of participation in different types of activities, such as collaborative research projects or lobbying activities.

The ELV value chain rated their level of influence with an average of 3.9 (N = 26). The level of influence is quite evenly

divided among the phases in the value chain. The organizations who perceive themselves as least influential are

regulatory agencies (3.2, N = 2), while recycling agencies rank highest in terms of influence (4.6, N = 4). On average,

stakeholders exert influence on the basis of valued knowledge or due to their large network. Less influence is derived

from the market share of the organization. Very inactive organizations in the ELV value chain are the regulatory

agencies (2.7, N = 2), while other stakeholders are much more active, most of all recycling agencies (4.6, N = 4).

Stakeholders’ main activities are focused on dialogues and collaborations with other organizations (4.8; 4.5), while they

report less involvement in lobbying activities (3.8).

Table 7 shows that for recycling agencies, the level of influence corresponds to the willingness to exert that influence.

This in contrast to product manufacturers, who have the influence, but not the willingness, to induce change in the value

chain. Stakeholder with lower influence are visualized in the bottom row of the table; of these, waste managers and

knowledge organizations are willing to participate in collaborations despite their low level of influence.


Low High

Lev

el o

f in

flu

ence

Hig

h

C – Product manufacturers


Lo

w D – Retailers/distributors

J – Regulatory agencies



Table 7. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the ELV value chain.

5.3.2. Position towards future

In addition to the analysis of the current state of affairs, it is important to look at the potential effects of the transition to

a circular economy on stakeholders. In order to do this, stakeholders have been asked to indicate the level of

embeddedness of circular economy concepts in different aspects of their organisation, such as communication activities

or daily work practices. In addition, the perceived effect of change and the direction of change that will occur during the

transition to a circular economy are measured.

In the ELV value chain the embeddedness of circular economy concepts averages 3.9 (N = 23). Waste managers (3.3, N =

3) have the lowest level of embeddedness, while – perhaps unsurprisingly – circular economy concepts are most

embedded in the organizational structure of recycling agencies (4.5, N = 4). In general, the organizational aspect where

circular economy is most embedded is the mission statement (4.3), and the least embedded in training of employees

(3.7). While the latter is similar in the other value chains, the former is not; both the WEEE and plastics value chain report

the highest level of embeddedness in communication activities.


Overall, the ELV value chain agrees that a transition to a circular economy will positively impact their organization, most

of all regulators (4.6, N = 1) and recycling agencies (4.6, N = 4). Surprisingly, waste managers expect the least positive

consequences. This may indicate that to waste managers, zero-waste truly means zero-waste; and in the absence of

waste, their existence is threatened. The independency of the organization is expected to be impacted most negatively

(3.1), while the public image of the organization is expected to benefit most (4.1) from a transition to a circular economy.

The embeddedness of circular economy concepts is highest in retailers and distributors (N = 2) and recycling agencies (N

= 4). However, retailers expect mostly negative changes and may thus become “prepared losers”. Product

manufacturers and waste managers have mostly negative perceptions of change and are thus likely to become

“unprepared losers”. Knowledge organizations and regulatory agencies have positive expectations of the change

towards a circular economy, regardless of the low embeddedness; thus, they may be `unprepared winners`.


Negative Positive

Em

be

dd

edn

ess H

igh

D – Retailers/distributors


Lo

w C – Product manufacturers



J – Regulatory agencies

Table 8. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for stakeholders in the ELV value chain.


In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of

circular economy concepts and the effects of change towards a circular

economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the

interest stakeholders have in the change towards a circular economy.

Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of

change have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may

have interest in maintaining the status quo.

Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according to

the typology in Box 5. Stakeholders with low scores on interest, but high

on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while actors

with high scores on both interest and influence have the potential to

become key champions of the transition to a circular economy.

Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to play a

significant role in the transition to a circular economy would be limited

to the role of bystander. Below, the aspects of influence, interest and the

resulting typology will be discussed per stakeholder.

Product manufacturers: With high influence in the value chain but low


Box 5. Typology of stakeholders



interest in change, product manufacturers have the potential to become key obstructers to the transition to a circular

economy.

Retailers and distributors: Retailers and distributors report to have a low level of influence in the value chain. On top of

that, they have limited interest in the transition to a circular economy. In combination with their low activity level,

product manufacturers will likely take on the role of “sceptic bystander”.

Waste managers: Waste managers report low influence in the ELV value chain. Aside from that, they also have a

negative interest in change.

Recycling agencies: With sufficient influence to induce change, and the willingness to exert that influence, recycling

agencies have the potential to become key champions of circular economy in the ELV value chain.

Supporting stakeholders (knowledge- and regulatory agencies): The role of knowledge- and regulatory agencies will likely be mainly supportive. In the ELV value chain, both knowledge- and regulatory organizations have a positive interest in change, so will be enthusiastic bystanders to the transition process.




methodology can be found in Annex 2. In total, 68 European projects were executed in the period between 1984 and

2015, some of them ongoing. These projects received more than € 124 million in funding3 with an average of € 2 million

per project. In Figure 15 the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized. Figure 16 depicts the participation in EU

projects per country for the ELV-value chain.

3 No or inconsistent funding reported before FP5.

0 0 0

3

9 10

14

24

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

No

. of

pro

ject

s

Figure 15. Number of EU projects on the topic of ELV (per

framework programme).

Figure 16. ELV project participation in European countries.



A clear upward trend in the number of projects in each funding programme can be observed, with a peak in the Seventh

Framework Programme. Once again, since the Horizon 2020 programme is only in year 2 of its duration of 7 years, there

are few H2020 projects included. In addition, an analysis was made of countries involved in the projects related to ELV.

Figure 16 contains the results of this analysis, showing the amount of times organizations from each country

participated in these collaborative research projects. Germany and France are top participants in the research on ELV,

followed by Spain and the UK.

As for the organizations involved in these projects, in total 671 partners were involved, of which 553 different

organizations. 66 organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project is 10.The most

active organizations are tabulated below.


1 Centro Ricerche Fiat S.C.P.A. (IT) 11

2 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V (DE) 6

3 Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation (ES) 6

4 Renault S.A.S. (FR) 6

5 Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (DE) 5

6 Solvay S.A. (BE) 5

7 Technische Universität Berlin (DE) 5

8 Volvo Car Corporation (FI) 5

9 Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IT) 4


Table 9. Top participants in projects on the topic of ELV

Table 9 shows the involvement of four industry partners, of which three major car manufacturers. This division is

reflected in the overall division between industry and knowledge organizations in participation in ELV projects4, i.e. 58%

knowledge organizations versus 42% industry participants. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) Fiat

Research Centre; (2) Renault S.A.S. (3) Solvay S.A. (4) Volvo Car Corporation, (5) Saft S.A.

4 Analysis of all organizations that participated twice or more. This analysis reflects the share of organizations, not the

number of projects participated in.

At present, ten European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon 2020. More information on the projects

can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects

available for its stakeholders:

DEVULC (coordinator: Phenix-technologies): Novel Devulcanization Machine for Industrial and Tyre Rubber Recycling

(www.devulc.eu).

LATEXFRI (coordinator: Fibroline): Latex replacement for automotive interior felts and building industry (www.latexfri-

project.com).

SHREDDERSORT (coordinator: Lenz Instruments): Selective recovery of non-ferrous metal automotive shredder by

combined electromagnetic tensor spectroscopy and laser-induced plasma spectroscopy (www.shreddersort.eu).

SMART (coordinator: European Tyres Association): Sustainable Moulding of Articles from Recycled Tyres

(http://www.smart-recycle.eu/).

http://www.devulc.eu/

http://www.latexfri-project.com/

http://www.latexfri-project.com/

http://www.shreddersort.eu/

http://www.smart-recycle.eu/



RETYRE (coordinator: UAB Gumos Technologijos): Recycling waste tyres into devulcanized rubber (www.retyre-

project.eu).

DEMETER (coordinator: KU Leuven): Training Network for the Design and Recycling of Rare-Earth Permanent Magnet

Motors and Generators in Hybrid and Full Electric Vehicles (www.etn-demeter.eu).

EVOLUTION (coordinator: Aalborg Universitet): The Electric Vehicle revOLUTION enabled by advanced materials

highly hybridized into lightweight components for easy integration and dismantling providing a reduced life cycle cost

logic (www.evolutionproject.eu).

TAIMEE (coordinator: Acondicionamiento Tarrasense Associacion): Thermal and Acoustic Insulating Material from

Finished Leather Waste (www.taimee-project.eu).

BIOFIBROCAR (coordinator: AITEX): Melt Spun Fibres Based on Compostable Biopolymers for Application in

Automotive Interiors (www.biofibrocar.aitex.es).

COLABATS (coordinator: C-Tech Innovation): Cobalt and lanthanide recovery from batteries

(http://www.colabats.eu/).

Box 6. On-going projects on ELV

http://www.retyre-project.eu/

http://www.retyre-project.eu/

http://www.etn-demeter.eu/

http://www.evolutionproject.eu/

http://www.taimee-project.eu/

http://www.biofibrocar.aitex.es/

http://www.colabats.eu/



6. TOWARDS A NEAR-ZERO WASTE EUROPE

The NEW_InnoNet platform stimulates the development and implementation of near-zero waste technologies and

innovations. Without market uptake of these technologies, development of new innovations, and elimination of non-

technological market hurdles the ambitious EU waste targets will not be fulfilled. NEW_InnoNet believes that

stakeholder involvement and cooperation are in this respect essential. This chapter describes how the stakeholder

analysis provides guidelines for the platform to facilitate more collaboration and involvement. The chapter starts with an

analysis of the expectations of stakeholders from a European near-zero waste platform.

6.1. STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS

In order to get an understanding of stakeholders’ expectations of a European platform on near-zero waste, a targeted

question was included in the survey. The question asked stakeholders about their expectations of several functions of a

platform. Figure 17 shows that the majority of respondents reported (very) positive expectations (N = 118).

A very large majority (85%) expects that a European platform on near-zero waste can – and should – provide networking

opportunities. Further, substantial majorities of respondents also expect a role of the platform in providing: (1)

participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling (71%); (2) knowledge on funding and business opportunities

(67%); and (3) their organization with a voice in developing EU policy (65%).

Stakeholders have least expectations of the platform – although still 53% – on providing services to facilitate the

innovation process. NEW_InnoNet has actually developed its website in such a way that it already provides this kind of

services. The website provides in its current form search functions for: funding; relevant project (funded and proposed);

patents; and scientific literature. In addition, it is possible to propose your own project ideas and search for partners.

Based on the outcomes of the stakeholder analysis, NEW_InnoNet platform will consult stakeholders to get feedback on

the added value of – and points of improvements for – these services.

6.2. TOWARDS A PLATFORM STRUCTURE

The analyses of stakeholders’ perspectives and positions on near-zero waste and the circular economy provide

guidelines and focus areas for the NEW_InnoNet platform. In combination with the stakeholder expectations discussed

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

…networking opportunities.

…participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling …

…knowledge on funding and business opportunities.

…my organization with a voice in developing EU policy

…services to facilitate the innovation process, e.g. regarding …

Somewhat agree Agree Completely agree

Figure 17. Stakeholder expectations of a near-zero waste platform



above (chapter 7.1), three main platform pillars can be identified: (1) Information sharing; (2) Networking and front-

runners; and (3) Facilitating bottom-up actions. The three pillars are discussed in detail beneath.

Information sharing:

Although stakeholders are aware of near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts, the average level

of expertise should be considered as relatively low. In addition, knowledge is fragmented in different sectors and among

stakeholders (chapter 3.2). Low levels of expertise are a possible constraint on the adaptation of near-zero waste

technologies and circular economy concepts. Comparison of respondents with high and low levels of expertise indicate a

positive correlation between expertise and attitude. A correlation that can be observed in all three value chains (see

Table 10).

Expertise

Low High

Attitude (overall) 4.6 5.1

Attitude (WEEE) 4.6 5.1

Attitude (Plastics) 4.8 5.4

Attitude (ELV) 4.5 4.8

Table 10. Comparison of stakeholders' attitude based

on their level of expertise

The lack of expertise hampers adaptation of near-zero waste technologies also in a direct way, i.e. stakeholders might

not be aware of possible innovative solutions for their problems. The roadmapping exercise in work package 3 of the

NEW_InnoNet project shows, however, that numerous ideas and developments are around (NEW_InnoNet forthcoming

a). NEW_InnoNet will therefore disclose – and complement – this information in a web-based database. The database

will subsequently be open for new entries by stakeholders.

A second focus area will be the large body of knowledge that has been developed in the context of European projects.

The analyses of chapters 3.4, 4.4 and 5.4 show that an increasing number of projects have been funded by the European

Commission. Figure 18 depicts this growing number body of knowledge by showing the cumulative number of project

over time. NEW_InnoNet will attempt to make these projects more visible for stakeholders, e.g. via the website

(http://www.newinnonet.eu/?artid=16) and by inviting projects for NEW_InnoNet conferences (see also NEW_InnoNet

2016a). In addition, project coordinators will be asked to reflect and/or provide input on several NEW_InnoNet activities,

e.g. on the web-based database and the draft roadmaps for WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging.

http://www.newinnonet.eu/?artid=16



Figure 18. Cumulative body of projects on the topics of Plastics, WEEE and ELV

Networking and front-runners:

Stakeholders expect networking opportunities from a European platform (see Figure 17). Analysis of characteristics of

collaborating stakeholders provide additional reasons to facilitate networking between stakeholders, i.e. a comparison

between stakeholders that collaborate frequently (N = 86) and stakeholders that collaborate less often (N = 47) indicate

a positive correlation between collaboration and level of expertise. This correlation can be observed in all three value

chains (see Table 11).

Collaboration

Low High

Expertise (overall) 3.0 4.2

Expertise (WEEE) 3.1 4.2

Expertise (Plastics) 2.7 4.0

Expertise (ELV) 3.7 4.3

Table 11. Comparison of stakeholders’ expertise based on their level of collaboration

At the same time, analyses of the collaboration structures in the WEEE, Plastics and ELV value chains indicate that a lot

of collaboration is already taking place (see also Figure 19). Most collaborations cluster, however, at the beginning and

end phases of the value chain. A focus area for the NEW_InnoNet platform will therefore be networking throughout the

value chain – and also between value chains. The platform has started doing this already in the organization of its

stakeholder conference whereby an integrated set-up was chosen (see NEW_InnoNet 2016a). Also the integration

workshops in work package 4 will provide opportunities to organize this kind of networking.

0

50

100

150

200

250

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

20

14

No

. of

pro

ject

s, c

um

ula

tive

Plastics

WEEE

ELV



Figure 19. Network graphs visualizing collaboration in the plastics value chain (left), WEEE value chain (center) and ELV value

chain (right)

Networking events are also an opportunity to fulfill the another expectation of stakeholders, i.e. provide participants

visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling. The stakeholder conference gave frontrunners already an opportunity

to present themselves as key-note speakers (see NEW_InnoNet 2016a). The development of future use cases (work

package 4) and the website will be used by the NEW_InnoNet platform to continue the facilitation of a (digital) platform

for front-runners.

Facilitating bottom-up actions:

Earlier analysis of the three value chains indicated commonalities between the WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging value

chain, but also large differences (NEW_InnoNet forthcoming b). The stakeholder analysis confirms this observation. The

main bottlenecks and R&D priority of these three value chains are for example different (see Table 12).

Most important…

…bottleneck …R&D priority

WEEE “Miniaturisation, complexity, integration of functions” “Design for recycling”

Plastics “Bad product design” “Waste prevention/reduction”

ELV “Low-cost of energy recovery and landfill versus material

recovery”

“Market dynamics”

Table 12. Most important bottlenecks and R&D priorities in in the value chains

The differences between the value chains indicate that there is not a silver bullet solution for implementation of circular

economy concepts. The NEW_InnoNet platform will therefore support bottom-up initiatives and actions. By facilitating

stakeholders to put issues on the agenda and to develop their ideas in collaboration with other stakeholders,

NEW_InnoNet will not only increase commitment but (more importantly) induce actions for actual change. The platform

can in this respect develop itself as a safe haven or incubator for innovative collaborations for near-zero waste

technologies and a circular Europe.



REFERENCES

European Commission 2015a. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste.

European Commission 2015b. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE

COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Closing

the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. (COM/2015/0614 final).

Directive 94/62/EC of European Parliament and Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L

365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ L 182, 16.07.1999, p. 1).

Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end of life vehicles (OJ L

269, 21.10.2000, p. 34-43).

Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators

and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ L 266, 26.09.2006, p. 1-14).

Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic

equipment (OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 38-71).

NEW_InnoNet 2016a. Report on the first stakeholder meeting.

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%201%202_%20RP_vFinal_Report%20on%20the%20stakeholder%20event%

20(combined%20D1.2.a%20%20D1.2.b).pdf

NEW_InnoNet 2016b. Analysis of the End of Life Vehicle value chain.

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.3_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20En

d-of-Life%20Vehicle%20chain.pdf

NEW_InnoNet 2016c. Analysis of the plastic packaging value chain.

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.4_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20pla

stic%20packaging%20value%20chain2.pdf

NEW_InnoNet 2016d. Analysis of the WEEE value chain.

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.2_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20W

EEE%20Vehicle%20chain.pdf

NEW_InnoNet (forthcoming a). Report on the draft roadmaps of WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging.

NEW_InnoNet (forthcoming b). Report on cross-linking of the results per value chain.

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%201%202_%20RP_vFinal_Report%20on%20the%20stakeholder%20event%20(combined%20D1.2.a%20%20D1.2.b).pdf

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%201%202_%20RP_vFinal_Report%20on%20the%20stakeholder%20event%20(combined%20D1.2.a%20%20D1.2.b).pdf

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.3_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20End-of-Life%20Vehicle%20chain.pdf

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.3_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20End-of-Life%20Vehicle%20chain.pdf

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.4_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20plastic%20packaging%20value%20chain2.pdf

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.4_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20plastic%20packaging%20value%20chain2.pdf

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.2_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20WEEE%20Vehicle%20chain.pdf

http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.2_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20WEEE%20Vehicle%20chain.pdf



ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: SURVEY METHODOLOGY

In order to generate more in-depth information about the value chains, a stakeholder survey was conducted. The

questionnaire served two purposes: first of all, to map the current playing field in terms of organizations’ knowledge,

influence, interest and attitude towards zero-waste concepts. Secondly, to identify barriers to that organizations in the

value chain experience in their transition towards a zero-waste economy. Care was taken to make sure a balance

between academic composition of the questions, specific stakeholder input to the project and user-friendliness. Below,

the main methodological aspects of the survey components are discussed.

1.1. Definition of a value chain stakeholder

A stakeholder is an actor (either a person or an organization) who has a vested interest. In this study, this means an actor

who has a vested interest in a value chain, whereby the study focuses specifically on three different value chains:

Electronics and electric equipment (WEEE: Waste Electronics and Electric Equipment);

Automotive (ELV: End-of-Life Vehicles);

Fast moving consumer goods (Plastic packaging).

Vested interest has been defined differently in different stakeholder analyses, i.e. from very inclusive (including almost

everybody) to very narrow (including only a very select group of actors). In this study, a distinction is made between

primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders:

Primary stakeholders: actors that are directly involved in the value chain. Changes in the value chain have direct

consequences for the (core) activities of these actors;

Secondary stakeholders: actors that are indirectly involved in the value chain, e.g. by performing supporting or

regulatory activities. Changes in the value chain do not have direct consequences for the (core) activities of

these actors. However, these actors can influence (or can be influenced by) change in a value chain;

Tertiary stakeholders: actors that do not have an involvement in the value chain, but (potentially) can become

involved. As tertiary stakeholders, these actors are by-standers, but changes in the value chain can change

these actors into primary or secondary stakeholders.

The object of analysis in this study is the value chain. The study focuses therefore mainly on primary and secondary

stakeholders. The stakeholder list was drafted by merging lists of stakeholders identified by the project partners. A wide

range of stakeholders was included, ranging from manufacturing to waste management companies to governance

bodies. This list was supplemented with stakeholders that were identified by their involvement in the NEW_InnoNet

project, participation in previous EU projects on the topic of circular economy in their value chain, and by closely

studying the supply chain of different value chains. The full list of stakeholders can be found in Annex 4.

1.2 Organization, distribution and response

The survey was distributed to the list of 670 stakeholders previously identified. The first round of surveys was distributed

digitally using an online questionnaire, and was disseminated mainly through e-mail and social media campaigns. In

order to increase the response rate, telephone interviews were planned with 35 stakeholders. These were approached



through the contact list as well as through existing contacts at PNO and consortium partners. Finally, during the

project’s stakeholder conference, a paper questionnaire was distributed, generating 8 more responses.

In total, 120 surveys were completed and 191 were partially completed, indicating a response rate of >18%. For some

questions, the partial responses were included, increasing the individual response rate up to 29%. These numbers are not

unusual for this type of survey and thus judged to be satisfactory.

1.3. Background information

First of all, respondents are asked to indicate in which value chain they are most active, enabling the use of specific

follow-up questions as well as comparison between value chains. While some organizations are likely to be active in

multiple value chains (e.g. waste managers, NGOs), it was emphasized to take the survey for the value chain the

organization is most active in.

Question 2 of the questionnaire (see annex 3).

Secondly, the stakeholders are asked to categorize their organization according to Figure 20,

Figure 20. Value chain characterization

Categories A – G encompass primary stakeholders, while categories H – J contain secondary stakeholders. Category K

will contain mostly tertiary stakeholders. Ideally, this categorization will enable a comparison of characteristics between

different categories of stakeholders.


1.4. Main stakeholder characteristics

In this paragraph, the main characteristics used to map the playing field are conceptualized and operationalized.

1.4.1. Influence/power



Influence is the ability of an actor to change or control the behavior of other actors. In this way, influence (or the lack of

it) is a key characteristic of stakeholders, i.e. it determines the extent to which a stakeholder has the ability to change

the behavior of other value chain actors. In this study, influence is understood as a property (a stakeholder can rely on

certain sources of power) as well as an activity (a stakeholder is actually willing to exert these sources of power to change

the behavior of others).

Stakeholder influence is defined as the ability of a stakeholder to change or control the behavior of other actors in the

value chain. This ability can be based on different sources of power. In this analysis, a distinction is made between five

sources of power:

Legitimate power is derived from a formal role that an organization holds within the value chain, e.g. the power

that can be derived from having a regulatory position.

Expert power is derived from possessing knowledge in a particular (key) area, e.g. the statements of an

organization with expertise are perceived as more valuable than the statements of other organizations.

Economic power is derived from the financial means that an organization possesses, e.g. an organization with

large financial means can financially reward (provide order) or punish (withdraw order) other actors in the value

chain.

Positional power is derived from the position that an organization holds within the value chain, e.g. an

organization acts performs its activities in a crucial step of the value chain.

Referent power is derived from respect for and the charisma of an organization, e.g. an organization with well-

known brand has influence because other organizations like to collaborate.

For each of these aspects, an item was created. Influence is thus measured by respondents’ self-evaluation of different

types of power on a 6-point scale. Aside from just influence, the willingness to exert this power (activity) is measured by

including a question about the different types of activity the stakeholder is engaged in. Once again this is done on a 6-

point scale.

Question 4 (influence) and question 5 (willingness to exert influence) of the questionnaire (see annex 3).

1.4.2. Knowledge

Knowledge entails a (theoretical or practical) familiarity, awareness and/or understanding of a phenomenon, which can

express itself in facts, information, description or skills. This stakeholder characteristic is of importance in this study as

actors require knowledge to actually change their organization towards zero waste practices. In the analysis, a

distinction is made between two different types of knowledge:

Technical knowledge refers to an understanding of zero waste technologies and processes

Socio-organizational knowledge, which is an composed of three types of knowledge:

o Economic knowledge refers to an understanding of the economies of zero waste interventions and

approaches.

o Regulatory knowledge refers to an understanding of zero waste policies and regulation.

o Organizational knowledge refers to an understanding of organizational principles of zero waste

approaches.

Measuring knowledge is done by including 4 examples of technological knowledge and 4 of socio-organizational

knowledge. While these examples are non-exhaustive, they are expected to give a good indication of the stakeholders’

knowledge of circular economy concepts.




1.4.3. Interest

Stakeholders are actors with a vested interest in a value chain. Identifying and assessing the interest of an actor is

therefore a first step in a stakeholder analysis. The analysis of this study focuses both on a stakeholder’s interest in the

current value chain (status quo) and its interests in changes in the value chain. Stakeholders’ interest in the status quo is

measured by the level of embeddedness of circular economy principles on different levels (e.g. strategic, tactical, and

operational). The embeddedness on 5 different aspects is measured on a 6-point scale.

Stakeholders’ interest in change is measured by asking for the perceived effect of a fully circular economy on five

different aspects of an organization (e.g. profitability, independency), once again on a 6-point scale.

Question 7 (embeddedness) and question 8 (effects of change) of the questionnaire (see annex 3).

1.4.4. Attitude

An attitude is an expression of favor, disfavor or ambivalence toward an specific “attitude object” (person, place,

concept, etc.). Attitude is a personal tendency and does not necessarily tell something about the organization where

somebody works. In this analysis, we therefore included attitude only to compare the attitudes of respondents working

for the same type of organization and as a control variable.

Attitude is commonly measured by using the semantic differential technique, in which a concept is evaluated on a scale

between two bipolar adjectives. It can be constructed to measure an evaluation, potency or activity. In this case, the

concept of a circular economy is measured by five evaluative adjectives on a 6-point scale. In addition, the desirability of

a circular economy is measured by asking respondents for the favorability of circular economy over a linear economy

with regard to certain subjects (e.g. their organization, sector or the environment).

Question 9 (attitude) and question 10 (circular economy vs. linear economy) of the questionnaire (see Annex 3).

1.4.5. Collaboration

Value chain collaborations are required to reach a European near-zero waste economy. NEW_InnoNet mobilizes

stakeholders to build such collaborations and to participate in circular economies. At the on-set of this endeavor, it is

important to gain insight into what kind of collaborations have to be stimulated.

The current state of affairs provides insight into the collaborations that already exist between value chain actors. By

taking stock of the existing collaborations, the analysis provide showcase examples of collaborations. In addition, it

provides insight into differences within and between value chains. By taking stock of the desired collaborations, an

overview occurs of “collaboration gaps” that are relatively easy to close.

Respondents are asked to indicate the level of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the

same characterization as question 3. The level of collaboration was measured on a 6-point scale.

Question 12 of the questionnaire (see Annex 3)



1.5. Stakeholder input

The second part of the survey is reserved for stakeholder input to the project. Three different sections are discussed

here: barriers to the implementation of a circular economy, future areas of research and development and the

expectations of a European (near) zero-waste platform.

1.5.1. Barriers to a circular economy

In WP2 of this project, several barriers to implementation of a fully circular economy were identified (NEW_InnoNet

2016b; 2016c, 2016d). These barriers are specific to each value chain. In order to validate these barriers from a bottom-

up perspective, stakeholders are asked to agree or disagree to the impeding nature of the bottlenecks. In addition, there

is one open field in order to give stakeholders the opportunity to add any bottlenecks they experience.


1.5.2. Future areas of research and development

Since one of the main goals of the NEW_InnoNet project is to identify future areas of research and development for the

Strategic Research- and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) of the European Commission, it is essential to gain stakeholder input

on this topic. Seven areas of potential R&D topics have been included, as well as one open field to offer stakeholders a

chance to add their unique input.


1.5.3. Expectations of a European near-zero waste platform

The final survey question assesses stakeholder needs and expectations in order to explore the next steps of the

NEW_InnoNet platform. Five potential functions of the NEW_InnoNet project were listed, as well as one open field.

These expectations were rated on a 6-point scale.




ANNEX 2: MATCHPOINT METHODOLOGY

In this section the methodology of the Matchpoint analysis will be described. An analysis was made of the amount of

funded projects over time, type and amount of project partners and amount of funding over time. This was done using

Matchpoint, a tool developed by PNO Consultants to analyze databases on patents, technical papers and funded

projects. The funded projects section is based on the CORDIS database, which is the European Commission’s primary

public repository and portal to disseminate information on all EU-funded research projects and their results. Matchpoint

enables the user to extract large amounts of data based on search parameters such as subject, project partner or

framework programme.

The following paragraphs describe the steps that were taken in each topic in order to filter the results and select relevant

projects.

2.1. Electronic and Electric Equipment/WEEE

In the keywords used in the WEEE study are displayed. These keywords were used with a combination of different

search operators (quotation marks, AND) in order to specify the results.

WEEE urban mining

electronic waste WEEE zero waste

electric waste electronic zero waste

electric and electronics WEEE circular economy

Table 13. Keywords used in WEEE Matchpoint study

The results were manually selected by applying the criteria in paragraph 2.4 of this Annex. 56 projects remained, that

were conducted between 1982 and 2015 between the Third Framework Programme and Horizon 2020.

2.2. Fast Moving Consumer Goods/Plastic packaging

In Table 14 the keywords used in the plastic packaging study are displayed.

packaging recycle food polymer recycle

paper recycle waste sorting

plastic recycle shelf life packaging

PET recycle biopolymer packaging

bioplastic packaging plastic packaging circular economy

plastic packaging zero waste

Table 14. Keywords used in the plastic packaging Matchpoint study

The results were manually selected by applying the criteria in paragraph 2.4 of this Annex. 101 projects remained, that

were conducted between 1983 and 2015 in all seven framework programmes and Horizon 2020.

2.3. Automotive/End-of-life vehicles

The keywords that were used are displayed below. They were used with different search operators in order to yield the

most focused results.



end-of-life vehicle recycling automotive refurbishing

car recycling automotive zero waste

automotive recycling automotive battery recycling

ELV recycling car battery recycling

vehicle recycling vehicle battery recycling

automotive metals recycling end-of-life vehicle battery

automotive plastic recycling Automotive circular economy

Table 15. Keywords used in the ELV Matchpoint study

Since many projects were returned by more than one keyword, it was not possible to categorize them by search terms.

Therefore, results were aggregated, and duplicated were removed. To reduce the search corpus, projects that did not

contain the words ‘automotive’ or ‘vehicle’ in the objective were excluded. The accuracy of this method was verified by

checking a sample of the excluded projects.

The remaining results were manually selected for relevancy according to the selection criteria in the paragraph 2.4 of

this Annex. After the selection, 66 projects remained. These projects were carried out between 1993 and 2015 in the

context of Framework Programmes three to seven and Horizon 2020. In order to be able to analyse the results,

organization names were harmonized and different departments of the same organization were grouped.

2.4. Selection criteria

In all value chains, the following selection criteria were applied:

- Projects on the topics of zero-waste, circular economy or closing the loop focused on the automotive,

electronics or plastic packaging industry or the manufacturing industry in general, including one of the value

chains as a case study.

- Projects focused on the following topics:

o Eco-design;

o Refurbishing, repair, remanufacturing;

o Disassembly and sorting/separation technologies;

o Recycling technologies.

- Projects on material or energy efficiency in manufacturing in one of the value chains, not including fuel

efficiency in the use phase.

- Projects on the (sustainable) end-of-life management of products from the value chain or components that

completely or mainly originate from the relevant industry.

- Projects on data collection, knowledge dissemination and integration on the topic of any of the subjects listed

above.

- Only vehicles that are included in the definition of ELV according to the ELV directive (2000/53/EC); type M1 and

N1.


ANNEX 3: FULL QUESTIONNAIRE

Welcome to the NEW_InnoNet survey!

Thank you for taking part in this survey. This survey is part of a stakeholder analysis performed in the context of the H2020 NEW_InnoNet project. This

project will result in roadmaps and a strategic research- and innovation agenda for the European Commission on the topic of waste and the circular

economy. It is essential that this agenda is supported by different types of stakeholders, including industry, government and knowledge institutes,

which is why we will be gathering your thoughts and opinions on the future of the European circular economy in this survey.

The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes. Responses will remain anonymous. To read more about the NEW_Innonet project, go to

http://www.newinnonet.eu.

Background information

1) My organization is a:

O Company – SME O Company - Large O University/Research organization O Governmental organization O Non-profit organization O Other - (please specify): ______________________

2) My organization is based in the following country:

3) Which of the following value chains and associated waste streams has your organization's main interest?

O Automotive - End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV)

O Fast Moving Consumer Goods - plastic packaging

O Electronics and Electrical Equipment - Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE )

The value chain

4) In the following diagram the different stages in the value chain are represented. Please indicate in which phase your organization is predominantly active in.

My organization is predominantly active in the following phase of the value chain:

O A - Raw material production O B - Component manufacturing O C - Product manufacturing O D - Retailing / distributing O E - Waste collecting O F - Waste managing O G - Recycling of intermediates/upgrading O H - Providing funding for the value chain O I - Providing knowledge or information for the value chain O J - Providing regulation for the value chain O Other - (please specify): * _______________________




4) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:

In the value chain, my organization has…

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

…a large market share

…influence on regulatory issues

…a large network

…visibility as a value chain front-runner

…highly valued knowledge and information of the value chain


In the value chain, my organization participates in…

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

…dialogues with other organizations

…collaborations with other organizations

…collaborative research projects with other organizations

…platform organizations

…lobbying activities

Circular economy (1)

NEW_InnoNet is about the Circular Economy: what used to be regarded as ‘waste’ can be turned into valuable new resources. The aim is to look beyond waste and to close the loop of the circular economy in which resources are managed more efficiently throughout their life cycle. A visualization of this concept is displayed below.

6) Please indicate the level of expertise in your organization on the following aspects:

Very low

2 3 4 5 Very high

Product (eco- or re)design of plastic packaging

Waste collection and sorting technologies

Recycling technologies

Tracking and marker technologies to simplify detection of different materials

'Circular' business models, investment schemes or financing mechanisms

National and European directives

Environmental impact of your value chain´s waste disposal

Extended producer responsibility schemes


My organization has incorporated the notion of circular economy in…

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

…the mission statement

…communication activities (e.g. press releases)

…investment decisions

…daily work practices

…training of employees



8) Please indicate the extent to which you agree that a fully circular economy would have a positive effect on the following aspects:

A fully circular value chain would have a positive influence on...

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

…the market share of my organization

…the profitability of my organization

…the independency of my organization

…the societal legitimacy (public image) of my organization

…the network of my organization

9) Please rate the concept of a circular economy on the following dimensions:

The circular economy is…

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

Feasible

Desirable

Necessary

Important

Appealing


A circular economy is better than a linear economy for…

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

…my organization

…my sector

…the economy

…the labor market

…the environment

Circular economy (2)

11) How often does your organization collaborate with organizations in the following phases of the value chain on issues related to the circular economy?

Nev

er

Ver

y ra

rely

Rar

ely

Occ

asio

nal

ly

Fre

qu

entl

y

Ver

y fr

equ

entl

y

A - Raw material production

B - Component manufacturing

C - Product manufacturing

D - Retailing/distributing

E - Waste collecting

F - Waste managing

G - Recycling of intermediates/upgrading

H - Providing funding for the value chain

I - Providing knowledge or information, e.g. consultancy, research

J - Providing regulation for the value chain, e.g. laws, standards

Other (please specify)



Answer the following question only when you are active in the fast moving consumer goods/plastic packaging value chain.

12a) Please indicate the extent to which you agree that the following aspects are barriers to a circular economy:

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

Limited source separation of plastic packaging waste;

Bad product design;

Export of plastic packaging waste for recycling outside EU;

Performance of separation and sorting technology;

Performance of recycling technology;


Answer the following question only when you are active in the automotive/end-of-life vehicles value chain.

12a) Please indicate the extent to which you agree that the following aspects are barriers to a circular economy:

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

Inadequate performance of ELV collection and monitoring;

Inadequate performance of vehicle dismantling and reuse;

Low-cost of energy recovery and landfill versus material recovery;

Inadequate performance of the separation, sorting and refining technology;

Limited and low quality applications of non-metallic ELV materials;


Answer the following question only when you are active in the (waste) electrical and electronic equipment value chain.

12c) Please indicate the extent to which you agree that the following aspects are barriers to a circular economy:

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

Illegal export of WEEE outside EU;

Product design aspects: Miniaturisation, complexity, integrating of multiple functions;

Rapid changes in designs and materials;

No incentives to develop recyclable materials and products;

Fluctuating raw material prices.


More research and development is needed into...

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

Design for recycling;

Waste prevention/reduction;

Performance of collection schemes;

Monitoring of waste streams;

Performance of separation, sorting and refining;

Policy and regulation;

Market dynamics.




NEW_InnoNet (2)

The NEW_InnoNet project is an initiative to establish a European stakeholder platform for the circular economy. The main goal of the project is to mobilize stakeholders towards building a circular economy by facilitating cooperation within or along different value chains, pooling resources and defining a common vision.

14) What are your expectations of such a European near-zero waste platform?

My expectation is that such a European platform provides…

Strongly disagree

2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

…my organization with a voice in developing EU policy.

…networking opportunities.

…knowledge on funding and business opportunities.

…services to facilitate the innovation process, e.g. regarding patent searches, getting access to scientific papers, project development.

…participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling and sustainability.


Thank You! Thank you for taking our survey. Your response is very important to us. For questions or more information about this survey, please contact [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDER LIST

Austria Alchemia-nova GmbH International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) Sat-research Saubermacher Technische Universität Wien Univie Verband Österreichischer Entsorgungsbetriebe

(VOEB) Wolfgang Denzel AG

Belgium Agoria ANEC Anteagroup ArcelorMittal Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and

Sustainable Resource Management (ACR+) Association of European Adhesives and Sealants

Manufacturers (FEICA) Association of European Ferro-Alloy producers

(EUROALLIAGES) Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association

(APRA) Avere (European Association for Battery, Hybrid and

Electric Cars) Bebat BEBAT Beherman Motors N.V. Belgian Scrap Terminal Biomimicry BMW Bond Beter Leefmillieu (BBL) Bostoen Bouygues Brussels Management School (ICHEC) Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) Campine Centre for European Policy Studies City of Antwerpen City of Gent Coberec Comet Traitements SA Committee on Environment, Health and Food Safety

(EU Parliament) Covenant of Mayors Critical Raw Materials Alliance CSR Europe (European Business Network for

Corporate Social Responsibility) Departement Economie, Wetenschap en Innovatie

Vlaanderen

Digital Europe ENIAC Joint Undertaking (PPP) Eucobat EUnited Eurobat Eurocities Eurofer EuroGeoSurveys Eurometaux Europabio Europeam Composites Industry Association (EuCIA) European Aluminium European Association of Automotive Suppliers

(CLEPA) European Association of Cities and Regions for

Recycling and Sustainable Resource Management (ACR+)

European Association of Plastics Recycling & Recovery Organisations (EPRO)

European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA)

European Battery Recycling Association (EBRA) European Bioplastics European Brands Association European Cement Association (Cembureau) European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) European Commission - DG Environment European Commission - DG Grow European Commission - DG Research & Innovation European Commission - European Resource Efficiency

Platform European Commission - Executive Agency for SMs

(EASME) European Committee of Domestic Equipment

Manufacturers (CECED) European Community of Consumer Co-operatives

(EUROCOOP) European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) European Copper Institute European Council for Automotive R&D (EUCAR) European Council for Motor Trades and Repairers

(CECRA) European Disposables and Nonwovens Association European Engineering Industries Association

(Orgalime) European Environmental Bureau (EEB) European Environmental Citizens Organisation for

Standardization (ECOS) European Federation of Waste Management and

Environmental Services (FEAD) European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials



European Innovation Partnership Smart Cities and Communities

European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN)

European Partners for the Environment European Power Electronics and Drives Association European Recycling Industries' Confederations (EuRIC) EUROPEAN SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY

ASSOCIATION European Small Volume Car Manufacturers Alliance European Steel Technology Platform (ESTEP) European Technology Platform for Advanced

Engineering Materials and Technologies (EuMaT) European Technology Platform on Sustainable Mineral

Resources (SMR) European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers Association

(ETRMA) Febelauto Federatie van Bedrijven voor Milieubeheer (Febem) Federatie van de Elektriciteit en de Elektronica

(Feebel) Fédération des Entreprises de Gestion de

l'Environnement - Federatie van Bedrijven voor Milieubeheer (FEBEM-FEGE)

Federplast Fehrl Flemish Goverment FoodDrinkEurope FostPlus Friends of the Earth Galloo Greennovate Greenwin Holcim Honda Motor Europe Ltd - Belgian Branch ICF International Imec Indaver Industrial Minerals Association (IMA) Intercommunale Leiedal Intergemeentelijke Maatschappij voor Openbare

Gezondheid (IMOG) KOMOSIE KU Leuven LKAB Manufuture (European Technology Platform for

Manufacturing) Morssinkhof Rymoplast Municipal Waste Europe Nanotechnology Industry Association Neemo Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffenmaatschappi (OVAM) OSMOS network PETCORE Europe Philips Plan C

Polymer Comply Europe Port of Antwerp Procter & Gamble BE Public Waste Agency of Flanders RECHARGE Recovinyl Recupel RECYBAT RREUSE RubberRecyclingOverpelt Schuiten Shanks Sita SITA/Suez Environment South Denmark European Office Starch Stelimet SuMMa SusChem (European Technology Platform for

Sustainable Chemistry) Sustainable Process Industry through Resource and

Energy Efficiency (SPIRE) Toyota Motor Europe Umicore Umicore Precious Metals Refining Urbact Val-i-Pac VinylPlus VKC Vlaams Instituut voor Logistiek (VIL) Vlaams Materialenprogramma VVSG/Interafval WEEE Forum Worldloop Worldsteel WWF Zero Waste Europe

Bulgaria

Balkan Star Motors

Croatia LMG Autokuca D.O.O.

Cyprus Fairway Motor Enterprises Ltd.

Czech Republic Mitsubishi Motors Czech Republic s.r.o



Denmark

Clean Cluster COWI European Environment Agency (EEA) Mitsubishi Motors Danmark AS United Federation of Danish Workers (3F)

Estonia AS Silberauto Estonian Waste Management Association (EWMA) Tartu Regiooni Energiaagentuur

Finland Aalto University - Material Science Association of Finnish Environmental Industries and

Services (YTP-Liitto) CLEEN ry Delta Motor Group Oy Ekokem Oy Elker Ltd (non-profit WEEE recycling service company) Federation of Finnish Technology Industries

(Teknologiateollisuus) Fimecc Finnish Car Recycling (Suomen autokierrätys) Finnish Environment Institute Finnish Ministry of Economy and Employment Finnish Ministry of Environment Finnish Packaging Recycling Rinki Finnish Plastics Industries Federation Finnish Plastics Recycling Ltd (Suomen uusiomuovi

Oy) Finnish Solid Waste Association Kuusakoski Oy Lassila&Tikanoja Microsoft Motiva Nokia Outotec SER-tuottajayhteisö ry (SERTY) Sitra Tekes University of Oulu Ymparisto

France Agency for the Environment and Energy (ADEME) Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières

(BRGM) Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB) CMI Groupe

Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)

COREPILE Eco-Emballages SA Eramet European Materials Research Society Fédération Nationale des Activités de la Dépollution et

de l’Environnement (FNADE) Federec French Ministry of Environment GE Healthcare Institut Economie Circulaire Irex Asso IRS Tea Lafarge Mitsubishi Motors France RECUPYL SAS SAFT Technical Center for the Mechanical Industry (Cetim) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Valeo Veolia

Germany Accurec Adam Opel AG AgPR Alba Bayer Braungart Bundesverband der Deutschen Entsorgungs-, Wasser-,

und Rohstoffwirtschaft (BDE) Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Stahlrecycling- und

Entsorgungsunternehmen (BDSV) Cluster Industrielle Biotechnologie (CLIB2021) Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and

Production GmbH (CSCP) Daimler Eco Care Recycling European Renewable Resources and Materials

Association Ford Motor Company Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Frauenhofer Institut Fraunhofer Gemeinsames Ruecknahmesystem Servicegesellschaft German Ministry of the Environment, Nature

Conservation and Transport Baden-Wuerttemberg Heidelberg Technology Center Helmholtz Institute Freiberg for Resource Efficiency ICT Fraunhofer International Council for Local Environmental

Initiatives (ICLEI) International Platinum Group Metals Association (e.V.)



Mitsubishi Motors Deutschland Next Hamburg North Denmark European Office PTJ- Jühlich Remondis Electrorecycling SK Hamburg STEP Initiative (+ United Nations University) Technische Universität Berlin Technische Universität Hamburg Umweltbundesamt Germany University of Applied Sciences Muenster University of Oldenburg VARTA Microbatteries Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau

(VDMA) VERE Volkswagenstiftung

Greece Association of Environmental Protection Agencies

(PASEPPE) General Secretariat for Research and Technology

(GSRT) Monolithos Catalysts & Recycling Ltd. Saracakis Brothers S.A. University of Athens School of Chemical Engineering

(Chemeng Ntua)

Hungary Mitsubishi Motors Import Ltd

Iceland Hekla HF

Ireland HOLFELD PLASTICS LIMITED Irish Enviromental Protection Agency Irish Waste Management Association (IWMA) WEEE Ireland

Italy Centro Ceramico (Cencerbo) Centro Sviluppo Materiali (CSM) Consorzioremedia Contarina D'appolonia Enco Consulting Federazione Imprese di Servizi - Assoambiente (FISE) Fiat Innovation Engineering

IRS Online Itia CNR Mitsubishi Motors Italy NOVAMONT SPA Polimi (Politecnico Milano) Primaindustrie Regione Lazio Regione Lombardia Service Industry Association (Federazione Imprese di

Servizi; FISE) University of Pisa University of Rome

Latvia Cleantech Latvia Latvian Association of Waste Management Companies

(LASUA) Mitsubishi Motors Latvia Imports

Lithuania JSC Autovytaras Vilniaus Universitetas (VU) - Chemijos Fakultetas

Luxembourg Association for Public Transport (FLEA) ECOBATTERIEN Fédération Luxembourgeoise des Entreprises

d'Assainissement (FLEA)

Macedonia Mak Autostar dooel

Netherlands ABN AMRO AEB Amsterdam AKZO Nobel Attero Automotive Centre of Expertise AutomotiveNL Beelen Bek & Verburg BinBang Biobased Packaging Innovations Cedo Center of Expertise Biobased Economy Circle-economy Circulus BV/Berkel Milieu NV CirkelLab City of Eindhoven Clean Tech Factory



Colgate-Palmolive ComputerRecycle Cumapol Delft University of Technology (TUD) Deltares Desso Dietz Droge & van Loo DNV GL DNV GL DPI Value Centre Dr. Oetker DSM Dusseldorp Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Dutch Waste Management Association (DWMA) Ecofys Ecomatters Elemetal Elsinga Beleidsplanning en Innovatie BV Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECN) European Electronics Recyclers European Group of Automotive Recycling Associations

(EGARA) Food Valley NL Fuenix Goudsmit Green Serendipity/Tassenbol Green Wave Plastics Greentech Alliances Heveskes Energy Holland Bioplastics Holland Recycling HVC ICL IP (Bromine company) iFixit ING Intertek Inverko Ionica IVAM UvA Johnson Controls Kennisinstituut Duurzaam Verpakken Kennisplatform Duurzaam Grondstoffenbeheer Koninklijke Bammens BV KplusV Organisatieadvies Kraft Foods Kunststof Recycling Nederland Leiden University Mitsubishi Motors Netherlands MRF Municipality of Amsterdam Municipality of Arnhem Municipality of Breda Municipality of Den Haag Municipality of Leeuwarden

Natural Plastics Nature Group Rotterdam (NGRP) Ned. Rubber- en Kunststofindustrie (NRK) Recycling Ned. Rubber- en Kunststofindustrie (NRK)

Verpakkingen Nederland ICT Nederlandse Cosmetica Vereniging Nederlandse Vereniging van Zeepfabrikanten Nederlandse Verwijdering Metalelektro Producten NEN Nestlé No Waste in Time (NOWIT) Oerlemans Plastics Orgaworld Nederland B.V. Paques Plastic Soup Foundation Plastics Europe Polymer Science Park Polymer Technology Group Polyscope Polymers Pon Holding Project Gijs.nl Province of Fryslân Pyroil QCP Rabobank RAIvereniging Recycled Park Recycling Consultants Nederland Recycling International Recycling Netwerk Rewin Rhenoy Group Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland SABIC Petrochemicals Schuttelaar & Partners Sita Benelux & Germany Sita Nederland Smart Delta Recourses Platform (Impuls Zeeland) StarSock STIBA Stibat Stichting Circulaire Economie Stichting de Noordzee SUEZ Tata Steel TNO Topteam Biobased Economy Triodos Triple Benefit Unilever United Nations University (Delft University) Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) University of Utrecht Copernicus Institute of

Sustainable Development University of Technology Eindhoven



Van Happen Van Maren systems VDL Parree Vereniging Afvalbedrijven (DWMA) Vereniging Nederlandse Chemische Industrie (VNCI) Vrije Universiteit (VU) VSL Dutch Metrology Institute Wecycle WEEE Nederland Yparex

Norway Alcoa Norway Batteriretur Federation of Norwegian Industries (NORSK

INDUSTRI) GPBM Nordic HYDRO Mitsubishi Motors Norway Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet

(NTNU) NORSK Hydro ASA Vestack

Poland Abrys ALIBABA ALBANIA Architectural Glass Processors Klaster Arcticpaper Association Hausing "Górnik" w Katowicach Association of Engineers and Technicians in the

Chemical Industry (Stowarzyszenia Inżynierów i Techników Przemysłu Chemicznego)

Association of Vehicle Recycling Poland (Stowarzyszenie Forum Recyklingu Samochodów)

ATMOTERM S.A. Basell Orlen Polyolefins Sp. z o.o. Bech Packaging Sp. z o.o. BSH Sprzet Gospodarstwa Domowego Sp. z o.o. Center for Use of Recycled Tires (Centrum Utylizacji

Opon Organizacja Odzysku S.A.) Center of Bioimmobilisation and Innovative Packaging

Materials / West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin

Central for Packaging Research and Development (Centralny Ośrodek Badawczo-Rozwojowy Opakowań)

Central Mining Institute (Główny Instytut Górnictwa) Coca Cola HBC Polska Sp. z o.o. D.K. LAMIN Sp. j. dr Robert Dziuba LEX-ACTIO Consulting ECOR Product Sp. z o.o. EdisonPolska

Electrolux Poland Sp. z o. o. Elektro Recykling Engineering and Trade Company "Technika" Ltd European Committee of Domestic Equipment

Manufacturers (CECED) Polska - Związek Pracodawców AGD

F.P.H.U. Rominex Fiat Auto Polska General Motors Manufacturing Poland Sp. z o.o. (Opel

Polska) Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska GPP Association of Ecology Granulator-Recykling Tworzyw Sztucznych Mateusz

Jureczko Grupa Azoty Grupa ORLEN Hewlett-Packard Polska Sp. z o.o. InnoCo ltd Institute of Biopolymers and Chemical Fibres Institute of Natural Fibres and Medicinal Plants Instytut Chemii Przemysłowej (Warszawa) Instytutu Inżynierii Materiałów Polimerowych i

Barwników (Toruń) Investeko S.A. Izba Gospodarcza Metali Nieżelaznych i Recyklingu Izba Przemysłowo – Handlowa Gospodarki Złomem KOBA ORGANIZACJA ODZYSKU S.A. Krzesła Radomsko LG Electronics Polska Sp. z o. o. MAGA® Zakład Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowy MAZOWIECKA AGENCJA ENERGETYCZNA SP. Z O.O. Media Markt Polska Ministerstwo Środowiska Mitsubishi Motors Poland Mostostal Waw Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki

Wodnej OLMET Sp. z o.o. P.P.H.U. MAJ-PLAST P.U.H. Center - Odzysk złomu metali z wszystkich

odpadów Panasonic Marketing Europe GmbH Philips Lightning Poland S.A. PLASTEKOL ORGANIZACJA ODZYSKU S.A. Polish Automotive Industry Association (Polski

Związek Przemysłu Motoryzacyjnego) Polish Chamber of Commerce - Non-ferrous Metals

and Recycling (Izba Gospodarcza Metali Nieżelaznych i Recyklingu)

Polish Chamber of Commerce - Recycling (Ogólnopolska Izba Gospodarcza Recyklingu)

Polish Chamber of Commerce (Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza)

Polish Chamber of Ecology (Polska Izba Ekologii) Polish Chamber of Packaging (Polska Izba Opakowań) Polish Chamber of Waste Management (PIGO)



Polish Chamber of Waste Management (PIGO) Polski Klub Ekologiczny Polski System Recyklingu Organizacja Odzysku

Opakowań SA Poznan University of Technology (Politechnika

Poznańska) Przedsiębiorstwo Obrotu Hurtowego "OŁER" Przetwórstwo Tworzyw Sztucznych Plast-Box S.A. PTH TECHNIKA Sp. z o.o. REEKO S.A., recovery Organization Rekopol Organizacja Odzysku Opakowań S.A REMONDIS Electrorecycling Sp. z o.o. Renault Katowice - Grupa Pietrzak Replast Samsung Electronics Polska Sp. z o.o. Silesian Union of Municipalities and Districts Silesian University of Technology Sutco-Polska Sp. z o.o. Tesco Polska TITECH Polska - TOMRA Sorting Sp. z o.o. University of Mining and Metallurgy Krakau - Faculty of

Materials Science and Ceramics (Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza w Krakowie - Wydział Inżynierii Materiałowej i Ceramiki)

University of Mining and Metallurgy Krakau - Faculty of Non-ferrous Metals (Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza w Krakowie - Wydział Metali Nieżelaznych)

University of Warsaw Volkswagen Poznan West Pomeranian University of Technology - Szczecin Zakład Przetwórstwa Tworzyw Sztucznych

WITOPLAST S.J.

Portugal Amb3E (Portuguese Association for Waste

Management) Iber Oleff Mitsubishi Motors Portugal

Romania ASOCIAŢIA ROMÂNĂ PENTRU MANAGEMENTUL

DEȘEURILOR (ARMD; Romanian Association of Waste Management)

M Car Trading Romanian Association for Waste Management (ARS)

Serbia Association of the Waste Industry of Serbia (IOS -

“HRABRI ČISTAČ“ ) INOTO D.O.O.

Slovakia Asociácia podnikateľov v odpadovom hospodárstve

(APOH; Slovak Association of Waste Management) Association for Entrepreneurs in Waste Management

(APOH) Mitsubishi Motors Slovakia s.r.o.

Slovenia Gorenje Orodjarna LAJOVIC TUBA EMBALAZA DOO

Spain Asociación Cluster Industrias de Componentes de

Automoicón (ACICAE) Asociación de Empresas Gestoras de Residuos y

Recursos Especiales (ASEGRE) Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación

(AENOR) ASOCIACIÓN NACIONAL DE GESTORES DE

RESIDUOS DE AUTOMOCIÓN (ANGEREA) Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de

Distribución (ANGED) Association for the Clean Murcia Region (ARML;

ASOCIACIÓN REGION DE MURCIA LIMPIA) Association of Environmental Industries (ACLIMA -

Asociación Cluster de Industrias del Medio Ambiente)

Befesa Aluminio (Leading Aluminium recycler) Bilboplastik B-Lux Cegasa CIE Automotive Council of Catalan Chambers of Commerce and

Industry Dragados ECO RAEE ECOASIMELEC Ecoembes ECOLEC ECOTIC Ekorec Plastic Recycling Elmet (Cupper Recycling, Metallo group) Emaus (Social Company for Selective Recycling) Eroski S.Coop. (Leading Spanish Retailer of Food and

others) European Commission - Joint Research Centre -

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS)

Euskaltel (Phone and Telecommunications Company) Factories of the Future (FoF) Fagor Automation, S.Coop. Fcirce



FRAGNOR,S.L Fundación ECOPILAS GAIA-Asociación de Industrias de las Tecnologías

Electrónicas y de la Información del País Vasco Gaiker Centro Tecnologico Gestamp Grupo Otua H-Enea Remanufacturing Indumetal Recycling, S.A. Ingeteam Irizar S.Coop Jubedi Kimika - Basque Chemical Association Koopera Leartiker (Research in Secondary Plastics) Lyrsa Mager MCC Mercedes Benz España Mitsubishi Motors España Rebattery Repsol Sigrauto Solintel Tuboplast Ulma Packaging Urbaser

Sweden Belmont Trading BIL Sweden Chalmers University City of Stockholm Elektronikåtervinningsföreningen i Sverige (EÅF) El-kretsen AB elretur AS ERP Region north Linköping University Polykemi Ragn-Sells Renas AS Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) SBR (Swedish Vehicle Recyclers Association) SC Auto Sweden AB Statistics Sweden Stena Recycling AB Stockholmvatten Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Swedish Geological Survey (SGU) Swedish Recycling Industries Association (SRI) Swerea IVF

Swerec Teknikforetagen TETRA PAK PACKAGING SOLUTIONS AB Volvo Car Corperation

Switzerland Dupont EMPA (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials

Science and Technology) ETH Zurich Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) Mitsubishi Motors Automobile Schweiz AG Supsi

Turkey TEMSA GLOBAL

United Kingdom Arup BIOPAC (UK) LIMITED Colt Car Company Ltd C-Tech Innovation Defra Ellen MacArthur Foundation Environmental Services Association (ESA) EPSRC Centre for Industrial Sustainability European Aluminium Institute European Metal Recycling Graham & Brown Granta design International Synergies IQE Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) Less Common Metals Ltd Mars PETCARE Recycling Technologies Ltd. Repic Ltd. Resource Association Sheffield University Smithers Pira The Welding Institute UK Environmental Services Association (ESA) UK MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

INSTITUTE LIMITED WRAP York University Zero Waste Scotland

seventh framework programme - newinnonet 1.1_rp_report summarizing the st… · matchpoint...

Documents