Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Systems approach to end-of-life management of residential photovoltaic

panels and battery energy storage system in Australia
H.K. Salim a, b, R.A. Stewart a, b, O. Sahin a, b, c, *, M. Dudley d
a
School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia
b
Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia
c
Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia
d
Australia New Zealand Recycling Platform Limited, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Understanding the complexities around managing the end-of-life (EoL) residential solar photovoltaic (PV) and
End-of-life battery energy storage systems (BESS) is a precursor to a better decision-making process that mitigates unin­
Solar photovoltaic tended product life-cycle impacts. In this paper, a participatory Systems Thinking approach was utilised to build
Battery energy storage system
a causal loop diagram (CLD) for this system based on the collective knowledge of stakeholders. The developed
Causal loop diagram
Systems thinking
CLD was categorised into three sub-systems: (1) waste flows; (2) regulatory aspects; and (3) industry strategies
Australia and government incentives. Two main system archetypes were identified in a reflection to the CLD, namely fixes
that fail and drifting goals. The identified feedback loops indicate the need to introduce a comprehensive national
product stewardship scheme, complimentary landfill restrictions, and provide sufficient incentives to industries
for promoting recovery activities within residential PV panels and BESS sectors. An effective waste management
system for these renewable energy technologies is most effective if industries are required to participate through
regulation which also specifies certain targets, such as product and material recovery rates and establishes a
sustainable funding model to meet operational requirements and future needs. The increasingly prohibitive
overseas waste export market will require local industries and governments to collaboratively improve domestic
recycling capability and capacity. In this light, the failure to build an effective EoL management system for
residential PV and BESS will result in valuable and hazardous materials in both technologies to be disposed of in
the landfill, stockpiled or illegally dumped; consequently, reinforcing unintended and adverse environmental
impacts.

1. Introduction
The rapid growth of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems uptake inter­
nationally and in countries like Australia will create an impending
electronic waste crisis. Residential-scale PV in Australia makes up the
highest (80.2%) solar energy generation in 2018 [1]. Moreover, the
declining cost of battery energy storage system (BESS) will lead to an
exponential increase in their solar energy applications in the coming
decade [2]. Salim et al. [3] projected that end-of-life (EoL) residential
PV panels in Australia will increase at an exponential rate from 2.7 kilo
tonnes in 2018 to 1532 kilo tonnes in 2050. Residential EoL BESS will
start to emerge as a significant waste stream in 2025 (1.6 kilo tonnes)
and will surge dramatically to 99.1 kilo tonnes in 2050. With valuable
and critical materials (i.e. ruthenium, gallium, indium, tellurium, lead,
and lithium) present in both PV panels [4] and BESS [5], enabling an
appropriate policy to promote the recovery process is necessary to
conserve and recirculate these materials to meet the future demand of
solar energy [6].
A product stewardship scheme for PV systems (i.e. PV panels, BESS,
and auxiliary components) is being investigated by the Australian gov­
ernment [3]. This scheme aims to establish a voluntary, co-regulatory,
or mandatory approach to manage a product throughout its life-cycle,
from the product design to EoL stage. It acknowledges that all partici­
pants involved in the design, importation, distribution, manufacturing
and use of the product as having a shared responsibility to ensure
negative environmental and human health impacts evident throughout
the value chain can be reduced. Despite being considered under the
same product class in 2017 [7], a recent government report stated that a
product stewardship scheme will likely be separated between PV panels

* Corresponding author. School of Engineering and Built Environment, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
E-mail address: o.sahin@griffith.edu.au (O. Sahin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110176
Received 27 January 2020; Received in revised form 29 June 2020; Accepted 27 July 2020
Available online 5 August 2020
1364-0321/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.K. Salim et al.
List of abbreviations
ACT Australian Capital Territory
BESS Battery energy storage system
CLD Causal loop diagram
EoL End-of-life
NSW New South Wales
PSO Product stewardship organisation
PV Photovoltaic
QLD Queensland
SD System dynamics
ST Systems thinking
VIC Victoria
and BESS, whereas auxiliary components will be excluded from the
schemes [8]. This is mainly because BESS applications overlap across
electric vehicles and other renewable energy storage systems.
Determining an appropriate EoL management strategy for PV panels
and BESS in Australia is extremely complex as it is characterised by
multiple stakeholder objectives [9]. Particularly in the case of the resi­
dential sector, the collection of EoL products tends to be more chal­
lenging as it requires more operational efforts and incentives to create
and promote consumer awareness compared with typical electronic
waste management such as televisions and computers [10]. A funda­
mental gap in the academic literature is an assessment of transition
pathways using a systemic approach to capture the complexity and
dynamics of the EoL management system of residential PV and BESS in
Australia [11]. Despite being frequently conceptualised as a
techno-economic and environmental phenomenon in previous studies,
EoL PV and BESS value chain is also driven by socio-technical aspects
[11]. Systems Thinking (ST) modelling is a suitable approach to capture
the complexity of this particular problem. It has been widely applied in
various environmental studies such as solid waste management [12] and
water resource management [13]. The traditional econometric approach
that assumes exogeneity of a problem fails to identify the complex
structure and parameters of a system from its observed behaviour [14].
Effective System Dynamics (SD) modelling is accomplished by
establishing a clear picture of the problem a priori through a conceptual
model [14] through an ST approach. The application of ST for complex
environmental issues necessitates extensive consultation with relevant
stakeholders to ensure that a robust model is formulated [15]. There­
fore, this study presents a policy-oriented dynamic hypothesis using a
causal loop diagram (CLD) that applies the factors reported by the au­
thors in a recent study [3] based on a participatory ST approach. This
paper builds a knowledge base underpinning a decision-making tool
using the SD modelling approach by mapping the complexity of the
interrelationship between key drivers, barriers, and enablers influencing
the EoL management system for residential solar PV and BESS in
Australia. The CLD was further refined in stakeholder workshops to
ensure that variables and relationships are relevant and valid. Despite
the potential product stewardship scheme separation between PV panels
and BESS, coupling the discussion is of importance to understand how
the adoption of solar PV systems will increase the complexity of the
whole EoL BESS supply chain (i.e. including electric vehicle and other
renewable energy applications).
2. Material and methods
Systems thinking approach uses feedback theory to develop a dy­
namic hypothesis that explains and predicts past and future system
behaviour [14]. The strength of the CLD is that it helps stakeholders to
challenge entrenched mental models and test assumptions; thus, leading
to an important and counterintuitive understanding about system
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176
structure and behaviour [16]. The integrated participatory modelling
approach allowed the researchers to capture different stakeholder per­
ceptions in the developed conceptual model [17]. The approach is based
on the notion that people who reside and work in a particular system
may be better informed about its process and problems and will have
deeper system awareness than academics [18]. Several advantages have
been reported as a result of a participatory modelling approach
including the validity of model outputs [19], facilitation of a stakeholder
learning process [15], and elicitation of possible policy options [20].
There are two main steps in developing the conceptual model:
problem scoping and CLD modelling (Table 1). Problem scoping helps to
clarify the purpose of the research while defining the scope of the model
by identifying the key drivers, barriers, and enablers [14]. Enabling a
comparative analysis between different stakeholder groups is imperative
to capture conflicting strategic goals in the system. CLD modelling is a
process to depict the causal relationships and feedback loops between
key system variables identified in the problem scoping stage. CLD allows
the identification of system archetypes which visualise a generic system
structure where appropriate leverage points and policy interventions
can be proposed to overcome the problem [21].
2.1. Problem scoping
The problem scoping phase aims to define the purpose of the
research and understand the boundary of the model. This process helps
to capture the mental models from relevant stakeholders on how a
particular system works the supply chain works, current challenges and
drivers, as well as plausible management strategies [22]. In this
research, the initial list of drivers, barriers, and enablers retrieved from
the systematic literature review process presented in Salim et al. [11]
were confirmed with eight experts from different stakeholder groups (i.
e. recyclers, academics, governments, non-government organisations,
and manufacturers). This process helped to ensure the comprehensive­
ness, relevance, and clarity of the factors. A stakeholder survey round
was then conducted to quantify and compare the perceived drivers,
barriers, and enablers to EoL management of PV and BESS in Australia
across different stakeholder categories. The survey was responded by 57
stakeholders, including governments, academics, consultants, distrib­
utors/installers, manufacturers, and non-governmental organisations.
Given that this research is an emerging area, it was deemed that an
adequate sample size has been achieved due to the range of sampling
approaches employed, including purposive sampling approach and
snowball sampling approach. Detailed methodology of the problem
scoping stage was reported in Salim et al. [3]. The focus of this present
paper is on the conceptual model development phase of this research
program.
2.2. Conceptual model development
The conceptual model development process involved the identifica­
tion of variables, development of the preliminary CLD, and refinement
of the CLD in two stakeholder workshop sessions. The following sub-
sections detail these model development activities.
2.2.1. Variables identification
The authors relied on the expert review and stakeholder survey re­
sults as well as relevant literature (i.e. academic articles, government
and consultancy reports) as a primary source of data to identify and
select relevant system variables. The lead author also presented the
expert review results and initiated some discussion around the prob­
lematic situations and potential solutions during the pre-
conceptualisation workshop in October 2018 to determine the model
scope and identify important variables. Qualitative data from the expert
review process were coded using grounded theory techniques to support
the identification of the model scope and variables. This approach was
used to systematically analyse the theory or themes from the data by
H.K. Salim et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176

Table 1
Participatory systems thinking approach.
Stage Time Process Activities

Problem scoping Aug–Sep 2018 Expert review • Validate the list of drivers, barriers, and enablers
• Discuss the problematic situations and potential solutions
Oct–Dec 2018 Stakeholder survey • Quantify and compare stakeholder perceptions on the drivers, barriers, and
enablers
Conceptual model Oct 2018 Pre-conceptualisation workshop • Present the expert review results
development • Initiate discussion around the problematic situations and potential solutions
Jan–Feb 2019 Identify key variables • Interpretation of the expert review and stakeholder survey results
• Literature review of government and consultancy reports as well as academic
articles
March–Apr CLD development • Identify causal relationships between variables
2019 • Visualise causal linkages among system variables
• Identify system archetypes
May 2019 Two facilitated 2-h CLD validation • Refine the preliminary CLD
workshops • Discuss the system archetypes and leverage points

extracting and grouping concepts or codes from the interview data [23].
Table 3
The concepts extracted from this analysis are presented in Table 2. In
Summary of the core drivers, barriers and enablers utilised in conceptual model.
addition, quantitative data from the stakeholder survey were also uti­
lised by analysing the most highly ranked drivers, barriers, and enablers. Drivers Barriers Enablers

Key drivers, barriers, and enablers are summarised in Table 3. We Maintain the integrity of No regulations in place Strict regulations and
triangulated variables extracted from these data with the previous green products policies such as product
stewardship
literature and government reports to confirm the commonly used term
Ensure appropriate EoL Lack of economic Implementing business
and description of each factor. management strategies incentives for collection model for take-back/
via evidence of product and recycling collection scheme
2.2.2. Causal loop diagram development and material impacts
In producing the preliminary CLD, there are two types of causal re­ Conserve and recirculate Lack of profitability to Provide economic
rare materials recycle incentives to increase
lationships which reflect the direction of a pair of variables. A positive collection and recycling
(+) causal relationship indicates that the cause and effect variables are Lack of incentives for Research and
moving in the same direction (i.e. when the cause variable increases, installers to participate in development on new
then the effect variable will increase). A negative (− ) causal relationship a stewardship scheme efficient recycling
technologies
indicates that the cause and effect variables are moving in the opposite
Lack of consumer and/or Optimal number of
direction (i.e. when the cause variable increases, then the effect variable system installer collection centres and
will decrease). Double lines across the arrows represent information awareness around recycling plants
delay, that is, the time lag between the cause and effect. Certain causal available EoL disposal
relationships between pairs of variables may lead to a feedback loop,
where the loop starts and ends at the same variable.
structure and functioning of the studied system as well as facilitate the
Understanding feedback loops can provide useful insights into the
identification of appropriate intervention strategies. Feedback loops can
be described as reinforcing (R) or balancing (B) loops [14]. Reinforcing
Table 2 loop characterises the acceleration of growth or decline [24]. On the
Concepts extracted from the grounded theory approach. other hand, the balancing loop will counteract change within a system
and produce a stabilising system behaviour or an oscillating trend [25].
Governments Academics Consultant Product
Stewardship
The dominance of balancing loops indicates that numerous potential
Arrangement sources can limit growths in system performance that needs to be
Partiesa addressed, whereas the dominance of reinforcing loops indicates more
• Product • Landfill ban • Product • Industry sources of growth, erosion, and collapse in the system [14].
stewardship • Fire risk stewardship development Preliminary system archetypes were also identified in a reflection of
scheme • Consumer/ scheme • Material the CLD as a diagnostic tool for systemic issues to solve a problem
• Fair and installer • Rare recovery rate
symptom. Once systemic structures that are responsible for the problem
equitable costs awareness materials • Reasonable
across • Research and • Landfill ban access symptom are identified, high leverage interventions can be proposed to
stakeholders development of • Consumer/ requirement create a fundamental change [26]. An archetype consists of various
• Inconsistent recycling installer • Internal combinations of reinforcing loops, balancing loops, and information
labelling of technologies awareness recycling delays [27]. According to Senge [28], there are eight typical system
batteries • Profitability to • Fire risk • Scheme target
archetypes: fixes that fail, limits to growth, growth and underinvest­
• Incentives to recycle • Landfill ban
encourage • Environmental • Consumer/ ment, success to the successful, eroding goals, shifting the burden,
participation impacts of installer tragedy of the commons, and escalation.
• Enforcement of recycling awareness
landfill ban
2.2.3. Stakeholder identification
• Reasonable
access
Stakeholder involvement is central to the conceptual model devel­
requirement opment to support model validity. This is because environmental
• Consumer/ problems generally involve complex socio-economic and technical as­
installer pects and the multi-faceted nature of stakeholders, uncertainty, value
awareness
conflicts, as well as ecosystem and social dynamics [29]. Videira and
a
Product stewardship arrangement parties include a manufacturer, a recycler, Antunes [30] provided a guideline to conducting a stakeholder
and a product stewardship organisation that were interviewed.

3
H.K. Salim et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176

engagement process in a system dynamics approach. A workshop is the Table 4

most common form of stakeholder engagement in the modelling process Profile of workshop attendees.
[31]. Location No. Stakeholder Position Years of State
There is no standardised approach to identify and select participants Group Experience
for a participatory ST approach [18]. However, an effort should be made Melbourne, 1 Government Strategic Lead 3 years VIC
to foster an inclusive environment for diverse interests and background. VIC (Product
We used the same pool of potential respondents with the stakeholder Stewardship)
survey phase which consists of 287 potential respondents with an 2 Government Project Officer 1 year VIC
(Industry)
additional four stakeholder contacts suggested during the survey phase. 3 Government Specialist 10 years VIC
Potential participants were identified based on a purposive sampling Applied
approach by conducting a systematic search in websites, relevant in­ Scientist – Waste
stitutions, organisations and working groups [32] to avoid margin­ Management
4 Government Assistant 1 year ACT
alisation of stakeholders [33]. In the case of this research, a diverse
Director, Waste
group of study participants was ensured by targeting all relevant Policy
stakeholders along the supply chain [18], including recyclers, govern­ 5 Government Project Manager 6 years ACT
ments, non-governmental organisations, system installers, academics, 6 Government Policy Officer 1 year NSW
and consultants. Consumers, however, were not consulted as they are 7 Academic Head of School 10 years NSW
8 Recycler Chief Executive 28 years VIC
not typically involved in the preliminary strategic assessment of a new Officer
product stewardship scheme. Participants needed to have a general 9 Recycler National 3 years VIC
knowledge on end-of-life aspects of PV panels and BESS as well as Development
product stewardship systems, but did not require any prior knowledge or Manager
10 Non- Project and 5 years VIC
experience in ST or systems modelling.
governmental Policy Manager
organisation
2.2.4. Causal loop diagram validation workshop 11 Consultant Managing 10 years VIC
In this study, the stakeholder workshop aims to confirm and refine Director
the variables and the feedback mechanisms between variables with Brisbane, 1 Government Senior Waste 1 year QLD
QLD Operations
stakeholders to ensure that they are relevant, comprehensive, and
Officer
reflecting the actual system. A workshop gives the modeller an oppor­ 2 Government Senior Policy 3 years QLD
tunity to build a consensus among stakeholders about the causal re­ Officer
lationships and variables depicted in the diagram [2]. Two CLD 3 Government Senior Policy 5 years QLD
Officer
validation workshops were conducted in the city of Melbourne (State of
4 Government Waste 6 years QLD
Victoria) and the city of Brisbane (State of Queensland), respectively, Minimisation
following the development of a preliminary CLD. The workshops aimed Manager
to validate the preliminary CLD and discuss the system archetypes. 11 5 Installer Systems 7 years QLD
stakeholders attended the first CLD validation workshop held in Mel­ Manager
6 Non- Director 8 years QLD
bourne, which included stakeholders from the States of Victoria and
governmental
New South Wales, as well as the Australian Capital Territory. The second organisation
CLD validation workshop was held in Brisbane, which captured stake­
Note: VIC: Victoria; NSW: New South Wales; QLD: Queensland; ACT: Australian
holder perceptions from six attendees based in various parts of this State.
Capital Territory.
The workshop participants’ profile is summarised in Table 4.
Important stakeholders have been consulted during the workshops,
including governments, academics, recyclers, non-governmental orga­ 3.1. Conceptual model’s scope
nisations, and solar installers. Each workshop last for 3 hours and was
divided into three sessions which serve to: 1) develop a shared under­ The variables used in the CLD mainly focused on the policy and
standing of the ST approach, 2) discuss and refine the CLD, and 3) economic aspects (i.e. regulations, economic incentives, business
discuss the identified predominant system archetypes within the CLD. models, investment in developing recycling capability and capacity,
Despite stakeholders’ unfamiliarity with the ST approach, they etc.) of the studied system. A few cost-related variables from commercial
demonstrated an understanding of the approach during an introductory and industrial PV/BESS scale perspectives were also integrated into the
tutorial session conducted prior to the CLD validation session. Besides, conceptual model since residential, commercial, and industrial-scale
the discussion among stakeholders has been very inclusive and activities will likely have similar recycling dynamics, despite having
insightful due to the manageable size of participants. different generation, collection, and business model dynamics. It should
After completion of the two CLD validation workshops, the research be noted here for readers, that the herein model has purposely focused
team utilised the stakeholder comments and inputs to refine the CLD and on residential-scale solar PV and BESS as this sector presently accounts
the archetypes. CLD refinement tasks included adding and modifying for the largest amount (80.2%) of solar electricity generation in
variables, as well as adjusting causal relationships and feedback loops. Australia compared to the commercial and industrial sectors [1].
Some stakeholder suggestions that were considered outside of the Moreover, it is also the most challenging sector for collection activities
research scope were not integrated into the refined conceptual model. due to the geographically dispersed nature of solar PV installations
across Australian states and territories.
3. Analysis and findings
3.2. Causal loop diagram
In this section, we provide the identified model scope and discuss the
three primary subsystems in the final CLD depicting the complex The refined CLD for EoL management of residential solar PV and
interrelationship of managing EoL residential PV panels and BESS in BESS in Australia is presented in (Fig. 1). Although PV panels and BESS
Australia, namely (1) waste flows, (2) regulatory aspects, and (3) in­ are two different technologies with very different recycling regimes at
dustry strategies and government incentives. the operational and processing level, their strategic product stewardship
management will be relatively similar. Thus, this study combined the

4
H.K. Salim et al.
Fig. 1. Dynamics of EoL management of residential solar PV and BESS in Australia. “+” indicates a positive relationship; “-” indicates a negative relationship; “R”
denotes a reinforcing loop; “B” denotes a balancing loop; “||” denotes time delay.
CLD for PV panels and BESS and used the variables interchangeably.
This CLD is a product of collective mental models of stakeholders
involved in the study through interviews, stakeholder surveys, and
literature reviews. The final CLD was refined using information solicited
at the two CLD validation workshops to ensure that its variables, causal
relationships and feedback loops, are appropriately represented. The
CLD can be explained in three sub-systems which were coded using
different colour schemes. The green coloured area shows the PV panels
and BESS waste flows dynamics. Blue coloured areas indicate regulatory
aspects to manage EoL PV and BESS. The orange coloured area is
indicative of the industry (e.g. product stewardship organisations,
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176
recyclers, and system installers) response to regulations and government
incentives to support industries.
3.2.1. Subsystem 1 – waste flows
The first subsystem captures the interrelationships between variables
associated with the adoption and waste flows of residential PV and BESS.
The model captured the positive influence of the installed residential PV
systems on the consequent generation of EoL PV panels and BESS, given
the time delay of the lifespan of respective technologies [34]. It is ex­
pected that the adoption of rooftop PV and BESS will increase signifi­
cantly due to the declining cost of technologies and subsidies offered by
H.K. Salim et al.
some state governments. This is represented as a payback period which
refers to the time required for consumers to recover the cost of pur­
chasing PV panels [2]. In this light, the amount of EoL PV panels
entering the waste stream is starting to increase significantly, whereas
EoL BESS will start to reach a substantial level within a decade [3].
Critical and hazardous materials present in both technologies means
that recovery process is necessary to avoid shortage of material supply
for meeting future demand of PV systems and avoid negative impacts on
the environment and human health [3].
The CLD depicts two possible pathways for EoL PV panels and BESS
which can either be collected for recovery or disposed in the landfill.
According to the mental model of stakeholders, if the cost to landfill
disposal remains a legal and affordable option, recycling activities will
become economically unfavourable. The lack of available pathways to
recover PV panels and BESS have caused improper disposal of these
technologies (loop B1). Reclaim PV (a South Australian-based company)
and PV Industries (based in New South Wales) offer services to collect
and recycle PV nationally. However, they are currently still working on
establishing appropriate recycling technologies to achieve the highest
material recovery rate [6]. Despite studies suggesting that 90% of the
components in PV panels can be recovered [35], there is presently no
economic incentive to recycle those components if a product steward­
ship scheme is not in place and the market for recovered materials has
not been well-developed. Solar panels primarily consist of glass [34]
that has a low commodity value. It is currently challenging to effectively
recover the more valuable rare materials within PV panels without
generating substantial environmental impacts as it requires extensive
chemical usage [36]. A pilot study by Cutting and Gietman [37] also
found that there is a limited market for recycled backing layers of the
panels.
Despite a considerable number of BESS recyclers available in the
major states of Australia [38], there is limited coordination and visibility
of collection and recycling activities due to unavailable product stew­
ardship scheme [3]. Lead-acid based batteries have an established in­
dustry in Australia [39] with around 99% of the materials capable of
being recycled [40]. From a technical perspective, the recovery tech­
nologies for lithium-ion batteries are still immature and require exten­
sive development to achieve a sufficiently high material recovery rate
[41]. Envirostream is the only recycler in Australia which has a facility
for pre-treatment processes of lithium-ion batteries. Likewise, from a
regulatory perspective, there is currently no product stewardship
scheme in place for BESS, where logistics and recycling activities are
being led by industries voluntarily or supported by a few state govern­
ments [42].
The CLD also suggests that a higher collection rate will lead to a
higher total collection cost, despite reducing the unit collection cost.
Collected EoL PV panels and BESS may not always make it into recycling
(loop B2a) or repair/refurbishment process (loop B2b) as waste stock­
piling can occur (loop B3) due to the limited availability of recycling
technologies and infrastructures [43]. There is only a small number of
PV panels are currently being recycled domestically with low level of
recovery (i.e. aluminium frames) [8]. Despite the potential of promoting
refurbishment activities for PV panels [35], developing refurbishment
capability domestically will remain a big challenge. This is because the
majority of PV panels in Australia are imported, whilst manufacturers
have different product standardisation and design which will add
complexity into the refurbishing process. There are also several barriers
to the development of a local reuse and repair market including, such as
the requirement for PV panels to be registered on the Clean Energy
Council (CEC) approved product list in order for panels to be reinte­
grated with the energy grid, insurance limitations for replacing
second-hand panels and inability to claim or transfer solar credits from
the small-scale renewable energy certificate (STC) scheme.
Reinforcing loop R3 further explained the recycling flows between
domestic and overseas processing pathways which is influenced by re­
cyclers’ domestic recycling capacity. Both activities will result in a
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176
higher total cost of recycling, despite reducing the unit recycling cost. In
other words, the higher total recycling costs derives from further
treatment required (e.g. thermal treatment or chemical treatment) if a
recycler intends to achieve a high material recovery rate. However, the
signatory to the transboundary movement of hazardous materials raises
a concern into stockpiling issues of lithium-ion batteries and solar panels
(loop B3) given the absence of domestic recycling infrastructures for
these products and the impossibility to export hazardous waste [42].
Landfill disposal, stockpiling, and illegal dumping of PV panels and
BESS will contribute to high externality costs as both technologies
consist of a considerable amount of heavy metals [44]. These externality
costs include the opportunity cost of land and costs related to land
pollution. Potential leachate of heavy metals in the landfill will also
trigger direct costs for the government to prevent and manage the
leachate as well as amenity costs [45], as well as costs emerged as a
result of fire prevention due to stockpiling [42].
3.2.2. Subsystem 2 – regulatory aspects
The second sub-system presents regulatory approaches to promote
EoL management activities for residential PV and BESS in Australia. The
CLD captured governments’ effort to introduce landfill ban or levy to
divert hazardous waste from landfill including PV panels and BESS (loop
B1). Despite ostensibly reducing landfill disposal, it may promote
stockpiling activities (loop B3) without proper incentives for businesses
to develop local recycling capability. Especially, considering many
countries are increasingly placing a ban on receiving exported waste,
including electronic waste. This situation reflects the ‘fixes that fail’
archetype (Fig. 2) where an initial fix seems to overcome the problem
symptom in the short run, but unintended consequences will follow after
a time delay. In this case, stockpiling battery (particularly lithium-ion)
will pose more fire risks than PV panels which will further exacerbate
externality costs.
In order to avoid such a potential policy pitfall, landfill restrictions
should be coupled with the introduction of a product stewardship
scheme to incentivise industries to collect and recycle solar PV and
BESS. There are three approaches in a product stewardship scheme,
including voluntary, co-regulatory, and mandatory [46]. A voluntary
approach is characterised by voluntary participation from consumers
and industries to manage product life-cycle impacts. A co-regulatory
approach requires the establishment and compliance of scheme partic­
ipants to participate in the scheme and product stewardship organisa­
tions (PSOs) to provide collection and recycling services to scheme
participants. A mandatory approach places a legal obligation on certain
parties to take actions in regards to collection and recycling; however
Fig. 2. Waste stockpiling problem as fixes that fail archetype.
H.K. Salim et al.
there is little or no discretion to industries on how requirements should
be met. Typically, as scheme stringency increases, costs to government
will increase which includes costs for policy design and implementation,
staffing requirements, as well as government administration for moni­
toring and reporting the operationalisation and outcomes of the scheme
[45].
In the case of co-regulatory and mandatory approach, regulatory
impact statement of a scheme may differ from one product to another in
regards to sharing responsibility across stakeholders along the supply
chain and its funding model. The scheme may require the establishment
of approved PSOs to organise collection and recycling services for
scheme participants1 as well as scheme recycling target [46]. An
example in the case of PV panels’ collection, PSOs may have to coor­
dinate with PV installers to provide safe uninstallation services to resi­
dential consumers and to dispose them into designated collection points
for recycling. A traditional collection approach to BESS (i.e. establishing
reasonable access of collection points) can be utilised as they do not
require a complex uninstallation process.
The funding model for co-regulatory and mandatory approach will
also be determined by the government in close consultation with in­
dustries which can either be fully-funded by industries or shared costs
between consumers and industries. The cost could be in the form of an
upfront payment covering EoL uninstallation cost or as a service request
charged at the end-of-life. Such a payment could be embedded in the
purchase costs of PV modules and batteries and be covered by con­
sumers or can be funded by industries. This funding should be managed
by industry associations or PSOs in coordination with approved solar
installers in order to ensure accountability. However, such a funding
model should be implemented without rendering an uncompetitive
price of PV panels and BESS [34].
The recovery target refers to the amount of liability of scheme par­
ticipants which is calculated based on the scheme target in a particular
period and the average number of products they imported or manufac­
tured between the required lengths of liability period (e.g. 20 years) and
may also include material recovery target in its calculation in the case of
co-regulatory and mandatory approach. In practice, a scaling factor is
used to scale down the amount of liability as not all of the manufactured
and imported products along with the waste will end up in the domestic
market [47]. However, since this conceptual model is dealing with the
projection of the domestic installation of residential PV/BESS, a scaling
factor was not included in the model.
Establishing a threshold will be an effective strategy to create a
sustainable product stewardship scheme. It aims to exclude small PV
panel and BESS industries from being categorised as liable parties as
they do not have a substantial market share to fund the product stew­
ardship scheme. This type of intervention aims to minimise the financial
burden of regulation on small businesses, but also to reduce costs to
government as it minimises the scope of enforcement. A threshold can be
determined on the basis of company size (e.g. employee size and annual
turnover) or based on their activities (e.g. number of imports or man­
ufactured products) [48]. In the case of PV panels and BESS, establishing
a threshold based on the number of imports or manufactured products
sounds more reasonable as small companies may import a large number
of products or the other way around.
3.2.3. Subsystem 3 – industry strategies and government incentives
The final subsystem represents industry strategies in response to the
regulations enforced by the government as well as government in­
centives to promote investment and capacity building. PV panel and
BESS industries are potential scheme participants which may or may not
decide to participate in the scheme. Unless under co-regulatory and
mandatory approach, eligible PV and BESS industries must comply as
1 2
Scheme participants may include importers, manufacturers, distributors,
and users, depending on the regulatory impact statement.
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176
scheme participants. A voluntary approach that allows a high proportion
of free-riders to scheme participation will result in fewer industry
players taking financial responsibilities. In a situation where there are
only a few manufacturers, importers and distributors that are willing to
voluntarily participate in the stewardship scheme (i.e. voluntarily
participate), other industry players may also be discouraged to partici­
pate as they would bear the financial and administrative burden for free-
riders. Stakeholders argued that it is imperative to address free-riding
problems in the case of EoL PV panels and BESS as economies of scale
cannot be achieved if there is no substantial waste is being collected and
processed (loop R5); thus, will likely result in a more expensive scheme.
In this light, an important feedback loop in the CLD is the trade-off be­
tween scheme participants and free-riders2 (loop R4).
Under the co-regulatory or mandatory scheme, the lack of efforts’
improvement from PSOs to promote collection and recycling activities
will cause a supply shortfall (i.e. the gap between the actual recycling
and scheme recycling target) to a PSO. Although, however, supply sur­
plus could potentially lead to a waste stockpiling problem as there is no
funding available to process the remaining collected waste outside lia­
bility amount. This situation reflects the drifting goals archetype (Fig. 3).
If there is a gap between the recovery target and the total recovered PV,
PSOs and scheme participants may put pressure on the government to
reduce the recycling target. To prevent eroding goals, the government
must proactively raise a political pressure (e.g. administer penalties) for
PSOs to improve if a certain PSO does not meet the target and supporting
PSOs with various incentives. The PSO will then have to improve its
effort to meet the recycling target in the following financial year and
address the recycling shortfall carried forward. Otherwise, its authority
as a PSO will be revoked if there is a continuous non-compliance [49].
Stakeholders argued that improving accessibility of uninstallation
services and reachability of collection points throughout metropolitan,
regional, and remote locations would be necessary to cover solar PV and
BESS installation across different geographical areas (loop B6). PSOs can
also increase their promotional effort (loop B4) to increase solar in­
stallers and consumers’ awareness of nearby collection points or solar
panels uninstallation services. PSOs may also work together with the
government and industry associations to incentivise industries or
scheme participants to undertake circular business model (loop B5) to
ensure that PV and BESS can be collected at the end of life-cycle. Ex­
amples include product-as-service, lease, and deposit-refund. These
types of business models should be managed by PSOs or industry asso­
ciations to ensure that they are sustainable.
Scheme participants become part of a PSO and will be liable to fund
collection and/or recycling services. The cost to participate in the
scheme largely depends on the recycling cost, the cost of PV unin­
stallation or BESS collection, and whether or not the funding model will
be industry-funded. PSOs’ administration cost may be funded using a
fixed fee, in proportion to market share, or a combination of both,
depending on their marketing strategy [48]. A comprehensive
industry-funded scheme (from uninstallation, collection, to recycling)
would attract more consumers to safely dispose EoL PV and BESS.
However, this could potentially create an unsustainable PV and BESS
industries as the cost to scheme participants will be expensive. On the
other hand, if consumers are required to absorb all of the costs to collect
and recycle EoL PV and BESS this could lead to an unsatisfactory
collection rate as second-hand market is a cheaper disposal option.
A PSO has a network of recyclers or internal recycling facility where
the collected waste will be distributed across member recyclers. The CLD
depicts the positive effect of member recyclers on the domestic recycling
capacity. Member recyclers also ensure that EoL PV panels and BESS can
be properly handled and recycled to achieve the highest level of recy­
cling efficiency. On the other hand, there may be solar panels and
A free-rider is defined as an industry who avoid to participate in the product
stewardship scheme and being liable for the waste generated in the market.
H.K. Salim et al.
Fig. 3. Supply problem represented as drifting goals archetype.
batteries that will be collected and reprocessed outside the scheme (i.e.
processed by recyclers that are not part of a PSO). Recyclers that are not
part of PSOs may not have adequate recycling technologies to achieve
the highest material recovery rate.
The decision to process PV panels and BESS materials domestically or
internationally (loop R3) depends on the extent of the current domestic
recycling capacity and capability and EoL volumes available. Domestic
recycling capacity reflects the amount (i.e. mass) of materials which can
be recycled domestically, whereas domestic recycling capability refers
to the fraction of materials that can be recycled domestically. Australia’s
current electronic waste recycling capability can only deal with steel,
aluminium, copper, glass, and lead-acid batteries, whereas polymers,
cables, and other batteries are being processed overseas [39]. Local re­
cyclers are still developing their capability to recycle PV cells [8].
Despite the current ability to export non-hazardous materials over­
seas for recycling, there is an increasing trend of overseas waste export
bans. In this light, there will be an increasing government’s pressure to
improve domestic recycling capability (loop B8) in order to reduce the
gap between domestic recycling capacity and the recycled waste (i.e.
preventing future stockpiling problems). Recyclers’ decision to invest in
developing local capability depends on a number of factors. However,
this model focuses on the effect of the economic viability of specific
materials to be recycled locally (loop B7). The economic viability is
measured by looking at evidence of how improving domestic capability
will affect the unit cost of recycling. This initiative should be coupled
with various incentives such as infrastructure grants as well as research
and development funding to support recycler investment ability as well
as tax credits to reduce recyclers’ operational costs. However, techno­
logical development will also present industries with a new set of
challenges as there will be potential material changes [50]. Thus, the
development of recycling technologies should be adaptive to potential
changes in materials. This loop is also reinforced by the economies of
scale through sufficient development of domestic recycling capability
and capacity which will reduces the unit recycling cost (loop R5).
However, this reinforcing loop will remain weak until sufficient PV
panels and BESS waste have been generated.
4. Conclusion and future directions
This research used a participatory ST approach by utilising various
stakeholder engagement approach throughout the modelling process.
One of the main advantages of the participatory approach utilised in this
study is that problematic situations and opportunities can be identified
from both stakeholder interviews and surveys. This approach enables
triangulation of knowledge, mental models, and potential solutions from
a wide range of stakeholders across Australian jurisdictions to construct
the preliminary conceptual model. Problematic situations and potential
solutions were identified through a systematic literature review, an
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176
iterative expert review process, and stakeholder survey. A preliminary
CLD was developed on the basis of the key system variables identified
from the problem scoping stage.
Two stakeholder workshop sessions were conducted in Australia in
order to refine and validate the preliminary CLD. The final CLD can be
explained in three parts: 1) waste flows; 2) regulatory aspects; and 3)
industry strategies and government incentives. The conceptual model is
governed by 13 feedback loops, consisting of eight balancing loops and
five reinforcing loops. The CLD depicts the interplay between waste
flows and different stakeholder roles and objectives. The role of gov­
ernment will be critical to introduce and monitor regulations as well as
to determine an effective funding model for collection and recycling,
leading to an optimal collection rate. PSOs will play a critical role in
organising collection and recycling activities on behalf of scheme par­
ticipants. In the event of co-regulatory and mandatory approaches, PSOs
will also be responsible to ensure that the recycled waste meets the
scheme target. Recyclers and system installers will be part of a PSO to
deliver recycling services and PV uninstallation respectively on behalf of
the PSO.
Two system archetypes were identified on the basis of the CLD,
including fixes that fail and drifting goals. Several leverage points can be
identified as key strategies to improve feedback loops. Coupling landfill
restrictions and product stewardship scheme is an effective intervention
to promote collection and recycling activities. A clear, consistent, and
informative education and awareness that is accessible to diverse com­
munities should form a major part of any product stewardship approach.
However, incentives and recycler investments are required to develop
domestic capability and capacity to avoid stockpiling issues. PSOs’ effort
can be improved by increasing promotional activities, improving
accessibility of uninstallation services and collection points, as well as
implementing circular business models. Establishing a threshold is also
necessary to avoid financial burden on small businesses which do not
have a sufficient market share to fund the scheme.
Nonetheless, the dynamic behaviour of the system cannot be inferred
from a qualitative model exclusively as it only depicts the collective
knowledge of stakeholders. Future work involves the development of a
quantitative SD model based on the CLD developed in this study. Such a
model will be useful to evaluate different transition pathways towards
an effective EoL management system of residential PV and BESS in
Australia. SD model should be developed separately for these technol­
ogies as a separate product stewardship scheme will be considered by
the government. Evaluation of how accurate the model replicates the
real system behaviour can be comprehensively evaluated once the
model has been quantified and simulated under certain parameters.
Finally, although this paper focused on Australia as a case study, the
discussions and recommendations are also applicable to other countries
that are transitioning toward greater producer responsibility for elec­
tronic waste streams.
H.K. Salim et al.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Michael Dudley, a Senior
Policy Officer at Australia New Zealand Recycling Platform (ANZRP)
Limited for contributing to and supporting this research project. Hengky
K. Salim would like to acknowledge Griffith University for funding this
research project through the Griffith University Postgraduate Research
Scholarship (GUPRS). Finally, the authors would also like to acknowl­
edge Cities Research Institute, Griffith University through their internal
Strategic Grant Development Initiatives.
References
[1] Clean Energy Council. Clean energy Australia report 2019. 2019. https://assets.
cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-energy-austral
ia/clean-energy-australia-report-2019.pdf. [Accessed 28 June 2019].
[2] Agnew S, Smith C, Dargusch P. Causal loop modelling of residential solar and
battery adoption dynamics: a case study of Queensland, Australia. J Clean Prod
2018;172:2363–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.174.
[3] Salim HK, Stewart RA, Sahin O, Dudley M. End-of-life management of solar
photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: a stakeholder survey in Australia.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104444.
[4] Anctil A, Fthenakis V. Critical metals in strategic photovoltaic technologies:
abundance versus recyclability. Prog Photovoltaics 2013;21:1253–9. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pip.2308.
[5] Barnhart CJ, Benson SM. On the importance of reducing the energetic and material
demands of electrical energy storage. Energy Environ Sci 2013;6:1083–92. https://
doi.org/10.1039/C3EE24040A.
[6] Mahmoudi S, Huda N, Behnia M. Photovoltaic waste assessment: forecasting and
screening of emerging waste in Australia. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;146:
192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.039.
[7] Department of the Environment and Energy. Product list. https://www.environ
ment.gov.au/protection/waste-resource-recovery/product-stewardship/legislation
/product-list-2017-18. [Accessed 27 January 2020]. 2017-18.
[8] Equilibrium PV. Systems stewardship options assessment first phase: stage three
(B) - options feasibility study final report. Kensington: VIC: Equilibrium; 2018.
[9] Besiou M, Van Wassenhove LN. Closed-loop supply chains for photovoltaic panels:
a case-based approach. J Ind Ecol 2016;20:929–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jiec.12297.
[10] Chaplin L, Florin N, Dominish E. Photovoltaic stewardship: accessing international
experience. 2018. www.batteryrecycling.org.au/wp.../ISF-ABRI-EU-Research-R
eport-PV-180410.pdf. [Accessed 13 November 2018].
[11] Salim HK, Stewart RA, Sahin O, Dudley M. Drivers, barriers and enablers to end-of-
life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: a
systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 2019;211:537–54. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.229.
[12] Blumberga A, Timma K, Romagnoli F, Blumberga D. Dynamic modelling of a
collection scheme of waste portable batteries for ecological and economic
sustainability. J Clean Prod 2015;88:224–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.06.063.
[13] Sahin O, Siems RS, Stewart RA, Porter MG. Paradigm shift to enhanced water
supply planning through augmented grids, scarcity pricing and adaptive factory
water: a system dynamics approach. Environ Model Software 2016;75:348–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.05.018.
[14] Sterman JD. Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex
world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; 2000.
[15] Stave KA. Participatory system dynamics modeling for sustainable environmental
management: observations from four cases. Sustainability 2010;2:2762–84.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092762.
[16] Hovmand PS. Community based system dynamics. New York, MA: Springer; 2014.
[17] Suprun E, Sahin O, Stewart RA, Panuwatwanich K, Shcherbachenko Y. An
integrated participatory systems modelling approach: application to construction
innovation. Systems 2018;2018:33. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030033.
[18] Voinov A, Bousquet F. Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Software 2010;
25:1268–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007.
[19] Kotir JH, Brown G, Marshall N, Johnstone R. Systemic feedback modelling for
sustainable water resources management and agricultural development: an
application of participatory modelling approach in the Volta River Basin. Environ
Model Software 2017;88:106–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.11.015.
[20] Beall MA. Reports from the field: assessing the art and science of participatory
environmental modeling. Int J Inf Syst Soc Change 2010;1:72–89. https://doi.org/
10.4018/jissc.2010040105.
[21] Maani K, Cavana R. Systems thinking, system dynamics: managing change and
complexity. Auckland: Prentice Hall; 2007.
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176
[22] Banson KE, Nguyen NC, Bosch OJH, Nguyen TV. A systems thinking approach to
address the complexity of agribusiness for sustainable development in Africa: a
case study in Ghana. Syst Res Behav Sci 2015;32:672–88. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sres.2270.
[23] Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.; 1990.
[24] Sedlacko M, Martinuzzi A, Røpke I, Vidiera N, Antunes P. Participatory systems
mapping for sustainable consumption: discussion of a method promoting systemic
insights. Ecol Econ 2014;106:33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2014.07.002.
[25] Mirchi A, Madani K, Watkins Jr D, Ahmad S. Synthesis of system dynamics tools for
holisitc conceptualization of water resources problem. Water Resour Manag 2012;
26:2421–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0024-2.
[26] Kim DH. System Archetypes I: diagnosing systemic issues and designing high-
leverage interventions. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications, Inc.; 2000.
[27] Wolstenholme EF. Towards the definition and use of a core setof archetypal
structures in system dynamics. Syst Dynam Rev 2003;19:7–26. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sdr.259.
[28] Senge P. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Random House Business; 2006.
[29] Stave KA. Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental
decisions. Syst Dynam Rev 2002;18:139–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.237.
[30] Videira N, Antunes P, Santos R. Scoping river basin management issues with
participatory modelling: the Baixo Guadiana experience. Ecol Econ 2009;68:
965–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.008.
[31] van den Belt M. Mediated modelling: a system dynamics approach to
environmental consensus building. Washington DC: Island Press; 2004.
[32] Ledoux L, Cornell S, O’Riordan T, Harvey R, Banyard L. Towards sustainable flood
and coastal management: identifying drivers of, and obstacles to, managed
realignment. Land Use Pol 2005;22:129–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2004.03.001.
[33] Reed MS. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature
review. Biol Conserv 2008;141:2417–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2008.07.014.
[34] Weckend S, Wade A, Heath G. End-of-Life management: solar photovoltaic panels.
Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency; 2016.
[35] Deng R, Chang NL, Ouyang Z, Chong CM. A techno-economic review of silicon
photovoltaic module recycling. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;109:532–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.020.
[36] Fiandra V, Sannino L, Andreozzi C, Graditi G. End-of-life of silicon PV panels: a
sustainable materials recovery process. Waste Manag 2019;84:91–101. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.035.
[37] Cutting J, Gietman A. PV panel reprocessing: research into silicon-based
photovoltaic cell solar panel processing methods, viable materials recovery and
potential end market applications. Mulgrave: VIC: HRL Technology Group Pty.
Ltd.; 2019.
[38] Australian Battery Recycling Initiative. Consumer guide to responsible recyling of
battery storage systems. 2019. https://batteryrecycling.org.au/wp-content/up
loads/2019/11/Consumer-Responsible-Recycling-Guide_Final_20191105.pdf.
[Accessed 8 January 2020].
[39] Dias P, Bernardes AM, Huda N. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
management: an analysis on the australian e-waste recycling scheme. J Clean Prod
2018;197:750–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.161.
[40] Heelan J, Gratz E, Zheng Z, Wang Q, Chen M, Apelian D, et al. Current and
prospective Li-Ion battery recycling and recovery processes. JOM 2016;68:2632–8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-016-1994-y.
[41] Velázquez-Martínez O, Valio J, Santasalo-Aarnio A, Reuter M, Serna-Guerrero R.
A critical review of Lithium-Ion battery recycling processes from a circular
economy perspective. Batteries 2019;5:68. https://doi.org/10.3390/
batteries5040068.
[42] King S, Boxall NJ, Bhatt AI. Lithium battery recycling in Australia. 2018. https://
www.csiro.au/~/media/EF/Files/Lithium-battery-recycling-in-Australia.PDF?
la=en&hash=924B789725A3B3319BB40FDA20F416EB2FA4F320;. [Accessed 8
January 2020].
[43] Pickin J, Randell P, Trinh J, Grant B. National waste report 2018. Canberra, ACT:
Department of the Environment and Energy; 2018.
[44] Nain P, Kumar A. Initial metal contents and leaching rate constants of metals
leached from end-of-life solar photovoltaic waste: an integrative literature review
and analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.109592.
[45] PwC, Hyder Consulting. Decision regulatory impact statement: televisions and
computers. 2009. http://www.nepc.gov.au/system/files/resources/0c513e54-
d968-ac04-758b-3b7613af0d07/files/ps-tv-comp-decision-ris-televisions-and-com
puters-200911-0.pdf. [Accessed 22 December 2018].
[46] Australian Government. Product stewardship act 2011. 2019. https://www.legi
slation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00040. [Accessed 24 December 2018].
[47] Department of the Environment and Energy. Review of the product stewardship act
2011 including the national television and computer recycling scheme. 2018. https
://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/consultations/79a39335-ee07-4f94-a
b7f-cd8323641af0/files/ps-act-review-consultation-paper.pdf. [Accessed 7
January 2020].
[48] Thresholds PwC. For the proposed television and computer recycling scheme:
including analysis of indicative funding model scenarios. 2011. https://www.en
H.K. Salim et al.
vironment.gov.au/system/files/resources/86d2b1a8-7124-414b-ab26-
0bab49bee394/files/ntcrs-thresholds.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2020].
[49] OECD. Case study for the OECD working party on resource productivity and waste:
the Australian national television and computer recycling scheme. 2014.
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020) 110176
https://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/Australia%20NTCRS%20OECD%20
case%20study.pdf. [Accessed 3 January 2020].
[50] Sica D, Malandrino O, Supino S, Testa M, Lucchetti MC. Management of end-of-life
photovoltaic panels as a step towards a circular economy. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2018;82:2934–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.039.