Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structural Change and Economic Dynamics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/strueco

Promoting the circular economy in the EU: How can the recycling of
e-waste be increased?
Sónia Almeida Neves a, b, *, António Cardoso Marques a, b, Inês Patrício Silva a
a
University of Beira Interior, Management and Economics Department, Rua Marquês d’Ávila e Bolama, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
b
NECE-UBI, Management and Economics Department, Rua Marquês d’Ávila e Bolama 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal

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

JEL codes: Moving from a linear to a circular economy is crucial to reduce environmental pressure. This transition is
O0 particularly relevant in the Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) industry, given that EEE has one of the
O2 fastest-growing waste streams. Recycling is one solution for dealing with the growing amounts of this e-waste.
Q0
Therefore, this paper analyses the drivers and barriers to e-waste recycling, taking into account the role of
Q5
economic, social, institutional, and behavioural factors. Yearly data from 2010 to 2018 for 20 European Union
Keywords:
countries were analysed employing an Arellano-Bond Generalised Method of Moments. The main findings were
Recycling
E-waste
that, while environmental taxes and education boost the rate of e-recycling, economic growth and R&D appear to
Environment reduce it, and certain age groups are less likely to recycle e-waste. Recycling policies should prioritize education,
Circular economy environmental taxes, and addressing reluctance among the young and elderly to recycle.
European union

1. Introduction barriers of e-waste recycling for a group of 20 EU countries and help

To move away from the unsustainable traditional linear model of
material extraction | production | use | disposal, it is crucial to transition
to a Circular Economy (CE). This transition is particularly significant in
the Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) sector, whose waste
stream is already the fastest-growing and it is expected to increase
significantly over the next few years as society becomes increasingly
digitalised. Reducing the amount of e-waste dumped in landfills or
exported to developing countries will protect the global environment
from uncontrolled and unsafe processing. Improper e-waste manage­
ment, and particularly disposal of e-waste in landfills, can emit haz­
ardous fumes and chemicals, posing a threat to human health and the
environment (Awasthi et al., 2018).
To address these issues and promote e-waste recycling, policymakers
must understand how to intervene effectively. Studies have concluded
that the EU should collect functioning EEE for recycling (Rizos and
Bryhn, 2022). However, less than 20 % of global e-waste is managed
correctly (Forti et al., 2020). Besides the environmental benefits of
e-waste recycling, the e-waste itself has a significant market value, and
its recycling could reduce the need for primary raw materials. The aim of
this paper is to provide fresh empirical evidence on the drivers and
them improve their performance in this field. In short, the central
question the paper intends to answer is: what are the main drivers and
barriers to recycling e-waste? E-waste production tends to be associated
with economic development (Awasthi et al., 2018), so a group of
economically developed countries was chosen for this case study. We
were particularly interested in the EU because it has committed to an
early transition to a CE and implemented several policies to this end.
Much research on this subject has focused on consumer intentions to
recycle e-waste (see (Jabbour et al., 2023; Saphores et al., 2006;
Saphores et al., 2012)) and have used micro data from questionnaires,
whereas this paper takes a macroeconomic perspective, using
country-level data. A few other studies have used country-level data to
analyse the drivers and barriers of e-waste recycling. One such study
(Constantinescu et al., 2022), analysed the role of eco-investment on
e-waste recycling. A couple of others by Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt
(Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt, 2023) and Yilmaz and Koyuncu (Yilmaz
and Koyuncu, 2023) focused on the effect on e-waste recycling of eco­
nomic growth, population, population density, energy intensity, energy
efficiency, and the quantity of e-waste collected, and paid particular
attention to the non-linear relationship between economic growth and
e-waste recycling. Both found that e-waste recycling is reduced by

* Corresponding author:
E-mail address: sonia.neves@ubi.pt (S.A. Neves).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2024.02.006
Received 14 February 2023; Received in revised form 29 December 2023; Accepted 6 February 2024
Available online 9 February 2024
0954-349X/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S.A. Neves et al.
population and energy intensity, but increased by the quantity of
e-waste collected. However, their findings differed on the effect of
economic growth. Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt (Boubellouta and
Kusch-Brandt, 2023) found that economic growth drives e-waste recy­
cling, while Yilmaz and Koyuncu (Yilmaz and Koyuncu, 2023) found a
negative effect.
The study makes a valuable new contribution to the field by
providing fresh empirical evidence and innovatively using econometric
methods to compare recycling rates with previous levels. It also takes an
innovative approach by jointly considering economic, social, institu­
tional, and behavioural factors in evaluating the drivers of e-waste
recycling, which no previous studies have done, as far as the authors are
aware. This broader analysis enables a fuller understanding of the issues
affecting e-waste and provides policymakers with a sounder basis for
developing effective policies to improve its recycling.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 comprehen­
sively examines the literature related to the topic and gives a brief
overview of the factors involved in the recycling rates and waste gen­
eration of different waste streams; Section 3 presents the data used and
the methodology applied. The results are shown in Section 4, the dis­
cussion and recommendations are set out in Section 5, and Section 6
presents the main conclusions.
2. Literature review
Electronic equipment has become an essential component of daily
routines worldwide (Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt, 2021; P. Kumar
et al., 2021). The production of EEE has grown apace, and the global
amount of e-waste1 continues to increase as economies expand and new
technologies are developed. In some countries where EEE plays an
essential role in the economy, the total number of computers and other
potential e-waste items has been found to correlate with their GDP
(Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt, 2021; P. Kumar et al., 2021; Robinson,
2009).
EEE is being constantly upgraded, and consumers are eager to adopt
the latest innovations. This leads to overconsumption, turning
outmoded equipment into e-waste, even if it works perfectly. Misman­
agement of e-waste can lead to the release of its chemical constituents
into the environment, impacting the entire ecosystem, including
humans. Of all waste streams, e-waste is the fastest-growing, so
adequately managing it should be a political priority (P. Kumar et al.,
2021). Proper collection and recycling of e-waste would allow the re­
covery of reusable components, like precious metals, especially copper.
To properly manage waste and reduce the amount that ends up in
landfill, various countries and organisations have now drafted legisla­
tion with measures to improve the reuse, recycling, and other forms of
material recovery from e-waste (Babu et al., 2007). Thus, although
e-waste recycling has only become a political issue in recent years, ac­
ademics in the area have been aware of this need for quite some time.
Initial studies on the subject examined survey data to evaluate public
willingness to engage in e-waste recycling (Saphores et al., 2006;
Saphores et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011). Early studies
tended to associate a willingness to recycle e-waste with social aspects
(Meneses and Palacio, 2005; Sidique et al., 2010)., irrespective of
changing socioeconomic conditions and consumption patterns verified
over last years (Meneses and Palacio, 2005; Sidique et al., 2010).
As environmental concerns have grown, a whole raft of policies and
legislations have been proposed and implemented. These include policy
instruments such as EPR and Waste Hierarchy in which EU countries
have been pioneers. EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) is an
environmental policy which extends a producer’s responsibility for a
1
Waste represents general waste, and includes various waste streams, such as
plastic, glass, paper etc., whereas e-waste only represents electric and electronic
waste; MSW represents Municipal Solid Waste.
193
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201
product to the post-consumer phase of its life cycle (Compagnoni, 2022).
While EPR enhances the circularity of the value chains affected by this
regulation, it is hard to assess how well the policy’s impact aligns with
broader CE objectives (Compagnoni, 2022).
The Waste Hierarchy tool was announced as part of a framework
directive on waste and, according to Article 4, establishes for subsequent
legislation and policy, a hierarchy of actions to prevent waste (The
European (Commission, 2008)). Its main tenet is that, if the waste
generated by a product or process is evaluated according to this hier­
archy, less waste will be produced, more materials will be reutilised, and
land fill will be reduced, thereby promoting a CE (Stoeva and Alriksson,
2017). While Waste Hierarchy legislation incentivises producers to
minimise the amount of waste generated, EPR schemes consider the
entire product life cycle and seek to actively engage all stakeholders,
such as Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) with members
ranging from national authorities to recycling industries (Pouikli, 2020).
A CE can bring environmental, economic, and social benefits to
modern society. Lower consumption of resources (Bressanelli et al.,
2021) and better management of disposed waste can improve the
environment, while renewable energy and greater efficiency can
significantly reduce CO2 emissions (Skanberg et al., 2014). Sustainable
economic development can also bring economic advantages through
increased efficiency in the management of products and goods (Prie­
to-Sandoval et al., 2018). Andersen (Andersen, 2007) concludes that the
economic costs of environmental externalities highlight the potential
benefits of a circular economy. Finally, the job creation and easier access
to products that CE can bring can enhance life quality (Bressanelli et al.,
2021) and provide social benefits. To achieve this, the linear economy
must be replace by a circular one. The 3R’s of Reduce, Reuse and
Recycle, are recognised as the starting point for more sustainable
development and for a CE (Reike et al., 2018). The same authors also
maintain that priority should be given to reducing consumption and
waste. In considering a variety of waste streams and geographical lo­
cations, studies have found the rate of recycling and waste generation in
a country is closely linked to economic, social, institutional, and
behavioural factors (Bressanelli et al., 2021; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Hina
et al., 2022; Rizos and Bryhn, 2022). In view of this, the following
subsections describe literature specifically focused on the economic,
social, institutional, and behavioural factors, which provided the theo­
retical framework for formulating this research.
2.1. Economic factors
Research has concluded that a circular economy can result in the
efficient use of resources and energy in the production and consumption
of goods, and promote sustainable economic growth while avoiding
environmental degradation (Lehmann et al., 2022). However, there is no
consensus in the literature on the relationship between GDP and the CE.
Some studies show that waste generation increases with economic
growth. For instance, Awasthi et al. (Awasthi et al., 2018) and Xavier
et al. (Xavier et al., 2021) identify a link between economic growth and
e-waste generation, while Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt (Boubellouta
and Kusch-Brandt, 2023) find that the rate of e-waste recycling increases
with economic growth. Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt (Boubellouta and
Kusch-Brandt, 2021) also find a non-linear relationship between eco­
nomic growth and mismanaged e-waste (a proxy of environmental
damage), which forms an inverted U-shape. This familiar curve illus­
trates an increase in mismanaged e-waste during the early stages of
economic growth, which levels off after attaining a certain level of GDP,
known as the turning point, and then decreases while GDP continues to
increase.
In contrast, other authors have observed negative impacts. Önder
(Önder, 2018) finds that GDP has a negative effect on a country’s
recycling rate, and Yilmaz and Koyuncu (Yilmaz and Koyuncu, 2023)
discovered that GDP per capita could have a negative effect on e-waste
recycling. Similarly, Lehmann et al. (Lehmann et al., 2022) report that
S.A. Neves et al.
GDP tends to decrease circularity, while increasing environmental
degradation. The indicator used to measure circularity is based on the
share of secondary raw materials reintroduced into the economy. It has
proved to be reliable and has also been used as a proxy for resource
circularity (S. Kumar et al., 2021). The results of a study by Neves and
Marques (Neves and Marques, 2022) indicate that higher income can
reduce material circularity, suggesting that greater wealth stimulates
the acquisition of brand new items rather than reusing products or
buying products incorporating recycled materials.
Rapid advances in technology tend to lead to larger amounts of e-
waste as outmoded EEE becomes e-waste sooner. Proper e-waste man­
agement strategies are needed to control this at every stage, from pro­
duction to disposal. Recycling is a valuable instrument for monitoring
emerging e-waste (Ahirwar and Tripathi, 2021). Greater R&D in the
sector may offer new solutions to the mismanagement of waste. Tar­
geted investment in R&D could make technological development a
driver of change in markets, through innovation in the reuse of products,
more efficient material recovery processes and finding new uses for
recovered materials in different industries (Rizos and Bryhn, 2022).
Increased R&D of this kind can reduce carbon emissions and mitigate
climate change, and has been shown to boost economic growth (Gu and
Wang, 2018).
The recycling and waste generation performance of a country may
depend on its economic structure. This aspect has been examined in the
literature using an empirical approach, but with contradictory results.
While there is evidence supporting the idea that growth in the primary
sector increases the recycling rate of MSW (Municipal Solid Waste), the
secondary sector was found to decreases it (Cerqueira and Soukiazis,
2022). However, Önder (Önder, 2018) found that the gross value added
by agriculture (part of the primary sector) reduces the recycling rate of
packaging waste. According to Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt (Bou­
bellouta and Kusch-Brandt, 2021), the tertiary sector of the economy
tends to be concentrated in big cities, where the most densely populated
areas and productive areas are commonly found, and this sector
generally uses a greater amount of EEE that eventually becomes e-waste.
2.2. Social factors
Besides the economic factors, the literature has also considered the
effect of certain social factors on recycling and waste generation. In
these studies, the age structure of a country’s population has merited
some attention. For instance, Lakhan (Lakhan, 2014) and Starr & Nic­
olson (Starr and Nicolson, 2015) used median age to explore the rela­
tionship between the age-distribution of a population and the recycling
rate of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), and found that an increase in the
average age tends to increase the rate of MSW recycling. In later studies
by Cerqueira and Soukiazis (Cerqueira and Soukiazis, 2022) and Kin­
naman and Fullerton (Kinnaman and Fullerton, 2000) it was found that
the elderly tend to recycle more. Kinnaman (Kinnaman, 2005) also
found that an increase in the population of young and elderly boosts the
rate of household recycling. Similarly, using survey data from the US,
Saphores et al. (Saphores et al., 2006) suggest that being over 60 in­
creases a person’s propensity to recycle e-waste. In contrast, Romano
et al. (Romano et al., 2019) found that age has no significant effect on
the recycling rate. The disparities in all these findings suggest that
further empirical studies are required.
Education is another social factor considered by the literature. For
instance, Knickmeyer (Knickmeyer, 2020) and Önder (Önder, 2018) find
that higher education levels increase rates of waste recycling. Both au­
thors believe that more education is needed to encourage active
participation in the waste management process. Educational pro­
grammes encouraging children to recycle can be effective, as children
can then bring these habits home from school and educate their parents
(Knickmeyer, 2020).
194
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201
2.3. Institutional factors
Public awareness, environmental legislation, and financial resources
are all important factors in e-waste management. Studies have
concluded that proper e-waste disposal requires training and investment
in recycling and management technology (North et al., 2022). Con­
stantinescu et al. (Constantinescu et al., 2022) argue that eco-investment
drives the recycling and reuse of e-waste in a group of EU countries. One
measure identified by the literature to create better recycling habits and
raise public awareness of the environment, is the implementation of
environmental taxes (Doğan et al., 2022; Fang et al., 2022; Sousa et al.,
2018). According to Sousa et al. (Sousa et al., 2018), these taxes
encourage greener habits and reduce overconsumption, while Marques
and Teixeira (Marques and Teixeira, 2022) find that greater environ­
mental taxes encourage the reintroduction of recycled materials in the
economy.
2.4. Behavioural factors
Behavioural factors are also usually associated with environmentally
sustainable behaviour. For instance, some studies argue that consumers
with greater environmental awareness are more inclined to make green
purchases (Zameer and Yasmeen, 2022), adopt electric vehicles (Vergis
and Chen, 2015) or support the circular economy (Neves and Marques,
2022). In the case of waste management, the literature indicates that
environmental awareness tends to increase MSW recycling by house­
holds in Italy (Fiorillo, 2013), and in Provence–Alpes–Côte d’Azur, in
France (Kirakozian, 2016). In the specific case of e-waste, Saphores et al.
(Saphores et al., 2006) find that environmental activism increases
willingness to recycle e-waste.
3. Data and methodology
This paper used annual data from 2010 to 2018 for 20 European
Union countries. The EU countries are particularly relevant given that
they are pioneers in promoting CE and, specifically, improving the
effectiveness of recycling. A lack of available data prevented the inclu­
sion of every EU countries. The 20 EU countries selected were: Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. The time
period was chosen to achieve the best balance between number of years
Table 1
Descriptions of the variables and their sources.
Variables Description Source
LRR The recycling rate of e-waste2 (ratio between the amount Eurostat
of recycled/reused EEE and the amount of EEE put on the
market in the previous three years)
LWCOL All WEEE collected and treated; (Kg/per capita) Eurostat
LGDPPC Gross Domestic Product per capita (constant dollar 2015 World
= 100) ($/per capita) Bank
LGERD Gross domestic expenditures on research and Eurostat
development (R&D). (% of GDP)
LETR Total environmental tax revenues (million €) 2015 = 100. Eurostat
LPOP65 Population aged 65 and above. (% of the total population) World
Bank
LPOP15 Population between the ages 0 to 14 as a percentage of World
the total population. (% of the total population) Bank
LEMPS Employment in services. (% of total employment) ILOSTAT
LEMPA Employment in agriculture. (% of total employment) ILOSTAT
LEDU The proportion of the population with tertiary education Eurostat
(level 5–8).
LCO2PC Total CO2 emissions. (kg of CO2 equivalent/per capita) World
Bank
LRES_SH Share of renewable energy in gross final energy Eurostat
consumption (% of gross final energy consumption)
2
The table code from Eurostat database is “CEI_M050”.
S.A. Neves et al. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201

and number of countries that would allow empirical panel data esti­
mations to be made. Table 1 shows the variables used, their descriptions,
and data sources. Table 2 gives the descriptive statistics of the variables
described in the first table.
Given that the main objective of this paper is to analyse the drivers
and barriers to e-waste recycling, the e-waste recycling rate (LRR) was
used as the dependent variable. Starr and Nicolson (Starr and Nicolson,
2015) followed a similar approach and used the residential recycling
rate as a dependent variable to ascertain the main factors supporting
recycling. Cerqueira and Soukiazis (Cerqueira and Soukiazis, 2022)
studied the socio-economic and political factors that affect the recycling
rates of MSW in Portuguese municipalities. Likewise, Önder (Önder,
2018) used a similar approach and examined the socio-economic factors
that drive the recycling rate of waste in the European Economic Area.
Drawing on previous studies, this paper considers the role played by
economic, social, institutional, and behavioural factors in the recycling
rate of e-waste. With respect to economic factors, this paper used GDP
per capita as a proxy for economic growth, as did Nguyen et al. (Nguyen
et al., 2022). GDP can also be a proxy for income, as used by Diacon and
Maha (Diacon and Maha, 2015). There is widespread evidence from the
scientific community of the importance of GDP per capita to explain
MSW recycling rates (Cerqueira et al., 2021; Önder, 2018) and waste
generation (Awasthi et al., 2018; Xavier et al., 2021).
Countries that invest more in R&D (usually those with higher GDP)
are more likely to achieve higher rates of recycling. This is because the
R&D tends to introduce new knowledge, and stimulate the adoption of
cleaner energy, more advanced products, more efficient techniques, and
improved methods (Rizos and Bryhn, 2022; Shahzadi et al., 2021).
Additionally, R&D and innovation have become increasingly focused on
sustainable development (Shahzadi et al., 2021). For these reasons, this
paper used gross domestic expenditures on R&D (LGERD) to capture the
effect of R&D on the recycling of e-waste.
The economic structure of a country can also have an impact on the
rate of recycling e-waste. As Soukiazis and Proença (Soukiazis and
Proença, 2020) find, growth in the primary sector tends to increase the
recycling rate of MSW, the secondary sector is not statistically signifi­
cant, and the tertiary sector has a nonlinear relationship that follows a
U-shaped trajectory. Cerqueira and Soukiazis (Cerqueira and Soukiazis,
2022) find that the economic structure of Portuguese municipalities
plays a significant role in their MSW recycling; the primary sector in­
creases it, while the secondary sector hampers it. This raises questions
about the role of the economic structures of EU economies in e-waste
recycling. To address this, the employment rate in the services sector
(LEMPS) and the agriculture sector (LEMPA) were used as proxies for the
economic structure of the countries’ economies.
Moving on to social factors, education levels may be relevant in
explaining the recycling rate of e-waste. Consumers with higher levels of
education tend to be more aware of the need to protect the environment,
and are generally better able to understand and adopt recycling habits
(Knickmeyer, 2020). Human capital and skills, measured by tertiary
education, has been found to drive rates of recycling and renewable
energy (Knäble et al., 2022). Higher levels of human capital and skills
are required to develop more environmentally-friendly production
processes, and recycling is an important part of this. Therefore, this
paper also used the percentage of the population with tertiary education
(LEDU) to represent this.
Another potentially important social factor in explaining recycling
behaviour is the age structure of a country, even though there is no
consensus on this in the literature. Soukiazis and Proença (Soukiazis and
Proença, 2020) find that the population aged between 15 and 64 years is
not significant in explaining the recycling rate of MSW, while older
people increase it. According to Romano et al. (Romano et al., 2019), the
elderly have more time available for recycling activities; but are often
limited in terms of mobility, so tend to give up recycling as they get
older. This paper provides new empirical analysis for this contentious
subject by considering the impact on recycling e-waste of two specific
sectors of the population: those over 65 (LPOP65) and those under 15
(LPOP15).
With regard to institutional aspects, EU countries use environmental
taxes to promote environmental protection, represented in this study by
the variable (LETR). As Kostakis and Tsagarakis (2022) contend, this
variable is used to measure both a legal instrument for reducing negative
environmental externalities, including the negative externalities asso­
ciated with the waste management process. In the energy sector, envi­
ronmental taxes encourage polluting enterprises to become more
environmentally aware, and more likely to use renewable energy and
enhance environmental quality (Fang et al., 2022). According to Doğan
et al. (Doğan et al., 2022), governments could use taxes as a direct tool to
control carbon emissions. Sousa et al. (Sousa et al., 2018), studied the
connection between environmental taxes and sustainable development,
and the relationship between environmental taxes and the CE and
recycling. Given that there may be a relationship between the level of
environmental taxes and the demand for EEE (Sousa et al., 2018), is
there also a relationship between environmental taxes and the recycling
of e-waste? Another study of EU countries by Marques and Teixeira
(Marques and Teixeira, 2022), finds that these taxes act as a driver for
the circularisation of materials, causing more recycled materials to be
reintroduced into their economies. To represent these behavioural fac­
tors, per capita CO2 emissions (LCO2PC), and the renewable share of
gross final energy consumption (LRES_SH) were used as proxies in this
study.
The preliminary tests undertaken on the variables were the Variance
Inflation Factor (VIF), correlation matrix, cross-sectional dependence,
and unit root tests. The VIF test detects multicollinearity among the
independent variables in a multiple regression model. Multicollinearity
reduces the statistical significance of the independent variables, and
lessens the explanatory power of the model, so avoiding it is crucial.
The results of the VIF shown in Table 3 revealed no evidence of
multicollinearity. The correlation matrix test evaluated the correlation

Table 3
Table 2
Variance Inflation Factors (VIF).
Statistics descriptive of the variables.
VIF
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Variable MODEL I (A) MODEL I (B)
LWCOL 180 1.964903 0.478853 0.7129498 2.927989
LEMPS 180 4.258851 0.1064224 4.070052 4.475631 LGDPPC 3.94 4.57
LEMPA 180 1.301876 0.6478286 − 0.0100503 2.616666 LWCOL 2.81 3.15
LGERD 180 0.4738742 0.5374641 − 0.8209805 1.311032 LPOP15 – 3.76
LGDPPC 180 10.22334 0.664447 8.768389 11.59273 LGERD 2.97 2.94
LPOP65 180 2.875693 0.1405718 2.398794 3.07827 LPOP65 – 2.89
LCO2PC 180 8.850811 0.3985269 8.171319 9.990427 LEDU 1.67 2.47
LPOP15 180 2.756196 0.1094346 2.581499 3.085239 LEMPA 1.36 –
LRR 180 3.606925 0.3291515 2.674149 4.655863 LCO2PC – 1.59
LCO2PC 180 8.850811 0.3985269 8.171319 9.990427 LRES_SH 1.49 –
LEDU 180 3.308403 0.234533 2.674149 3.701302 LETR 1.38 1.53
LETR 180 1.951304 0.2662065 1.455568 2.463853 LEMPS 1.35 –
LRES_SH 180 2.800455 0.6563515 1.04767 3.987427 Mean VIF 2.12 2.86

195
S.A. Neves et al. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201

between all possible pairs of values in the model, but showed no evi­ Table 5
dence of collinearity (see Table A.1, in the appendices). Description of the models.
Cross-sectional dependence was tested under the null hypothesis of Model Independent variables
no cross-sectional dependence. The results in Table 4 demonstrate that
Model I - Recycling rate of e- LGDPpc, LWCOL, LEDU, LETR, LGERD, LRES_SH,
the null hypothesis was rejected for all the variables, indicating that waste (A) LEMPS, LEMPA
there is cross-sectional dependence. The second-generation unit roots Model I - Recycling rate of e- LGDPpc, LWCOL, LEDU, LETR, LGERD, LCO2pc,
test (CIPS), which is robust in the presence of cross-sectional depen­ waste (B) LPOP65, LPOP15
dence, was performed on all the variables that revealed cross-sectional
dependence. The null hypothesis of the CIPS test is that the series con­
tains a unit root. Table 6
As Table 4 shows, the null hypothesis was rejected for seven out of Specification Tests.
twelve variables, indicating the stationarity of these seven variables. Model I (A) Model I (B)
However, the test does not provide unequivocal evidence of the statio­
Hausman Test 55.35*** 93.55***
narity of all the variables considered. According to Karlsson and Wald Test 1558.17*** 651.63***
Lothgren (Karlsson, 2000), the ability of the test to detect large pro­ Wooldridge Test 22.380*** 19.162***
portions of stationary series is reduced when the T panel is small, so Pesaran Test 7.542*** 4.320***
there is a risk that the whole panel may be mistakenly modelled as Notes: ***, **, *denotes statistical significance at 1, 5 and 10 % levels.
non-stationary. Consequently, researchers should be careful about
assuming that the homogeneity properties of panel cross-sections are
In the case of the FE estimator, heteroskedasticity can be detected
stationary or non-stationary, exclusively on the basis of panel unit root
using the Wald test under the null hypothesis of homoskedasticity. Ac­
tests (Karlsson, 2000).
cording to the results in Table 6, the null hypothesis was rejected in both
Remembering that the main objective of this study is to ascertain the
models, confirming the presence of heteroskedasticity. The Pesaran
drivers of e-waste recycling, the model was estimated using two
cross-sectional dependence test was also carried out, and its results
different specifications, A and B. This was done for two main reasons:
rejected the null hypothesis, indicating cross-sectional dependence on
firstly, to preserve degrees of freedom, especially given the short time
both models. Next, a first-order serial correlation Wooldridge test for
span of the panel, and secondly, because to estimate the model properly,
autocorrelation was employed. Autocorrelation can produce results
the number of instruments should be less than the number of crosses.
which underestimate coefficients errors and thus overestimate the R2
Increasing the number of independent variables would increase the
value. The Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data was
number of instruments beyond the number of crosses. Both structures
employed to test for the presence of first-order serial correlation. The
contain a common group of independent variables: LGDPpc, LWCOL,
test’s null hypothesis is that there is no first-order serial correlation. The
LEDU, LETR, and LGERD, which gives both models good explicative
results are contained in Table 6, and confirmed that there is first-order
power. Additionally, we opted to include LEMPS, LEMPA (economic
serial correlation, as the null hypothesis was rejected.
factors), and LRES_SH (a behavioural factor) in the model I (A), and
It is argued in some papers that the level of the CE may depend on
LPOP65, LPOP15 (social factors), and LCO2PC (a behavioural factor) in
previous levels (Lehmann et al., 2022), and similarly, that the rate of
the model I (B). Besides ensuring that the number of instruments would
MSW recycling is also influenced by prior rates (Cerqueira and Soukia­
be less than the number of countries, this option also guaranteed the
zis, 2022). To take this into account, the dynamic panel model in this
validity of these instruments, which was fundamental for obtaining ac­
study included a lagged dependent as an explanatory variable. This
curate and reliable estimates, as demonstrated by the diagnostic tests
made it possible to test the persistency of any effect, such as determining
conducted on the models (see Section 4). Table 5 summarises the in­
whether the level of e-waste recycling rate is significantly dependent on
dependent variables used in each model.
prior levels. The idea of including a lagged dependent variable was
Empirical analysis using panel data requires robust estimators for
introduced by Bond and Arellano (Bond and Arellano, 1991), who used a
individual-specific variation effects. Thus, the Hausman test (Hausman,
Difference GMM estimator to overcome problems of endogeneity.
1978) was used to detect any fixed effect (FE) or random effects (RE).
However, due to weakened instruments, using a Difference GMM esti­
The null hypothesis of this test is that the RE estimator is suitable, and
mator with small time spans can result in biased coefficients. This lim­
the results in Table 6 show that this was rejected, indicating that the FE
itation led to the creation of the System GMM estimator, proposed by
estimator would be more suitable for both models. Several other spec­
Blundell and Bond (Blundell and Bond, 1998).
ification tests were performed to ascertain the main features of the data
The System GMM estimator produces results with less bias and
and determine appropriate estimators.
greater precision when the series are moderately to highly persistent and
the panel’s T dimension is small. This is the case of the data in this study
Table 4 in which the T dimension of 9 years (2010–2018) is relatively small. In
Cross sectional dependence test (CD-test) and CIPS Unit root tests. addition to being more successful in dealing with small samples, these
CIPS estimators are more accurate than instrumental variable estimators in
Variable CD-Test Without trend the presence of heteroskedasticity. For both types of GMM estimation,
LRR 20.92*** − 2.531***
two variants were introduced by Bond and Arellano (Bond and Arellano,
LWCOL 18.38*** − 6.890*** 1991). These are the one-step and the two-step, with the latter being
LPOP15 − 1.88* 0.876 more efficient and robust in the presence of heteroskedasticity and
LPOP65 39.99*** − 5.627*** autocorrelation (Trujillo-Baute et al., 2018).
LETR 3.11*** 0.420
Therefore, the two-step System GMM method with robust errors was
LGERD 2.59*** 1.108
LGDPPC 30.49*** − 7.349*** performed, in which the instruments were the lags of the endogenous
LEMPS − 2.13** 0.925 variables for the level equation. In the two-step estimation, the internal
LEMPA − 2.07** − 1.329* instruments (lagged values) address different sources of endogeneity
LEDU 36.76*** 1.288 (Ullah et al., 2018). The functional form of the two-step System GMM
LCO2PC 24.57*** 1.657**
LRES_SH 31.44*** − 2.519***
can be described as follows:
MODEL I – Recycling rate of e-waste (A)
Notes: ***, **, and * denote statistical significance at 1 %, 5 %, and 10 % level,
respectively.

196
S.A. Neves et al. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201

LRRit = α0 + α1 LRRi;t− 1 + α2 LWCOLi;t + α3 LEDUi;t + α4 LETRi;t Table 7

Estimation results.
+ α5 LGERDi;t + α6 LRES SHit + α7 LGDPPCit + α8 LEMPSi;t
Model I Model I
+ α9 LEMPAi;t + λi;t (1) Recycling of e-waste (A) Recycling of e-waste (B)

MODEL I – Recycling rate of e-waste (B) LRR(− 1) 0.6757798 *** 0.6527953 ***
[0.0580402] [0.0617528]
LRRit = γ 0 + γ1 LRRi;t− 1 + γ2 LWCOLi;t + γ3 LEDUi;t + γ4 LETRi;t LWCOL 0.2958904*** 0.3536558***
[0.0559763] [0.0657944]
+ γ5 LGERDi;t + γ6 LCO2pci;t + γ7 LGDPpci;t + γ8 LPOP65i;t LPOP15 − 0.6447062***
+ γ9 LPOP15i;t + εit [0.0730809]
LPOP65 − 0.3695375***
(2) [0.061817]
Where, , α0 and γ 0 denote the intercept; αi , γi , (i = 1, …, 9) denote LETR 0.0323494 0.0953578***
[0.0374826] [0.02007]
the coefficients of the variables. εit and λit denote the error term. For LGERD − 0.1271522*** − 0.0899015***
i=1,…, 20 and t = 2010,…, 2018. [0.0223523] [0.0238605]
To guarantee the consistency of the estimations, diagnostic tests had LGDPPC − 0.1064904*** − 0.1226965***
to be conducted. To test over-identifying restrictions, where the in­ [0.0321888] [0.0375986]
LEMPS 0.1630236 **
struments as a group appear exogenously (Roodman, 2009), the Sargan,
[0.0693799]
and/or the Hansen J statistical tests are used. However, while the Sargan LEMPA 0.0069386
test is more effective for one-step and non-robust estimations, the [0.0078912]
Hansen J test is generally used for robust one-step and two-step esti­ LEDU − 0.009311 0.1592913 ***
mations (OSENI, 2016). Consequently, this study used the Hansen J [0.0447679] [0.0581109]
LCO2PC − 0.0593604**
statistical test for over-identifying restrictions (OSENI, 2016), and to test [0.0278169]
the validity of the instruments where there is no autocorrelation be­ LRES_SH 0.0240509*
tween the instruments and the error terms. Furthermore, the collapse [0.0132612]
option of the Hansen J test was used, which significantly increases its CONS 0.9835205 ** 4.560844***
[0.4525634] [0.5526184]
ability to identify the validity of the instruments (Wintoki et al., 2012).
Observations 160 160
Difference GMM and System GMM models are only consistent in the Instruments 17 17
absence of second-order serial correlation in the error terms of the first Countries 20 20
differenced equations (Zarra-Nezhad et al., 2014). Consequently, the AR(1) − 2.60*** − 2.63***
final tests conducted were the first-order (AR1) and second-order (AR2) AR(2) − 1.06 − 1.11
Hansen Test 8.92 8.85
autocorrelation tests to examine first-order and second-order serial
correlations in first differenced error terms. Notes: ***, **, *denotes statistical significance at 1, 5 and 10 % levels. Standard
errors are reported in square brackets ’[]’.
4. Results
variable used for R&D is fairly broad (consisting of total expenditure on
To accomplish this paper’s objective, a model was estimated using R&D by resident enterprises, research institutes, universities, and gov­
two different specifications, namely structure A and structure B (see ernment, etc.), it could equally indicate that R&D is a driving production
Section 3). Model I (A) and Model I (B) were formulated to assess the of new EEE more than the recycling of the e-waste produced. This result
drivers and barriers to recycling e-waste and the results of the estima­ is also considered in more detail in the discussion section.
tions are shown in Table 7. These estimation included Hansen J statis­ Additionally, the influence of the economic structure of each EU
tical tests to confirm the validity of the instruments in two-step System country in the panel was evaluated. The results show that the tertiary,
GMM estimations (OSENI, 2016). The Hansen J-statistical test of over­ services sector (LEMPS) has a positive impact on the rate of recycling e-
identifying restrictions did not reject the null hypothesis (that the in­ waste, contributing more to the recycling of EEE than the industrial
struments are valid) at any conventional level of significance. sector. Meanwhile, the primary sector (LEMPA) does not appear to have
Furthermore, the null hypothesis of AR(1) was rejected, but that of AR any statistically-significant effect. The results regarding CO2 emissions,
(2) was not rejected, indicating that the model was correctly specified per capita show that they negatively affect the recycling rate of e-waste.
and that the dynamic model was appropriate. It should also be high­ In contrast, environmental tax revenues were found to increase the
lighted that the number of instruments used was less than the number of recycling rate of e-waste in Model I (B), but were not significant in Model
crosses (in this case, countries), which is crucial for accurately esti­ I (A).
mating dynamic models (OSENI, 2016). Regarding social factors, The results of Model I (B) show that higher
The two-step System GMM model estimations showed that the lag­ education levels (LEDU) positively affect the recycling rate of e-waste.
ged dependent variable was significant at 1 %. The high statistical sig­ With respect to population age distribution, the results of Model I (A),
nificance of both estimated models is additional proof of the suitability suggest that neither older nor younger people are particularly concerned
of the method. This result reveals an interannual dependency in which with transitioning to a CE by increasing the level of e-waste recycling.
the recycling process depends on previous levels. With regard to eco­ The results of the Model I (B) estimations show that an increase in the
nomic factors, GDPpc was shown to negatively affect the recycling rate proportion of the population in older or younger groups actually reduces
of e-waste in both models. The results of structure A indicate that when the recycling of e-waste. Thus, our results partially confirm those of
GDP per capita increases 1 %, the recycling rate of e-waste decreases Soukiazis and Proença (Soukiazis and Proença, 2020), who found that a
about 0.11 %. This unexpected result is more fully examined in the younger population tends to recycle less MSW.
discussion section. Turning to the results regarding behavioural factors, higher emission
One potential mechanism for decoupling economic growth from levels appear to decrease the rate of e-waste recycling, while the adop­
environmental damage is investment in R&D for environmental pro­ tion of renewables increases it. Higher emissions are generally associ­
tection. However, this paper found that LGERD (investment in R&D) is ated with lower environmental awareness and less sustainable
also a barrier to e-waste recycling, indicating that R&D may not be behaviour, so lower recycling rates were to be expected. More renew­
effectively encouraging the recycling of e-waste. However, as the able energy, on the contrary, is indicative of greater environmental

197
S.A. Neves et al.
awareness, and often associated with higher investment in recycling
facilities.
5. Discussion and recommendations
With the aim of contributing to the literature on the transition to a
Circular Economy and, specifically, on the recycling of e-waste, this
study examined the role played in this by social, economic, institutional,
and behavioural factors. Since the countries in the study belong to the
EU, it should be noted that this is an area in which the European Union
Commission has already taking several measures. The European Green
Deal was announced in 2019, and several key actions were proposed to
State Members, such as requirements for repairs that include the
updating of obsolete software, regulatory measures on EEE chargers,
improved e-waste collection for mobile phones, tablets, and chargers,
and lastly, rules on hazardous substances in EEE. These common policy
guidelines partly explain the existence of fixed effects in the models
estimated in this paper. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the
economic, social, institutional, and environmental dimensions studied
should be incorporated into new policies.
With regard to economic factors, the results shows that GDPpc re­
duces the recycling of e-waste. This result aligns with the findings of
Yilmaz and Koyuncu (Yilmaz and Koyuncu, 2023), but not those of
Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt (Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt, 2023).
This lack of consensus demonstrates the importance of studying this
effect. To understand the negative effect of GDP per capita on the rate of
e-waste recycling, it should be noted that the EEE sector is in constant
evolution, with millions of new products entering the market every day,
leading to an increase in e-waste generation. This trend is unlikely to
change anytime soon. Although the negative effect of GDPpc on e-waste
recycling was initially unexpected, it can be explained as follows. A
higher level of economic growth could mean higher levels of income and
lead to higher levels of EEE consumption. The models were also esti­
mated using gross disposable income to check that GDP per capita was a
suitable proxy for income.2 Both proxies produced similar statistically
significant results.
The EEE per family is expected to increase as income increases. For
example, instead of a tablet for the whole family, one may be bought for
each family member. In the same way, consumers with more disposable
income may be less likely to return their old EEE for recycling or reuse
when they purchase new ones. Both these factors may result in a higher
amount of uncollected e-waste. The literature supports this line of
reasoning, given that there is evidence that higher GDP per capita tends
to generate more e-waste (Kalia et al., 2022); and also drives the amount
of uncollected e-waste in the EU (Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt, 2021).
High income consumers are more likely to dispose of EEE earlier, even
devices that still function perfectly. This may lead to e-waste entering
the e-waste management system earlier than expected. The recycling
system may then be unable to deal with it, and consumers might dispose
of their e-waste unproperly.
Specifically on the issue of improper e-waste disposal, for several
reasons, some consumers may be psychologically resistant to returning
e-waste. Indeed, some EEE, such as computers, smartphones, and
smartwatches, contain sensitive financial, personal and other informa­
tion, making consumers reluctant to hand them over for recycling. To
allay consumer fears, stricter regulations and procedures should be
established to reassure them that EEE recyclers will delete or remove
any personal information. This may be one way to encourage e-waste
collection.
In summary, higher consumption levels tend to increase the rate at
which outmoded EEE are replaced by new ones, boosting economic
2
Estimations not included in the paper to preserve space but available upon
request. Moreover, the option to test disposable income implies exclude some
countries for which there are no available data.
198
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201
capacity, but generating more e-waste. Put simply, people with higher
incomes tend to use and dispose of more EEE, often outpacing the ca­
pacity of existing recycling facilities to handle growing amounts of e-
waste. Thus, growing GDP may have a negative effect on e-waste recy­
cling if not accompanied by commensurate funding to expand the ca­
pacity of recycling systems. Consequently, policymakers need to provide
funding to increase the number of collection points for e-waste, enhance
e-waste recycling facilities and actively promote recycling. Policies are
also needed to reduce industrial pollution associated with the manu­
facture of EEE. Investment in greener products or greater use of recycled
materials could be rewarded by lower taxes that would promote eco­
nomic growth while stimulating the recycling of e-waste.
According to the literature, wealthier countries tend to invest in
R&D, but the results of this study suggest that these investments are not
being directed to recycling systems. This paper finds that R&D expen­
diture is actually a barrier to recycling e-waste. There are at least two
possible reasons for this. Firstly, many R&D investments target in­
novations in EEE, making new devices more attractive to consumers,
increasing the output of new EEE and hastening the obsolescence of
older devices. Secondly, it could indicate that some countries are more
concerned with the environmental problems that arise from emissions
than with poorly managed waste. Recent EU policies have tried to rectify
this somewhat by prioritising waste management and recycling. None­
theless, countries must ensure that funding is directed to recycling sys­
tems and R&D for improving them, if the negative effects of economic
growth and R&D on e-waste recycling are to be reversed.
Regarding the impact of social factors, the study found that higher
education levels play an essential role in attitudes towards recycling.
These results corroborate those obtained by Knäble et al. (Knäble et al.,
2022), Knickmeyer (Knickmeyer, 2020), Önder (Önder, 2018) and
Soukiazis and Proença (Soukiazis and Proença, 2020), who found that
higher levels of tertiary education had a positive effect on recycling
rates. Better education levels have also been found to promote innova­
tion that can help solve global environmental problems (Ajibade and
Boateng, 2021). Higher human capital skills are also needed to develop
and implement environmentally-friendly processes such as recycling.
Thus, policymakers everywhere should continue to invest in environ­
mental education and promote the benefits of the circular economy and
sustainable lifestyles.
In this study, the younger and older generational groups were found
to have a negative effect on recycling. Policymakers need to do more to
encourage these groups, and the population in general, to recycle. As
pointed out elsewhere in the literature, the elderly often encounter
physical challenge to reach a recycling point (Kumar et al., 2017). This
could be addressed by placing more recycling collection points closer to
where people live. With respect to young people, children should be
taught the principles of the CE and recycling through age-appropriate
means. Children who routinely recycle at school, tend to bring these
habits home and spread them to other family members.
Turning to institutional factors, this paper finds that environmental
taxes increase the recycling rate of e-waste. Thus, new tax incentives and
penalties could be effective in promoting the reuse or recycling of de­
vices. These could include incentivising consumers by offering discounts
on new EEE if they return their old device, and taxing retailers or con­
sumers of new EEE who do not return old equipment for recycling. With
regard to behavioural factor, it was found that greater levels of CO2
emissions were associated with lower levels of recycling e-waste. This
suggests that countries that are more dependent on, or tolerant of
emissions may also be less concerned about recycling e-waste.
Conversely, a higher share of renewables in gross final energy con­
sumption seems to improve e-waste recycling rates, despite the lower
level of statistical significance. Ambitious targets should be set, not only
for reducing emissions and increasing the share of renewables in the
energy mix, but also for reducing waste generation and increasing
recycling. EU policymaking should stand firm in demanding
environmentally-responsible behaviour by member countries. Policy
S.A. Neves et al. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201

guidance on environmental matters is shared and implemented in all EU
member countries. So, even though the sample used in this paper ex­
cludes about 25 % of EU countries, the conclusions drawn from it are
broadly applicable to the entire block.
6. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to analyse the drivers and barriers to
recycling e-waste, and the role of economic, social, institutional and
behavioural factors. An empirical analysis used annual panel data for 20
EU countries from 2010 to 2018. Two models with different structures
were estimated to ensure the robustness of the results, given the large
number of countries and relatively short time span of the available data.
A GMM Arellano-Bond estimator was found to be well suited to the
features of this data, and was used in both structures. The results
confirmed the importance of economic, social, institutional and behav­
ioural factors in the recycling of e-waste, and led us to identify a series of
policies that would promote the recycling and reuse of EEE and help
transitioning to a CE.
With regard to economic factors, the negative impacts that GDP and
R&D were found to have on the recycling of e-waste, mean that in­
vestment in recycling capacity must keep pace with the amount of e-
waste produced, and that more R&D should target improving the life
cycle of EEE and upgrading the technology to handle e-waste. Socially,
raising awareness, allaying concerns about personal data, and educating
the population on recycling would enhance public participation and
boost the recycling of e-waste. Policies must make recycling more
attractive to citizens of all ages and education levels.
Concerning institutional factors, it was found that environmental
taxes increase the recycling rate. Thus, they should be used to penalise
those who do not recycle their EEE, and reward those who do, thereby
promoting recycling and the circular economy. Similarly, the paper’s
findings on behavioural factors, show that countries with higher levels
of renewables and lower CO2 emissions also tend to have higher rates of
e-waste recycling, highlighting the benefits of implementing green
solutions.
The main limitation of this study was the relative shortness of the
period investigated. Given the urgency and importance of studying the
subject, we were obliged to use the data available. Nevertheless, the
model was innovatively structured to mitigate this shortcoming, and a
battery of tests was undertaken to confirm that the results were robust
and its main findings trustworthy. It should also be noted that the period
studied is relatively recent and the policies and priorities of the countries
in question are evolving rapidly so that future studies come to different
conclusions. Furthermore, a lack of available data meant that the EU
countries could not be divided into blocks with similar characteristics
(such as Eastern and Western European countries), and some countries
had to be excluded altogether. Future research into recycling could also
develop the approach taken in this paper, but add additional factors and
apply it to different groups of countries. Another line of research sug­
gested by this paper would be to analyse whether policies to incentivise
behaviour compatible with the sustainable principles of the CE are also
effective in increasing rates of recycling.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sónia Almeida Neves: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition,
Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Methodology. António
Cardoso Marques: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing –
review & editing, Methodology. Inês Patrício Silva: Conceptualization,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Methodology.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of the NECE-UBI, Research Unit in Business
Science and Economics, sponsored by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e
Tecnologia, I.P. by project reference UIDB/04630/2020 and DOI iden­
tifier 10.54499/UIDP/04630/2020 is gratefully acknowledged. We also
extend our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments and suggestions.

Appendices

(see Table A.1)

Table A.1
Correlation Matrix Values.

MODEL I (A)
LRR LWCOL LGERD LGDPPC LEMPS LEMPA LETR LEDU LRES
LRR 1.0000
LWCOL 0.5489 1.0000
LGERD 0.0971 0.7144 1.0000
LGDPPC 0.0151 0.7243 0.6410 1.0000
LEMPS − 0.0571 − 0.0341 0.0000 0.0437 1.0000
LEMPA 0.0639 0.0699 0.0720 − 0.0403 − 0.4981 1.0000
LETR 0.0024 − 0.4281 − 0.4517 − 0.4619 − 0.0758 0.0245 1.0000
LEDU 0.1384 0.4248 0.2475 0.5461 − 0.0251 0.0427 − 0.1379 1.0000
LRES_SH 0.1938 − 0.0044 0.1846 − 0.2443 − 0.1024 0.1046 0.0829 0.0227 1.0000
Model I (B)
LRR LPOP15 LPOP65 LGERD LGDPPC LEDU LWCOL LCO2PC LETR
LRR 1.000
LPOP15 0.0617 1.000
LPOP65 0.1027 − 0.5115 1.000
LGERD 0.0971 0.2277 0.2032 1.000
LGDPPC 0.0151 0.5703 − 0.2342 0.6410 1.000
LEDU 0.1384 0.5806 0.0258 0.2475 0.5461 1.000
LWCOL 0.5489 0.4781 0.0290 0.7144 0.7243 0.4248 1.000
LCO2PC − 0.0369 0.1468 − 0.2938 0.2595 0.4599 0.1317 0.2731 1.000
LETR 0.0024 − 0.0777 − 0.0299 − 0.4517 − 0.4619 − 0.1379 − 0.4281 − 0.0660 1.000

199
S.A. Neves et al. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201

References Kinnaman, T.C., 2005. Why do municipalities recycle? Top. Econ. Anal. Policy 5. https://
doi.org/10.2202/1538-0653.1294.
Kinnaman, T.C., Fullerton, D., 2000. Garbage and Recycling with Endogenous Local
Ahirwar, R., Tripathi, A.K., 2021. E-waste management: a review of recycling process,
Policy. J. Urban Econ. 48, 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1006/JUEC.2000.2174.
environmental and occupational health hazards, and potential solutions. Environ.
Kirakozian, A., 2016. The determinants of household recycling: social influence, public
Nanotechnology, Monit. Manag. 15, 100409 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
policies and environmental preferences. Appl. Econ. 48, 1481–1503. https://doi.
enmm.2020.100409.
org/10.1080/00036846.2015.1102843.
Ajibade, I., Boateng, G.O., 2021. Predicting why people engage in pro-sustainable
Knäble, D., Quevedo, E.De, Pérez-cornejo, C., Baumgärtler, T., 2022. The impact of the
behaviors in Portland Oregon: the role of environmental self-identity, personal
circular economy on sustainable development : a European panel data approach.
norm, and socio-demographics. J. Environ. Manage. 289, 112538 https://doi.org/
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 34, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.016.
10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112538.
Knickmeyer, D., 2020. Social factors influencing household waste separation: a literature
Andersen, M.S., 2007. An introductory note on the environmental economics of the
review on good practices to improve the recycling performance of urban areas.
circular economy. Sustain. Sci. 2, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-006-
J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118605 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118605.
0013-6.
Kumar, A., Holuszko, M., Espinosa, D.C.R., 2017. E-waste: an overview on generation,
Awasthi, A.K., Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Li, J., Rosa, P., Terzi, S., Wei, G., Zeng, X.,
collection, legislation and recycling practices. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122, 32–42.
2018. Modelling the correlations of e-waste quantity with economic increase. Sci.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.01.018.
Total Environ. 613–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.08.288,
Kumar, P., Singh, R.K., Kumar, V., 2021a. Managing supply chains for sustainable
46–53.
operations in the era of industry 4.0 and circular economy: analysis of barriers.
Babu, B.R., Parande, A.K., Basha, C.A., 2007. Electrical and electronic waste: a global
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164, 105215 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
environmental problem. Waste Manag. Res. 25, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/
resconrec.2020.105215.
0734242X07076941.
Kumar, S., Agarwal, N., Anand, S.K., Rajak, B.K., 2021b. E-waste management in India: a
Blundell, R., Bond, S., 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel
strategy for the attainment of SDGs 2030. Mater. Today Proc 10–13. https://doi.org/
data models. J. Econom. 87, 115–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)
10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.296.
00009-8.
Lakhan, C., 2014. Exploring the relationship between municipal promotion and
Bond, S., Arellano, M., 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data:monte carlo
education investments and recycling rate performance in Ontario. Canada. Resour.
evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 58,
Conserv. Recycl. 92, 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.006.
277–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968.
Lehmann, C., Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., Damásio, B., 2022. Leveraging the circular
Boubellouta, B., Kusch-Brandt, S., 2023. Driving factors of e-waste recycling rate in 30
economy: investment and innovation as drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 360, 132146 https://
European countries: new evidence using a panel quantile regression of the EKC
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132146.
hypothesis coupled with the STIRPAT model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 25, 7533–7560.
Marques, A.C., Teixeira, N.M., 2022. Assessment of municipal waste in a circular
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02356-w.
economy: do European Union countries share identical performance? Clean. Waste
Boubellouta, B., Kusch-Brandt, S., 2021. Relationship between economic growth and
Syst 3, 100034. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLWAS.2022.100034.
mismanaged e-waste: panel data evidence from 27 EU countries analyzed under the
Meneses, G.D., Palacio, A.B., 2005. Recycling behavior: a multidimensional approach.
Kuznets curve hypothesis. Waste Manag 120, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Environ. Behav. 37, 837–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505276742.
wasman.2020.11.032.
Neves, S.A., Marques, A.C., 2022. Drivers and barriers in the transition from a linear
Bressanelli, G., Pigosso, D.C.A., Saccani, N., Perona, M., 2021. Enablers, levers and
economy to a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 341, 130865 https://doi.org/
benefits of circular economy in the electrical and electronic equipment supply chain:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130865.
a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 298, 126819 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Nguyen, H.M., Thai-Thuong Le, Q., Ho, C.M., Nguyen, T.C., Vo, D.H., 2022. Does
jclepro.2021.126819.
financial development matter for economic growth in the emerging markets? Borsa
Cerqueira, P.A., Soukiazis, E., 2022. Socio-economic and political factors affecting the
Istanbul Rev 22, 688–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.10.004.
rate of recycling in Portuguese municipalities. Econ. Model. 108, 105779 https://
North, G., South, G., Sources, L., South, G., Electronic, U., Equipment, E., North, G.,
doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105779.
Africa, S., Republic, D., 2022. Explainer 1 Drivers, barriers and opportunities of e-
Cerqueira, P.A., Soukiazis, E., Proença, S., 2021. Assessing the linkages between
waste management in Africa 1–3. https://doi.org/10.19088/K4D.2022.016.
recycling, renewable energy and sustainable development: evidence from the OECD
Önder, H., 2018. The socio-economic determiners of recycling: an analysis on European
countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23, 9766–9791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
countries through a macro perspective. Amfiteatru Econ 20, 405–417. https://doi.
020-00780-4.
org/10.24818/EA/2018/48/405.
Compagnoni, M., 2022. Is Extended Producer Responsibility living up to expectations? A
OSENI, I.O., 2016. Exchange rate volatility and private consumption in Sub-Saharan
systematic literature review focusing on electronic waste. J. Clean. Prod. 367,
African countries: a system-GMM dynamic panel analysis. Futur. Bus. J. 2, 103–115.
133101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2016.05.004.
Constantinescu, A., Platon, V., Surugiu, M., Frone, S., Antonescu, D., Mazilescu, R., 2022.
Pouikli, K., 2020. Concretising the role of extended producer responsibility in European
The influence of eco-investment on E-waste recycling-evidence from EU countries.
Union waste law and policy through the lens of the circular economy. ERA Forum
front. Environ. Sci. 10, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.928955.
20, 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-020-00596-9.
Diacon, P.E., Maha, L.G., 2015. The relationship between income, consumption and GDP:
Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., Ormazabal, M., 2018. Towards a consensus on the circular
a time series, cross-country analysis. Procedia Econ. Financ. 23, 1535–1543. https://
economy. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00374-3.
jclepro.2017.12.224.
Doğan, B., Chu, L.K., Ghosh, S., Diep Truong, H.H., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., 2022. How
Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Witjes, S., 2018. The circular economy: new or refurbished
environmental taxes and carbon emissions are related in the G7 economies? Renew.
as CE 3.0? — Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular
Energy 187, 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.077.
economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour.
Fang, G., Yang, K., Tian, L., Ma, Y., 2022. Can environmental tax promote renewable
Conserv. Recycl. 135, 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027.
energy consumption? — An empirical study from the typical countries along the Belt
Rizos, V., Bryhn, J., 2022. Implementation of circular economy approaches in the
and Road. Energy 260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125193.
electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) sector: barriers, enablers and policy
Fiorillo, D., 2013. Household waste recycling: national survey evidence from Italy.
insights. J. Clean. Prod. 338, 130617 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 56, 1125–1151. https://doi.org/10.1080/
jclepro.2022.130617.
09640568.2012.709180.
Robinson, B.H., 2009. E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental
Forti, V., Baldé, C.P., Kuehr, R., Bel, G., 2020. The global E-waste monitor 2020.
impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected
SCITOTENV.2009.09.044.
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean.
Romano, G., Rapposelli, A., Marrucci, L., 2019. Improving waste production and
Prod. 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007.
recycling through zero-waste strategy and privatization: an empirical investigation.
Gu, G., Wang, Z., 2018. Research on global carbon abatement driven by R&D investment
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 146, 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
in the context of. INDCs. Energy 148, 662–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2019.03.030.
energy.2018.01.142.
Roodman, D., 2009. How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system GMM
Hausman, J.A., 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46, 1251.
in Stata. Stata J 9, 86–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0900900106.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827.
Saphores, J.D.M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2006. Household
Hina, M., Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Kraus, S., Dhir, A., 2022. Drivers and barriers of circular
willingness to recycle electronic waste: an application to California. Environ. Behav.
economy business models: where we are now, and where we are heading. J. Clean.
38, 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505279045.
Prod. 333, 130049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049.
Saphores, J.D.M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2012. Willingness to engage in a pro-
Jabbour, C.J.C., Colasante, A., D’Adamo, I., Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., 2023.
environmental behavior: an analysis of e-waste recycling based on a national survey
Comprehending e-waste limited collection and recycling issues in Europe: a
of U.S. households. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 60, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
comparison of causes. J. Clean. Prod. 427, 139257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2011.12.003.
jclepro.2023.139257.
Shahzadi, I., Yaseen, M.R., Iqbal Khan, M.T., Amjad Makhdum, M.S., Ali, Q., 2021. The
Kalia, P., Zia, A., Mladenović, D., 2022. Examining country development indicators and
nexus between research and development, renewable energy and environmental
e-waste under the moderating effect of country development levels and e-waste
quality: evidence from developed and developing countries. Renew. Energy. https://
policy. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 39, 1601–1616. https://doi.org/10.1108/
doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.10.050.
IJQRM-09-2021-0335.
Sidique, S.F., Joshi, S.V., Lupi, F., 2010. Factors influencing the rate of recycling: an
Karlsson, Lothgren, 2000. On the interpretation of panel unit root tests. Econ. Lett. 60,
analysis of Minnesota counties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 242–249. https://doi.
249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.049.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.08.006.

200
S.A. Neves et al.
Skanberg, K., Berglund, M., Wijkman, A., 2014. The circular economy and benefits for
society: jobs and climate clear winners in an economy based on renewable energy
and resource efficiency - a study pertaining to Finland, France, the Netherlands,
Spain and Sweden. MAVA Found 1–55.
Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., 2012. Residents’ behaviors, attitudes, and willingness to pay
for recycling e-waste in Macau. J. Environ. Manage. 106, 8–16. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.036.
Soukiazis, E., Proença, S., 2020. The determinants of waste generation and recycling
performance across the Portuguese municipalities – A simultaneous equation
approach. Waste Manag 114, 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2020.06.039.
Sousa, R., Agante, E., Cerejeira, J., Portela, M., 2018. EEE fees and the WEEE system – A
model of efficiency and income in European countries. Waste Manag 79, 770–780.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.008.
Starr, J., Nicolson, C., 2015. Patterns in trash: factors driving municipal recycling in
Massachusetts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 99, 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2015.03.009.
Stoeva, K., Alriksson, S., 2017. Influence of recycling programmes on waste separation
behaviour. Waste Manag 68, 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2017.06.005.
Commission, The European, 2008. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European parliament
and of the council of 30 May 2018. Off. J. Eur. Union L312, 1–59.
Trujillo-Baute, E., del Río, P., Mir-Artigues, P., 2018. Analysing the impact of renewable
energy regulation on retail electricity prices. Energy Policy 114, 153–164. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.042.
201
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 70 (2024) 192–201
Ullah, S., Akhtar, P., Zaefarian, G., 2018. Dealing with endogeneity bias: the generalized
method of moments (GMM) for panel data. Ind. Mark. Manag. 71, 69–78. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.11.010.
Vergis, S., Chen, B., 2015. Comparison of plug-in electric vehicle adoption in the United
States : a state by state approach. Res. Transp. Econ. 52, 56–64. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.003.
Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Yin, J., Zhang, X., 2011. Willingness and behavior towards e-waste
recycling for residents in Beijing city. China. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 977–984. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.09.016.
Wintoki, M.B., Linck, J.S., Netter, J.M., 2012. Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal
corporate governance. J. financ. econ. 105, 581–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jfineco.2012.03.005.
Xavier, L.H., Ottoni, M., Lepawsky, J., 2021. Circular economy and e-waste management
in the Americas: brazilian and Canadian frameworks. J. Clean. Prod. 297, 126570
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126570.
Yilmaz, R., Koyuncu, C., 2023. The Impact of Globalization on the Rate of E-waste
Recycling: evidence From European Countries. Amfiteatru Econ 25, 180. https://doi.
org/10.24818/ea/2023/62/180.
Zameer, H., Yasmeen, H., 2022. Green innovation and environmental awareness driven
green purchase intentions. Mark. Intell. Plan. 40, 624–638. https://doi.org/
10.1108/MIP-12-2021-0457.
Zarra-Nezhad, M., Hasanvand, S., Akbarzadeh, M.H., 2014. The shadow economy and
globalization: a comparison between difference GMM and system GMM approaches.
Int. J. Bus. Dev. Stud. 6, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.22111/IJBDS.2014.1948.