SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME - NewInnoNet 1.1_RP_Report summarizing the st… · Matchpoint...
Transcript of SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME - NewInnoNet 1.1_RP_Report summarizing the st… · Matchpoint...
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
Start date of project: 2015/02/01 Duration: 30 Months
Identifier: D 1.1. _PNO_ Report on Stakeholder Analysis
Date: 2016/08/26
Class: Final
Responsible Partner: PNO
Annexes: 4
Distribution: Public
Title: Report on Stakeholder Analysis
The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no 642231
PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE NEW_InnoNet CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR
WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE NEW_InnoNet CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 2 of 59
AUTHORS & INFORMATION
Miranda Verboon, MSc (PNO Consultants): Miranda Verboon is a NEW_InnoNet project member and works for PNO’s
Energy & Environment team since 2016. She holds a degree in Political Science (BA) and Industrial Ecology (MSc) from
Leiden University. During her studies, she worked at Leiden University’s Centre for Innovation and participated in several
European research projects related to resource efficiency and production of metals. Her thesis research, which studied
the environmental impacts of nickel production in different metal demand scenarios until 2050, was conducted at Yale
University.
Tjerk Wardenaar, PhD (PNO Consultants): Tjerk Wardenaar is project coordinator of the NEW_InnoNet project. Since
2014, he works as an innovation consultant for PNO Consultants with a special focus on water technology, climate
action, and integral sustainability projects (e.g. industrial ecology, circular economy). Tjerk has a multidisciplinary
background: Industrial Ecology (MSc), Philosophy (MA, BA) and Political Sciences (BA). After working as an
environmental researcher for Leiden University, Tjerk joined the Rathenau Instituut. For this organization, he conducted
research on the organization of large-scale climate programmes. In 2015, Tjerk obtained his PhD after publication of his
thesis “Organizing Collaborative Research: The dynamics and long-term effects of multi-actor research programs”.
More information: for more information on this report or the NEW_InnoNet project, please contact Tjerk Wardenaar
([email protected]) or visit the project website (www.newinnonet.eu).
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 3 of 59
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AUTHORS & INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction & objectives ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2. Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.4. Reading guide .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
2. Stakeholders’ perspectives on Near-Zero Waste ......................................................................................... 8 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2. (Perceived) knowledge of zero-waste concepts ......................................................................................................... 8 2.3. Attitudes ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.4. Barriers towards a circular economy ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.5. Research priorities ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
3. Plastic packaging ..................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2. Key collaboration ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3. Most influential actors ............................................................................................................................................... 14 3.4. Matchpoint analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 17
4. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ................................................................................................ 21 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.2. Key collaboration ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.3. Most influential actors ............................................................................................................................................... 22 4.4. Matchpoint analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 25
5. End-of-Life Vehicles ................................................................................................................................ 28 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.2. Key collaboration ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.3. Most influential actors ............................................................................................................................................... 29 5.4. Matchpoint analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 32
6. Towards a Near-Zero Waste Europe .......................................................................................................... 35 6.1. Stakeholder expectations .................................................................................................................................. 35 6.2. Towards a platform structure ............................................................................................................................ 35
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
Annexes .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 Annex 1: Survey methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Annex 2: Matchpoint methodology ................................................................................................................................. 45 Annex 3: Full questionnaire .............................................................................................................................................. 47 Annex 4: Stakeholder list .................................................................................................................................................. 52
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 4 of 59
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Europe generates around three billion tonnes of waste each year – and it is expected that this amount will increase
further. Approximately half of this waste is not reused or recycled, and aside from the environmental impacts associated
with incinerating or landfilling this waste, a significant amount of potential secondary raw materials is lost (EC 2015a).
Ambitious targets for a zero-waste Europe have been laid down in a number of policy initiatives, and have recently been
updated, bundled and specified in the Circular Economy Package. While innovative recycling technologies have been
successfully developed, market uptake is limited and varies drastically among EU member states and regions. Without
market uptake of new technologies, the development of more innovations, and elimination of non-technological market
hurdles, the targets for a near-zero waste Europe will not be fulfilled.
The Near-zero European Waste Innovation Network (NEW_InnoNet) stimulates the development and implementation
of near-zero waste technologies. NEW_InnoNet believes that in this respect, cooperation is essential. Not only will
cooperation stimulate knowledge dissemination, it will also result in optimization of the use of raw materials and
increasing collection and recycling rates. In order to induce more cooperation within value chains, NEW_InnoNet
develops a European stakeholder platform (www.newinnonet.eu).
NEW_InnoNet focuses first on implementing near-zero waste and circular economy approaches in three specific value
chains and their three associated waste streams:
Electronics and electric equipment (WEEE: Waste Electronics and Electric Equipment).
Automotive (ELV: End-of-Life Vehicles).
Fast moving consumer goods (Plastic packaging).
In order to gain a more detailed overview of the (perspectives of the) stakeholders of these value chains a targeted study
has been conducted. The study consists of analyses of the responses of 184 stakeholders and of the compositions of 226
European projects. Participating stakeholders represent the full value chain, i.e. from material production to product
manufacturing, waste collection, waste managing and recycling. The stakeholder analysis enables NEW_InnoNet to
develop its platform in line with the opinions, needs and expertise of stakeholders in the value chains.
The stakeholder analysis shows that:
Stakeholders are familiar with near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts. However,
levels of expertise differ strongly among stakeholders and technological expertise is lagging behind.
Stakeholders have positive attitudes towards (and expectations of) the circular economy. A positive correlation
exists between level of expertise and attitude, i.e. more knowledgeable stakeholders have a more positive
attitude.
A strong correlation exists between the level of collaboration of stakeholders and their expertise of zero-waste
concepts. This confirms the importance of collaboration and knowledge-sharing and underwrites the purpose of
the NEW_InnoNet project.
Stakeholders in different value chains share challenges: commonalities between value chains provide
opportunities for cross-fertilization. At the same time, it is important to note that the value chains are also very
different; observed bottlenecks, main research priorities and key stakeholders differ strongly per value chain.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 5 of 59
The concepts of near-zero waste and circular economy are increasingly important on the European research
agenda. Since 1982, 226 European projects have already been developed – with 1777 partners – resulting in a
large body of knowledge and innovation.
Stakeholders have positive expectations of a European stakeholder platform, especially with regard to
networking opportunities and providing visibility of front-runners.
The stakeholder analysis provides the NEW_InnoNet project with clear recommendations – and three main platform
pillars:
(Technological) information sharing:
Although stakeholders are aware of near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts, the
average level of expertise should be considered as relatively low and knowledge is fragmented in different
sectors and among stakeholders. The lack of knowledge hampers progress in this area because: (1) stakeholders
are not aware of possible solutions for their problems, and (2) stakeholders with less expertise are more
pessimistic about the circular economy. Therefore, the platform should actively disclose available information
on existing and developing technologies. A specific focus should be placed on the large body of knowledge that
is (and has been) developed in the context of European projects.
Networking and front-runners:
Stakeholders expect networking opportunities from a European platform. In addition, stakeholders indicate
that the platform should provide visibility for frontrunners in the field of recycling and sustainability. These
expectations are in line with the current activities of the NEW_InnoNet project, e. g. on 8-9 June 2016 the
project organized a stakeholder conference where stakeholders could network and frontrunners were provided
an opportunity to present themselves as key-note speakers (for a report on the conference, see NEW_InnoNet
2016a). The project will continue these activities as well as stimulating on-line networking activities and
providing front-runners a digital platform.
Facilitating bottom-up actions:
The differences between the value chains indicate that there is not a silver bullet solution for implementation of
circular economy concepts. The NEW_InnoNet project will therefore support bottom-up initiatives and actions.
By facilitating stakeholders to put issues on the agenda and to develop their ideas in collaboration with other
stakeholders, NEW_InnoNet will not only increase commitment but (more importantly) induce actions for
actual change. The platform will in this respect serve as a safe haven or incubator for innovative collaborations
for near-zero waste technologies and a circular Europe.
The methodology, results and detailed conclusions of the NEW_InnoNet stakeholder analysis are described in this
report.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 6 of 59
1. INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES
1.1. BACKGROUND
Europe generates around three billion tonnes of waste each year – and it is expected that this amount will increase
further. Approximately half of this waste is not reused or recycled, and aside from the environmental impacts associated
with incinerating or landfilling this waste, a significant amount of potential secondary raw materials is lost (EC 2015a).
Although innovative recycling technologies and processes have been successfully implemented for many years, market
uptake varies drastically amongst the 28 Member States of the EU as well as within individual Member States.
NEW_InnoNet therefore develops a stakeholder platform to stimulate market uptake of zero waste technologies and
processes. Starting point of the platform is the recognition that in order to reach a European near-zero waste economy,
value chain stakeholders must increase interactions and collaborations. Through collaboration and communication,
generated knowledge, valuable insights and hands-on experiences can be more rapidly shared and spread. In addition,
potential knowledge gaps and innovation needs can be identified and addressed. In this way, the NEW_InnoNet
platform will enable stakeholders to enforce the required changes in the value chain structure collaboratively.
NEW_InnoNet is a Horizon 2020 project started in 2015. In addition to developing the platform, the project drafts a
Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) on waste reduction for the European Commission. The SRIA builds on
a set of sequential and complementary project activities: (1) identify and analyze existing bottlenecks for the transition
from linear to circular approach in value chains, (2) develop roadmaps for three selected value chains that define where
and how a difference can be made; and (3) initiated future use case to set the ground for building a transition towards
circular economy.1
1.2. OBJECTIVES
In order to be able to develop and reinforce solid foundations for an European Near-Zero Waste Platform, a stakeholder
analysis has been conducted by the NEW_InnoNet project. This stakeholder analysis contributes to the development of
the platform by identifying the main stakeholders in three value chains and taking stock of their perspectives and
expectations. The main objectives of the stakeholder analysis are:
Getting insight into stakeholders’ perspectives and expertise on the circular economy and near-zero waste
technologies (Chapter three).
Identification of (the main) stakeholders in three value chains:
o Electronics and electric equipment (Chapter three).
o Plastic packaging (Chapter four).
o Automotive (Chapter five).
Assessing stakeholder needs and expectations of next steps of NEW_InnoNet (Chapter six).
1 Reports on the value chain and bottleneck analyses are available via: http://www.newinnonet.eu/ReportsList.aspx. Keeping track of
the progress on the roadmaps – and providing input – is possible via: http://www.newinnonet.eu/ShowEvent.aspx?eveid=1021.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 7 of 59
1.3. METHODOLOGY
The stakeholder analysis is based on two research steps2:
A survey was disseminated among 670 European stakeholders: The list was composed by the partners of the
NEW_InnoNet project and is attached (anonymized) to this report as annex 4. The survey contains questions on
the perspectives, actions and expectations of stakeholders with regard to the circular economy and near-zero
waste technologies. The questionnaire served two purposes: first of all, to map the current playing field in terms
of organizations’ knowledge, influence, interest and attitude towards zero-waste concepts. Secondly, to gain
insight into stakeholders’ expectations and needs of a European platform on near-zero waste.
A Matchpoint analysis of CORDIS-data for the period 1983 – 2015: In order to get an overview of (active)
individual stakeholders involved in the different value chains, an analysis was made of all European projects
related to the topics of WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging. Specifically, an analysis was made of the number of
projects over time, the type and amount of project partners and the amount of funding over time. This enabled
identification of the most active stakeholders (in European projects) and the salience and amount of funding of
certain topics over time. The analysis was performed by using the Matchpoint tool developed by PNO
Consultants.
1.4. READING GUIDE
This report contains six chapters, 4 annexes and an executive summary. The first chapter provides an introduction to the
background, objectives and methodology of the NEW_InnoNet project. Chapter two analyzes stakeholders’ knowledge
of - and attitudes towards - circular economy concepts, as well as perceived barriers towards the transition to a circular
economy and main research- and development priorities. Chapters three through five contain analyses of the value
chains in terms of collaboration, influence and innovation for the three value chains: plastic packaging (chapter three),
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE; chapter four) and end-of-life vehicles (ELV; chapter five). Chapter six
concludes with an analysis of stakeholders’ expectations of a near-zero waste platform and recommendations for a
platform structure.
2 A detailed description of the applied methodologies, survey questionnaires and conducted analyses is provided in Annex 1 (survey
methodology), 2 (Matchpoint methodology) and 3 (full questionnaire).
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 8 of 59
2. STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON NEAR-ZERO WASTE
Main findings:
Knowledge: Stakeholders are familiar with near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts. However,
levels of expertise differ strongly among stakeholders and technological expertise is lagging behind.
Attitude: Stakeholders have positive attitudes towards (and expectations of) the circular economy. A positive correlation
exists between level of expertise and attitude, i.e. more knowledgeable stakeholders have a more positive attitude.
Barriers: Barriers identified by experts in the bottleneck analysis (NEW_InnoNet 2016b; 2016c 2016d) are also recognized
by the majority of stakeholders. Most important barriers for the value chains are: ‘bad’ product design (plastic
packaging); miniaturization, complexity, integration of functions (WEEE); and low-cost alternatives such as landfilling
(ELV).
Research priorities: Stakeholders in different value chains share challenges but identify different research priorities for
their value chain.
2.1. INTRODUCTION
The European Union has formulated ambitious targets with respect to waste reduction and the circular economy. These
targets are formulated in the EU action plan for the Circular Economy (EC 2015b) as well as several directives on specific
waste streams (e.g. directive 94/62/EC on packaging waste, directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life-vehicles and directive
2012/19/EU on electronic waste). In order to reach these targets, stakeholders throughout Europe will need to take
action and change their working practices. The perspectives of stakeholders are therefore crucial for achieving a near-
zero waste Europe. This part of the report discusses: (1) how knowledgeable stakeholders already are on these topics, (2)
what their attitudes are with regards to feasibility and desirability, (3) what they see as main barriers, and (4) what
research priorities they identify.
2.2. (PERCEIVED) KNOWLEDGE OF ZERO-WASTE CONCEPTS
The concepts near-zero waste and circular economy have been around since the 1970s. Despite their growing popularity,
however, they are not mainstream concepts and especially their practical implementation might be unknown by
stakeholders. At the same time, knowledge is a condition for organizational change as well as an indispensable
requirement for implementing new technologies. The questionnaire therefore asked stakeholders for a self-assessment
of knowledge of different topics on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 indicated ‘Very low’ and 6 ‘Very high’.
The response on the survey shows that with an average score of 3.8 (N = 133) stakeholders indicate that they are familiar
with near-zero waste and circular economy concepts. It should be noted, however, that the level of reported expertise
varies largely between stakeholders (standard deviation is 1.08). Stakeholders from the ELV-chain report the highest
level of expertise (4.1, N = 22), followed by WEEE (3.9, N = 60) and subsequently plastic packaging (3.6, N = 51). The
highest score for the ELV-value chain is in line with expectations; after all, recycling and circular economy measures are
already (to a large extent) established in this value chain (NEW_InnoNet 2016b).
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total
Plastics
WEEE
ELV
Technical knowledge Soc. org. Knowledge
Figure 1 distinguishes between two different types of
knowledge regarding the circular economy, i.e. technical
knowledge and socio-organizational knowledge. The latter
category encompasses economic knowledge, regulatory
knowledge, environmental knowledge and organizational
knowledge. On average, all value chains report to have higher
knowledge of socio-organizational issues than technical issues
regarding the circular economy. This discrepancy is highest in
the WEEE value chain, with a difference of 0.6 points.
Stakeholders in the plastic packaging and WEEE value chains
report on average that their level of technological expertise is
closer to “Low” than to “High”.
Analysis of the knowledge topics show that the highest levels of expertise are reported in all value chains for: (1)
environmental impact of waste disposal (4.0 – 4.4), and (2) expertise on national and European directives regarding their
value chain (4.0 – 4.6). This may point to stakeholders’ awareness regarding the reasons for - and the urgency of - the
circular economy. In all value chains, knowledge on tracking and marker technologies and circular business models are
lowest. In addition, all value chains, especially WEEE, report to have less knowledge of product (eco- or re)design aspects
(3.1 – 3.9).
2.3. ATTITUDES
The reported knowledge levels indicate that – on average – stakeholders have an understanding of near-zero waste and
circular economy concepts. In this part of the report, the focus is on the attitudes of stakeholders towards this change.
Attitude is defined as an expression of favour, disfavour or ambivalence towards a specific “attitude object” (person,
place, concept). Attitude was measured by two different concepts.
First of all, respondents were asked to complete a semantic differential question in order to directly measure their
attitude on different aspects of the circular economy. Figure 3 shows that the average attitude towards circular economy
is very positive (4.9, N = 130). The plastics (5.1, N = 50) and WEEE (4.9, N = 57) value chains score on or above average,
while the ELV (4.6, N = 23) value chain is slightly less positive. Analysis of the individual items shows that “feasibility”
scored lowest in all value chains (4.2 – 4.7), “importance” highest in plastics and WEEE (resp. 5.4 and 5.2), and
“desirability” in the ELV value chain (5.0). It can thus be concluded that stakeholders in all value chains have a very
positive attitude towards the circular economy, although they may perceive some barriers to the transition to a circular
economy. These potential barriers will be addressed in paragraph 3.4.
4.9
5.1
4.9
4.6
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total
Plastics
WEEE
ELV
4.9
5.0
4.8
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total
Plastics
WEEE
ELV
Figure 1. Technical and socio-organizational knowledge.
Figure 3. Perceived benefits of circular economy
over linear economy.
Figure 2. Average attitude towards circular economy
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 10 of 59
Secondly, respondents were asked to rate the perceived benefits of the circular economy over the linear economy with
regards to different social and organizational levels. The results are presented in figure 3. Overall, stakeholders expect
that the benefits of a circular economy are higher compared to the linear economy (4.9, N = 127). Similarly to the
measure of attitude presented above, the benefits are perceived to be larger by the plastic packaging value chain (5.0, N
= 49). Stakeholders in the ELV value chain seem to be slightly more critical, yet still positive overall (4.5, N = 22).
In addition, a comparison was made between stakeholders’ knowledge and attitude. It was shown that, on average,
stakeholders with low scores on knowledge (≤3.5) scored lower on attitude than stakeholders with high (>3.5) knowledge
of circular economy concepts. This difference was most pronounced in the plastic packaging value chain, where
stakeholders with less knowledge scores 0.6 points lower on attitude than stakeholder with high reported levels of
knowledge. The WEEE value chain also has a 0.5 point difference, while in the ELV value chain there is only a small
difference (0.3) between the attitude scores of stakeholders with reported low- and high levels of knowledge.
2.4. BARRIERS TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY
As demonstrated in the previous section, stakeholders in this study have positive attitudes on the circular economy.
Stakeholders are least positive (although still positive) on the feasibility of the circular economy. This result is in line with
previous value chain analyses of the NEW_InnoNet project (NEW_InnoNet 2016b; 2016c, 2016d). In these analyses,
several bottlenecks were identified by value chain experts. In the survey, respondents were asked to what extent they
recognized these barriers. All barriers in all value chains were confirmed to be barriers by stakeholders, with a range of
55% - 82% of respondents choosing an option that agreed with the statement. In order to be able to distinguish the most
important barriers and prioritize measures to overcome them, an analysis is made of the amount of respondents that
agree or completely agree (i.e. excluding “slightly agree”)..
Figure 4 shows the top five barriers identified by the ELV bottleneck analysis and the percentage of respondents that
either agree or strongly agree to the existence of the barrier (N = 22). The largest barrier according to respondents is the
low cost of energy recovery versus material recovery from ELV (45%), followed by the limited applications of non-
metallic materials from ELV (38%). A number of stakeholders stressed that while the framework for collection and
monitoring of ELV is adequate, practical implementation and enforcement are often lacking.
Figure 4. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the ELV value chain.
Figure 5 shows the top five barriers to achieving a circular economy in the plastic packaging value chain (N = 50).
Compared to the ELV value chain, the general level of agreement is significantly higher. Ranking highest are product
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Low-cost of energy recovery and landfill versus materialrecovery;
Limited and low quality applications of non-metallic ELVmaterials;
Inadequate performance of ELV collection and monitoring;
Inadequate performance of the separation, sorting andrefining technology;
Inadequate performance of vehicle dismantling and reuse;
Agree Completely agree
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 11 of 59
design aspects (63%) and the limited source separation of plastic packaging waste (56%). Similarly to the ELV chain, the
plastic packaging value chain also experiences contradictory incentives regarding end-of-life processing due to the
financial advantages of energy recovery. However, multiple stakeholders mentioned the absence of support of
governments and legislation, for example in the form of appropriate legislation and financing mechanisms.
Figure 5. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the plastic packaging value chain.
Figure 6 shows the barriers identified in the WEEE value chain (N = 57). Scoring highest are product design aspects
(61%), closely followed by the lack of incentives to develop recyclable materials and products (60%). Additional input
from stakeholders often concerned the lack of standardization in design as well as end-of-life treatments. Several
stakeholders also identified the scarce information on product composition and monitoring of material flows as a
significant barrier.
Figure 6. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the WEEE value chain.
2.5. RESEARCH PRIORITIES
In order to overcome the barriers explored in the previous paragraph, stakeholders were asked to rate and prioritize different areas of research and development. These R&D priorities were divided into seven areas of interest displayed below. In line with the analysis of barriers to a circular economy, only the share of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing is displayed.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Bad product design;
Limited source separation of plastic packaging waste;
Performance of separation and sorting technology;
Export of plastic packaging waste for recycling outside EU;
Performance of recycling technology;
Agree Completely agree
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Product design aspects: Miniaturisation, complexity,integrating of multiple functions;
No incentives to develop recyclable materials and products;
Illegal export of WEEE outside EU;
Rapid changes in designs and materials;
Fluctuating raw material prices.
Agree Completely agree
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 12 of 59
Figure 7. R&D priorities in all value chains
In general, the level of agreement is quite high, especially in the plastic packaging value chain. Design for recycling is
regarded as a top priority in the value chains of plastic packaging (N = 50) and WEEE (N = 56), an issue that is also
emphasized by stakeholders in the open responses. In ELV (N = 20), design for recycling is prioritized least.
More research into waste prevention and reduction is also encouraged, especially in the plastic packaging value chain,
where it is perhaps also most easily achieved. In addition, and overlapping with both waste prevention and design for
recycling, stakeholders stressed the necessity of remanufacturing and reuse and urged to improve the preconditions for
establishing these concepts successfully.
While confirming its importance, stakeholders in the ELV and WEEE chain prioritize the performance of collection
schemes least. As outlined in the previous chapter, stakeholders in the ELV chain are relatively content with the
regulatory and organizational framework of the monitoring and collection schemes. However, stronger enforcement is
required in order to optimize the system and to enable a transition to a fully circular value chain. In the plastic packaging
value chain, however, the performance of collection schemes is among the top priorities.
Something that was not included in the survey, but was emphasized by several stakeholders, is the role of consumer
behaviour in the transition to a circular economy. Consumers make choices daily about the amount and type of products
they purchase. Taking into account global population and welfare growth, consumers constitute a driving force behind
global demand for products and materials. Since demand for products and materials must first stabilize before a fully
circular economy can be achieved, the role of consumers in the circular economy is paramount.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Design for recycling
Waste prevention/reduction
Market dynamics
Performance of separation and sorting technology
Policy and regulation
Monitoring of waste streams
Performance of collection schemes
Plastic packaging WEEE ELVAgree Strongly agree
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 13 of 59
3. PLASTIC PACKAGING
Main findings:
Collaboration: The overall level of collaboration in the value chain is high. One collaboration cluster can be identified at
the beginning of the value chain and one cluster at the end. In terms of collaboration, the most important actors are
situated at the end-of-life part of the value chain: waste collecting agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies.
Influence: Product manufacturers and waste managers are the stakeholders who report sufficient influence to induce
change in the value chain. While supporting stakeholders (funding- knowledge- and regulatory agencies) have little
influence in the value chain, they may prove valuable partners for support and collaboration.
Innovation: research organizations have been dominant in European projects on plastic packaging innovation. In terms
of participation, the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Germany) is most innovative. The European Plastic Converters (Belgium)
is the most innovative industrial stakeholder.
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the plastic packaging value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is
defined in three different ways: key collaboration partner (section 3.2); most influential stakeholder (section 3.3); and
most innovative stakeholder (section 3.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of
different stakeholders are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 68 stakeholders and 102
European projects. Respondents are from eleven EU-Member States. No stakeholders in the phases of retail/distribution
and waste collection participated in this survey, and thus were not included in the results; except for in the network
analysis, where the external assessment of collaboration provided the data.
3.2. KEY COLLABORATION
In order to map the level and direction of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain, stakeholders were asked to
indicate the frequency of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the categorization
described in Annex 1. These data were converted into a network graph, displayed below. For purposes of clarity, only the
primary stakeholder categories are included in this graph; supporting stakeholders (funding, knowledge- and regulatory
agencies) were omitted. In addition, since this analysis is about collaboration between different stakeholder types in the
value chain, collaborations within the same phase in the value chain are not displayed.
The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in figure 8 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors
in the value chain; the size and opacity of the flows stemming from the colored bars represents collaboration as reported
by stakeholders themselves. Thus, it can be seen that most stakeholders collaborate fairly regularly with each other. The
colored bars in the inner ring indicate which types of actors have reported to collaborate with the types of organizations
represented by the bar on the accompanying outer ring. The other end of the flow represents the frequency of the
collaboration according to the source. Following this logic, stakeholders who have a broad flow originating from their
side that narrows on the other side have indicated to collaborate more frequently than has been indicated about their
collaboration externally. Likewise, flows with similar sizes on both ends represent collaboration that was gauged almost
equally.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 14 of 59
The tabulated results show that the average level of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain is highest of all
value chains, with a score of 4.0 (N = 50). The strongest mutual collaborators in the plastic packaging value chain are raw
material producers and product manufacturers; and waste managers and recyclers. The presence of these two ‘clusters’
of collaboration (one at the ‘beginning’ and one at the ‘end’ of the value chain) may point to the fact that, in terms of
collaboration, the linear economy is still the dominant principle in the plastic packaging value chain.
In addition, product manufacturers report the highest collaboration with other stakeholders, especially with
distributors, waste collecting agencies and waste managers. Excluding the missing stakeholder types, waste managers
report the least collaboration overall. More specifically, the least collaboration takes place with product manufacturers
and retailers and distributors.
Comparing the level of collaboration as reported by stakeholders and reported externally (by other stakeholders) shows
that raw material producers and component manufacturers tend to overestimate their collaboration with value chain
partners. The greatest discrepancy is found in the self-assessment and external assessment of collaboration of raw
material producers and product manufacturers. Raw material producers report high levels of collaboration with all
partners in the value chain. However, this is only confirmed by product manufacturers and recyclers. In fact, raw material
producers are the least collaborated with according to other stakeholders.
Waste managers and recyclers, however, tend to underestimate their frequency of collaboration with other
stakeholders. Waste managers self-report the lowest level of collaboration; however, external rating shows the
complete opposite - waste managers are most selected as collaboration partner by other stakeholders.
3.3. MOST INFLUENTIAL ACTORS
It is important to identify the (types of) stakeholders likely to play a role in the transition to a circular economy. Two
analyses were therefore made: (1) an analysis of the influence of stakeholders in the current situation (status quo); and,
(2) an analysis of their position towards transition. The analysis of the status quo is based on stakeholders’ influence and
their willingness to exert that influence (activity). The analysis of the position towards transition is based on the one
Figure 8. Collaborations between actors in the plastic packaging value chain.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 15 of 59
hand on a comparison of stakeholders’ embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the perceived effects of change
on their organization; and on the other hand, an analysis of stakeholders’ interest in change compared to their influence.
3.3.1. Position in status quo
To assess the current state of affairs in the value chain, an analysis has been made of stakeholders’ influence and the
willingness to exert that influence. Influence, or the ability of an actor to change or control the behaviour of others, can
be derived from different sources; for example, from access to financial resources or knowledge. The willingness to exert
influence was defined as the activity level, and measured by stakeholders’ frequency of participation in different types of
activities, such as collaborative research projects or lobbying activities.
In the plastic packaging value chain the average level of influence is 4.0 (N = 56). Funding agencies report the lowest
level of influence (3.1, N = 3), while product manufacturers report the highest (4.6, N = 7). In general, stakeholders derive
and exert their influence through their knowledge and the size of their network. Fewer stakeholders (approximately half)
report having influence on regulatory issues. The average level of activity is quite high with a value of 4.0 (N = 55). The
least active stakeholders are funding organizations (3.3, N = 3), while the recycling agencies (4.8, N = 12) are extremely
active. Stakeholders are most active in dialogues and collaborations with other organizations (4.8; 4.7), and least active
in lobbying activities (3.7).
When putting these characteristics in a grid, it becomes clear that both product manufacturers and waste managers
have the potential to induce change in the value chain. However, product manufacturers are less interested in this than
waste managers, who are very willing to exert influence in the value chain. Actors with low influence, but who can play a
supporting role, are displayed in the bottom row. Of these, especially knowledge organizations and regulatory agencies
are willing to participate in activities related to the circular economy.
Table 1. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the plastic packaging value chain.
3.3.2. Position towards the future
Now an assessment of current affairs has been made, it is important to look at the potential effects of the transition to a
circular economy on stakeholders; will they experience benefits from the transition, as they have already embedded
circular economy principles to a large extent? Having a high level of embeddedness ensures that stakeholders are
sufficiently prepared or have sufficient adaptability in order to perform well in a circular landscape. While the perceived
effects of change do not predict anything about the actual effects of change, the perception of stakeholders is what is
Willingness to exert influence
Low High
Infl
uen
ce
Hig
h
C – Product manufacturers F – Waste managers
Lo
w
A – Raw material producers
G – Recycling agencies H – Funding agencies
I – Knowledge organizations J – Regulatory agencies
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 16 of 59
relevant, since this determines the role they will assume in either facilitating or obstructing the transition to a circular
economy. In order to measure these aspects, stakeholders have been asked to indicate the level of embeddedness of
circular economy concepts in different aspects of their organisation, such as communication activities or daily work
practices. In addition, the perceived effect of change and the direction of change that will occur during the transition to a
circular economy are measured.
The plastics value chain reports the highest level of embeddedness of circular economy concepts (4.2) of all value chains.
After regulators (3.4, N = 4), product manufacturers (N = 7) and raw material producers (N = 3) report the lowest level of
embeddedness (3.5) and waste managers (4.9, N = 9) the highest. Stakeholders report to have circular economy
concepts mainly incorporated in the communication activities (4.5), and to a lesser extent in the training of employees
(3.7).
Similarly, the perceived effects of change are the most positive of all value chains (4.0, N = 50). The independency of the
organization is assumed to be most negatively affected (3.2). Both the societal legitimacy and the network of the
organization are expected to be most positively affected (4.4). This indicates stakeholders expect a tradeoff between
independency and the size of their network, most likely due to increased collaboration. The organizations that report the
most positive perception of change are recycling agencies (4,5, N = 9), while regulatory agencies are less positive (2.8, N
= 4).
Plotting these characteristics against each other yields in a typology displayed in Table 2. Assuming a high level of
embeddedness of circular economy principles will lead to positive results in the transition to a circular economy, the
absence of stakeholders in the top left section indicates there may be no prepared losers. However, there are quite some
stakeholders who expect the transition to the circular economy to affect their organization negatively. Combining this
aspect with the low level of embeddedness would make these stakeholders unprepared losers. Recycling agencies, who
have low embeddedness of circular economy principles, would become unprepared winners; while waste managers and
knowledge organizations would become prepared winners.
Expected effects of change
Negative Positive
Em
be
dd
edn
ess H
igh
F – Waste managers
I – Knowledge organizations
Lo
w
A – Raw material producers C – Product manufacturers
H – Funding agencies J – Regulatory agencies
G – Recycling agencies
Table 2. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for the plastic packaging value chain.
3.3.3. Champions, obstructers and bystanders
In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the effects of change
towards a circular economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the interest stakeholders have in
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 17 of 59
the change towards a circular economy. Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of change
have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may have interest in maintaining the status quo.
Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according to the typology in Box 1. Stakeholders with low
scores on interest, but high on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while actors with high scores on
both interest and influence have the potential to become key champions of the transition to a circular economy.
Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to play a significant role in the transition to a circular economy
would be limited to the role of bystander.
Raw material producers: Raw material producers report to have little
interest in change. In addition, they have limited influence and
participate in few activities in the value chain, making them sceptic
bystanders.
Product manufacturers: Product manufacturers have high influence
in the value chain. While they do not explicitly exert their influence in
joint research projects or collaborations, they have potential to
obstruct the transition process towards a circular economy.
Waste managers: With a high score on all aspects, waste managers
are likely to be the key champions of circularity in the value chain.
Recycling agencies: While recycling agencies have positive interest in
change, they have less influence in the value chain, limiting them to
the role of enthusiastic bystander.
Supporting stakeholders (funding-, knowledge- and regulatory
agencies): Supporting stakeholders generally have low influence in the
value chain, but may play a supporting role in the transition to a circular economy. Especially knowledge organizations,
with high interest and high levels of activity, may be valuable collaboration partners.
This analysis makes clear that it is essential that incentives are developed that will stimulate raw material producers’ and
product manufacturers’ interest in the change towards circularity. While product manufacturers do not explicitly exert
their influence through collaborative projects, they already derive influence solely from their position in the value chain;
manufacturers’ choices with regard to product composition and design will influence the ability of waste managers and
recyclers to process it successfully. While waste managers are a powerful actor in the value chain, initiatives for effective
waste management (such as increased separation or more efficient recycling) are only one aspect of a circular economy.
Without the inclusion of design- and production aspects into the transition process, the development of circular
economy will be significantly hampered.
3.4. MATCHPOINT ANALYSIS
In this section, key stakeholders will be identified by their participation in European projects. This was done by
performing an analysis of (participation in) European projects using the Matchpoint tool by PNO Consultants. The full
methodology can be found in Annex 2. In the analysis of funded European projects on the topic of plastic packaging, in
total, 102 projects were found in the period between 1984 and 2015. These projects received more than € 117 million in
funding with an average of € 1.5 million per project. In Figure 9, the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized.
“Key obstructers”: Stakeholders with enough influence to hinder the transition to a circular economy – intentionally or unintentionally - due to interest in the status quo or absence of interest in change. “Key champion”: Stakeholders who have both the interest and influence to become front-runners in the transition to a circular economy. “Bystanders”: Stakeholders who lack the influence to induce any change in the value chain. These actors can still have an interest in change (“Enthusiastic bystanders”) or interest in the status quo (“Sceptic bystanders”).
Box 1. Stakeholder typology
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 18 of 59
A remarkable trend can be observed in Figure 9; the number of projects conducted increases up until FP4 and then
decreases again until FP7, where a peak number of projects was conducted. It must be noted, however, that FP7 covers
seven years instead of the previous programmes, which covered 5 years. The projects conducted in the H2020
programme are not at the FP7-levels yet due to the fact that the funding scheme is still in progress.
Figure 10 shows the participation in EU projects for the plastic packaging value chain per country. It was composed by
counting the countries of origin of the organizations in the project corpus. Overall, the most active participants are
located in Western Europe. Spain and the UK rank first, with respectively 103 and 95 projects participated in. These
countries are followed by Germany and Italy, and to a lesser extent, The Netherlands, Belgium and France.
As for the participants in these projects, in total 661 partners were involved, of which 524 different organizations. 83
organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project was 6. The most active
organizations are tabulated below.
# Organization Count
1 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V (DE) 15
2 The UK Materials Technology Research Institute Limited (UK) 7
3 Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos Y Conexas (ES) 6
4 European Plastics Converters (BE) 5
5 Fundacion Gaiker (ES) 5
6 Nederlandse Organisatie Voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek – TNO (NL) 5
7 VTT Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus (FI) 5
8 Gospodarsko Interesno Zdruzenje Grozd Plasttehnika - Giz Grozd Plasttehnika (PL) 4
9 Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible Sl (ES) 4
10 KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE) 4
Table 3. Top participants in projects on the topic of plastic packaging
2 3 2
7
16
13
4
37
14
0
10
20
30
40
No
. of
pro
ject
s
Figure 9. Number of EU projects on the topic of plastic
packaging (per funding scheme)
Figure 10. Project participation in European countries
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 19 of 59
Table 3 is mostly composed of universities and RTOs. This is in line with the overall division between knowledge and
industry participants, i.e. 58% of the participants are knowledge organizations versus 42% industry participants. The
division is similar to the one in the ELV value chain, with a slight majority of organizations involved in knowledge-related
activities. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) European Plastic Converters; (2) Gospodarsko
Interesno Zdruzenje Grozd Plasttehnika - Giz Grozd Plasttehnika; (3) Lajovic Tuba Embalaza d.o.o; (4) Biopac (UK) Ltd;
and (5) Omniform S.A.
At present, 20 European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon 2020. More information on the projects can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects available for its stakeholders: GREEN PACK (coordinator: AVEP): Fully recyclable 100% PET package for food contact with O2 barrier, improved transparency and low CO2 footprint (www.greenpack-project.eu). ECOPET (coordinator: Holfeld Plastics): Demonstration of innovative, lightweight, 100% recyclable PET prototype formulations and process tooling for low carbon footprint packaging to replace current industry standard virgin plastics (http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/59204_en.html). WHEYLAYER 2 (coordinator: Lajovic Tuba Embalaza): WHEYLAYER2: barrier biopolymers for sustainable packaging (www.wheylayer.eu). POLYMARK (coordinator: Petcore Europe): Novel Identification Technology for High-value Plastics Waste Stream (www.polymark.org). SUPERCLEANQ (coordinator: The British Plastics Federation): Development of processes and quality procedures for the valorisation of recycled plastics for food contact applications (www.supercleanq.eu). SYNPOL (coordinator: Agencia Estatal Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas): Biopolymers from syngas fermentation (www.synpol.org). BANUS (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos y Conexas): Definiton and development of functional barriers for the use of recycled materials in multilayer food packaging (www.banus-project.eu). LEGUVAL (coordinator: Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible): Valorisation of legumes co-products and by-products for package application and energy production from biomass (www.leguval.eu). PHBOTTLE (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de la Industria Agroalimentaria): New sustainable, functionalized and competitive PHB material based in fruit by-products getting advanced solutions for packaging and non-packaging applications (www.phbottle.eu). BIO4MAP (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos y Conexas): Transparent and high barrier biodegradable film and sheet for customized Modified Atmosphere food Packaging (www.bio4map.eu). SUCCIPACK (Association de Coordination Technique pour l’Industrie Agroalimentaire): Development of active, intelligent and sustainable food PACKaging using PolybutyleneSUCCInate (www.succipack.eu). EUROPHA (Federacion de Cooperativas Agrariasde Murcia S Coop): Novel technology to boost the European Bioeconomy: reducing the production costs of PHA biopolymer and expanding its applications as 100% compostable food packaging bioplastic (http://164.138.208.83/~europha/). FILMSORT (coordinator: Fundacion Gaiker): Enhanced recycling of post-consumer film waste from light packaging by automatic sorting of trapped improper and degradable polymers (www.filmsort.eu).
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 20 of 59
OLI-PHA (coordinator: Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible): A novel and efficient method for the production of polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer-based packaging from olive oil waste water (www.olipha.eu). N-CHITOPACK (coordinator: Mavi Sud): Sustainable technologies for the production of biodegradable materials based on natural chitin-nanofibrils derived by waste of fish industry, to produce food grade packaging (www.n-chitopack.eu). NANOBIOCOMP (coordinator: Universidade da Coruna): Novel Nano-Reinforced Biodegradable Composites: Design and Characterization (http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/144371_en.html). SCALEPHA (coordinator: Bio-On): Industrial and commercial SCALE-up of Bio-on technology for the production of PHA polymers from sugar industries waste, co- and by-products (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/196414_en.html). P4SB (Rheinisch-Westfälische Techische Hochschule Aachen): P4SB: From Plastic waste to Plastic value using Pseudomonas putida Synthetic Biology (www.p4sb.eu). FLEXI-PYROCAT (coordinator: University of Leeds): Development of flexible pyrolysis-catalysis processing of waste plastics for selective production of high value products through research and innovation (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194023_en.html). NANOBARRIER (coordinator: Stiftelsen SINTEF): Extended shelf-life biopolymers for sustainable and multifunctional food packaging solutions (http://www.sintef.no/nanobarrier).
Box 2. On-going European projects on plastic packaging
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 21 of 59
4. WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
Main findings:
Collaboration: The overall level of collaboration in the WEEE value chain is lower compared to that in other value chains.
In terms of collaborations, the most important stakeholders are once again situated at the end-of-life part of the value
chain; collecting agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies. Least collaborations take place in the value chain
with raw material producers and retailers and distributors.
Influence: Waste managers and recycling agencies have the most influence in the WEEE value chain. While recycling
agencies report high interest in change, waste managers do not. Combined with their willingness to exert influence,
waste managers thus are a potentially powerful stakeholder that can obstruct the transition towards a circular value
chain.
Innovation: Research organizations have also been dominant in European projects on WEEE-innovation. In terms of
participation, the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Germany) is most innovative. Indumetal Recycling (Spain) is the most
innovative industrial stakeholder.
4.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the WEEE value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is defined in
three different ways: key collaboration partner (section 4.2); most influential stakeholder (section 4.3); and most
innovative stakeholder (section 4.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of different
stakeholders are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 83 stakeholders and 55 European
projects. Respondents are from twenty EU-Member States and represent all phases of the value chain except “retail and
distribution”. They were thus not included in the results; except for in the network analysis, where the external
assessment of collaboration provided the data.
4.2. KEY COLLABORATION
In order to map the level and direction of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain, stakeholders were asked to
indicate the frequency of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the categorization
described in Annex 1. These data were converted into a network graph, displayed below. For purposes of clarity, only the
primary stakeholder categories are included in this graph; supporting stakeholders (funding, knowledge- and regulatory
agencies) were omitted. In addition, since this analysis is about collaboration between different stakeholder types in the
value chain, collaborations within the same phase in the value chain are not displayed.
The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in Figure 11 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors
in the value chain; the size and opacity of the flows stemming from the colored bars represents collaboration as reported
by stakeholders themselves. Thus, it can be seen that most stakeholders collaborate fairly regularly with each other. The
colored bars in the inner ring indicate which types of actors have reported to collaborate with the types of organizations
represented by the bar on the accompanying outer ring. The other end of the flow represents the frequency of the
collaboration according to the source. Following this logic, stakeholders who have a broad flow originating from their
side that narrows on the other side have indicated to collaborate more frequently than has been indicated about their
collaboration externally. Likewise, flows with similar sizes on both ends represent collaboration that was gauged almost
equally.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 22 of 59
In Figure 11, the collaborations in the WEEE value chain are displayed. The overall level of collaboration is lower than the other value chains, with an average of 3.7 (N = 56). There is also more fluctuation between different levels of collaborations between value chain partners. In addition, all stakeholders tend to self-report slightly lower levels of collaboration than the external valuation of collaboration.
As is also visible in Figure 11, slight clustering occurs in the front and end of the value chain. The highest level of
collaboration is reported by recycling agencies; they most frequently collaborate with waste managers and waste
collecting agencies. Raw material producers and product manufacturers report the lowest levels of collaboration overall.
Raw material producers collaborate least with stakeholders at the end-of-life part of the value chain: waste collecting
agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies. Product manufacturers collaborate least with retailers and
distributors and waste collecting agencies.
The stakeholders reported to collaborate least are raw material producers and retailers and distributors. For raw material
producers, this corresponds with the self-assessment of collaboration. For component manufacturers, the external
rating shows the largest discrepancy with the self-assessment. The highest levels of collaboration as selected by other
stakeholders are waste managers, recycling agencies and waste collecting agencies.
4.3. MOST INFLUENTIAL ACTORS
It is important to identify the (types of) stakeholders likely to play a role in the transition to a circular economy. Two
analyses were therefore made: (1) an analysis of the influence of stakeholders in the current situation (status quo); and,
(2) an analysis of their position towards transition. The analysis of the status quo is based on stakeholders’ influence and
their willingness to exert that influence (activity). The analysis of the position towards transition is based on the one
hand on a comparison of stakeholders’ embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the perceived effects of change
on their organization; and on the other hand, an analysis of stakeholders’ interest in change compared to their influence.
Figure 11. Collaborations between actors in the WEEE value chain.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 23 of 59
4.3.1. Position in status quo
The first step to assess the current state of affairs is to look at stakeholders’ influence (the ability to change or control
the behavior of others) and the willingness to exert that influence (activity). In the WEEE value chain, the average level of
influence is 3.9 (N = 61), comparable to the average level of influence in other value chains. The lowest is reported by
funding agencies (2.9, N = 2), followed by product manufacturers (3.3, N = 5), and the highest by waste managers (4.5, N
= 11). Similarly to the other value chains, stakeholders mostly exert influence through their knowledge and their
network, and least through the market share and influence on regulatory issues.
The average level of activity is 4.2 (N = 61). The lowest activity level was reported by product manufacturers (3.4, N = 5);
the highest is reported by recycling agencies (4.7, N = 11). Stakeholders in the WEEE value chain mainly engage in
dialogues with other organizations (4.8) and collaborations with other organizations (4.6). Stakeholders report less
engagement in lobbying activities (4.3).
In Table 4, influence and the willingness to exert that influence are plotted. It shows that waste managers and recycling
agencies have both the influence and the willingness to exert that influence. Since part of the activity level is defined by
the level of collaboration, these results are in line with the network analysis, which showed that waste managers and
recycling agencies were among the top collaborating organisations.
Willingness to exert influence
Low High
Infl
uen
ce
Hig
h
E – Waste collecting agencies J – Regulatory agencies
F – Waste managers G – Recycling agencies
Lo
w A – Raw material producers
C – Product manufacturers H – Funding agencies
I – Knowledge organizations
Table 4. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the WEEE value chain.
4.3.2. Position towards future
To determine potential future consequences of the transition to a circular economy and stakeholders’ stance towards
the transition, the characteristics of embeddedness and the perceived effects of change have been studied. As outlined
previously, the level of embeddedness of circular economy concepts determines stakeholders’ preparedness for the
circular economy; stakeholders’ perception of change is important in determining the role stakeholders will play in the
transition.
With a value of 3.8 (N = 58), the embeddedness of circular economy concepts is lowest in the WEEE value chain.
Extremely low embeddedness is reported by product manufacturers (2.8, N = 5), while extremely high levels are reported
by recycling companies (5.0, N = 10).Stakeholders report to have circular economy concepts mainly embedded in the
communication activities (4.2), and least in the training of employees (3.4). The overall effects of change are expected to
be quite positive (4.0, N = 56). Once again, the independency of the organization is assumed to be most negatively
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 24 of 59
affected (3.5). The network is assumed to be most positively affected (4.5). Extremely positive changes are expected by
raw material producers (5.2, N = 1), while the least positive changes are expected by funding- and regulatory agencies
(2.5; N = 2 and N = 4).
Expected effects of change
Negative Positive
Em
be
dd
edn
ess H
igh
J – Regulatory agencies G – Recycling agencies
Lo
w C – Product manufacturers
E – Waste collecting agencies F – Funding agencies
A – Raw material producers F – Waste managers
I – Knowledge organizations
Table 5. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for stakeholders in the WEEE value chain.
4.3.3. Champions, obstructers and bystanders
In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the effects of change
towards a circular economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the interest stakeholders have in
the change towards a circular economy. Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of change
have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may have interest in maintaining the status quo.
Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according
to the typology in Box 3. Stakeholders with low scores on interest, but
high on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while
actors with high scores on both interest and influence have the
potential to become key champions of the transition to a circular
economy. Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to
play a significant role in the transition to a circular economy would be
limited to the role of bystander. Below, the aspects of influence,
interest and the resulting typology will be discussed per stakeholder.
Raw material producers: With a positive interest in change, but
limited levels of influence and activity, raw material producers are
limited to the role of “enthusiastic bystander”.
Product manufacturers: Product manufacturers report to have less
influence in the value chain. On top of that, they have limited interest
in the transition to a circular economy. Potentially, these types of
actors will take on the role of “sceptic bystander”.
Waste collecting agencies: With a high level of influence in the value chain, but low interest in change, waste collecting
agencies have the potential to become obstructers to the transition to circularity.
“Key obstructers”: Stakeholders with enough influence to hinder the transition to a circular economy – intentionally or unintentionally - due to interest in the status quo or absence of interest in change. “Key champion”: Stakeholders who have both the interest and influence to become front-runners in the transition to a circular economy. “Bystanders”: Stakeholders who lack the influence to induce any change in the value chain. These actors can still have an interest in change (“Enthusiastic bystanders”) or interest in the status quo (“Sceptic bystanders”).
Box 3. Typology of stakeholders
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 25 of 59
Waste managers: Waste managers report high scores on both influence and activity. They score just below the average
for interest, something that is not in line with general expectations nor with the results from other value chains. Analysis
shows that waste managers do expect positive changes from a move towards circularity in the WEEE value chain;
however, waste managers’ score on embeddedness is very low.
Recycling agencies: Recycling agencies score high on all aspects, thus earning them the role of potential key champion
in the transition process.
Supporting stakeholders (funding-, knowledge- and regulatory agencies): Supporting agencies mostly have limited
influence in the value chain. Funding agencies will likely become sceptic bystanders, while knowledge- and regulatory
agencies have more potential to fulfil a supportive role in the transition process.
4.4. MATCHPOINT ANALYSIS
In this section, key stakeholders will be identified by their participation in European projects. This was done by
performing an analysis of (participation in) European projects using the Matchpoint tool by PNO Consultants. The full
methodology can be found in Annex 2. In the analysis of EU-funded projects for WEEE, total, 55 projects were found in
the period between 1984 and 2015. These projects received more than € 85 million in funding with an average of € 2.6
million per project. In Figure 13 the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized. Figure 12 depicts the
participation in EU projects per country for the WEEE-value chain.
Once again more projects were initiated in the Fourth Framework Programme than in the previous programmes as well
as in the Fifth and Sixth Programmes. FP7 once again marks a large increase in the number of projects. Remarkably, the
number of projects in the Horizon 2020 Programme has almost reached FP7 levels, even though it is only halfway its
duration. Figure 13 illustrates the dominance of Germany on the topic of WEEE. Germany is closely followed by the UK;
however, most other countries seem to have a low count of WEEE-related projects.
3
1
3
1
9
6 7
13 12
0
5
10
15
No
. of
pro
ject
s
Figure 13. WEEE project participation in European countries. Figure 12. Number of EU projects on the topic of WEEE (per
funding programme)
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 26 of 59
As for the participants in these projects, in total 451 partners were involved, of which 350 different organizations. 58
organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project was 8. The most active
organizations are tabulated below.
# Organization Count
1 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V. (DE) 8
2 Österreichische Gesellschaft fuer System- und Automatisierungstechnik (AT) 7
3 Fundacion Gaiker (ES) 6
4 Indumetal Recycling S.A. (ES) 5
5 Technische Universiteit Delft (NL) 5
6 Chalmers Tekniska Hoegskola AB (SE) 4
7 Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation (ES) 4
8 Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek – TNO (NL) 4
9 Stiftelsen SINTEF (NO) 4
10 Technische Universitaet Wien (CH) 4
Table 6. Top participants in projects on the topic of WEEE
Table 6 lists the top participants in projects related to WEEE. With only one industry partner and 9 knowledge- and
research organizations, the list illustrates the dominance of knowledge institutes in the WEEE research projects. This is
in line with the overall division between knowledge and industry participants, i.e. 62% of the participants are knowledge
organizations versus 38% industry participants. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) Indumetal
Recycling S.A. (2) Coolrec B.V. (3) European Plastics Converters, (4) Greentronics, (5) Relight S.R.L.
It is interesting to note that in the top ten most active industrial participants only one product manufacturer is present
versus six WEEE recyclers. This indicates that, at least at EU project-level, the focus is on the end-of-life treatment of
the products rather than the design and manufacturing phases of the value chain.
At present, fifteen European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon 2020. More information on the projects can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects available for its stakeholders: CloseWEEE (coordinator: Fraunhofer): Integrated solutions for pre-processing electronic equipment, closing the loop of post-consumer high-grade plastics, and advanced recovery of critical raw materials antimony and graphite (www.closeweee.eu). EREAN (coordinator: KU Leuven): European Rare Earth Magnet Recycling Network (www.erean.eu). HYDROWEEE DEMO (coordinator: KOPACEK KEG): Innovative Hydrometallurgical Processes to recover Metals from WEEE including lamps and batteries – Demonstration (www.cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105213_en.html). ProSUM (coordinator: WEEE Forum): Prospecting Secondary raw materials in the Urban mine and Mining waste (www.prosumproject.eu). RECLAIM (coordinator: TNO Netherlands): Reclamation of Gallium, Indium and Rare-Earth Elements from Photovoltaics, Solid-State Lighting and Electronics Waste (www.re-claim.eu). RECYVAL-NANO (coordinator: L’Urederra): Development of recovery processes for recycling of valuable components from FPDs (In, Y, Nd) for the production of high added value NPs (www.recyval-nano.eu/). REECOVER (coordinator: NTNU): Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from magnetic waste in the WEEE recycling industry and tailings from the iron ore industry (www.reecover.eu).
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 27 of 59
REMANENCE (coordinator: C-Tech Innovation): Rare Earth Magnet Recovery for Environmental and Resource Protection (www.project-remanence.eu). ADIR (coordinator: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft): Next generation urban mining - Automated disassembly, separation and recovery of valuable materials from electronic equipment (www.adir.eu). GREENET (coordinator: Coventry University): Globally Recoverable and Eco-friendly E-equipment Network with Distributed Information Service Management (www.greenet.eu). BIOLIX (coordinator: Comet Traitements S.A.): Bio-hydrometallurgical beneficiation of non-ferrous concentrate from Polymetallic shredder residue (http://www.comettraitements.com/biolix). ZEROWIN (coordinator: Osterreichische Gesellschaft fuer System- und Automatisierungstechnik): Towards zero waste in industrial networks (www.zerowin.eu). EWIT (coordinator: Consorzio Remedia): EWIT: Developing an e-waste implementation toolkit to support the recycling and the secondary raw material recovery strategies in metropolitan areas in Africa (www.ewit.site). REE4EU (coordinator: Stiftelsen SINTEF): REE4EU: integrated high temperature electrolysis (HTE) and Ion Liquid Extraction (ILE) for a strong and independent European Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain (www.ree4eu.eu). CABRISS (coordinator: CEA): Implementation of a CirculAr economy Based on Recycled, reused and recovered Indium, Silicon and Silver materials for photovoltaic and other applications (https://www.sintef.no/en/projects/cabriss-implementation-of-a-circular-economy-based/).
Box 4. On-going projects on WEEE
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 28 of 59
5. END-OF-LIFE VEHICLES
Main findings:
Collaboration: In terms of collaborations waste managers and recycling companies are the most important stakeholders
in the ELV-value chain. Least collaborations take place with raw material producers and retailers/distributors.
Influence: Key champions of change in the ELV value chain are product manufacturers and recycling agencies. However,
product manufacturers have less interest in change, and can therefore pose a threat toward the development of a fully
circular economy.
Innovation: Research organizations have been dominant in European projects on ELV innovation. In terms of
participation, however, Fiat Research Centre (Italy) is the most innovative stakeholder.
5.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the ELV value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is defined in three
different ways: key collaboration partner (section 5.2); most influential stakeholder (section 5.3); and most innovative
stakeholder (section 5.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of different stakeholder
are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 33 stakeholders and 68 European projects.
Respondents are from nine EU-Member States and represent all phases from the value chain excluding raw material
producers and retailers and waste collecting agencies.
5.2. KEY COLLABORATION
In order to map the level and direction of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain, stakeholders were asked to
indicate the frequency of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the categorization
described in Annex 1. These data were converted into a network graph, displayed below. For purposes of clarity, only the
primary stakeholder categories are included in this graph; supporting stakeholders (funding, knowledge- and regulatory
agencies) were omitted. In addition, since this analysis is about collaboration between different stakeholder types in the
value chain, collaborations within the same phase in the value chain are not displayed.
The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in Figure 14 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors
in the value chain; the size and opacity of the flows stemming from the colored bars represents collaboration as reported
by stakeholders themselves. Thus, it can be seen that most stakeholders collaborate fairly regularly with each other. The
colored bars in the inner ring indicate which types of actors have reported to collaborate with the types of organizations
represented by the bar on the accompanying outer ring. The other end of the flow represents the frequency of the
collaboration according to the source. Following this logic, stakeholders who have a broad flow originating from their
side that narrows on the other side have indicated to collaborate more frequently than has been indicated about their
collaboration externally. Likewise, flows with similar sizes on both ends represent collaboration that was gauged almost
equally.
With an overall collaboration level of 4.0 (N = 23), the ELV value chain has the highest level of collaboration together
with the plastic packaging value chain. Less clustering of collaboration is apparent in the ELV value chain, although
strong cooperation exists between waste management and recycling agencies.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 29 of 59
The figure shows that collaboration takes place between all phases of the value chain. The highest level of collaboration
is reported by retailers and distributors, who report very frequent collaboration with partners in all value chains. The
least collaboration is reported by waste managers; they report to cooperate especially rarely with retailers and
distributors.
The external assessment of collaboration shows the complete opposite of the results described in the previous
paragraph; retailers overestimate their collaboration by a whole point, and are, in fact, the least reported collaboration
partner along with raw material producers. Waste managers underestimate their level of collaboration by the same
amount.
5.3. MOST INFLUENTIAL ACTORS
It is important to identify the (types of) stakeholders likely to play a role in the transition to a circular economy. Two
analyses were therefore made: (1) an analysis of the influence of stakeholders in the current situation (status quo); and,
(2) an analysis of their position towards transition. The analysis of the status quo is based on stakeholders’ influence and
their willingness to exert that influence (activity). The analysis of the position towards transition is based on the one
hand on a comparison of stakeholders’ embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the perceived effects of change
on their organization; and on the other hand, an analysis of stakeholders’ interest in change compared to their influence.
5.3.1. Position in status quo
The first step to assess the current state of affairs is to look at stakeholders’ influence (the ability to change or control
the behavior of others) and the willingness to exert that influence (activity). Influence, or the ability of an actor to change
or control the behaviour of others, can be derived from different sources; for example, from access to financial resources
Figure 14. Collaborations between stakeholders in the ELV value chain.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 30 of 59
or knowledge. The willingness to exert influence was defined as the activity level, and measured by stakeholders’
frequency of participation in different types of activities, such as collaborative research projects or lobbying activities.
The ELV value chain rated their level of influence with an average of 3.9 (N = 26). The level of influence is quite evenly
divided among the phases in the value chain. The organizations who perceive themselves as least influential are
regulatory agencies (3.2, N = 2), while recycling agencies rank highest in terms of influence (4.6, N = 4). On average,
stakeholders exert influence on the basis of valued knowledge or due to their large network. Less influence is derived
from the market share of the organization. Very inactive organizations in the ELV value chain are the regulatory
agencies (2.7, N = 2), while other stakeholders are much more active, most of all recycling agencies (4.6, N = 4).
Stakeholders’ main activities are focused on dialogues and collaborations with other organizations (4.8; 4.5), while they
report less involvement in lobbying activities (3.8).
Table 7 shows that for recycling agencies, the level of influence corresponds to the willingness to exert that influence.
This in contrast to product manufacturers, who have the influence, but not the willingness, to induce change in the value
chain. Stakeholder with lower influence are visualized in the bottom row of the table; of these, waste managers and
knowledge organizations are willing to participate in collaborations despite their low level of influence.
Willingness to exert influence
Low High
Lev
el o
f in
flu
ence
Hig
h
C – Product manufacturers
G – Recycling agencies
Lo
w D – Retailers/distributors
J – Regulatory agencies
F – Waste managers
I – Knowledge organizations
Table 7. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the ELV value chain.
5.3.2. Position towards future
In addition to the analysis of the current state of affairs, it is important to look at the potential effects of the transition to
a circular economy on stakeholders. In order to do this, stakeholders have been asked to indicate the level of
embeddedness of circular economy concepts in different aspects of their organisation, such as communication activities
or daily work practices. In addition, the perceived effect of change and the direction of change that will occur during the
transition to a circular economy are measured.
In the ELV value chain the embeddedness of circular economy concepts averages 3.9 (N = 23). Waste managers (3.3, N =
3) have the lowest level of embeddedness, while – perhaps unsurprisingly – circular economy concepts are most
embedded in the organizational structure of recycling agencies (4.5, N = 4). In general, the organizational aspect where
circular economy is most embedded is the mission statement (4.3), and the least embedded in training of employees
(3.7). While the latter is similar in the other value chains, the former is not; both the WEEE and plastics value chain report
the highest level of embeddedness in communication activities.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
Overall, the ELV value chain agrees that a transition to a circular economy will positively impact their organization, most
of all regulators (4.6, N = 1) and recycling agencies (4.6, N = 4). Surprisingly, waste managers expect the least positive
consequences. This may indicate that to waste managers, zero-waste truly means zero-waste; and in the absence of
waste, their existence is threatened. The independency of the organization is expected to be impacted most negatively
(3.1), while the public image of the organization is expected to benefit most (4.1) from a transition to a circular economy.
The embeddedness of circular economy concepts is highest in retailers and distributors (N = 2) and recycling agencies (N
= 4). However, retailers expect mostly negative changes and may thus become “prepared losers”. Product
manufacturers and waste managers have mostly negative perceptions of change and are thus likely to become
“unprepared losers”. Knowledge organizations and regulatory agencies have positive expectations of the change
towards a circular economy, regardless of the low embeddedness; thus, they may be `unprepared winners`.
Expected effects of change
Negative Positive
Em
be
dd
edn
ess H
igh
D – Retailers/distributors
G – Recycling agencies
Lo
w C – Product manufacturers
F – Waste managers
I – Knowledge organizations
J – Regulatory agencies
Table 8. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for stakeholders in the ELV value chain.
5.3.3. Champions, obstructers and bystanders
In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of
circular economy concepts and the effects of change towards a circular
economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the
interest stakeholders have in the change towards a circular economy.
Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of
change have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may
have interest in maintaining the status quo.
Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according to
the typology in Box 5. Stakeholders with low scores on interest, but high
on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while actors
with high scores on both interest and influence have the potential to
become key champions of the transition to a circular economy.
Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to play a
significant role in the transition to a circular economy would be limited
to the role of bystander. Below, the aspects of influence, interest and the
resulting typology will be discussed per stakeholder.
Product manufacturers: With high influence in the value chain but low
“Key obstructers”: Stakeholders with enough influence to hinder the transition to a circular economy – intentionally or unintentionally - due to interest in the status quo or absence of interest in change. “Key champion”: Stakeholders who have both the interest and influence to become front-runners in the transition to a circular economy. “Bystanders”: Stakeholders who lack the influence to induce any change in the value chain. These actors can still have an interest in change (“Enthusiastic bystanders”) or interest in the status quo (“Sceptic bystanders”).
Box 5. Typology of stakeholders
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 32 of 59
interest in change, product manufacturers have the potential to become key obstructers to the transition to a circular
economy.
Retailers and distributors: Retailers and distributors report to have a low level of influence in the value chain. On top of
that, they have limited interest in the transition to a circular economy. In combination with their low activity level,
product manufacturers will likely take on the role of “sceptic bystander”.
Waste managers: Waste managers report low influence in the ELV value chain. Aside from that, they also have a
negative interest in change.
Recycling agencies: With sufficient influence to induce change, and the willingness to exert that influence, recycling
agencies have the potential to become key champions of circular economy in the ELV value chain.
Supporting stakeholders (knowledge- and regulatory agencies): The role of knowledge- and regulatory agencies will likely be mainly supportive. In the ELV value chain, both knowledge- and regulatory organizations have a positive interest in change, so will be enthusiastic bystanders to the transition process.
5.4. MATCHPOINT ANALYSIS
In this section, key stakeholders will be identified by their participation in European projects. This was done by
performing an analysis of (participation in) European projects using the Matchpoint tool by PNO Consultants. The full
methodology can be found in Annex 2. In total, 68 European projects were executed in the period between 1984 and
2015, some of them ongoing. These projects received more than € 124 million in funding3 with an average of € 2 million
per project. In Figure 15 the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized. Figure 16 depicts the participation in EU
projects per country for the ELV-value chain.
3 No or inconsistent funding reported before FP5.
0 0 0
3
9 10
14
24
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No
. of
pro
ject
s
Figure 15. Number of EU projects on the topic of ELV (per
framework programme).
Figure 16. ELV project participation in European countries.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 33 of 59
A clear upward trend in the number of projects in each funding programme can be observed, with a peak in the Seventh
Framework Programme. Once again, since the Horizon 2020 programme is only in year 2 of its duration of 7 years, there
are few H2020 projects included. In addition, an analysis was made of countries involved in the projects related to ELV.
Figure 16 contains the results of this analysis, showing the amount of times organizations from each country
participated in these collaborative research projects. Germany and France are top participants in the research on ELV,
followed by Spain and the UK.
As for the organizations involved in these projects, in total 671 partners were involved, of which 553 different
organizations. 66 organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project is 10.The most
active organizations are tabulated below.
# Organization Count
1 Centro Ricerche Fiat S.C.P.A. (IT) 11
2 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V (DE) 6
3 Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation (ES) 6
4 Renault S.A.S. (FR) 6
5 Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (DE) 5
6 Solvay S.A. (BE) 5
7 Technische Universität Berlin (DE) 5
8 Volvo Car Corporation (FI) 5
9 Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IT) 4
10 Fundacion Gaiker (ES) 4
Table 9. Top participants in projects on the topic of ELV
Table 9 shows the involvement of four industry partners, of which three major car manufacturers. This division is
reflected in the overall division between industry and knowledge organizations in participation in ELV projects4, i.e. 58%
knowledge organizations versus 42% industry participants. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) Fiat
Research Centre; (2) Renault S.A.S. (3) Solvay S.A. (4) Volvo Car Corporation, (5) Saft S.A.
4 Analysis of all organizations that participated twice or more. This analysis reflects the share of organizations, not the
number of projects participated in.
At present, ten European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon 2020. More information on the projects
can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects
available for its stakeholders:
DEVULC (coordinator: Phenix-technologies): Novel Devulcanization Machine for Industrial and Tyre Rubber Recycling
(www.devulc.eu).
LATEXFRI (coordinator: Fibroline): Latex replacement for automotive interior felts and building industry (www.latexfri-
project.com).
SHREDDERSORT (coordinator: Lenz Instruments): Selective recovery of non-ferrous metal automotive shredder by
combined electromagnetic tensor spectroscopy and laser-induced plasma spectroscopy (www.shreddersort.eu).
SMART (coordinator: European Tyres Association): Sustainable Moulding of Articles from Recycled Tyres
(http://www.smart-recycle.eu/).
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 34 of 59
RETYRE (coordinator: UAB Gumos Technologijos): Recycling waste tyres into devulcanized rubber (www.retyre-
project.eu).
DEMETER (coordinator: KU Leuven): Training Network for the Design and Recycling of Rare-Earth Permanent Magnet
Motors and Generators in Hybrid and Full Electric Vehicles (www.etn-demeter.eu).
EVOLUTION (coordinator: Aalborg Universitet): The Electric Vehicle revOLUTION enabled by advanced materials
highly hybridized into lightweight components for easy integration and dismantling providing a reduced life cycle cost
logic (www.evolutionproject.eu).
TAIMEE (coordinator: Acondicionamiento Tarrasense Associacion): Thermal and Acoustic Insulating Material from
Finished Leather Waste (www.taimee-project.eu).
BIOFIBROCAR (coordinator: AITEX): Melt Spun Fibres Based on Compostable Biopolymers for Application in
Automotive Interiors (www.biofibrocar.aitex.es).
COLABATS (coordinator: C-Tech Innovation): Cobalt and lanthanide recovery from batteries
(http://www.colabats.eu/).
Box 6. On-going projects on ELV
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 35 of 59
6. TOWARDS A NEAR-ZERO WASTE EUROPE
The NEW_InnoNet platform stimulates the development and implementation of near-zero waste technologies and
innovations. Without market uptake of these technologies, development of new innovations, and elimination of non-
technological market hurdles the ambitious EU waste targets will not be fulfilled. NEW_InnoNet believes that
stakeholder involvement and cooperation are in this respect essential. This chapter describes how the stakeholder
analysis provides guidelines for the platform to facilitate more collaboration and involvement. The chapter starts with an
analysis of the expectations of stakeholders from a European near-zero waste platform.
6.1. STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS
In order to get an understanding of stakeholders’ expectations of a European platform on near-zero waste, a targeted
question was included in the survey. The question asked stakeholders about their expectations of several functions of a
platform. Figure 17 shows that the majority of respondents reported (very) positive expectations (N = 118).
A very large majority (85%) expects that a European platform on near-zero waste can – and should – provide networking
opportunities. Further, substantial majorities of respondents also expect a role of the platform in providing: (1)
participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling (71%); (2) knowledge on funding and business opportunities
(67%); and (3) their organization with a voice in developing EU policy (65%).
Stakeholders have least expectations of the platform – although still 53% – on providing services to facilitate the
innovation process. NEW_InnoNet has actually developed its website in such a way that it already provides this kind of
services. The website provides in its current form search functions for: funding; relevant project (funded and proposed);
patents; and scientific literature. In addition, it is possible to propose your own project ideas and search for partners.
Based on the outcomes of the stakeholder analysis, NEW_InnoNet platform will consult stakeholders to get feedback on
the added value of – and points of improvements for – these services.
6.2. TOWARDS A PLATFORM STRUCTURE
The analyses of stakeholders’ perspectives and positions on near-zero waste and the circular economy provide
guidelines and focus areas for the NEW_InnoNet platform. In combination with the stakeholder expectations discussed
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
…networking opportunities.
…participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling …
…knowledge on funding and business opportunities.
…my organization with a voice in developing EU policy
…services to facilitate the innovation process, e.g. regarding …
Somewhat agree Agree Completely agree
Figure 17. Stakeholder expectations of a near-zero waste platform
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 36 of 59
above (chapter 7.1), three main platform pillars can be identified: (1) Information sharing; (2) Networking and front-
runners; and (3) Facilitating bottom-up actions. The three pillars are discussed in detail beneath.
Information sharing:
Although stakeholders are aware of near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts, the average level
of expertise should be considered as relatively low. In addition, knowledge is fragmented in different sectors and among
stakeholders (chapter 3.2). Low levels of expertise are a possible constraint on the adaptation of near-zero waste
technologies and circular economy concepts. Comparison of respondents with high and low levels of expertise indicate a
positive correlation between expertise and attitude. A correlation that can be observed in all three value chains (see
Table 10).
Expertise
Low High
Attitude (overall) 4.6 5.1
Attitude (WEEE) 4.6 5.1
Attitude (Plastics) 4.8 5.4
Attitude (ELV) 4.5 4.8
Table 10. Comparison of stakeholders' attitude based
on their level of expertise
The lack of expertise hampers adaptation of near-zero waste technologies also in a direct way, i.e. stakeholders might
not be aware of possible innovative solutions for their problems. The roadmapping exercise in work package 3 of the
NEW_InnoNet project shows, however, that numerous ideas and developments are around (NEW_InnoNet forthcoming
a). NEW_InnoNet will therefore disclose – and complement – this information in a web-based database. The database
will subsequently be open for new entries by stakeholders.
A second focus area will be the large body of knowledge that has been developed in the context of European projects.
The analyses of chapters 3.4, 4.4 and 5.4 show that an increasing number of projects have been funded by the European
Commission. Figure 18 depicts this growing number body of knowledge by showing the cumulative number of project
over time. NEW_InnoNet will attempt to make these projects more visible for stakeholders, e.g. via the website
(http://www.newinnonet.eu/?artid=16) and by inviting projects for NEW_InnoNet conferences (see also NEW_InnoNet
2016a). In addition, project coordinators will be asked to reflect and/or provide input on several NEW_InnoNet activities,
e.g. on the web-based database and the draft roadmaps for WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 37 of 59
Figure 18. Cumulative body of projects on the topics of Plastics, WEEE and ELV
Networking and front-runners:
Stakeholders expect networking opportunities from a European platform (see Figure 17). Analysis of characteristics of
collaborating stakeholders provide additional reasons to facilitate networking between stakeholders, i.e. a comparison
between stakeholders that collaborate frequently (N = 86) and stakeholders that collaborate less often (N = 47) indicate
a positive correlation between collaboration and level of expertise. This correlation can be observed in all three value
chains (see Table 11).
Collaboration
Low High
Expertise (overall) 3.0 4.2
Expertise (WEEE) 3.1 4.2
Expertise (Plastics) 2.7 4.0
Expertise (ELV) 3.7 4.3
Table 11. Comparison of stakeholders’ expertise based on their level of collaboration
At the same time, analyses of the collaboration structures in the WEEE, Plastics and ELV value chains indicate that a lot
of collaboration is already taking place (see also Figure 19). Most collaborations cluster, however, at the beginning and
end phases of the value chain. A focus area for the NEW_InnoNet platform will therefore be networking throughout the
value chain – and also between value chains. The platform has started doing this already in the organization of its
stakeholder conference whereby an integrated set-up was chosen (see NEW_InnoNet 2016a). Also the integration
workshops in work package 4 will provide opportunities to organize this kind of networking.
0
50
100
150
200
250
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
No
. of
pro
ject
s, c
um
ula
tive
Plastics
WEEE
ELV
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 38 of 59
Figure 19. Network graphs visualizing collaboration in the plastics value chain (left), WEEE value chain (center) and ELV value
chain (right)
Networking events are also an opportunity to fulfill the another expectation of stakeholders, i.e. provide participants
visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling. The stakeholder conference gave frontrunners already an opportunity
to present themselves as key-note speakers (see NEW_InnoNet 2016a). The development of future use cases (work
package 4) and the website will be used by the NEW_InnoNet platform to continue the facilitation of a (digital) platform
for front-runners.
Facilitating bottom-up actions:
Earlier analysis of the three value chains indicated commonalities between the WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging value
chain, but also large differences (NEW_InnoNet forthcoming b). The stakeholder analysis confirms this observation. The
main bottlenecks and R&D priority of these three value chains are for example different (see Table 12).
Most important…
…bottleneck …R&D priority
WEEE “Miniaturisation, complexity, integration of functions” “Design for recycling”
Plastics “Bad product design” “Waste prevention/reduction”
ELV “Low-cost of energy recovery and landfill versus material
recovery”
“Market dynamics”
Table 12. Most important bottlenecks and R&D priorities in in the value chains
The differences between the value chains indicate that there is not a silver bullet solution for implementation of circular
economy concepts. The NEW_InnoNet platform will therefore support bottom-up initiatives and actions. By facilitating
stakeholders to put issues on the agenda and to develop their ideas in collaboration with other stakeholders,
NEW_InnoNet will not only increase commitment but (more importantly) induce actions for actual change. The platform
can in this respect develop itself as a safe haven or incubator for innovative collaborations for near-zero waste
technologies and a circular Europe.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 39 of 59
REFERENCES
European Commission 2015a. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste.
European Commission 2015b. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Closing
the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. (COM/2015/0614 final).
Directive 94/62/EC of European Parliament and Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L
365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ L 182, 16.07.1999, p. 1).
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end of life vehicles (OJ L
269, 21.10.2000, p. 34-43).
Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators
and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ L 266, 26.09.2006, p. 1-14).
Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic
equipment (OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 38-71).
NEW_InnoNet 2016a. Report on the first stakeholder meeting.
http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%201%202_%20RP_vFinal_Report%20on%20the%20stakeholder%20event%
20(combined%20D1.2.a%20%20D1.2.b).pdf
NEW_InnoNet 2016b. Analysis of the End of Life Vehicle value chain.
http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.3_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20En
d-of-Life%20Vehicle%20chain.pdf
NEW_InnoNet 2016c. Analysis of the plastic packaging value chain.
http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.4_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20pla
stic%20packaging%20value%20chain2.pdf
NEW_InnoNet 2016d. Analysis of the WEEE value chain.
http://www.newinnonet.eu/downloads/D%202.2_RP_Report%20summarising%20the%20analysis%20of%20the%20W
EEE%20Vehicle%20chain.pdf
NEW_InnoNet (forthcoming a). Report on the draft roadmaps of WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging.
NEW_InnoNet (forthcoming b). Report on cross-linking of the results per value chain.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 40 of 59
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: SURVEY METHODOLOGY
In order to generate more in-depth information about the value chains, a stakeholder survey was conducted. The
questionnaire served two purposes: first of all, to map the current playing field in terms of organizations’ knowledge,
influence, interest and attitude towards zero-waste concepts. Secondly, to identify barriers to that organizations in the
value chain experience in their transition towards a zero-waste economy. Care was taken to make sure a balance
between academic composition of the questions, specific stakeholder input to the project and user-friendliness. Below,
the main methodological aspects of the survey components are discussed.
1.1. Definition of a value chain stakeholder
A stakeholder is an actor (either a person or an organization) who has a vested interest. In this study, this means an actor
who has a vested interest in a value chain, whereby the study focuses specifically on three different value chains:
Electronics and electric equipment (WEEE: Waste Electronics and Electric Equipment);
Automotive (ELV: End-of-Life Vehicles);
Fast moving consumer goods (Plastic packaging).
Vested interest has been defined differently in different stakeholder analyses, i.e. from very inclusive (including almost
everybody) to very narrow (including only a very select group of actors). In this study, a distinction is made between
primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders:
Primary stakeholders: actors that are directly involved in the value chain. Changes in the value chain have direct
consequences for the (core) activities of these actors;
Secondary stakeholders: actors that are indirectly involved in the value chain, e.g. by performing supporting or
regulatory activities. Changes in the value chain do not have direct consequences for the (core) activities of
these actors. However, these actors can influence (or can be influenced by) change in a value chain;
Tertiary stakeholders: actors that do not have an involvement in the value chain, but (potentially) can become
involved. As tertiary stakeholders, these actors are by-standers, but changes in the value chain can change
these actors into primary or secondary stakeholders.
The object of analysis in this study is the value chain. The study focuses therefore mainly on primary and secondary
stakeholders. The stakeholder list was drafted by merging lists of stakeholders identified by the project partners. A wide
range of stakeholders was included, ranging from manufacturing to waste management companies to governance
bodies. This list was supplemented with stakeholders that were identified by their involvement in the NEW_InnoNet
project, participation in previous EU projects on the topic of circular economy in their value chain, and by closely
studying the supply chain of different value chains. The full list of stakeholders can be found in Annex 4.
1.2 Organization, distribution and response
The survey was distributed to the list of 670 stakeholders previously identified. The first round of surveys was distributed
digitally using an online questionnaire, and was disseminated mainly through e-mail and social media campaigns. In
order to increase the response rate, telephone interviews were planned with 35 stakeholders. These were approached
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 41 of 59
through the contact list as well as through existing contacts at PNO and consortium partners. Finally, during the
project’s stakeholder conference, a paper questionnaire was distributed, generating 8 more responses.
In total, 120 surveys were completed and 191 were partially completed, indicating a response rate of >18%. For some
questions, the partial responses were included, increasing the individual response rate up to 29%. These numbers are not
unusual for this type of survey and thus judged to be satisfactory.
1.3. Background information
First of all, respondents are asked to indicate in which value chain they are most active, enabling the use of specific
follow-up questions as well as comparison between value chains. While some organizations are likely to be active in
multiple value chains (e.g. waste managers, NGOs), it was emphasized to take the survey for the value chain the
organization is most active in.
Question 2 of the questionnaire (see annex 3).
Secondly, the stakeholders are asked to categorize their organization according to Figure 20,
Figure 20. Value chain characterization
Categories A – G encompass primary stakeholders, while categories H – J contain secondary stakeholders. Category K
will contain mostly tertiary stakeholders. Ideally, this categorization will enable a comparison of characteristics between
different categories of stakeholders.
Question 3 of the questionnaire (see annex 3).
1.4. Main stakeholder characteristics
In this paragraph, the main characteristics used to map the playing field are conceptualized and operationalized.
1.4.1. Influence/power
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 42 of 59
Influence is the ability of an actor to change or control the behavior of other actors. In this way, influence (or the lack of
it) is a key characteristic of stakeholders, i.e. it determines the extent to which a stakeholder has the ability to change
the behavior of other value chain actors. In this study, influence is understood as a property (a stakeholder can rely on
certain sources of power) as well as an activity (a stakeholder is actually willing to exert these sources of power to change
the behavior of others).
Stakeholder influence is defined as the ability of a stakeholder to change or control the behavior of other actors in the
value chain. This ability can be based on different sources of power. In this analysis, a distinction is made between five
sources of power:
Legitimate power is derived from a formal role that an organization holds within the value chain, e.g. the power
that can be derived from having a regulatory position.
Expert power is derived from possessing knowledge in a particular (key) area, e.g. the statements of an
organization with expertise are perceived as more valuable than the statements of other organizations.
Economic power is derived from the financial means that an organization possesses, e.g. an organization with
large financial means can financially reward (provide order) or punish (withdraw order) other actors in the value
chain.
Positional power is derived from the position that an organization holds within the value chain, e.g. an
organization acts performs its activities in a crucial step of the value chain.
Referent power is derived from respect for and the charisma of an organization, e.g. an organization with well-
known brand has influence because other organizations like to collaborate.
For each of these aspects, an item was created. Influence is thus measured by respondents’ self-evaluation of different
types of power on a 6-point scale. Aside from just influence, the willingness to exert this power (activity) is measured by
including a question about the different types of activity the stakeholder is engaged in. Once again this is done on a 6-
point scale.
Question 4 (influence) and question 5 (willingness to exert influence) of the questionnaire (see annex 3).
1.4.2. Knowledge
Knowledge entails a (theoretical or practical) familiarity, awareness and/or understanding of a phenomenon, which can
express itself in facts, information, description or skills. This stakeholder characteristic is of importance in this study as
actors require knowledge to actually change their organization towards zero waste practices. In the analysis, a
distinction is made between two different types of knowledge:
Technical knowledge refers to an understanding of zero waste technologies and processes
Socio-organizational knowledge, which is an composed of three types of knowledge:
o Economic knowledge refers to an understanding of the economies of zero waste interventions and
approaches.
o Regulatory knowledge refers to an understanding of zero waste policies and regulation.
o Organizational knowledge refers to an understanding of organizational principles of zero waste
approaches.
Measuring knowledge is done by including 4 examples of technological knowledge and 4 of socio-organizational
knowledge. While these examples are non-exhaustive, they are expected to give a good indication of the stakeholders’
knowledge of circular economy concepts.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 43 of 59
Question 6 of the questionnaire (see annex 3).
1.4.3. Interest
Stakeholders are actors with a vested interest in a value chain. Identifying and assessing the interest of an actor is
therefore a first step in a stakeholder analysis. The analysis of this study focuses both on a stakeholder’s interest in the
current value chain (status quo) and its interests in changes in the value chain. Stakeholders’ interest in the status quo is
measured by the level of embeddedness of circular economy principles on different levels (e.g. strategic, tactical, and
operational). The embeddedness on 5 different aspects is measured on a 6-point scale.
Stakeholders’ interest in change is measured by asking for the perceived effect of a fully circular economy on five
different aspects of an organization (e.g. profitability, independency), once again on a 6-point scale.
Question 7 (embeddedness) and question 8 (effects of change) of the questionnaire (see annex 3).
1.4.4. Attitude
An attitude is an expression of favor, disfavor or ambivalence toward an specific “attitude object” (person, place,
concept, etc.). Attitude is a personal tendency and does not necessarily tell something about the organization where
somebody works. In this analysis, we therefore included attitude only to compare the attitudes of respondents working
for the same type of organization and as a control variable.
Attitude is commonly measured by using the semantic differential technique, in which a concept is evaluated on a scale
between two bipolar adjectives. It can be constructed to measure an evaluation, potency or activity. In this case, the
concept of a circular economy is measured by five evaluative adjectives on a 6-point scale. In addition, the desirability of
a circular economy is measured by asking respondents for the favorability of circular economy over a linear economy
with regard to certain subjects (e.g. their organization, sector or the environment).
Question 9 (attitude) and question 10 (circular economy vs. linear economy) of the questionnaire (see Annex 3).
1.4.5. Collaboration
Value chain collaborations are required to reach a European near-zero waste economy. NEW_InnoNet mobilizes
stakeholders to build such collaborations and to participate in circular economies. At the on-set of this endeavor, it is
important to gain insight into what kind of collaborations have to be stimulated.
The current state of affairs provides insight into the collaborations that already exist between value chain actors. By
taking stock of the existing collaborations, the analysis provide showcase examples of collaborations. In addition, it
provides insight into differences within and between value chains. By taking stock of the desired collaborations, an
overview occurs of “collaboration gaps” that are relatively easy to close.
Respondents are asked to indicate the level of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the
same characterization as question 3. The level of collaboration was measured on a 6-point scale.
Question 12 of the questionnaire (see Annex 3)
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 44 of 59
1.5. Stakeholder input
The second part of the survey is reserved for stakeholder input to the project. Three different sections are discussed
here: barriers to the implementation of a circular economy, future areas of research and development and the
expectations of a European (near) zero-waste platform.
1.5.1. Barriers to a circular economy
In WP2 of this project, several barriers to implementation of a fully circular economy were identified (NEW_InnoNet
2016b; 2016c, 2016d). These barriers are specific to each value chain. In order to validate these barriers from a bottom-
up perspective, stakeholders are asked to agree or disagree to the impeding nature of the bottlenecks. In addition, there
is one open field in order to give stakeholders the opportunity to add any bottlenecks they experience.
Question 13 of the questionnaire (see annex 3).
1.5.2. Future areas of research and development
Since one of the main goals of the NEW_InnoNet project is to identify future areas of research and development for the
Strategic Research- and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) of the European Commission, it is essential to gain stakeholder input
on this topic. Seven areas of potential R&D topics have been included, as well as one open field to offer stakeholders a
chance to add their unique input.
Question 14 of the questionnaire (see annex 3).
1.5.3. Expectations of a European near-zero waste platform
The final survey question assesses stakeholder needs and expectations in order to explore the next steps of the
NEW_InnoNet platform. Five potential functions of the NEW_InnoNet project were listed, as well as one open field.
These expectations were rated on a 6-point scale.
Question 15 of the questionnaire (see annex 3).
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 45 of 59
ANNEX 2: MATCHPOINT METHODOLOGY
In this section the methodology of the Matchpoint analysis will be described. An analysis was made of the amount of
funded projects over time, type and amount of project partners and amount of funding over time. This was done using
Matchpoint, a tool developed by PNO Consultants to analyze databases on patents, technical papers and funded
projects. The funded projects section is based on the CORDIS database, which is the European Commission’s primary
public repository and portal to disseminate information on all EU-funded research projects and their results. Matchpoint
enables the user to extract large amounts of data based on search parameters such as subject, project partner or
framework programme.
The following paragraphs describe the steps that were taken in each topic in order to filter the results and select relevant
projects.
2.1. Electronic and Electric Equipment/WEEE
In the keywords used in the WEEE study are displayed. These keywords were used with a combination of different
search operators (quotation marks, AND) in order to specify the results.
WEEE urban mining
electronic waste WEEE zero waste
electric waste electronic zero waste
electric and electronics WEEE circular economy
Table 13. Keywords used in WEEE Matchpoint study
The results were manually selected by applying the criteria in paragraph 2.4 of this Annex. 56 projects remained, that
were conducted between 1982 and 2015 between the Third Framework Programme and Horizon 2020.
2.2. Fast Moving Consumer Goods/Plastic packaging
In Table 14 the keywords used in the plastic packaging study are displayed.
packaging recycle food polymer recycle
paper recycle waste sorting
plastic recycle shelf life packaging
PET recycle biopolymer packaging
bioplastic packaging plastic packaging circular economy
plastic packaging zero waste
Table 14. Keywords used in the plastic packaging Matchpoint study
The results were manually selected by applying the criteria in paragraph 2.4 of this Annex. 101 projects remained, that
were conducted between 1983 and 2015 in all seven framework programmes and Horizon 2020.
2.3. Automotive/End-of-life vehicles
The keywords that were used are displayed below. They were used with different search operators in order to yield the
most focused results.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 46 of 59
end-of-life vehicle recycling automotive refurbishing
car recycling automotive zero waste
automotive recycling automotive battery recycling
ELV recycling car battery recycling
vehicle recycling vehicle battery recycling
automotive metals recycling end-of-life vehicle battery
automotive plastic recycling Automotive circular economy
Table 15. Keywords used in the ELV Matchpoint study
Since many projects were returned by more than one keyword, it was not possible to categorize them by search terms.
Therefore, results were aggregated, and duplicated were removed. To reduce the search corpus, projects that did not
contain the words ‘automotive’ or ‘vehicle’ in the objective were excluded. The accuracy of this method was verified by
checking a sample of the excluded projects.
The remaining results were manually selected for relevancy according to the selection criteria in the paragraph 2.4 of
this Annex. After the selection, 66 projects remained. These projects were carried out between 1993 and 2015 in the
context of Framework Programmes three to seven and Horizon 2020. In order to be able to analyse the results,
organization names were harmonized and different departments of the same organization were grouped.
2.4. Selection criteria
In all value chains, the following selection criteria were applied:
- Projects on the topics of zero-waste, circular economy or closing the loop focused on the automotive,
electronics or plastic packaging industry or the manufacturing industry in general, including one of the value
chains as a case study.
- Projects focused on the following topics:
o Eco-design;
o Refurbishing, repair, remanufacturing;
o Disassembly and sorting/separation technologies;
o Recycling technologies.
- Projects on material or energy efficiency in manufacturing in one of the value chains, not including fuel
efficiency in the use phase.
- Projects on the (sustainable) end-of-life management of products from the value chain or components that
completely or mainly originate from the relevant industry.
- Projects on data collection, knowledge dissemination and integration on the topic of any of the subjects listed
above.
- Only vehicles that are included in the definition of ELV according to the ELV directive (2000/53/EC); type M1 and
N1.
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
ANNEX 3: FULL QUESTIONNAIRE
Welcome to the NEW_InnoNet survey!
Thank you for taking part in this survey. This survey is part of a stakeholder analysis performed in the context of the H2020 NEW_InnoNet project. This
project will result in roadmaps and a strategic research- and innovation agenda for the European Commission on the topic of waste and the circular
economy. It is essential that this agenda is supported by different types of stakeholders, including industry, government and knowledge institutes,
which is why we will be gathering your thoughts and opinions on the future of the European circular economy in this survey.
The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes. Responses will remain anonymous. To read more about the NEW_Innonet project, go to
http://www.newinnonet.eu.
Background information
1) My organization is a:
O Company – SME O Company - Large O University/Research organization O Governmental organization O Non-profit organization O Other - (please specify): ______________________
2) My organization is based in the following country:
3) Which of the following value chains and associated waste streams has your organization's main interest?
O Automotive - End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV)
O Fast Moving Consumer Goods - plastic packaging
O Electronics and Electrical Equipment - Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE )
The value chain
4) In the following diagram the different stages in the value chain are represented. Please indicate in which phase your organization is predominantly active in.
My organization is predominantly active in the following phase of the value chain:
O A - Raw material production O B - Component manufacturing O C - Product manufacturing O D - Retailing / distributing O E - Waste collecting O F - Waste managing O G - Recycling of intermediates/upgrading O H - Providing funding for the value chain O I - Providing knowledge or information for the value chain O J - Providing regulation for the value chain O Other - (please specify): * _______________________
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 48 of 59
4) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
In the value chain, my organization has…
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
…a large market share
…influence on regulatory issues
…a large network
…visibility as a value chain front-runner
…highly valued knowledge and information of the value chain
5) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
In the value chain, my organization participates in…
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
…dialogues with other organizations
…collaborations with other organizations
…collaborative research projects with other organizations
…platform organizations
…lobbying activities
Circular economy (1)
NEW_InnoNet is about the Circular Economy: what used to be regarded as ‘waste’ can be turned into valuable new resources. The aim is to look beyond waste and to close the loop of the circular economy in which resources are managed more efficiently throughout their life cycle. A visualization of this concept is displayed below.
6) Please indicate the level of expertise in your organization on the following aspects:
Very low
2 3 4 5 Very high
Product (eco- or re)design of plastic packaging
Waste collection and sorting technologies
Recycling technologies
Tracking and marker technologies to simplify detection of different materials
'Circular' business models, investment schemes or financing mechanisms
National and European directives
Environmental impact of your value chain´s waste disposal
Extended producer responsibility schemes
7) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
My organization has incorporated the notion of circular economy in…
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
…the mission statement
…communication activities (e.g. press releases)
…investment decisions
…daily work practices
…training of employees
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 49 of 59
8) Please indicate the extent to which you agree that a fully circular economy would have a positive effect on the following aspects:
A fully circular value chain would have a positive influence on...
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
…the market share of my organization
…the profitability of my organization
…the independency of my organization
…the societal legitimacy (public image) of my organization
…the network of my organization
9) Please rate the concept of a circular economy on the following dimensions:
The circular economy is…
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
Feasible
Desirable
Necessary
Important
Appealing
10) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
A circular economy is better than a linear economy for…
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
…my organization
…my sector
…the economy
…the labor market
…the environment
Circular economy (2)
11) How often does your organization collaborate with organizations in the following phases of the value chain on issues related to the circular economy?
Nev
er
Ver
y ra
rely
Rar
ely
Occ
asio
nal
ly
Fre
qu
entl
y
Ver
y fr
equ
entl
y
A - Raw material production
B - Component manufacturing
C - Product manufacturing
D - Retailing/distributing
E - Waste collecting
F - Waste managing
G - Recycling of intermediates/upgrading
H - Providing funding for the value chain
I - Providing knowledge or information, e.g. consultancy, research
J - Providing regulation for the value chain, e.g. laws, standards
Other (please specify)
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 50 of 59
Answer the following question only when you are active in the fast moving consumer goods/plastic packaging value chain.
12a) Please indicate the extent to which you agree that the following aspects are barriers to a circular economy:
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
Limited source separation of plastic packaging waste;
Bad product design;
Export of plastic packaging waste for recycling outside EU;
Performance of separation and sorting technology;
Performance of recycling technology;
Other (please specify)
Answer the following question only when you are active in the automotive/end-of-life vehicles value chain.
12a) Please indicate the extent to which you agree that the following aspects are barriers to a circular economy:
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
Inadequate performance of ELV collection and monitoring;
Inadequate performance of vehicle dismantling and reuse;
Low-cost of energy recovery and landfill versus material recovery;
Inadequate performance of the separation, sorting and refining technology;
Limited and low quality applications of non-metallic ELV materials;
Other (please specify)
Answer the following question only when you are active in the (waste) electrical and electronic equipment value chain.
12c) Please indicate the extent to which you agree that the following aspects are barriers to a circular economy:
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
Illegal export of WEEE outside EU;
Product design aspects: Miniaturisation, complexity, integrating of multiple functions;
Rapid changes in designs and materials;
No incentives to develop recyclable materials and products;
Fluctuating raw material prices.
13) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
More research and development is needed into...
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
Design for recycling;
Waste prevention/reduction;
Performance of collection schemes;
Monitoring of waste streams;
Performance of separation, sorting and refining;
Policy and regulation;
Market dynamics.
Other (please specify)
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 51 of 59
NEW_InnoNet (2)
The NEW_InnoNet project is an initiative to establish a European stakeholder platform for the circular economy. The main goal of the project is to mobilize stakeholders towards building a circular economy by facilitating cooperation within or along different value chains, pooling resources and defining a common vision.
14) What are your expectations of such a European near-zero waste platform?
My expectation is that such a European platform provides…
Strongly disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
…my organization with a voice in developing EU policy.
…networking opportunities.
…knowledge on funding and business opportunities.
…services to facilitate the innovation process, e.g. regarding patent searches, getting access to scientific papers, project development.
…participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling and sustainability.
Other (please specify)
Thank You! Thank you for taking our survey. Your response is very important to us. For questions or more information about this survey, please contact [email protected]
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDER LIST
Austria Alchemia-nova GmbH International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) Sat-research Saubermacher Technische Universität Wien Univie Verband Österreichischer Entsorgungsbetriebe
(VOEB) Wolfgang Denzel AG
Belgium Agoria ANEC Anteagroup ArcelorMittal Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and
Sustainable Resource Management (ACR+) Association of European Adhesives and Sealants
Manufacturers (FEICA) Association of European Ferro-Alloy producers
(EUROALLIAGES) Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association
(APRA) Avere (European Association for Battery, Hybrid and
Electric Cars) Bebat BEBAT Beherman Motors N.V. Belgian Scrap Terminal Biomimicry BMW Bond Beter Leefmillieu (BBL) Bostoen Bouygues Brussels Management School (ICHEC) Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) Campine Centre for European Policy Studies City of Antwerpen City of Gent Coberec Comet Traitements SA Committee on Environment, Health and Food Safety
(EU Parliament) Covenant of Mayors Critical Raw Materials Alliance CSR Europe (European Business Network for
Corporate Social Responsibility) Departement Economie, Wetenschap en Innovatie
Vlaanderen
Digital Europe ENIAC Joint Undertaking (PPP) Eucobat EUnited Eurobat Eurocities Eurofer EuroGeoSurveys Eurometaux Europabio Europeam Composites Industry Association (EuCIA) European Aluminium European Association of Automotive Suppliers
(CLEPA) European Association of Cities and Regions for
Recycling and Sustainable Resource Management (ACR+)
European Association of Plastics Recycling & Recovery Organisations (EPRO)
European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA)
European Battery Recycling Association (EBRA) European Bioplastics European Brands Association European Cement Association (Cembureau) European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) European Commission - DG Environment European Commission - DG Grow European Commission - DG Research & Innovation European Commission - European Resource Efficiency
Platform European Commission - Executive Agency for SMs
(EASME) European Committee of Domestic Equipment
Manufacturers (CECED) European Community of Consumer Co-operatives
(EUROCOOP) European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) European Copper Institute European Council for Automotive R&D (EUCAR) European Council for Motor Trades and Repairers
(CECRA) European Disposables and Nonwovens Association European Engineering Industries Association
(Orgalime) European Environmental Bureau (EEB) European Environmental Citizens Organisation for
Standardization (ECOS) European Federation of Waste Management and
Environmental Services (FEAD) European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 53 of 59
European Innovation Partnership Smart Cities and Communities
European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN)
European Partners for the Environment European Power Electronics and Drives Association European Recycling Industries' Confederations (EuRIC) EUROPEAN SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION European Small Volume Car Manufacturers Alliance European Steel Technology Platform (ESTEP) European Technology Platform for Advanced
Engineering Materials and Technologies (EuMaT) European Technology Platform on Sustainable Mineral
Resources (SMR) European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers Association
(ETRMA) Febelauto Federatie van Bedrijven voor Milieubeheer (Febem) Federatie van de Elektriciteit en de Elektronica
(Feebel) Fédération des Entreprises de Gestion de
l'Environnement - Federatie van Bedrijven voor Milieubeheer (FEBEM-FEGE)
Federplast Fehrl Flemish Goverment FoodDrinkEurope FostPlus Friends of the Earth Galloo Greennovate Greenwin Holcim Honda Motor Europe Ltd - Belgian Branch ICF International Imec Indaver Industrial Minerals Association (IMA) Intercommunale Leiedal Intergemeentelijke Maatschappij voor Openbare
Gezondheid (IMOG) KOMOSIE KU Leuven LKAB Manufuture (European Technology Platform for
Manufacturing) Morssinkhof Rymoplast Municipal Waste Europe Nanotechnology Industry Association Neemo Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffenmaatschappi (OVAM) OSMOS network PETCORE Europe Philips Plan C
Polymer Comply Europe Port of Antwerp Procter & Gamble BE Public Waste Agency of Flanders RECHARGE Recovinyl Recupel RECYBAT RREUSE RubberRecyclingOverpelt Schuiten Shanks Sita SITA/Suez Environment South Denmark European Office Starch Stelimet SuMMa SusChem (European Technology Platform for
Sustainable Chemistry) Sustainable Process Industry through Resource and
Energy Efficiency (SPIRE) Toyota Motor Europe Umicore Umicore Precious Metals Refining Urbact Val-i-Pac VinylPlus VKC Vlaams Instituut voor Logistiek (VIL) Vlaams Materialenprogramma VVSG/Interafval WEEE Forum Worldloop Worldsteel WWF Zero Waste Europe
Bulgaria
Balkan Star Motors
Croatia LMG Autokuca D.O.O.
Cyprus Fairway Motor Enterprises Ltd.
Czech Republic Mitsubishi Motors Czech Republic s.r.o
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 54 of 59
Denmark
Clean Cluster COWI European Environment Agency (EEA) Mitsubishi Motors Danmark AS United Federation of Danish Workers (3F)
Estonia AS Silberauto Estonian Waste Management Association (EWMA) Tartu Regiooni Energiaagentuur
Finland Aalto University - Material Science Association of Finnish Environmental Industries and
Services (YTP-Liitto) CLEEN ry Delta Motor Group Oy Ekokem Oy Elker Ltd (non-profit WEEE recycling service company) Federation of Finnish Technology Industries
(Teknologiateollisuus) Fimecc Finnish Car Recycling (Suomen autokierrätys) Finnish Environment Institute Finnish Ministry of Economy and Employment Finnish Ministry of Environment Finnish Packaging Recycling Rinki Finnish Plastics Industries Federation Finnish Plastics Recycling Ltd (Suomen uusiomuovi
Oy) Finnish Solid Waste Association Kuusakoski Oy Lassila&Tikanoja Microsoft Motiva Nokia Outotec SER-tuottajayhteisö ry (SERTY) Sitra Tekes University of Oulu Ymparisto
France Agency for the Environment and Energy (ADEME) Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières
(BRGM) Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB) CMI Groupe
Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)
COREPILE Eco-Emballages SA Eramet European Materials Research Society Fédération Nationale des Activités de la Dépollution et
de l’Environnement (FNADE) Federec French Ministry of Environment GE Healthcare Institut Economie Circulaire Irex Asso IRS Tea Lafarge Mitsubishi Motors France RECUPYL SAS SAFT Technical Center for the Mechanical Industry (Cetim) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Valeo Veolia
Germany Accurec Adam Opel AG AgPR Alba Bayer Braungart Bundesverband der Deutschen Entsorgungs-, Wasser-,
und Rohstoffwirtschaft (BDE) Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Stahlrecycling- und
Entsorgungsunternehmen (BDSV) Cluster Industrielle Biotechnologie (CLIB2021) Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and
Production GmbH (CSCP) Daimler Eco Care Recycling European Renewable Resources and Materials
Association Ford Motor Company Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Frauenhofer Institut Fraunhofer Gemeinsames Ruecknahmesystem Servicegesellschaft German Ministry of the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Transport Baden-Wuerttemberg Heidelberg Technology Center Helmholtz Institute Freiberg for Resource Efficiency ICT Fraunhofer International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI) International Platinum Group Metals Association (e.V.)
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 55 of 59
Mitsubishi Motors Deutschland Next Hamburg North Denmark European Office PTJ- Jühlich Remondis Electrorecycling SK Hamburg STEP Initiative (+ United Nations University) Technische Universität Berlin Technische Universität Hamburg Umweltbundesamt Germany University of Applied Sciences Muenster University of Oldenburg VARTA Microbatteries Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau
(VDMA) VERE Volkswagenstiftung
Greece Association of Environmental Protection Agencies
(PASEPPE) General Secretariat for Research and Technology
(GSRT) Monolithos Catalysts & Recycling Ltd. Saracakis Brothers S.A. University of Athens School of Chemical Engineering
(Chemeng Ntua)
Hungary Mitsubishi Motors Import Ltd
Iceland Hekla HF
Ireland HOLFELD PLASTICS LIMITED Irish Enviromental Protection Agency Irish Waste Management Association (IWMA) WEEE Ireland
Italy Centro Ceramico (Cencerbo) Centro Sviluppo Materiali (CSM) Consorzioremedia Contarina D'appolonia Enco Consulting Federazione Imprese di Servizi - Assoambiente (FISE) Fiat Innovation Engineering
IRS Online Itia CNR Mitsubishi Motors Italy NOVAMONT SPA Polimi (Politecnico Milano) Primaindustrie Regione Lazio Regione Lombardia Service Industry Association (Federazione Imprese di
Servizi; FISE) University of Pisa University of Rome
Latvia Cleantech Latvia Latvian Association of Waste Management Companies
(LASUA) Mitsubishi Motors Latvia Imports
Lithuania JSC Autovytaras Vilniaus Universitetas (VU) - Chemijos Fakultetas
Luxembourg Association for Public Transport (FLEA) ECOBATTERIEN Fédération Luxembourgeoise des Entreprises
d'Assainissement (FLEA)
Macedonia Mak Autostar dooel
Netherlands ABN AMRO AEB Amsterdam AKZO Nobel Attero Automotive Centre of Expertise AutomotiveNL Beelen Bek & Verburg BinBang Biobased Packaging Innovations Cedo Center of Expertise Biobased Economy Circle-economy Circulus BV/Berkel Milieu NV CirkelLab City of Eindhoven Clean Tech Factory
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 56 of 59
Colgate-Palmolive ComputerRecycle Cumapol Delft University of Technology (TUD) Deltares Desso Dietz Droge & van Loo DNV GL DNV GL DPI Value Centre Dr. Oetker DSM Dusseldorp Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Dutch Waste Management Association (DWMA) Ecofys Ecomatters Elemetal Elsinga Beleidsplanning en Innovatie BV Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECN) European Electronics Recyclers European Group of Automotive Recycling Associations
(EGARA) Food Valley NL Fuenix Goudsmit Green Serendipity/Tassenbol Green Wave Plastics Greentech Alliances Heveskes Energy Holland Bioplastics Holland Recycling HVC ICL IP (Bromine company) iFixit ING Intertek Inverko Ionica IVAM UvA Johnson Controls Kennisinstituut Duurzaam Verpakken Kennisplatform Duurzaam Grondstoffenbeheer Koninklijke Bammens BV KplusV Organisatieadvies Kraft Foods Kunststof Recycling Nederland Leiden University Mitsubishi Motors Netherlands MRF Municipality of Amsterdam Municipality of Arnhem Municipality of Breda Municipality of Den Haag Municipality of Leeuwarden
Natural Plastics Nature Group Rotterdam (NGRP) Ned. Rubber- en Kunststofindustrie (NRK) Recycling Ned. Rubber- en Kunststofindustrie (NRK)
Verpakkingen Nederland ICT Nederlandse Cosmetica Vereniging Nederlandse Vereniging van Zeepfabrikanten Nederlandse Verwijdering Metalelektro Producten NEN Nestlé No Waste in Time (NOWIT) Oerlemans Plastics Orgaworld Nederland B.V. Paques Plastic Soup Foundation Plastics Europe Polymer Science Park Polymer Technology Group Polyscope Polymers Pon Holding Project Gijs.nl Province of Fryslân Pyroil QCP Rabobank RAIvereniging Recycled Park Recycling Consultants Nederland Recycling International Recycling Netwerk Rewin Rhenoy Group Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland SABIC Petrochemicals Schuttelaar & Partners Sita Benelux & Germany Sita Nederland Smart Delta Recourses Platform (Impuls Zeeland) StarSock STIBA Stibat Stichting Circulaire Economie Stichting de Noordzee SUEZ Tata Steel TNO Topteam Biobased Economy Triodos Triple Benefit Unilever United Nations University (Delft University) Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) University of Utrecht Copernicus Institute of
Sustainable Development University of Technology Eindhoven
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 57 of 59
Van Happen Van Maren systems VDL Parree Vereniging Afvalbedrijven (DWMA) Vereniging Nederlandse Chemische Industrie (VNCI) Vrije Universiteit (VU) VSL Dutch Metrology Institute Wecycle WEEE Nederland Yparex
Norway Alcoa Norway Batteriretur Federation of Norwegian Industries (NORSK
INDUSTRI) GPBM Nordic HYDRO Mitsubishi Motors Norway Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet
(NTNU) NORSK Hydro ASA Vestack
Poland Abrys ALIBABA ALBANIA Architectural Glass Processors Klaster Arcticpaper Association Hausing "Górnik" w Katowicach Association of Engineers and Technicians in the
Chemical Industry (Stowarzyszenia Inżynierów i Techników Przemysłu Chemicznego)
Association of Vehicle Recycling Poland (Stowarzyszenie Forum Recyklingu Samochodów)
ATMOTERM S.A. Basell Orlen Polyolefins Sp. z o.o. Bech Packaging Sp. z o.o. BSH Sprzet Gospodarstwa Domowego Sp. z o.o. Center for Use of Recycled Tires (Centrum Utylizacji
Opon Organizacja Odzysku S.A.) Center of Bioimmobilisation and Innovative Packaging
Materials / West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin
Central for Packaging Research and Development (Centralny Ośrodek Badawczo-Rozwojowy Opakowań)
Central Mining Institute (Główny Instytut Górnictwa) Coca Cola HBC Polska Sp. z o.o. D.K. LAMIN Sp. j. dr Robert Dziuba LEX-ACTIO Consulting ECOR Product Sp. z o.o. EdisonPolska
Electrolux Poland Sp. z o. o. Elektro Recykling Engineering and Trade Company "Technika" Ltd European Committee of Domestic Equipment
Manufacturers (CECED) Polska - Związek Pracodawców AGD
F.P.H.U. Rominex Fiat Auto Polska General Motors Manufacturing Poland Sp. z o.o. (Opel
Polska) Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska GPP Association of Ecology Granulator-Recykling Tworzyw Sztucznych Mateusz
Jureczko Grupa Azoty Grupa ORLEN Hewlett-Packard Polska Sp. z o.o. InnoCo ltd Institute of Biopolymers and Chemical Fibres Institute of Natural Fibres and Medicinal Plants Instytut Chemii Przemysłowej (Warszawa) Instytutu Inżynierii Materiałów Polimerowych i
Barwników (Toruń) Investeko S.A. Izba Gospodarcza Metali Nieżelaznych i Recyklingu Izba Przemysłowo – Handlowa Gospodarki Złomem KOBA ORGANIZACJA ODZYSKU S.A. Krzesła Radomsko LG Electronics Polska Sp. z o. o. MAGA® Zakład Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowy MAZOWIECKA AGENCJA ENERGETYCZNA SP. Z O.O. Media Markt Polska Ministerstwo Środowiska Mitsubishi Motors Poland Mostostal Waw Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki
Wodnej OLMET Sp. z o.o. P.P.H.U. MAJ-PLAST P.U.H. Center - Odzysk złomu metali z wszystkich
odpadów Panasonic Marketing Europe GmbH Philips Lightning Poland S.A. PLASTEKOL ORGANIZACJA ODZYSKU S.A. Polish Automotive Industry Association (Polski
Związek Przemysłu Motoryzacyjnego) Polish Chamber of Commerce - Non-ferrous Metals
and Recycling (Izba Gospodarcza Metali Nieżelaznych i Recyklingu)
Polish Chamber of Commerce - Recycling (Ogólnopolska Izba Gospodarcza Recyklingu)
Polish Chamber of Commerce (Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza)
Polish Chamber of Ecology (Polska Izba Ekologii) Polish Chamber of Packaging (Polska Izba Opakowań) Polish Chamber of Waste Management (PIGO)
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 58 of 59
Polish Chamber of Waste Management (PIGO) Polski Klub Ekologiczny Polski System Recyklingu Organizacja Odzysku
Opakowań SA Poznan University of Technology (Politechnika
Poznańska) Przedsiębiorstwo Obrotu Hurtowego "OŁER" Przetwórstwo Tworzyw Sztucznych Plast-Box S.A. PTH TECHNIKA Sp. z o.o. REEKO S.A., recovery Organization Rekopol Organizacja Odzysku Opakowań S.A REMONDIS Electrorecycling Sp. z o.o. Renault Katowice - Grupa Pietrzak Replast Samsung Electronics Polska Sp. z o.o. Silesian Union of Municipalities and Districts Silesian University of Technology Sutco-Polska Sp. z o.o. Tesco Polska TITECH Polska - TOMRA Sorting Sp. z o.o. University of Mining and Metallurgy Krakau - Faculty of
Materials Science and Ceramics (Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza w Krakowie - Wydział Inżynierii Materiałowej i Ceramiki)
University of Mining and Metallurgy Krakau - Faculty of Non-ferrous Metals (Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza w Krakowie - Wydział Metali Nieżelaznych)
University of Warsaw Volkswagen Poznan West Pomeranian University of Technology - Szczecin Zakład Przetwórstwa Tworzyw Sztucznych
WITOPLAST S.J.
Portugal Amb3E (Portuguese Association for Waste
Management) Iber Oleff Mitsubishi Motors Portugal
Romania ASOCIAŢIA ROMÂNĂ PENTRU MANAGEMENTUL
DEȘEURILOR (ARMD; Romanian Association of Waste Management)
M Car Trading Romanian Association for Waste Management (ARS)
Serbia Association of the Waste Industry of Serbia (IOS -
“HRABRI ČISTAČ“ ) INOTO D.O.O.
Slovakia Asociácia podnikateľov v odpadovom hospodárstve
(APOH; Slovak Association of Waste Management) Association for Entrepreneurs in Waste Management
(APOH) Mitsubishi Motors Slovakia s.r.o.
Slovenia Gorenje Orodjarna LAJOVIC TUBA EMBALAZA DOO
Spain Asociación Cluster Industrias de Componentes de
Automoicón (ACICAE) Asociación de Empresas Gestoras de Residuos y
Recursos Especiales (ASEGRE) Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación
(AENOR) ASOCIACIÓN NACIONAL DE GESTORES DE
RESIDUOS DE AUTOMOCIÓN (ANGEREA) Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de
Distribución (ANGED) Association for the Clean Murcia Region (ARML;
ASOCIACIÓN REGION DE MURCIA LIMPIA) Association of Environmental Industries (ACLIMA -
Asociación Cluster de Industrias del Medio Ambiente)
Befesa Aluminio (Leading Aluminium recycler) Bilboplastik B-Lux Cegasa CIE Automotive Council of Catalan Chambers of Commerce and
Industry Dragados ECO RAEE ECOASIMELEC Ecoembes ECOLEC ECOTIC Ekorec Plastic Recycling Elmet (Cupper Recycling, Metallo group) Emaus (Social Company for Selective Recycling) Eroski S.Coop. (Leading Spanish Retailer of Food and
others) European Commission - Joint Research Centre -
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS)
Euskaltel (Phone and Telecommunications Company) Factories of the Future (FoF) Fagor Automation, S.Coop. Fcirce
D 1.1 Report on Stakeholder Analysis
NEW_InnoNet | H2020 CSA | D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis | Page 59 of 59
FRAGNOR,S.L Fundación ECOPILAS GAIA-Asociación de Industrias de las Tecnologías
Electrónicas y de la Información del País Vasco Gaiker Centro Tecnologico Gestamp Grupo Otua H-Enea Remanufacturing Indumetal Recycling, S.A. Ingeteam Irizar S.Coop Jubedi Kimika - Basque Chemical Association Koopera Leartiker (Research in Secondary Plastics) Lyrsa Mager MCC Mercedes Benz España Mitsubishi Motors España Rebattery Repsol Sigrauto Solintel Tuboplast Ulma Packaging Urbaser
Sweden Belmont Trading BIL Sweden Chalmers University City of Stockholm Elektronikåtervinningsföreningen i Sverige (EÅF) El-kretsen AB elretur AS ERP Region north Linköping University Polykemi Ragn-Sells Renas AS Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) SBR (Swedish Vehicle Recyclers Association) SC Auto Sweden AB Statistics Sweden Stena Recycling AB Stockholmvatten Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Swedish Geological Survey (SGU) Swedish Recycling Industries Association (SRI) Swerea IVF
Swerec Teknikforetagen TETRA PAK PACKAGING SOLUTIONS AB Volvo Car Corperation
Switzerland Dupont EMPA (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials
Science and Technology) ETH Zurich Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) Mitsubishi Motors Automobile Schweiz AG Supsi
Turkey TEMSA GLOBAL
United Kingdom Arup BIOPAC (UK) LIMITED Colt Car Company Ltd C-Tech Innovation Defra Ellen MacArthur Foundation Environmental Services Association (ESA) EPSRC Centre for Industrial Sustainability European Aluminium Institute European Metal Recycling Graham & Brown Granta design International Synergies IQE Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) Less Common Metals Ltd Mars PETCARE Recycling Technologies Ltd. Repic Ltd. Resource Association Sheffield University Smithers Pira The Welding Institute UK Environmental Services Association (ESA) UK MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
INSTITUTE LIMITED WRAP York University Zero Waste Scotland