RFID Tags

WORKING
P A P E R
SMART TRASH:
Study on RFID
tags and the
recycling industry
Interim Report (D3)

SMART 2010/0042
RAND Europe, Institut für Aufbereitung

und Recycling RWTH Aachen
University (I.A.R.), P3
INGENIEURGESELLSCHAFT (P3)
WR-922
This product is part of the RAND February 2012

Europe working paper series.
Prepared for the European Commission DG
RAND working papers are intended
Information Society and Media to inform
to share researchers’ latest findings
and to solicit informal peer review. policymaking on RFID and the Internet of Things
They have been approved for (Unit D4)
circulation by RAND Europe but
have not been formally edited
or peer reviewed. Unless otherwise
indicated, working papers can be
quoted and cited without permission
of the author, provided the source is
clearly referred to as a working paper.
RAND’s publications do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of its research
clients and sponsors.
is a registered trademark.
This study has been carried out for the Directorate-General Home Affairs in the European Commission
as result of the procurement procedure SMART N°2010 /0042 - 2010/S 75-111252 for an amount of
574,445€. The report expresses the opinion of RAND Europe, P3 Ingenieurgesellschaft and I.A.R.
Aachen University who performed the study. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved
by the European Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the European
Commission's or the DG INFSO’s views. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of
the information given in the study, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made thereof. Copyright
in this study is held by the European Communities. Persons wishing to use the contents of this study (in
whole or in part) for purposes other than their personal use are invited to submit a written request to the
following address:
European Commission
DG Information Society and Media
INFSO-D4
(BU-25 – 3/106)
1-3 Avenue du Bourget
B -1140 Brussels
[email protected]
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31
Preface
This document is the interim report for a study entitled RFID tags and the Recycling
Industry undertaken jointly by RAND Europe, the Department of Processing and
Recycling (I.A.R.)1 at RWTH Aachen University and P3 Ingenieurgesellschaft (P3).
Specific aim of the study
The study, funded by the EC, aims to obtain expert input necessary for (1) assessing the
environmental impact of RFID tags and (2) assessing the environmental advantages that
RFID can provide for product lifecycle management. An integral part of the study is to
identify the associated obstacles and needs for policy action and/or research activity.
To accomplish these objectives, the study applies a number of different quantitative and
qualitative methodologies, including a systematic literature review, key informant
interviews, case studies, stakeholder analysis, use cases and case study analysis, as well as
survey and scenario building.
Scope of this interim report
The Interim Report (D3) presents the preliminary findings of the research, building on the
systematic literature review, key informant interviews (expert consultations), use cases and
case study analyses conducted in the initial phase of the study (February–December 2011).
The document has been peer-reviewed in accordance with RAND’s quality assurance
standards by Prof. Jan Gronow, and has received constructive feedback and comments
from Mr. Gérald Santucci (Head of Networked Enterprise and Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) Unit at the EC DG Information Society and Media) and his
colleague Mr. Florent Frederix (Head of RFID Sector).
In February 2012, upon approval, the interim report will be made available on the EC
website and the project website at http://rfid-waste.ning.com. It will provide the basis for
discussion in the upcoming phase of the project, the public consultation.
The public consultation will take place between February and July 2012. It is meant to
facilitate interaction with and among experts and relevant stakeholders. It is supported by
an online forum/wiki, a survey, a scenario gaming workshop (28 February 2012) and a
final workshop/conference (with a tentative date of 11 July 2012).2 The survey will be
1
Institut für Aufbereitung und Recycling, which translates as “Department of Processing and Recycling”
2
The post-workshop reports (D4) are to be finalised within one month – by 28 March 2012 and 11 August
2012
iii
SMART TRASH: Study on RFID tags and the recycling industry RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3
Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31
launched after the workshop and will include questions to the community arising from the
interim report and the workshop. The survey will be open for eight weeks (29 February
2012 – 30 April 2012) and aims to seek out additional opinions as a follow-up to the
workshop.
The Public Consultation Report (D4) will incorporate results from the online discussion and
present responses to the survey, including an overview of the level of response and
composition of response across stakeholder groups.
Findings will be incorporated and presented in the Final Report (D5) due on 1 July 2012.
For more information
RAND Europe is an independent not-for-profit policy research organisation that aims to
improve policy- and decision-making in the public interest, through research and analysis.
RAND Europe’s clients include European governments, institutions, NGOs and firms
with a need for rigorous, independent, multidisciplinary analysis.
The research staff for this project are uniquely qualified, thanks to their track record in
RFID technology and recycling and their in-depth understanding of the EU policy
environment. Their independence gives them the objectivity required to conduct this work
free from commercial interests in the development of RFID technology and specific
applications in the recycling sector.
For more information about the study and this document, please contact Helen Rebecca
Schindler at:
RAND Europe
Westbrook Centre
Milton Road
Cambridge CB4 1YG
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 (1223) 353 329
[email protected]
iv
Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................ iii

Table of Figures ...........................................................................................................ix
Table of Tables ..........................................................................................................xiii
Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. xv
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... xix
CHAPTER 1Introduction ......................................................................................... 21

Policy Problem ................................................................................................ 22
SMART TRASH: Part A ............................................................................................ 27
CHAPTER 2A technical primer on RFID: tags, compositions, recyclability and

forecasts ................................................................................................ 29
2.1 Definition of RFID tags .................................................................................. 29
2.2 Types of RFID tags ......................................................................................... 31
2.3 Passive and active RFID tags ........................................................................... 32
2.4 Research aspects .............................................................................................. 35
2.5 The composition of RFID tags ........................................................................ 36
2.5.1 Setting the scope ................................................................................ 36
2.5.2 RFID production and material composition ...................................... 38
2.5.3 Structural design of passive RFID labels (HF/UHF) .......................... 39
2.5.4 Market estimates for RFID tags in the EU 27 .................................... 41
2.6 The recyclability of RFID tags ......................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 3The background context for assessing the impacts of RFID

technology ............................................................................................ 55
3.1 EU waste management legislation and interactional aspects of the
presence of RFID tags ..................................................................................... 56
3.1.1 Strategic approach: The 6th Environmental Action Programme......... 57
3.1.2 Directives and other legislative approaches ......................................... 58
Main regulatory frameworks ............................................................................ 58
Legislation relevant to waste treatment operations ........................................... 59
Regulations for specific waste streams .............................................................. 59
3.2 RFID tags in context with the legislation ......................................................... 61
3.3 Waste treatment technologies .......................................................................... 64
v
3.4 A clustering system of Member States .............................................................. 66
CHAPTER 4RFID tags in the waste processing industry .......................................... 69

4.1 Interaction between RFID tags and waste treatment processes ......................... 69
4.1.1 Waste sources and the impact of RFID tags ....................................... 70
4.1.2 Waste objects and RFID tags: single material objects and
complex objects .................................................................................. 74
4.2 The impact of RFID tags on waste collection processes.................................... 75
4.3 The impact of RFID tags on different waste processing systems ....................... 76
4.3.1 Mechanical-biological waste treatment (MBT) ................................... 77
4.3.2 Material recovery facilities (MRFs) ..................................................... 79
4.3.3 Thermal treatment ............................................................................. 82
4.4 Final disposal at landfills .................................................................................. 86
4.5 Recycling and the impact of RFID tags in different waste streams.................... 88
4.5.1 Metals ................................................................................................ 88
4.5.2 Glass .................................................................................................. 93
4.5.3 Plastics ............................................................................................... 95
4.5.4 Paper.................................................................................................. 99
4.5.5 Beverage cartons ............................................................................... 102
4.6 Subsidiary purification phase ......................................................................... 104
4.6.1 Waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) ............................ 104
4.6.2 End-of-life vehicles (ELVs)............................................................... 106
CHAPTER 5Conclusions on the impacts on waste treatment technologies and

implications for national waste systems .............................................. 109
5.1 Results from modelling and forecasting ......................................................... 110
5.1.1 Forecast............................................................................................ 110
5.1.2 Modelling ........................................................................................ 111
5.2 Environmental impacts .................................................................................. 117
5.3 Technical impacts .......................................................................................... 121
5.4 Economic impacts ......................................................................................... 124
5.5 Regulatory and policy impacts at EU and national levels................................ 124
5.6 Implications for national waste systems and stakeholders ............................... 125
SMART TRASH: Part B ......................................................................................... 127
CHAPTER 6Assessment of current and potential use of RFID as a green

technology in recycling ....................................................................... 129
6.1 Understanding the present state of play ......................................................... 129
6.1.1 RFID as a green technology ............................................................. 130
6.2 Potential areas of green RFID applications..................................................... 131
6.2.1 Overview of use cases and case studies .............................................. 132
6.3 Assessing the use of RFID .............................................................................. 133
6.3.1 Use case assessments ......................................................................... 136
vi
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Contents
6.3.2 Case study selection ......................................................................... 138

6.3.3 Case study assessments ..................................................................... 138
CHAPTER 7RFID as a green technology: use case analysis ..................................... 141

7.1 Use case analyses and preliminary findings .................................................... 141
7.1.1 Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) ................................................................ 141
7.1.2 RFID-based filling level measurement .............................................. 147
7.1.3 RFID-based waste sorting ................................................................ 149
7.1.4 Consumer purchase decision support based on environmental
performance ..................................................................................... 153
7.1.5 RFID-based disposal decision support (sell, donate, repair,
dispose) ............................................................................................ 157
7.1.6 RFID-based WEEE end-of-life processes ......................................... 160
7.1.7 RFID-based ELV end-of-life processes ............................................. 164
7.1.8 RFID-based disposal management of healthcare waste ..................... 168
7.1.9 RFID use cases privacy assessment ................................................... 171
7.2 Use case conclusions ...................................................................................... 172
7.2.1 Emerging themes across the use cases ............................................... 172
CHAPTER 8Case studies of RFID as a green technology ........................................ 177

8.1 Case study 1: WEEE ..................................................................................... 178
8.2 Case study 2: Consumer purchase decision support/carbon footprinting ....... 191
8.3 Case study conclusions .................................................................................. 201
CHAPTER 9Interim conclusions and next-phase issues .......................................... 205

9.1 Challenges and opportunities arising from RFID tag use ............................... 205
9.2 RFID tag functionality as green technology ................................................... 207
9.2.1 Improved consumer decision-making............................................... 207
9.2.2 Improved disposal behaviour............................................................ 208
9.2.3 Improved reuse, processing, recycling and disposal........................... 209
9.2.4 Environmental benefits beyond recycling ......................................... 210
9.2.5 Better data = smarter policy and better decisions .............................. 210
9.3 RFID as part of smart systems ....................................................................... 210
9.3.1 RFID in the broader economy ......................................................... 210
9.3.2 Governance opportunities and challenges......................................... 212
9.3.3 The social environmental ecosystem................................................. 213
9.3.4 RFID tags as part of integrated smart product systems ..................... 214
9.4 Concluding remarks ...................................................................................... 214
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 215

Reference list ........................................................................................................... 217
ANNEX ........................................................................................................... 229

Annex: Estimations for the modelling of waste streams in EU Member States.......... 231
vii
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Outline Part A – Environmental impact of RFID as inert objects.................... 25

Figure 2. Outline Part B – Assessment of RFID as a green technology ........................... 26
Figure 3. Basic layout of an RFID data-carrying device, the transponder and other
main components of an RFID system ............................................................. 30
Figure 4. Overview of the most important auto-ID procedures ...................................... 30
Figure 5. The features of RFID systems ......................................................................... 31
Figure 6. Layers of common inlay and label types .......................................................... 39
Figure 7. Layers of a wet paper label from Tageos .......................................................... 41
Figure 8. Calculation steps for the derivation of the relevant RFID tag numbers for
Europe ............................................................................................................ 42
Figure 9. Relevant passive tag numbers per application area for Europe (including
consumer goods) ............................................................................................. 42
Figure 10. Relevant passive tag numbers per application area for Europe (excluding
consumer goods) ............................................................................................. 43
Figure 11. Relevant passive tag numbers for Europe/technological development
scenarios ......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 12. RFID tags with Al aerials and paper faces ....................................................... 47
Figure 13. RFID tags with Al aerials and PP faces ........................................................... 48
Figure 14. RFID tags with Cu aerials and paper faces ..................................................... 49
Figure 15. RFID tags with Cu aerials and PP faces.......................................................... 50
Figure 16. RFID tags with Ag aerials and paper faces ...................................................... 51
Figure 17. RFID tags with Ag aerials and PP faces .......................................................... 52
Figure 18. Structure of better regulation strategies and waste management
legislation in the EU ....................................................................................... 57
Figure 19. Waste hierarchy and priority order according to Directive 2008/98/EC ......... 58
Figure 20. RFID technology in context with waste management legislation .................... 64
Figure 21. Succession of operations in waste management .............................................. 64
Figure 22. Waste management system of the UK ............................................................ 67
Figure 23. Allocation of the waste treatment processes in EOL phases............................. 73
Figure 24. Qualitative relation between the homogeneity, the required product
quality and the necessary treatment efforts ...................................................... 74
Figure 25. Waste management collection logistics ........................................................... 76
Figure 26. The use of MBT technology in Europe 2006 ................................................. 77
Figure 27. Basic scheme of an MBT plant....................................................................... 78
Figure 28. Basic scheme of an MRF ................................................................................ 80
ix
Figure 29. Exemplified advanced scheme of a light packaging waste sorting plant ........... 81
Figure 30. Incinerated waste in the EU-27 by waste category in 2008 ............................. 83
Figure 31. Amount of generated and incinerated waste in the EU-27 (1999–2009) ........ 84
Figure 32. Residues of waste incineration processes ......................................................... 85
Figure 33. MSW disposal in landfills 1995–2009............................................................ 87
Figure 34. Treatment of ferrous metal waste ................................................................... 89
Figure 35. Separation of non-ferrous metals .................................................................... 90
Figure 36. Treatment of non-ferrous metals in the aluminium route ............................... 91
Figure 37. Flow sheet for the recovery of non-ferrous and precious metals in
primary and secondary copper mills ................................................................ 92
Figure 38. Treatment of waste glass with conventional and sensor-based treatment
steps ................................................................................................................ 94
Figure 39. Plastic demand in Europe 2010 by polymer ................................................... 95
Figure 40. Plastic demand in Europe according to segment ............................................. 96
Figure 41. Length of the chain according to the heterogeneity of the collected waste
streams ............................................................................................................ 97
Figure 42. Exemplified process chain for the separation and recycling of mixed
collected light packaging waste to plastic recyclate ........................................... 98
Figure 43. Scheme for the EOL phase of paper waste .................................................... 101
Figure 44. Treatment of beverage cartons ...................................................................... 103
Figure 45. Treatment of WEEE .................................................................................... 105
Figure 46. ELV processing chain ................................................................................... 107
Figure 47. Decision tree to derive recommendations ..................................................... 110
Figure 48. Development of passive tag application depending on technical
development ................................................................................................. 111
Figure 49. Forecast Germany (medium scenario) .......................................................... 112
Figure 50. Relative distribution of RFID tags between the different treatment paths
in Germany (medium scenario) ..................................................................... 113
Figure 51. Comparison of total RFID tag distribution into waste treatment paths
for one country per country cluster ............................................................... 114
Figure 52. Comparison of modelled relative RFID tag distribution into waste
treatment paths ............................................................................................. 114
Figure 53. Future projections of absolute RFID tag numbers in waste treatment
paths in the UK ............................................................................................ 115
Figure 54. Future projections of absolute RFID tag numbers in waste treatment
paths in Greece ............................................................................................. 116
Figure 55. Future projections of relative RFID tag numbers in waste treatment
paths in the UK ............................................................................................ 116
Figure 56. Future projections of relative RFID tag numbers in waste treatment
paths in Greece ............................................................................................. 117
Figure 57. Relation between cluster and direction of RFID tags into waste
treatment systems .......................................................................................... 117
Figure 58. CO2 inventory in the EU-27 in the medium scenario .................................. 118
Figure 59. CO2 inventory of metals contained in disposed RFID tags in Germany
(medium scenario, tag size 2219 mm²) .......................................................... 119
x
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Table of Figures
Figure 60. CO2 inventory of metals contained in disposed RFID tags in the UK
(medium scenario, tag size 2219 mm²) ......................................................... 119
Figure 61. CO2 inventory of metals contained in disposed RFID tags in Greece
(medium scenario, tag size 2219 mm²) ......................................................... 120
Figure 62. Interrelations between different stages of waste treatment............................. 122
Figure 63. Challenges of resource recovery for “green” technology applications of
RFID ............................................................................................................ 131
Figure 64. Derivation of use cases for tagged products .................................................. 134
Figure 65. Derivation of use cases for RFID-tagged infrastructure................................. 135
Figure 66. Issue and stakeholder analysis in relation to lifecycle phase ........................... 136
Figure 67. Y-matrix structure of stakeholder and impact analysis results........................ 137
Figure 68. Intersection C of impact matrix ................................................................... 137
Figure 69. Use case expert evaluation ............................................................................ 138
Figure 70. Principal PAYT implementation alternatives ................................................ 143
Figure 71. Tension field of use case expert evaluation ................................................... 178
Figure 72. Overview of the WEEE case study cause and effect net ................................ 179
Figure 73. WEEE cause and effect description merging into target of sustainable
development ................................................................................................. 183
Figure 74. WEEE cause and effect description setting reuse of EEE into focus .............. 184
Figure 75. WEEE cause and effect description setting manufacturer-specific
allocation of disposal cost into focus ............................................................. 184
Figure 76. WEEE cause and effect description resulting from (RFID-based)
recycling rate monitoring .............................................................................. 185
Figure 77. WEEE cause and effect description setting the recycling rate as key lever
into focus ...................................................................................................... 186
Figure 78. WEEE interaction loop balancing eco-design and recycling rate (follow
blue highlighted path) ................................................................................... 186
Figure 79. WEEE interaction loop reinforcing the use of RFID as a result of
resource scarcity and raw material prices (follow red highlighted path) .......... 188
Figure 80. Evaluation matrix of WEEE factors backing recycling rate and reuse of
WEEE as positive reinforced factors (short-term perspective) ........................ 189
Figure 81. Evaluation matrix of WEEE factors backing resource scarcity and raw
material prices as critical reinforced factors (mid-term perspective) ............... 190
Figure 82. Overview of CPDS case study cause and effect net ....................................... 194
Figure 83. CPDS cause and effect description aiming for the reduction of carbon
resulting both from use of RFID for consumer information access and as
a means to optimise logistics ......................................................................... 195
Figure 84. CPDS cause and effect description setting eco-design into focus .................. 196
Figure 85. CPDS cause and effect description setting use of RFID at item level into
focus ............................................................................................................. 196
Figure 86. CPDS cause and effect description showing mobile and fixed
infrastructure as key enablers......................................................................... 197
Figure 87. CPDS interaction loop showing the mutual reinforcing of RFID usage
and consumer requirement in the context of an eco-friendly product
(follow red highlighted path) ........................................................................ 198
xi
Figure 88. Complex CPDS interaction loop depicting the strong interaction and
dependence of involved stakeholders (follow red highlighted path) ................ 199
Figure 89. Evaluation matrix of CPDS factors backing the consumer’s key relevance
to the success of CPDS .................................................................................. 200
Figure 90. Evaluation matrix of CPDS factors depicting, for example, the leverage
of global RFID application topics as key for CPDS........................................ 201
xii
Table of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of some of the typical features of passive vs active RFID.............. 33

Table 2. Global market for active vs passive RFID tags by billions of Euros .................. 34
Table 3. Global market for active vs passive RFID tags by number (billions) ................ 34
Table 4. Global market for active vs passive RFID tags by average price in €cents ......... 34
Table 5. Shares of antenna materials in percent for HF and UHF labels combined ....... 39
Table 6. Material composition of RFID labels .............................................................. 40
Table 7. Relevant passive RFID tag numbers per application area for
Europe/medium scenario ................................................................................ 44
Table 8. Ecologic and economic value of RFID tag components ................................... 45
Table 9. Summary of main properties of RFID tags with paper faces ............................ 46
Table 10. Summary of main properties of RFID tags with PP faces ................................ 46
Table 11. Effects of certain components/materials from RFID tags in metallurgical
recycling processes .......................................................................................... 53
Table 12. Description of waste handling steps................................................................. 65
Table 13. Clusters according to Bowyer et al. (2010) ...................................................... 66
Table 14. Description of waste streams from private households and commercial
areas................................................................................................................ 70
Table 15. European waste chapters ................................................................................. 72
Table 16. Behaviour of RFID tags in mechanical waste treatment steps .......................... 79
Table 17. Behaviour of RFID tags in sensor-based sorting systems .................................. 82
Table 18. Landfill categories and their connected disposed waste .................................... 87
Table 19. Treatment requirements of the ELV Directive .............................................. 106
Table 20. Requirements, barriers and benefits for all use cases....................................... 175
Table 21. Overview of WEEE stakeholders and colour-coding within the cause and
effect net ....................................................................................................... 180
Table 22. WEEE case study interlinkage of stakeholders, factors, impacts and
lifecycle (following assessment storyline) ....................................................... 181
Table 23. Overview of CPDS stakeholders and colour-coding within the cause and
effect net ....................................................................................................... 191
Table 24. CPDS case study interlinkage of stakeholders, factors, impacts and
lifecycle (following assessment storyline) ....................................................... 192
xiii
Abbreviations
ACP Anisotropic Conductive Paste

ATF Authorised Treatment Facilities
Auto-ID Automatic Identification
BOL Beginning of Life
BPMN Business Process Modelling Notation
CAD Computer Aided Design
CPDS Consumer Purchase Decision Support
CPG Consumer Packaged Goods
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DIP Data Information Provider
DoD Department of Defence
DSS Decision Support System
EAN Electronic Article Number
EAP Environmental Action Program
EC European Commission
EEC European Economic Community
EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment
EFW Energy From Waste
ELV End-of-Life Vehicle
EOL End of Life
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPC Electronic Product Code
EPS Expanded Polystyrene
EWC European Waste Catalogue
GADSL Global Automotive Declarable Substance List
xv
GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Green House Gas
GPRS General Packet Radio Service
GPS Global Positioning System
GTIN Global Trade Item Number
HF High Frequency
HW Hardware
IC Integrated Circuit
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
IDIS International Dismantling Information System
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IED Industrial Emissions Directory
IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy
IMDS International Material Data System
IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
ISO International Standardisation Organisation
KM Knowledge Management
LCA Lifecycle Assessment
LF Low Frequency
LPW Light Packaging Waste
LSP Logistics Service Provider
MBT Mechanical-Biological Treatment
MOL Middle of Life
MRF Materials Recovery Facility
(M)MSW (Mixed) Municipal Solid Waste
NFC Near Field Communication
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
NPO Non-profit Organisation
OCR Optimal Character Recognition
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PAYT Pay-As-You-Throw
PBB Polybrominated Biphenyls
xvi
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Abbreviations
PDM Product Data Management

PE Polyethylene
PE-LD Low-Density Polyethylene
PE-LLD Linear Low-Density Polyethylene
PE-HD High-Density Polyethylene
PEID Product Embedded Information Device
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PIC Printed Integrated Circuits
PLM Product Lifecycle Management
POS Point of Sale
PP Polypropylene
PPDE Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
PS Polystyrene
PROMISE Product lifecycle Management and Information tracking using
Smart Embedded systems
PUR Polyurethane
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RDF Refuse-Derived Fuel
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
RoHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances
RTI Returnable Transport Item
R&D Research and Development
SAL Smart Active Label
SRF Solid Recovered Fuel
SW Software
TOC Total Organic Carbon
UHF Ultra High Frequency
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UPC Universal Product Code
USIM Universal Subscriber Identity Module
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
WID Waste Incineration Directive
WFD Waste Framework Directive
xvii
xviii
Acknowledgements
We thank the following people for sharing their insights as part of the interviews (expert
consultations) conducted between July and November 2011: Mark Abendroth (ELANTAS
Beck), Anders Axelsson (Botek Systems AB), Manuela Bauer (Universitätsklinikum
Freiburg – Institut für Umweltmedizin und Krankenhaushygiene), Lion Benjamins
(PROMISE Consortium), M. Czerwinski (COMEX), Henk Dannenberg (NXP
Semiconductors), F. Eibensteiner (Prelonic Technologies GmbH), Jari Enontekiö
(MetroSense), Jürgen Ficker (PolyIC GmbH & Co. KG), Paul Garner-Evans (METRO
Group), Christian von Grone (Gerry Weber International AG), Marc Hoffmann
(Universitätsklinikum Jena), Toni Istel (Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes und
Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes), Nicolas Jacquemin (Tageos), Dieter
Kilian (Cavea Identification), Trevor Lambourne (University of Leeds – Digital Print
CIC), Anu Launiainen (UPM RAFLATAC), Florian Michahelles (University of St.
Gallen), Andrea Miskufova, Tanja Moehler (SMARTRAC Technology Group GmbH), J.
Nadler (Stiftung Warentest), Mikos N. Pesmatzoglou (CAT Hellas), Richard Price (Nano
ePrint), Joachim Quoden (PRO EUROPE), Felix von Reischach (University of St.
Gallen), Dirk Ringena (Adam Opel AG), David Rüdiger (Fraunhofer Institutes IML),
Jörn-Marc Schmidt (IAIK–TU Graz), Markus Sprafke (Volkswagen AG), Anja Talo
(Enfucell Oy Ltd), Theodore Vasiliadis (Trinity Systems – ICT Solutions), Scott White
(Nano ePrint), Roman Winter (GS1, Global Standards One).
Also, a special thank you goes to Prof. Jan Gronow, the assigned quality assurance reviewer
of this project, Mr. Gérald Santucci (Head of Networked Enterprise & Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) Unit at the EC DG Information Society and Media) and his
colleague Mr. Florent Frederix (Head of RFID Sector) for their constructive feedback and
support.
Thank you!
xix
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Waste processing facilities are not designed to separate RFID chips (except possibly in
dedicated streams, such as waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)), and the
design of recyclable items is not oriented to through-life optimisation, often paying little
attention to the end-of-life (EOL) phase of a product. Product design is still driven by
commercial considerations, including the imputed cost of compliance with environmental
and other regulations. If design ignores EOL, it is because the designer does not bear those
costs or cannot capture its benefits and/or the regulations already in existence are not
effectively enforced.
RFID technology is linked to recycling in two complementary ways. As objects, tags
contain a variety of materials whose recycling is desirable on environmental grounds. These
materials vary with the type of tag and their significance will increase as tags become more
pervasive. Also, tags can themselves contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of
recycling at various stages in the lifecycles of a wide range of products, ranging from simple
items to complex objects containing a variety of materials.
The risks arising from the first element and the opportunities from the second have been
discussed or studied in specific contexts, but have not yet found their general application.
To provide an empirical evidence base for policy, this study aims to:
(1) Clarify the issues and evidence relating to the environmental impacts and recycling
methods of RFID tags.
(2) Assess the environmental advantages of using RFID to improve recycling.
Each line of investigation has its own scope, time frame and policy context, but the overall
analytic frame, the policy implications and the stakeholder engagement will draw out their
complementarity.3
With regard to the time frame, we have taken account of the gradual development of
impacts over time. Short-run developments affecting the recycling of RFID tags are likely
to take the form of disseminating new ways to handle existing tags through detection,
removal, sequestration and processing. Over the medium- to long-run, it can be expected
that new forms of recyclable tag and methods of affixing them will be developed to permit
3
For example, initiatives aimed at introducing RFID tags to improve recycling will need to trade off the
material challenges of recycling the tags against improvements in the effectiveness of recycling the materials to
which they are attached
21
all of them to be recycled, and also that the mix of identification technologies will shift to
reflect whole-life (including disposal and environmental) costs as well as performance
characteristics.
As regards the use of RFID to improve recycling, short-run developments are likely to
involve extending and “joining-up” existing pilots with others in the field of waste
handling, as well as the development of new methods for using existing tags, e.g., by the
inclusion of new data useful in waste collection and disposal.
In the medium term, the deployment of RFID as part of a general trend to improve waste
handling is likely to produce behavioural changes and the emergence of new business
models and even changes in sectoral organisation (possibly through the development of
new intermediary markets for aspects of smart waste handling or changes in patterns of
vertical integration along the EOL product chain). In addition, policy would begin to
adapt to new possibilities, especially as regards improved traceability and waste stream
measurement.
Over the long term, the new possibilities may be realised through novel whole-systems
approaches to waste handling and eventually to new forms of integrated lifecycle
management.
Policy Problem
The two-way links between RFID tags and recycling tie this issue into two broad areas of
policy. RFID tags play a central role in many aspects of Information Society policy,4
especially the Internet of Things.5 Increasingly, these policies highlight the broader
contributions of ICT development and deployment to environmental sustainability.
Therefore, it is appropriate to provide evidence to support decisions about how best – at
least – to minimise the environmental impacts of an increasingly ICT-intensive path of
development, and even to ensure that this development optimises the contributions of
ICTs to environmental improvements more generally. Much of the attention in this area
has concentrated on energy use, e.g., via smart grids, smart meters, smart buildings and
smart transport. However, attention is also paid to material use and reuse, and thus to the
potential of RFID to improve the efficiency with which waste streams are handled.
On the other hand, a range of policy initiatives have been undertaken to address the
challenge of sustainable development. These are intended to improve Europe’s
performance but also to build on Europe’s leading position in global efforts to address
environmental challenges. The general statement of political will finds concrete expression
in several directives established by the European Council (e.g., 1999/31/EC on the landfill
of waste or 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles). These objectives can be advanced by
taking due account of RFID. Perhaps more importantly (in terms of global challenges), the
explicit adoption of technologies and standards relating to the recycling of tags and the
4
See Europe 2020, Digital Agenda for Europe and predecessor programmes, including the Lisbon Agenda,
eEurope, and i2010
5
See European Commission (2009)
22
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Introduction
ability to demonstrate the potential of tags in improving recycling efficiency and

effectiveness can have global leverage as well.
RFID may also be seen as an enabling technology facilitating the monitoring and
enforcement of waste law at Member State and European level. According to a recent
study commissioned by the Environment Directorate-General of the EC, each year €72
billion is wasted as a result of improper implementation of EU waste legislation (Monier et
al., 2011). RFID can be very useful for the production of statistics on waste management,
including shipment of waste, and hence help to improve granularity of data and inform
policy-making.
Finally, the issues surrounding RFID and recycling are not solely technical. Commercial
and trade considerations influence decisions to adopt as well as to recycle RFID tags and
thus affect the whole range of benefits arising from their use. In this context, the use of tags
can improve the ability of producers, consumers and waste handlers to contribute to better
recycling. This, in turn, should improve participation and compliance; obstacles to
environmental progress tend to be at least as much behavioural as technical. It is for that
reason that the study will complement technical and commercial analysis with active and
nuanced stakeholder consultation.
Motivation for the study
The study provides a comprehensive overview of the significance of RFID technology in
the context of waste management. This significance arises at the intersection of two
domains of policy and scientific knowledge. One is the ICT-related perspective that
highlights the functions of RFID, their contributions to what has come to be called the
Internet of Things, and the network of systemic innovations (e.g., smart transport, smart
cities and smart factories) that depends on the identification of objects. The other reflects
the physical properties of RFID tags and the environmental perspective from which
product lifecycles and waste management are analysed and governed. This difference in
perspective, together with weak integration along product and system lifecycles (e.g. diffuse
or haphazard connections between design, marketing, use and disposal) creates a risk that
neither markets nor “stove-piped” environmental and ICT-related policies will attain
efficient outcomes, let alone economically and environmentally sustainable development.
The ultimate objective of this study is, therefore, to support efforts to minimise this
potential “market failure”, ensuring that environmental and ICT policies are suitably
joined up and that barriers to market “solutions” to the environmental impacts of RFID
tags in waste streams and the potential of identification technology for waste management
are removed. Both the joined-up policy problem and the lifecycle inefficiency problem
reflect externalities. In the policy case, ICT and environmental policy-makers often have to
take each other’s actions for granted, lacking common understanding of areas (such as
RFID in waste) where their powers and responsibilities overlap. In the lifecycle case, those
involved in design often do not bear the costs or reap the benefits of the impacts of their
decisions on the EOL phase, while the waste management industry often has little input
into the design and use of products before disposal.
These challenges are amplified by structural features militating against an holistic
approach. As a general-purpose technology with a wide range of applications these tend to
be much more uniform across countries than waste management streams and the systems
23
into which they ultimately flow, and even the legal and regulatory framework conditions.
To take the entire lifecycle into account therefore requires that those who design and use
RFID and those who make policy affecting their use and disposal take the characteristics of
the disposal ecosystem into account. A similar challenge faces those designing or
encouraging RFID uptake in waste treatment: both the tags used to label objects for
disposal and the systems able to read and exploit this information must be designed for
compatibility with each other and with a variety of waste management systems and
scenarios. To provide a common perspective for coordination among such a diverse set of
key stakeholders, this study develops a range of use cases giving specific requirements,
benefits and barriers for different waste streams.
According to the Commission’s strategic approach to advance environmental legislation,
“[...] we cannot tackle all wastes at once, and given that all wastes are not equally polluting,
policies need to be developed that address the wastes that have the most environmental
impact. This is not necessarily obvious for policy-makers.” (European Commission, 2010)
This statement indicates that the highest priority should be attached to wastes whose
environmental impacts are both significant and capable of substantial amelioration through
available interventions. It thus motivates the attention paid in the study to the prevalence
of RFID in waste streams, the potential to reduce their environmental impact through
appropriate techniques and their potential contribution to reducing the environmental
impacts of other wastes through enhanced disposal, recycling and even possibly reuse.
Technological, political, social, environmental and economic relevance of the topic
The study illuminates the relation between a specific technology and the sector (waste
management) that has to manage the tags after the objects to which they are attached reach
the end of their useful life. The relationship is two-way, because object identification can
contribute significantly to the efficiency and effectiveness with which a wide variety of
wastes are managed (e.g., through automation of waste management processing of objects
tagged with information relevant to their reuse, recycling, disposal, etc.). In this context,
both the functionality of existing tags and the range of tagged objects can be usefully
extended. The relevance of the topic is underpinned by the wide range and volume of
RFID uses, the increasing integration of waste management regulation throughout the
European Union and the importance of improved environmental performance, enhanced
monitoring capability and reduced compliance cost.
Overview of the methodological approach and report outline
The study is divided into two parts, reflecting the dual nature of the RFID–waste
relationship. Part A, which considers RFID in waste streams, begins in Chapter 3 with a
summary and analysis of the most relevant aspects of European waste management
legislation and the waste management sector in the Member States. This is complemented
by an analysis of those characteristics of RFID technology that determine its uptake,
disposal and management as waste.
To faithfully reflect the technological realities of RFID as waste, it is necessary to account
for the occurrence of RFID tags in a variety of waste streams, which are processed in
different ways. We identify the streams with the highest expected prevalence of tags and
map the journeys they take and the processes to which they are subjected. With the
exception of landfilling, all waste streams are subject to some degree of separation and
24
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Introduction
further processing; we identify and describe the state of the art and the resulting behaviour
of the treated tags. The robustness of conclusions regarding the technical consequences of
tags in waste streams has been assessed through lab-scale tests.
These results were used to construct realistic models that can be adjusted according to the
reliability of background data and used to simulate the impact of a range of options. These
models are intended for use throughout the period of the study and beyond. Both the
development and the mandated impact assessment of regulation and other policy
interventions require such models. The set of options is potentially broad, including
technical restrictions or bans on RFID tags in certain uses or settings; differential pricing to
internalise the environmental externalities produced by those who design and use tags;
redrafting of “trigger conditions” applied to those who accept and handle waste streams. As
implemented, the models can be used to explore the dependence of expected impacts on
critical uncertainties, the potential need to adopt a flexible or adaptive approach, the
potential for light-touch, information-based and/or co-regulatory (public-private
partnership) governance or support for collaborative innovation or business model
development involving the tag-producing, tag-using and waste management industries.
This breadth is mirrored in Figure 1, which shows how the relevant domains of knowledge
are linked.
Figure 1. Outline Part A – Environmental impact of RFID as inert objects
The methodology and research approach for Part B is designed to provide a common
understanding of the potential contributions of RFID to environmentally efficient product
lifecycle management, especially with regards to materials flow, waste prevention, handling
and recycling in specific applications. These use cases are mapped to specific products and
lifecycle phases.
The use cases are developed as follows: systematic literature review is used to create case-
specific frameworks for analysing RFID applications in recycling disposal. These include
models of material flows and relevant information flows along relevant phases of the
product lifecycle.
25
Using this framework, each RFID use case is shown in a specific logic model diagram
taking into account diverse process-oriented, technical and stakeholder dimensions. This
sensitivity analysis of each case according to a common overall approach captures
important differences but also identifies coherent clusters and common aspects.
Case-specific structured questionnaires were developed to distinctively address key impact
areas. The use case clusters were then evaluated by public and private sector experts using
these questionnaires to provide a preliminary ranking of the importance of various aspects
to the technical and commercial feasibility and environmental contributions of the various
case-specific solutions. Afterwards, the cases were fine-tuned in light of the experts’
comments, especially as regards the relative importance of different dimensions and mutual
impacts, as technical possibility and economic or environmental importance, feasibility and
broader impacts have their own specifics.
On the basis of this initial rating, promising use cases have been subject to a scenario-based
exploration of the critical uncertainties, success and risk factors and likely or possible
impacts in order to provide a detailed cross-impacts and causality analysis.
Figure 2. Outline Part B – Assessment of RFID as a green technology
Interim conclusions and next-phase issues resulting from our research are presented in
Chapter 9 of this report.
26
SMART TRASH: PART A
27
CHAPTER 2 A technical primer on RFID: tags,

compositions, recyclability and forecasts
x This chapter gives a brief introduction to RFID, giving an overview on

common types of RFID tags.
x Features of today’s RFID tags are highlighted and set in relation to their
relevance to the waste processing industry.
x Future developments like the uptake of printed electronics are discussed.
x To be able to assess the impact of RFID on waste management processes:
o the material composition of passive RFID tags and its estimated
development over time is explained.
o the market estimates for the EU-27 are introduced.
x The economic and ecologic value of passive RFID tags are evaluated.
x The fundamentals for the recycling of RFID tags are explained.
RFID was first used during WWII to identify friendly aircraft. Yet, it was not until 1973
that the first patent for an RFID tag was issued. RFID started to reach the masses only
from the 1990s, especially with the development and commercialisation of the automated
toll payment systems, and later with other uses of RFID such as tracking livestock and
vehicle and container tracking. At the turn of the 21st century, two professors at the Auto-
ID Center at MIT carried out research that changed the market significantly by turning
RFID into a networking technology by linking objects to the Internet (Roberti, 2010).
2.1 Definition of RFID tags

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a wireless data collection technology to identify
physical objects in a variety of fields. An RFID system typically consists of a tag (or
transponder) generally physically attached to an object, containing a small computer chip
(or memory) that uniquely identifies itself. Furthermore, an RFID system also consists of a
reader (or transceiver) that sends radio signals into the air to activate a tag through an
antenna, read the data transmitted by the tag and sometimes even write data on a tag.
Figure 3 shows a basic layout of an RFID tag and system.
29
Referring to: Finkenzeller (2010)
Figure 3. Basic layout of an RFID data-carrying device, the transponder and other main
components of an RFID system
Automatic identification (or auto-ID) is a term given to a host of technologies that identify
objects, collect data about the objects and enter data directly into a computer or computer
system. This family of auto-ID technologies typically includes RFID, optical character
recognition (OCR), bar codes, smart cards and biometrics (Figure 4).
Source: Finkenzeller (2010)
Figure 4. Overview of the most important auto-ID procedures
RFID has advantages and disadvantages compared to the other technologies. Compared to
bar-coding technology, RFID tags do not require line-of-sight reading and RFID scanning
can be done at greater distances. Bar codes might be much cheaper, but RFID tags can
store significantly more information than bar codes, but most importantly, their unique
serial number allows tracking of individual items. On the other hand, the main difference
between RFID tags and smart cards is that the latter are more advanced and secure than
the former. One of the advantages of the smart card is that the data stored on the card can
be protected against undesired access, and it is hence suitable for uses such as identity
30
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 A technical primer on RFID: tags, compositions, recyclability and forecasts
credentials and payment cards. On the negative side, smart cards are more expensive and
more vulnerable to external factors and have a limited read range compared to RFID.
Finally, the advantages of OCR technology is the high density of information and the ease
of reading data, but it is more expensive than RFIDs and requires complicated readers
(Finkenzeller, 2010).
2.2 Types of RFID tags

RFID tags come in many different shapes and sizes – e.g., in the form of coins, as glass-
tube transponders, integrated into mechanical keys, as part of wristwatches, and as paper-
thin transponders.
Depending on the functions and uses of RFID, the material to which it will be attached
and the type of environment in which RFID is expected to function (e.g. its capacity to
survive in harsh environments), will determine the frequency of operation, the source of
the power it will need to operate, but also the design for the length of life. The most
important features of RFID systems are discussed below.
Figure 5. The features of RFID systems
The material of the object being tagged and the read range required are determining factors
in selecting what frequency is needed in the design of a tag. Magnetic and electromagnetic
signals may be altered depending on the environment in which signals flow. Depending on
the usage, tags are designed to operate in the low frequency (LF, frequencies from 30–300
KHz), high frequency (HF, from 30–300 MHz) or ultra-high frequency (UHF, from 300–
3000 MHz). LF RFID is most popular for access control, but also for animal and human
ID, whereas HF tags are widely used for smart cards and asset tracking and supply
management. The wide frequency ranges offered by UHF makes this technology ideal for
tracking large and expensive objects (Dobkin, 2008).
A tag needs energy/power to be able to send and receive data to the reader. Depending on
how tags obtain their power to operate, tags are classified as passive, semi-passive and active
tags. Passive tags have no power of their own, and hence only work when supplied with the
radio signal from the reader. Semi-active tags (also called semi-passive tags) are battery
assisted tags, which means that the tag is able to function independently, although they do
not have active transmitters. Active tags have their own power source (battery or an active
transmitter). Their read-and-write range is potentially greater. They are usually applied in
31
special areas where the higher costs and higher detail level of information stored are
justified.
Another interesting classification of RFID tags refers to r ead-only and read-write tags.
Read-only tags contain a non-changeable programmed identifier that remains during the
chip’s life; in other words, the information on the tag cannot be changed. Read-only tags
are generally inexpensive but cannot be reused and can only store a limited amount of
data. Read-write tags are more sophisticated because of the possibility they offer to
reprogram the tag with new information, which means that tags can be erased and reused,
thereby significantly reducing costs while contributing to environmental sustainability.
Furthermore, read-write tags can store and process information locally, which is
particularly valuable when dealing with high-volume, complex supply-chain applications.
The RFID market has seen an important growth in the last few years of contactless smart
cards. This type of technology is used to protect personal information and deliver secure
transactions. Applications using contactless smart cards include government and corporate
identification cards, documents and electronic passports and visas and contactless financial
payments (Intermec).
2.3 Passive and active RFID tags

Features of passive vs active RFID tags
Passive tags can only store a limited amount of information and have low read ranges. On
the positive side, passive tags tend to be simple, small, inexpensive and lightweight, have a
longer life and tend to be more resistant to harsh environments. Furthermore, passive tags
tend to have a vast number of applications in a variety of industries and sectors. Active tags
are the most sophisticated types of tags. The fact that they have their own power (battery
or an active transmitter) means that they may contain more processing power to
implement additional functionalities. Active tags are often used with sensors and by real-
time location systems. On the negative side, active tags can only be used for a specific
period of time, as the batteries contained within them have a limited life. Active tags are
typically used for locating large assets, such as shipping containers.
32
Table 1. Comparison of some of the typical features of passive vs active RFID
Feature Passive Active
Size and weight Small (or thin) Large

Cost 4 €cents to <1€ 3€ to a <100€
Life Virtually unlimited 3 to 7 years
Range Up to 30 metres Up to 30 metres
Reliability Excellent Good
Sensor input Little or none Any
Can emit continuous signal No Yes
Area monitoring/geofencing Rarely Yes
Multi-tag reading Fair or none Excellent (e.g., thousands)
Location using a beam Yes, but only short distance Yes, at long distance
High-speed reading Fair Excellent
Data retention Small to medium (e.g., 1 Kbit) Medium to high (e.g., 1 Mbit)
Very slow signal power No Yes – no need to get the signal
and back because semi-active and
fully active tags emit their own
signal and the battery boosts it
Security features of signal and Limited Excellent
processing
Event signalling No Yes
Electronic manifest No Yes
Data logging No Yes
Source: Das & Harrop (2010)
Market for passive vs active RFID tags

RFID has a very large potential for growth. Different market research companies have
carried out estimates, which all differ depending on the underlying assumptions, like those
related to technological breakthroughs. Other differences concern the inclusion criteria for
different products and services as part of the estimates (hardware or also software,
maintenance and marketing services, as well). However, they all agree that the global
market size is likely to increase significantly within the next decade. In fact, some market
research companies like IDTechEx expect the global market to grow by almost four times
in 10 years (Table 2).
33
Table 2. Global market for active vs passive RFID tags by billions of Euros
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Active 0,16 0,20 0,27 0,41 0,54 0,71 0,84 0,91 1,05 1,22 1,15 1,15
Passive 1,37 1,48 1,68 1,98 2,39 2,80 3,24 3,73 4,19 5,18 5,97 7,10
Total 1,53 1,68 1,95 2,39 2,93 3,51 4,08 4,64 5,24 6,40 7,12 8,25
6
Most of the growth in the sales of tags is expected to be due to the demand for UHF
passive tags for asset tracking, but also for apparel tagging (Das & Harrop, 2010). Selling
at a price of close and less than 10 €cents, passive UHF tags have become more attractive.
Table 4 shows projections from IDTechEx regarding the gradual but steady decrease in
prices with projection that passive RFID tags will reach a minimum of 3 €cents by 2021.
Chipless technologies will be an important driver in the increase of the global RFID
market. In fact, “chipless” RFID technologies (which would not have the high costs of a
silicon chip) are expected to make RFID more affordable for certain markets, and are
expected to represent up to 86 percent of the market share of passive RFID tags by 2021
(Das & Harrop, 2010).
Table 3. Global market for active vs passive RFID tags by number (billions)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Active 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.19 0.29 0.40 0.53 0.73 0.77 0.79
Passive 2.25 2.81 4.34 6.21 8.18 11.6 18.4 26.0 37.2 73.5 124 243
Total 2.3 2.9 4.4 6 8 11 18 26 37 74 124 243
Table 4. Global market for active vs passive RFID tags by average price in €cents
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Active 265,3 300,6 351,1 426,8 412,4 375,6 293,4 227,8 201,1 166,5 153,6 144,9
Passive 61,1 52,6 38,7 31,9 29,2 24,0 17,7 14,4 11,2 7,1 4,8 3,0
Active tags have higher pricing than other types of tags due to higher material and
manufacturing costs. In both cases, the performance of each of these tags and the business
requirements they fulfil vary greatly. Hence, a full business case should be considered when
determining the type of tag that best fits the needs of the business (ODIN Labs, 2010).
Table 3 and Table 4 show projections of the volumes and average prices of active RFID
tags. Two major points stand out: the volume of active RFID tags is expected to grow in
the next ten years, although the market share will decrease vis-à-vis passive RFIDs. Second,
experts still expect the average price of active tags to grow initially due to the emergence of
new applications such as real-time location systems (with high specifications), with a
turning point as of 2015.
6
Throughout this document 1 billion = 109 (or 1,000,000,000)
34
2.4 Research aspects

According to academic and market research literature, as well as to consulted experts, the
next generation of RFID will be governed by developments occurring in the production of
printed semiconductors (e.g., thin-film transistor circuits) and in the techniques by which
RFID tags can be manufactured using these materials.
The major goal behind the integration of printed semiconductors in RFID tags is to
overcome the challenges of traditional silicon integrated circuits, where integration is
complex and costly due to the challenges from the antenna interconnection to the tag. As a
result, a fully printed tag including both antenna and circuit at a cost of less than half the
price of a silicon-based tag would enable the realisation of several uses that have not been
realised yet because of the relatively high costs of silicon-based tags and their integration.
Although printed semiconductors are expected to play a major role in the future RFID tag
market, traditional silicon integrated circuits are not expected to be entirely substituted.
This is because demanding applications, requiring long reading distances, high memory,
data security and high-speed tag anti-collision arbitration are expected to remain the
domain of traditional integrated circuit-based tags. Printed semiconductor-based tags are
not expected to meet the standards of EPCglobal UHF and HF Gen 2 and its application
area anytime soon.
For printed semiconductor-based tags the focus lies in the high volume market for
consumer goods, including applications like consumer product brand protection and
authentication, supply chain surveillance, ticketing and consumer retail product
promotions, where tag cost is the major barrier of adoption.
Examples from Kovio and PolyIC (Gambon, 2008) have already shown that the realisation
of such tags has been partly resolved. Both companies have presented first functional
prototypes and samples of such tags. According to Cole et al. (2010), the described
“technology has the capability for high volume production. But what is needed is the
requisite capital investment in plant to upscale and roll out ‘distributed’ production
facilities to match the upcoming demand….” Our expert consultation among stakeholders
of the traditional, silicon-based circuits showed more pessimism regarding this
development, especially regarding the envisaged time frame for mass adoption.
Major cost factors of printed semiconductors are: the chip, its attachment to the antenna,
the antenna and the substrate to which the antenna is applied. Subsequently, to obtain a
fully printable RFID label, the antenna should also be printed. In the past, additive
antenna manufacturing processes used silver-based inks. However, since the increase in the
price of silver, new materials (e.g., graphene and metal nano-particle inks) offering
significant cost savings are starting to be used.
Another development that is likely to be concomitant with fully printable RFID tags is the
low-cost integration of additional components in order to broaden the adaptability of tags.
Components in focus are, e.g., printable batteries, sensors and displays, which in
combination will again enable additional uses such as cold-chain monitoring for perishable
goods. This development will result in a relatively new class of RFID tags, which would
combine the form and the costs of a passive RFID label with some of the functionalities of
an active RFID tag (a so-called smart active label or SALs).
35
2.5 The composition of RFID tags

2.5.1 Setting the scope
In this study we mainly focus on RFID tags that are likely to end up in waste streams
where those tags might relevantly influence processes or be exposed to the environment.
This is mainly determined by the following factors:
x The type of tag
x The number of tags
x The application type
x The product-related application area
x The waste stream the tag is likely to end up in.
The type of RFID Tag

As detailed in Section 2.2, RFID tags are distinguished according to their energy supply
into passive, active and semi-active tags. Passive tags occur mainly in two formats: label-
form tags and encapsulated tags. Active and semi-active tags occur almost exclusively in
encapsulated formats. Active RFID tags are used mainly to track containers, vehicles, assets
and people.
SALs are usually very thin and flexible labels that contain an integrated circuit and a power
source. Some SALs may contain additional components such as sensors and actuators. In
regard to tag sales today, SALs play only a minor role, but this is expected to change when
printed integrated circuits (PICs) play a major role in the RFID label market. SALs do and
in the future are likely to enable enhanced functionality and superior performance over
existing passive labels. The main application areas for SALs are supply-chain management
(especially cold-chain management), access control, security, transportation and ticketing.
The number of tags
According to IDTechEx, in 2010 the share of active tags worldwide was less than 3 percent
with a total of approximately 60 million tags compared to 2.250 billion passive tags. The
share of active tags is presumed to fall under 2 percent until 2016 and then fall under 1
percent until 2021 (which equates to 790 million tags compared to 242,700 billion passive
tags forecast for 2021). Regarding SALs, it is too early to be sure of the market penetration
potential of these tags. Market shares of tags by shape show that in 2010 more than 80
percent of the tags sold worldwide were passive smart cards and labels, the rest fobs, discs
and keys. The market share of passive smart cards and labels is predicted to continuously
grow in the future and to reach nearly 90 percent in 2016.
Application type: open-loop vs closed-loop applications
Closed-loop applications are where the item to which the RFID tag is applied is
continuously reused in a process, and the cost of the tag is amortised over many process
cycles. Classic examples of closed-loop applications are asset management, production and
material flow control, security applications, intralogistic applications (e.g. pallets, rollcages
and freight containers), tagging of books in libraries and textiles. Tag types used in closed-
loop applications are mostly passive encapsulated tags and active or semi-active tags.
36
In open-loop applications, the tag is attached to the item at the beginning of the process
and remains there. The tag and its information can be used outside the initial system in
several systems. Typical examples are retail supply chains for apparel or consumer packaged
goods (CPGs). Tag types used in open-loop applications are mostly passive label tags and
to some extent passive smart cards (like credit cards), which are likely to be disposed of in
household waste when expired. Next to the passive tags already used, SALs are expected to
be predominantly used in open-loop applications like cold-chain surveillance for
temperature-sensitive goods (e.g., the food and pharmaceutical industries) when they will
reach an acceptable price.
The product-related application area
To be able to determine whether an RFID tag will end up in waste it is important to know
where the tag is usually attached. According to the expert consultation, most passive labels
are attached to CPGs, made out of cardboard, paper and plastics. Today most passive
labels are adhesive labels, but they are also used in the form of a dry inlay, which can be
integrated into cardboard and other packaging. SALs are likely to be applied in a similar
manner.
Passive encapsulated tags are mostly used in the form of keys, cards and fobs or when used
in rough environments. They are also stuck on or screwed to containers, rollcages and
other durable assets, as they are usually not replaced during the lifetime of the object.
Relevance for waste stream
The most important criterion to evaluate the impact of tags on the waste management
industry and its processes is the identification of the waste stream in which the tag is likely
to end up.
As active tags are electronic devices with a power supply in the form of a battery, with
regard to their disposal, “it is generally accepted that interrogators and active RFID tags fall
into the category of ‘electronic devices’ and therefore fall under the scope of the WEEE
Directive”. Hence, it can be assumed that these tags are disposed of in separately kept
waste streams that follow adequate treatment routes and rarely end up in mixed waste
streams, such as municipal solid wastes.
SALs are categorised as active tags according to the WEEE Directive. However, the WEEE
Directive is likely not to be effectively followed in this case as SALs are likely to be attached
to product packaging in applications (e.g., on packaged food to enable cold-chain
surveillance) where they end up in household waste.
Passive tags are considered to be outside the scope of the WEEE Directive and are disposed
of with the material/object they are applied to. Passive RFID labels when used on item
level in retail or apparel supply chains will end up in packaging waste or mixed municipal
solid waste (MMSW) in significant amounts. The same is assumed for cards (e.g., credit
cards, ID cards, key fobs). If properly disposed of, passive encapsulated tags, which are
usually attached to valuable or important assets for their whole lifespan, will end up in the
waste stream designated for the asset (e.g., TVs are destined for WEEE collection).
37
Following the argument above, the study continued the assessment of the
impacts on the recycling industry based on passive RFID labels and smart
cards as they were shown to be most relevant.
2.5.2 RFID production and material composition

In a nutshell, the RFID label manufacturing supply chain can be divided into four steps:
the manufacturing of the integrated circuit (the chip), the manufacturing of the antenna,
the manufacturing of the inlay and the conversion into the final product, the label or the
smart card.
The integrated circuit is usually manufactured in the form of a wafer, which is cut into
dies, also known as chips. In the next step flip-chip technology is used to mount the chips
either on to a strap or directly on to the antenna connection. For the manufacturing of the
antenna, it is usual to differentiate between additive processes and subtractive processes.
The most common method is a subtractive process – the etching from copper- or
aluminium-clad laminate. Another subtractive process is the stamping: the antenna is
stamped out from aluminium foil and then attached to the substrate using an adhesive.
Additive processes include, but are not limited to, electroplating metals and the printing of
conductive inks on substrates. After the antenna has bonded with the chip on the substrate
(the dielectric layer), the basic component of the RFID label – the inlay – is completed.
Inlays usually come in two variants, dry or wet (the latter meaning that an adhesive is used
to make the inlay stickable). The next step, the label conversion, takes this wet or dry inlay
and applies one or more additional layers, generally a front face usually made out of paper
and another adhesive layer converting it into a so-called wet paper label. Although the
inlay is already fully functional, the form which is mostly used by customers (>90 percent)
is the printable wet paper label.
Dominant RFID chip manufacturers according to Das & Harrop (2010) are NXP, Atmel,
Impinj, Texas Instruments and EM Micro Electronic. Major inlay manufacturers are
Invengo, UPM Raflatac, Sirit, Avery Dennison and Alien Technology, and most of these
are also label converters.
38
Figure 6. Layers of common inlay and label types
2.5.3 Structural design of passive RFID labels (HF/UHF)
In 2008 the R&D project Prognosis of potential impacts of a mass use of RFID tags in the area
of consumer products on the environment and waste management was commissioned by the
German Federal Environment Agency (further referred to as “the German study”;
Erdmann, Hilty & Althaus, 2009). ISO (2008) served as a source of information on the
material composition of passive RFID tags. At that time, this ISO technical report
provided the most appropriate and reliable data on the material composition of passive
RFID tags to assess whether they could do any harm to today’s waste management
processes. In the course of this study, attempts were made to identify the source of the
material composition given in the ISO report and found that identical data were
mentioned in a Department of Defense (DoD) report in 2004. It is considered that that
data from 2004 should not be taken as a basis for the evaluation of the impact of RFID on
waste management today. A survey was carried out among stakeholders involved in the
label manufacturing process in order to check the validity of the data and the market shares
of the used antenna materials. The most important results from the survey are listed below:
x The data from the ISO technical report are mostly still representative for passive
labels.
x The amount of silicon and gold used for the chip and its bumps has dropped
significantly.
x The market share of antenna materials has changed significantly compared to the
results of the German study and also the foreseen scenarios regarding those shares.
Both developments seem to be very much influenced by the price development of
the needed raw materials. Results are shown in the table below.
Table 5. Shares of antenna materials in percent for HF and UHF labels combined
Source: Expert consultation
Parallel to the survey, an empirical analysis of actual label sizes was performed to check if
the representative label sizes given in the ISO technical report were still appropriate. As a
39
basis for this, an analysis of label sizes was carried out based on the UHF Tag performance
survey (EECC, 2011) conducted by the European EPC competence centre (EECC) in
2011. Additionally, HF label sizes from several manufacturers were analysed, taking into
account a total of more than 150 RFID labels, both HF and UHF. By clustering the label
sizes measured in square millimetres (mm2), it was found that large labels should be
represented by 4171 mm2 instead of 5806 mm2, medium-sized labels are adequately
represented with a size of 2220 mm2 and small-sized labels should be represented by 894
mm2 instead of 1455 mm2. The impact of the updated label sizes on the material
composition was then calculated assuming that most of the weight of the components is
linearly related to the label size. Exceptions are the chip and the components needed for
the chip’s attachment to the antenna.
As a result, the following table shows the material composition based on the ISO technical
report with simultaneous consideration of the outlined developments.
Table 6. Material composition of RFID labels
Source: Own calculations based on ISO/IEC (2008) and expert consultation
Recent developments regarding the material composition

A relatively new player in the UHF RFID label manufacturing market is the French
company Tageos, which uses an additive process for the application of the antenna. Tageos
developed this process, making it possible to apply the antenna material directly on to a
printable paper label, making the usually used substrate (PET) obsolete. According to
Tageos, the amount of aluminium used for the manufacturing of the antenna is between
10 and 100 times less than the conventional subtractive processes. Since this development
is very new and its significance regarding the market share is not assessable, the impact of
this technological advance was not taken into account for the estimation of the impact on
recycle streams. Figure 7, below, shows the basic layers of such a label.
40
Figure 7. Layers of a wet paper label from Tageos
Future developments regarding the material composition of RFID labels

Future developments that have potential for changes in the material composition of RFID
tags are:
x The development of printed electronics
x The development of new antenna materials
Regarding the material composition and the amount of tags, the most important future
development is believed to be the implementation of printed electronics. This development
opens several new applications for which the traditional silicon-based chip and the
subsequent manufacturing process of the label will be too costly. Although the impact of
this development is difficult to assess, a survey among stakeholders was conducted
requesting assumptions on the expected market share and the impact on the material
composition of tags with printed integrated circuits. Results show that those labels will no
longer contain silicon and ACP/ACP metal, but will contain PET or PE for the additional
layers (approx. 20 percent of the RFID label weight) and small amounts of metal oxides for
the printed conducting paths.
For SALs, which might reach a significant number in the future, a scenario was calculated
based on the assumed use of printable batteries based on zinc and manganese dioxide, and
zinc chloride as an electrolyte.
Another development that may be relevant in the future is the use of conducting inks for
printed antennas. Potential materials could be graphene or other conducting polymers.
Since the development of such materials in the given time frame (2011–2026) would be
purely speculative, they were not considered in the course of the following impact analysis.
Also, the assumable reduction of materials used for RFID labels was not considered, since
the extent of the future reduction would also be speculative.
2.5.4 Market estimates for RFID tags in the EU 27
A recent market analysis has been carried out by IDTechEx. Numerous other market
analyses and forecasts do exist but most of them do not take into account the impacts of
the financial crisis on the RFID market. From the basis of the report RFID Forecasts,
Players and Opportunities 2011–2021 (Das & Harrop, 2010) extended by additional
IDTechEx forecasts for the years 2021–2026, the market developments for Europe until
2026 have been derived together with the amounts of passive RFID tags that are expected
to end up in waste management systems. Figure 8, below, shows the principle behind the
assessment of the relevant tag numbers for Europe.
41
Figure 8. Calculation steps for the derivation of the relevant RFID tag numbers for Europe
On the basis of the IDTechEx forecasts for passive tag numbers worldwide and for
numbers of tags sold by territory the share of tags for Europe was calculated. Also taken
into account were tags sold in Asia and other regions and later applied to goods and
packaging destined for the European market and likely to be disposed of in Europe.
The “relevance for waste stream” criterion was based on an assessment of the likelihood of
tags from an application area ending up in the analysed waste streams. Also taken into
account were tag prices and the shape and the location on the asset or product to which
the tag was applied.
Delayed dumping was considered by using differing life-span assumptions (up to 15 years)
for each application area (e.g., product packaging is usually disposed of much faster than
books).
According to the derived numbers indicated in the graph below, the application area with
by far the largest number of tags in the future will be consumer goods, showing very strong
growth starting from 2018.
Source: Based on Das & Harrop (2010) and own calculations
Figure 9. Relevant passive tag numbers per application area for Europe (including consumer goods)
42
Figure 10. Relevant passive tag numbers per application area for Europe (excluding consumer
goods)
Figure 10, above, outlines the development of the relevant tag numbers for application
areas other than consumer goods. It indicates that other major application areas beside
consumer goods (but with significantly fewer tags) will be retail apparel, smart ticketing,
drugs and retail CPG pallets/cases.
Forecasts and recent literature (Cole, 2010) (Erdmann, 2008) (Das& Harrop, 2010) show
that the uptake of tagging consumer goods is mainly tied to the technological development
of printed electronics, enabling item level tagging through lower tag prices. Since the
appointed time for this uptake is subject to discussion among experts, two additional
scenarios were derived: one shifts the uptake of this development two years forth and the
other shifts the uptake three years back compared to the assumptions used in IDTechEx
forecasts. The scenarios are shown in Figure 11 below.
Figure 11. Relevant passive tag numbers for Europe/technological development scenarios
The following table summarises the results for the relevant tag numbers per application
area for Europe based on the medium scenario.
43
Table 7. Relevant passive RFID tag numbers per application area for Europe/medium scenario
In order to calculate tag number shares for individual European Member States these
numbers were allocated according to the states GDP share among the EU-27, as the GDP
gives a comparable indication about the size of the specific Member State’s economy.
2.6 The recyclability of RFID tags

Part A focuses on the impact of RFID tags on the recycling industry. However, the
material recycling of the RFID tags themselves should be evaluated. This section describes
the ecologic, economic and technical fundamentals in case the recycling of RFID tags
would be required.
RFID tags are complex objects composed of different organic and inorganic materials.
When investigating the recycling of the tags, the value of the different components is
important in order to determine the most sustainable recycling products. Furthermore, the
ecologic value of the material is indicated by the CO2 equivalent emissions resulting from
their production (from now on to be referred to as the CO2 inventory). Table 8 shows the
market values of the different components as well as the CO2 inventory.
44
Table 8. Ecologic and economic value of RFID tag components
Carbon footprint Market value Market value

Component Material
(values rounded) (ideal) (feasible)
Face material PP 3.50 kgCO2/kg 1.4 €/kg 1.4 €/kg
Paper 1.35 kgCO2/kg 0.445 €/kg 0 €/kg
Adhesive Acrylate 3.34 kgCO2/kg 2.5 €/kg 0 €/kg
IC Silicon 85.41 kgCO2/kg 250 €/kg 0 €/kg
IC bumps Gold 18,722.00 kgCO2/kg 41,540 €/kg 41,540 €/kg
ACP Epoxy-based 3.34 kgCO2/kg
2.5 €/kg 2.5 €/kg
material
ACP metal Nickel 5.94 kgCO2/kg 13.817 €/kg 24.8 €/kg
Adhesive Polyurethane 3.34 kgCO2/kg 0.99 €/kg 0.99 €/kg
Aerial Copper 3.97 kgCO2/kg 5.618 €/kg 8.935 €/kg
Aluminium 14.90 kgCO2/kg 1.533 €/kg 2.693 €/kg
Silver (in print) 155.48 kgCO2/kg 849.5 €/kg 849.5 €/kg
Bonding agent (in 3.34 kgCO2/kg
2.5 €/kg 2.5 €/kg
print)
Substrate PET 3.18 kgCO2/kg 0.86 €/kg 0.86 €/kg
Adhesive Acrylate 3.34 kgCO2/kg 2.5 €/kg 0 €/kg
Sources: ecoinvent V2.2; GEMIS V4.7; plasticker; LME; Handelsblatt
The metal and semi-metal components exhibit higher carbon footprints as well as material
values than the organic components. This is especially true for the precious metals gold
and silver. The ideal market values could be achieved provided that the materials could be
thoroughly extracted and converted into marketable secondary raw materials with the
required quality. However, it is unlikely that this is technically feasible for some of the
materials. Materials rated unlikely to be recovered as secondary raw materials according to
technical limitations were assumed to exhibit a neutral market value7 and are shown under
the header “Market value (feasible)”.
Table 9 and Table 10 summarise the main properties of RFID tags with paper and PP
faces. The paper faces result in increased weight of the tags but due to the lower CO2
inventory from the production, the overall CO2 inventory of the tag is lower. When
comparing the different aerial materials, it becomes obvious that the tags with aluminium
aerials exhibit the lowest overall CO2 inventory. Compared hereto, the CO2 inventory of
tags with copper and silver aerials is about 13–16 percent and 98–125 percent higher.
7
Considering that in reality this would imply that the material would be shifted into a waste stream for
disposal, which generates cost, this is a rather conservative approach
45
Table 9. Summary of main properties of RFID tags with paper faces

Aerial Tag property Tag size
material
4171 mm² 2219 mm² 894 mm²
Al Total mass 930.58 mg 495.36 mg 199.68 mg

Material value (ideal) 0.14 € ct. 0.09 € ct. 0.06 € ct.
Material value (feasible) 0.08 € ct. 0.06 € ct. 0.05 € ct.
CO2 inventory 2.94 g 1.65 g 0.77 g
Cu Total mass 1159.37 mg 617.11 mg 248.71 mg
Ag Total mass 931.80 mg 496.01 mg 199.94 mg
Table 10. Summary of main properties of RFID tags with PP faces

Aerial Tag property Tag size
material
4171 mm² 2219 mm² 894 mm²
Al Total mass 744.75 mg 396.47 mg 159.85 mg
Cu Total mass 973.54 mg 518.22 mg 208.88 mg
Ag Total mass 745.97 mg 397.12 mg 160.11 mg
In order to assess which components are potential targets for recycling, the weight shares,
value shares and CO2 inventory are displayed and analysed in the following figures.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 examine RFID tags with aluminium aerials. Even though gold is a
minor component, it accounts for about 40–85 percent of the economic value depending
on the tag size. However, with respect to the ecologic performance, due to their relatively
high weight shares, the organic components mainly contribute to the CO2 inventory with
the substrate (PET) being the major component.
46
Tag size: 4171 mm² Tag size: 2219 mm² Tag size 894 mm²
45%
40%
of the components 35%
Weight share
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Paper Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Aluminium PET
90%
material
80%
70%
Value share of the
60%
components
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.0
material
0.9
0.8
0.7
Carbon footprint
[g CO2-equiv.]
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
material
Figure 12. RFID tags with Al aerials and paper faces
47
45%
40%
of the components
35%
Weight share
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
PP Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Aluminium PET
90% material
80%
70%
Value share of the
60%
components
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.0
material
0.9
0.8
0.7
Carbon footprint
[g CO2-equiv.]
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
material
Figure 13. RFID tags with Al aerials and PP faces
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show that in contrast to both aluminium and silver aerials
(compare Figure 16 and Figure 17), copper aerials substantially contribute to the mass of
the tags, while gold and copper together account for about 80–90 percent of the total
material value. Again, the sum of the organic components is responsible for the gross of the
carbon footprint, whereas copper as a single component bears the highest CO2 inventory.
48
35%
30%
of the components
Weight share
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Paper Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Copper PET
80% material
70%
60%
Value share of the
components
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.2 material
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
Carbon footprint
[g CO2-equiv.]
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
material
Figure 14. RFID tags with Cu aerials and paper faces
49
35%
30%
of the components
Weight share
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
PP Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Copper PET
70% material
60%
50%
Value share of the
components
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.2 material
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
Carbon footprint
[g CO2-equiv.]
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
material
Figure 15. RFID tags with Cu aerials and PP faces
With around 3.0–3.7 percent, silver exhibits the smallest weight share of the different
aerial materials. The relative weight shares of other components are comparable to those of
tags equipped with aluminium aerials. When examining the value share of silver, the
situation just described is reversed, revealing that silver accounts for more than 90 percent
of the total material value of the tags and majorly contributes to the overall CO2 inventory.
50
45%
40%
of the components 35%
Weight share
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Paper Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Silver (in print) Bonding agent PET
120% material (in print)
100%
Value share of the
80%
components
60%
40%
20%
0%
Paper Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Silver (in print) Bonding agent PET
4.5 material (in print)
4.0
3.5
3.0
Carbon footprint
[g CO2-equiv.]
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Paper Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Silver Bonding agent PET
material
Figure 16. RFID tags with Ag aerials and paper faces
51
45%
40%
of the components
35%
Weight share
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
PP Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Silver (in print) Bonding agent PET
120% material (in print)
100%
Value share of the
80%
components
60%
40%
20%
0%
PP Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Silver (in print) Bonding agent PET
4.5 material (in print)
4.0
3.5
3.0
Carbon footprint
[g CO2-equiv.]
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
PP Acrylate Silicon Gold Epoxy-based Nickel Polyurethane Silver Bonding agent PET
material
Figure 17. RFID tags with Ag aerials and PP faces
The findings indicate that the components primarily coming into consideration for
material recycling are:
x From an economic perspective, the IC bumps as well as the aerials in the case of
copper and silver and
x From an environmental perspective, copper and silver followed by PET and PP.
As RFID tags can be considered in plastics recycling, the production of RFID concentrates
designated for plastic recycling is hardly an option. As a result, the recovery of the metals is
seen to be the most feasible way of recovery operations for RFID tags.
Given that the metals in focus are copper, silver and aluminium, two general metallurgical
routes, the copper route and the aluminium route, are relevant. Regarding copper
metallurgy, it is noteworthy that besides copper gold and silver can also be recovered
during copper refining. In contrast, during copper refining aluminium is likely to be lost
for secondary metal production. However, aluminium may function as a reductive to other
metal oxides in the melt, which may be desirable to a certain extent. In (secondary)
aluminium metallurgy, copper, silver and gold dissolve in the melt and unintentionally
become alloying elements without technical relevance and hence can be considered lost
(dissipated in aluminium). Recovery during later recycling operations is not likely.
52
More detailed information on the metallurgical processes as well as on plastics recycling is

presented in Chapter 4.
Table 11 lists the most important effects of the materials composing RFID tags on the
metallurgical processes.
Table 11. Effects of certain components/materials from RFID tags in metallurgical recycling
processes
Material from RFID tags Aluminium route Copper route

Aluminium Target material Impurity, but does not cause grave
problems in the process
Copper Impurity; alloying element Target material
Silver Impurity; dissipation Side product of process/target material
Gold Impurity; dissipation Impurity, but does not cause grave
Silicon Impurity; alloying element Impurity, but does not cause grave
Nickel Impurity; dissipation Side product of process
Paper Oxidised and transferred to slag Oxidised and transferred to slag
Supply of energy Supply of energy
Plastics and adhesives Oxidised and transferred to slag Oxidised and transferred to slag
Supply of energy Supply of energy
ACP See plastics and nickel See plastics and nickel
In order to be included in the metallurgical route, the RFID tags must be extracted from
the diverse waste streams within which they are contained and promoted to a metal pre-
concentrate. Therefore, the selective extraction of RFID tags using state-of-the-art
extraction technologies for non-ferrous metals (eddy current separator and sensor sorting
with an electromagnetic sensor) has been tested. The results of these practical trials showed
that it is not feasible to selectively extract RFID tags during waste processing and produce a
RFID pre-concentrate. Therefore, RFID tags are only sent for metallurgical recycling if
they are attached to materials, which are transferred to nonferrous metal pre-concentrates.
As long as no system or process for the selective separation of RFID tags from other waste
components has been developed, controlled allocation to specific recycling paths cannot be
realised.
53
CHAPTER 3 The background context for assessing

the impacts of RFID technology
x This chapter explains why RFID tags and waste management have to be seen
in context with waste management legislation.
x Framework legislation exists at the EU level, but national interpretations and
implementations vary.
x Collective waste denominations, such as municipal solid waste, are subdivided
into different waste streams.
x The waste streams are subjected to different pieces of legislation, collection and
treatment.
x RFID tags exhibit a wide field of application and as a result are introduced into
various waste streams and treatment paths.
x The EU framework legislation is analysed in this context and interpretations
with regard to the position of RFID are outlined.
x The member states are clustered, based on similarities in waste management.
This chapter establishes the background context necessary for assessing the impact of RFID
on the waste management and recycling industry as inert objects. This background is
important because if RFID tags are attached to objects, the tags will find their way into
waste collection, treatment and disposal systems after these objects are discarded as waste.
It is therefore imperative that we introduce the relevant EU legislative framework, both
holistic EU waste framework legislation as well as legislation specific to certain wastes, and
give an overview of waste management.
Considering that most aspects of waste management are regulated through a set of EU
directives, the overall regulations apply for all Member States. However, to make the
analysis presented in later chapters more manageable, EU Member States have been
subdivided into clusters based upon similarities in their waste management systems, and
these clusters are presented here.
In addition, the overview of waste management technical processes given here will feed
into the analysis presented in Chapter 4. This analysis will be used in the development of
recommendations for the utilisation of RFID technology. We will present
55
recommendations that will facilitate the utilisation and, at the same time, ensure that the
advancement of recycling is not compromised by the presence of tags.
3.1 EU waste management legislation and interactional aspects of the

presence of RFID tags
To present an overview of waste management legislation, two basic frameworks are
considered in this report. These are:
x The strategy on waste prevention and recycling that has been developed under
the 6th Environmental Action Programme (EAP) to support the transfer of EU
Directives into Member State legislation.
x Directives and other legislation that define the legal requirements regarding
waste management.
The links between these two legislative frameworks are depicted in Figure 18 and are
further described in the text that follows. The strategies of the 6th EAP are shown in
orange boxes, while directives and legislation are shown in green boxes.
56
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 The background context for assessing the impacts of RFID technology
Figure 18. Structure of better regulation strategies and waste management legislation in the EU
3.1.1 Strategic approach: The 6th Environmental Action Programme

In 2002, the 6th EAP was adopted by the Commission and seven thematic strategies were
defined to achieve the aims of the programme. Two of the seven strategies – waste
prevention and recycling, and natural resources – set out the EC’s position on waste and
resource management.
The strategy on waste prevention and recycling underlines the importance of reporting on
the implementation of EU framework directives as required by the framework legislation
itself. The EC has conducted reviews of that reporting and has concluded that the level of
57
implementation differs significantly between individual Member States (Monier et al.,

2011). This will be an important consideration in the context of the implications of future
policy-making on RFID tags. In order to investigate the relevance of these differences as
they apply to waste and resource management, we will first summarise key issues of EU
waste legislation.
3.1.2 Directives and other legislative approaches
This section presents the main directives and other legislative approaches that define the
legal frameworks for waste management. As depicted in Figure 18 above, there are three
main categories of EU legislation: the main regulatory framework on waste; waste
treatment operations; and regulations for specific waste streams. Each category, and the
corresponding legislative approaches, is discussed here in turn.
Main regulatory frameworks
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and
repealing certain Directives (or Waste Framework Directive)
The main goal of this directive is the protection of the environment and human health. It
establishes a legal framework for the handling and treatment of waste. The directive
specifies a waste hierarchy. The priority order in waste prevention and management
legislation and policy is shown in Figure 19. In order to understand whether RFID tags
can cause technical or environmental problems, our analysis focused on the three lower
priority levels: “recycling”, “other recovery” and “disposal”. This is because the first two
levels – “prevention” and “preparing for reuse” – apply before objects enter the EOL phase.
prevention
preparing for
reuse
recycling
other recovery
(notably energy
recovery)
disposal
Figure 19. Waste hierarchy and priority order according to Directive 2008/98/EC
The directive also introduces the “polluter pays principle”, that requires the producers of
pollution to bear the costs of preventive measures. This type of legislation is discussed in
further detail below in regards to legislation for specific waste streams. In addition, the
directive states that waste management facilities require a permit from the responsible
authority.
58
Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning

integrated pollution prevention and control (or IPPC Directive)
The IPPC Directive demands that industrial and agricultural activities with a high
pollution potential have an operating permit. The directive seeks to prevent, or at a
minimum reduce (if prevention is not feasible), emissions to soil, water and air. To enforce
this, the permit contains certain basic obligations and requires adherence to Best Available
Techniques (BATs).
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on
shipments of waste, as amended (or Waste Shipment Regulation)
The basic tenets of the waste shipment regulation are based on the conclusions of the 1989
Basel Convention regarding the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes
and their disposal. Through the adoption of this regulation, rules to control such
movement of hazardous wastes and to bring the Community system for the supervision
and control of waste movements into line with the Basel Convention are implemented.
These rules include:
x The requirement to inform other parties if the right to prohibit the import of
hazardous wastes or wastes for disposal is exercised.
x A requirement to take appropriate measures to reduce the generation of hazardous
and other wastes, ensure the availability of disposal facilities, ensure that the
necessary measures to prevent pollution due to the handling of hazardous wastes
and related wastes are taken and ensure that transboundary movements are
reduced to a minimum (UNEP, 2011).
Legislation relevant to waste treatment operations

The directives below are those that apply to waste treatment operations more broadly,
including landfilling, incineration and recycling.
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (or Landfill
Directive)
The objective of the directive is to prevent and reduce the environmental impacts from
landfilling waste. It defines three classes of landfill (hazardous, non-hazardous and inert
waste) with different standards set out regarding constructive and operational measures
orientated at the hazardous potential of the waste that can be received.
Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December
2000 on the incineration of waste (or Waste Incineration Directive)
The main objective of this directive is to limit risks connected to the incineration of
hazardous and non-hazardous waste by setting out technical and operational requirements
and defining emission limit values (e.g., air emission limit values) for waste incineration.
Regulations for specific waste streams
The remaining directive summaries are classed as producer-responsibility legislation that
implements the “polluter pays” principle.
59
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 (or Battery Directive)
The objective is to minimise the amount of hazardous substances – mercury, cadmium and
lead – exposed to the environment. In addition to limit values for substances, a high
recovery rate and the application of best available techniques for recycling activities are
required. The cost of the collection, treatment and recycling of batteries and accumulators
must be assumed by the producers.
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September
2000 on end-of-life vehicles (or ELV Directive)
The aim of this directive is to minimise the impact of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) on the
environment. The main points are the promotion of vehicle design optimised for recycling
and reuse, as well as requirements for the collection and treatment of ELVs. Car
manufacturers are responsible for minimum technical requirements for treatment facilities
and processes (e.g., the requirement to strip valuable or hazardous material before further
processing to ensure suitable materials for reuse and recycling) and recycling rates are
defined.
Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January
2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (or WEEE Directive)
This directive promotes advances in the reuse, recycling and reduction of the amount of
waste that arises from electrical and electronic equipment. The producers of electrical and
electronic equipment must apply a system that allows the separate collection of different
categories of WEEE. It also specifies that the best available techniques should be applied
for the recovery of WEEE.
Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of
the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (or RoHS
Directive)
The scope of the RoHS Directive is comparable to that of the WEEE Directive. The
directive requires that lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated
biphenyls (PBBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) should not be used in
electrical and electronic equipment and should be replaced by other substances. However,
if the avoidance is not completely possible tolerance levels are defined.
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
packaging and packaging waste (or Packaging Directive)
The main aim of this directive is to stimulate the development of packaging collection
and/or treatment systems and the reduction of packaging waste of any origin. The
Directive specifies that Member States should minimise the weight and volume of
packaging, reduce the application of hazardous materials used in packaging and establish
packaging-collection systems. It should be pointed out that these measures are required to
achieve the demanded recycling targets.
60
3.2 RFID tags in context with the legislation

Having considered the relevant legislative frameworks, it is important to note if and how
they are related to RFID technology. We will consider each category of waste legislation in
turn.
Starting with the “main regulatory framework” (see Figure 18), the waste shipment
regulation would only apply to RFID tags if the tags formed a separate waste stream. This
is not anticipated due to the range of RFID tag applications. However, the waste shipment
regulation does apply to existing waste streams in which RFID tags are expected to end up.
Since the directive on waste defines waste as “any substance or object which the holder
discards or intends or is required to discard” (European Commission, 2008), it could be
considered that the waste hierarchy and its priority order applies to RFID tags as much as
to any other item that is not specifically excluded from the directive. This logic applies to
both hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Annex 3 of the Waste Framework Directive
(WFD) defines the properties qualifying waste as hazardous waste. None of the mentioned
properties apply to passive RFID tags assuming their composition is as described in
Chapter 2. However, RFID tags applied to hazardous waste objects will be introduced into
the designated treatment path for the hazardous material.
The fact that RFID tags enter various waste streams has been introduced before. However,
considering this in the context of waste legislation, it becomes clear that we do need to
consider the implications of the legislation for RFID. Thus, the different directives
specifying the management of waste streams need to be analysed to understand whether,
and how, a connection to the fate of RFID tags can be established.
We will start by looking at the lowest priority waste management operations, namely
disposal operations, because these have to be applied if higher prioritised operations fail
(e.g., due to systematic failures in waste separation at source). Disposal operations can
roughly be divided into landfilling and incineration. Therefore, if RFID tags end up in
these disposal operations the Landfill Directive and the Waste Incineration Directive are
applicable. The directives would only be affected if tags in waste streams resulted in
increasing emissions from the disposal operations. When the limit values for emissions to
the environment are exceeded, the plant operators would be forced to upgrade the installed
emission control systems to uphold the status quo regardless of changes in the composition
of the input materials. The aspect of RFID tags entering landfills or waste incinerators and
expected impacts on the technology or the emissions are further investigated in Chapter 4.
The aspect of recycling and other recovery in waste management operations is included
in the form of “the strategy on prevention and recycling of waste” that focuses on
incentives to promote recycling and resource recovery. This encompasses the producer
responsibility directives described previously:
x Packaging Directive
x Battery Directive
x EOL Directives
x WEEE Directive.
In order to estimate the implications RFID tags might have in relation to these directives
we have to consider the distinction between energy recovery and material recycling. Energy
61
recovery happens through thermal conversion processes. The main parameters are the
energy content of the material that is combusted and the components that could increase
emissions from the thermal conversion process. In the case of material recycling, the final
purity of the recyclate needs to meet qualitative requirements, which usually results in
extensive subsidiary purification steps in the recycling facilities. RFID tags could have
implications for both of these processes, but the effects will depend on the particular waste
streams.
Packaging is of special significance because predictions of RFID use indicate that
packaging material is one of the main areas of application of RFID tags. Wastes that fall
under the Packaging Directive are required to be recovered and recycled, and legally
binding targets have been set. Recycling processes for packaging waste and the different
packaging materials have been developed in the past. Depending on the way RFID tags are
attached and depending on the behaviour of tags in waste separation processes (see Chapter
4), most tags are expected to be carried with the carrier objects into the actual recycling
process. For some materials, this will mean material recycling is possible (e.g., glass and
metals), while other materials, such as paper and plastic, can either be recycled or used for
energy recovery. In the case of energy recovery, the main issue is whether RFID tags and
their contained substances contribute significantly to the emissions from the thermal
treatment plants. With regard to material recycling, the tags and contained materials might
affect the recycling processes or the quality of the recyclates. These issues are investigated
further in Chapter 4, but it is important to highlight them here in the context of the
legislation that governs these processes.
The Battery Directive states that batteries should be recycled with the best available
technologies, and that recycling should not include energy recovery. Furthermore, batteries
and accumulators have to be readily and safely removed from items. These requirements
are not affected by passive RFID tags, but there might be a problem regarding tags on
embedded batteries or accumulators. RFID tags applied to batteries or accumulators will
be disposed with them into the relevant collection and treatment systems.
The directive regarding vehicles (2000/53/EC) covers the treatment of ELVs and the
design of vehicles in relation to their reuse and recovery. Neither have a direct contextual
relationship to RFID tags. Directive 2005/64/EC (on the reuse, recycling and recovering
of motor vehicles) presents a field in which the utilisation of RFID technology could
possibly have a beneficial impact. This aspect is further investigated in Part B of this study.
The final waste stream directives that may impact on RFID tags are 2002/96/EC (on waste
electrical and electronic equipment – WEEE) and 2002/95/EC (on the restriction of the
use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment – RoHS). These
directives are both directly and indirectly connected to RFID technology. This is because
RFID tags can be contained in electrical or electronic devices, or the RFID tags themselves
can be considered as EEE in some cases. Possible impacts on WEEE treatment are analysed
in the technical section (4.6.1). However, if tags are considered to be WEEE, this may
have an impact on the utilisation of RFID tags. This issue, though, is still an area of
uncertainty and merits further discussion.
Article 3(a) of the WEEE Directive defines electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) as:
62
equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in

order to work properly; and equipment for the generation, transfer and
measurement of such currents and fields falling under the categories set out in
Annex IA and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1,000 Volts for
alternating current and 1,500 Volts for direct current. (European Commission,
2003b).
This definition applies to the functional characteristics of RFID tags. RFID tags are used
to control the goods to which they are attached and therefore should not be easily
removable from those goods. This makes their separation from the main waste stream
difficult and raises questions as to whether they should be considered as EEE or not.
In fact, the relationship between RFID and the WEEE and the RoHS directives has been
discussed in a document published by DG ENV. This document is not legally binding but
contains frequently asked questions regarding the relationship of RFID tags with the two
directives.
RFIDs meet the definition of electrical and electronic equipment provided for in
the WEEE and RoHS Directives and can be considered to fall under Category 3
‘IT and telecommunication equipment’. RFIDs are covered by the RoHS
Directive. Concerning the WEEE Directive, if RFIDs are put on the packaging of
the electrical and electronic equipment they are considered to fall outside the
scope of the Directive because they are part of a product that is not covered by the
WEEE Directive. If they are put on the equipment, the producer of the
equipment is responsible for recycling. (Day, 2006:13).
The argument that leads to this interpretation is that RFID tags have not been developed
to be put on the market as single functional units but instead should operate in a specific
environment determined to perform a specific task.
This position is also shared by the CE RFID network (Coordinating European Efforts for
Promoting the European RFID Value Chain8). This network brought together a group of
RFID producers, vendors and users with an ambition to support the EC and increase the
awareness of policy-makers about the value of promoting the technology. With their
position paper on general guidelines to promote RFID in Europe, the aspect of RFID and
waste was addressed as follows:
The working group supports the statement given in the FAQ sheet that has been
cited previously and suggests that RFID tags should be taken out of the scope of
the WEEE Directive. The argument is that the circumstances under which RFID
tags are seen outside the scope in the referenced FAQ sheet can be transferred to
other applications than packaging, as happens with packaging materials.
Thus, there seems to be a shared argument and rationale that RFID should not be subject
to the WEEE Directive.
The conclusions that can be drawn at this stage regarding the implications of RFID for
waste legislation are twofold. The first is that the wide range of application of RFID tags
8
An EC initiative funded in 2006–2008.
63
results in their introduction into different waste streams that fall under different legislation.
The second is that tags are not supposed to be put on the market as single objects.
Therefore, the attachment to the carrier objects needs to take the purpose of monitoring
and control into account. The interactions are displayed in Figure 20.
Directives that apply directly Directives that apply when Directives that are
to the design of RFID Tags tags are applied on related relevant when tags
products enter processes
Waste framework directive
Batteries and Incineration

accumulators Directive
Batteries and
accumulators RFID ELV Landfill Directive
(semi-active and active
tags)
Packaging and
WEEE
packaging waste
RoHS WEEE
Figure 20. RFID technology in context with waste management legislation
Ultimately, this leads to the conclusion that the question of whether RFID tags fall under
the scope of any single legislation, or multiple legislative frameworks, has yet to be
addressed by the EC.
3.3 Waste treatment technologies

Having considered the applicable legislative frameworks, we now turn our attention to
waste treatment technologies. Waste management consists of different waste handling steps
that are utilised in order to fulfil the requirements of the legislation. The chain of waste
handling processes is divided into four major steps: collection, transport, processing and
recycling or disposal. These are shown in Figure 21.
recycling or
collection transport processing
disposal
Figure 21. Succession of operations in waste management
Each of these terms has very specific meanings in a waste treatment context. For example,
the term “recycling” is widely applied. Legally, the term refers to operations that are used
64
to reprocess waste material into products, materials or substances for their original or
different purposes. (Waste Framework Directive) Therefore, terms are introduced with a
brief explanation to increase transparency in Chapter 4.
Moreover, at each step of the different operations, different treatment technologies can be
applied. These are summarised in Table 12.
Table 12. Description of waste handling steps
Step Description Technologies

Collection Pick-up of waste from private households, Collection trucks, containers
central drop-off points, commercial
structures and industrial facilities
Transportation Transportation of waste between transfer Walking floor trucks, container trucks
stations and treatment facilities
Processing Separation of waste and processing before - MRF, mechanical recycling
recycling or energy recovery - MBT, mechanical-biological
treatment
Recycling Reprocessing of materials either from Material recycling facilities
separate collection or from treatment steps
- Glass
into applicable secondary materials that can
- Paper
be used to replace primary materials
- Plastic
- Metal
Composting and fermentation of organic
materials
Disposal Actions that are not recovery even where the Landfilling, waste incineration,
operation has as a secondary consequence the underground storage of waste.
reclamation of substances or energy or store
waste materials in appropriate sites.
The combination of collection, processing, recycling and disposal schemes define the waste
management systems. Waste collection is conducted in two ways, either through collection
at the waste producer’s premises or through drop-off systems where the waste is then
transported to centralised points or facilities by waste producers and then collected for
further processing. Detailed examples of processes will be given in Chapter 4 as each step
in the process has different aims and systems that may be affected by RFID. For example,
while incineration and mechanical-biological treatment have the target to create an output
that is suitable for disposal, mechanical recycling facilities usually aim at generating
products suitable for energy recovery and material recycling.
Now that the basic legislation and the different waste management processes that will be
relevant for our assessment of the impacts and implications of RFID have been outlined,
the chapter ends by briefly outlining an organising framework of Member States that will
be used throughout the subsequent analysis.
65
3.4 A clustering system of Member States

The interpretation and definition of MSW varies strongly between European countries and
the same applies for the collected amounts and the respective collection and treatment
methods (Dubois et al., 2004). In 2010, the Institute for European Environmental Policy
carried out a study in which the advancement of the Member States in becoming a
recycling society that minimised MSW was documented. Aspects such as waste generation,
recycling/recovery rates and GHG emissions through the national waste management
industry were taken into account. The IEEP concluded that significant differences between
Member States exist regarding the delivery of a recycling society. Within the study, three
types of Member States were identified (Bowyer et al., 2010), which can be seen as an
idealised division of the Member States into three clusters.
For the modelling of waste streaming, the fate of RFID tags in waste management is
important. The relevant destinations were defined as recycling, incineration (for disposal
and recovery) and landfilling. The destinations decide whether the tags are finally
incorporated in a landfill, oxidised in a thermal process or directed into recycling processes.
The clusters and the Member States are listed in Table 13. Examples of the utilisation of
data on waste treatment and distribution of waste into different treatment paths can be
taken from the modelling description in the Annex.
Table 13. Clusters according to Bowyer et al. (2010)
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Belgium Ireland Bulgaria

Germany Czech Republic Greece
Netherlands United Kingdom Spain
Sweden Slovenia Cyprus
Austria France Latvia
Denmark Luxembourg Hungary
Estonia Malta
Finland Poland
Italy Portugal
Lithuania Romania
Slovakia
The main difference between the clusters is that waste streams are generated with different
properties and total quantities and are treated with different technologies. Furthermore,
the clusters exhibit different potential for future development. As only small changes in
waste management are expected in the Member States of cluster 1, cluster 2 and 3 Member
States will probably show a more dynamic development in their way of delivering a
recycling society.
Building on the conclusions of the IEEP report, this study analyses different waste
management scenarios in Europe and the way RFID tags are directed through them. As an
example, Figure 22 illustrates the waste management system for municipal waste in the UK
66
and shows the final destinations.9 To see whether RFID tags have an impact on the
processes, the estimated impacts of RFID tags on the treatment paths are analysed for each
cluster and the results are summarised in Chapter 5.
Source: DEFRA
Figure 22. Waste management system of the UK
An important factor in this cluster-based analysis is the distribution between the relevant
destinations. Due to the fact that the term “recycling” is considered differently and the line
between material recycling and energy recovery is not clearly defined, the data
differentiation between the two kinds of waste utilisation is not always clear. This is
important to bear in mind, and more detailed data on different treatment paths in the
countries will be given in the technical sections in Chapter 4.
9
Incineration in this case is only present in the form of RDF combustion
67
CHAPTER 4 RFID tags in the waste processing

industry
x This Chapter shows that the type of impact created through the introduction
of RFID tags in waste treatment operations depends on the interaction
between tag and object.
x End-of-life phases are introduced to understand which treatment paths RFID
tags can take after their disposal.
x The technologies applied in the different end-of-life phases are analysed.
x The behaviour and impacts of RFID tags in the different processes are
summarised and the call for further research is elaborated.
4.1 Interaction between RFID tags and waste treatment processes

It is important to state that the implications of RFID tags on waste streams cannot be
generalised. This is because we have to distinguish whether RFID tags contribute to an
existing range of materials in a waste stream (which is true for mixed waste streams) or
whether they contribute to a specific increase of special/unwanted components (which may
be the case for most single material streams). Untangling this requires a distinction
between the different waste streams themselves, as well as their ultimate purpose. One way
of making this distinction between waste streams is the utilisation of the EU waste codes.
Another way is to ask whether a waste stream is providing single material for material
recycling or not.
Separately collected waste streams can either be developed to isolate specific materials or to
concentrate specific properties. Table 14 gives an overview of what the waste streams from
private households and commercial areas are, why the waste stream exists and what its
properties are.
69
Table 14. Description of waste streams from private households and commercial areas
Waste stream Targets Properties
collect a recyclable that qualifies for Single material stream

Glass material recycling with or without
subsidiary purification
collect a recyclable that qualifies for Single material stream
Paper, cardboard material recycling with or without
subsidiary purification
collection of packaging materials with mixed material stream with a
Light packaging waste (LPW) a reduced range of properties that specified/limited range of different
eases recovery for material recycling materials
collection of dry recyclables (not mixed material stream with a
limited to a certain application) with a reduced range of different materials
Comingled waste
reduced range of properties that
eases recovery for material recycling
collection of biodegradable materials mixed material stream with a
to create a mixture that qualifies specific characteristic for all
Organic waste (bio-waste)
efficient fermentation or composting contained materials
with the option of generating compost
collection of complex objects that mixed material stream that contains
qualify according to the definition of complex objects
the WEEE Directive and require
WEEE
comparable treatment with regard to
disassembly and liberation of
components
collection of complex objects that mixed material stream that contains
qualify according to the definition of complex objects
the ELV Directive and require
ELV
comparable treatment with regard to
disassembly and liberation of
components
collection of materials, complex material sink that contains a range
objects that are not excluded of materials and composites that
Mixed municipal solid waste according to special regulations can better be described by
(MMSW) (polluter pays principle, materials, which are excluded
hazardousness) or economic rather than included
considerations
The fact that the definitions of waste streams are not sharp (e.g. MMSW does not per se
exclude bio-waste) and that the users do not separate with 100 percent efficiency, does not
allow for an exact prediction of the elements or materials composing the waste streams.
Moreover, apart from biodegradable wastes and wastes consisting of mono-materials, all
other waste streams include different applications or components that create a possible
source of impurities. Therefore, generally waste treatment processes are designed to deal
with such impurities to a certain extent. For passive RFID tags, this means that the
materials in waste streams may also be those that we would find contained in the tags. So,
passive RFID tags do not necessarily lead to the input of different materials than other
applications.
4.1.1 Waste sources and the impact of RFID tags
The question of whether the impact of RFID tags in waste streams differs depending on
the waste source (private or commercial) can generally be disregarded. This is indicated by
expert interviews, but also by the fact that mixed-material streams and single-material
streams are generated in both sources, but can be treated with comparable systems and
70
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 RFID tags in the waste processing industry
technologies.10 In other words, waste treatment practices depend on the composition of

waste streams rather than the waste’s origin.
Nevertheless, data have been collected on the basis of waste sources and our analysis will
refer to these data. However, it is important to note that in contrast to municipal waste
and similar commercial and industrial waste, no specific reporting targets exist for
commercial and industrial waste (Eurostat, 2011a). Moreover, Eurostat does not provide
the relevant statistical information. While commercial waste, similar to municipal solid
waste, is usually collected and treated together, the impacts estimated for these facilities
apply to the waste from both sources, not each individual source. Industrial and special
commercial waste that is not similar to municipal solid waste is processed differently
depending on aspects and properties such as:
x Responsibility
x Composition
x Hazardousness
x Recyclability.
Member States are required to use the European List of Wastes given in Table 15 below as
a means of classifying their wastes. The sources for waste that are significant with regard to
the presence of RFID tags are wastes that fall under Chapters 15 and 20. The other waste
codes are generally connected with specific industrial processes, which is why the
availability of data is limited according to public reporting and monitoring. Eurostat has
commented that:
The reporting of waste from both the commercial and industrial sectors is varied
in its implementation across Member States. This is, in part, due to the overlap in
classification of commercial and municipal wastes. Reporting of industrial wastes
is covered under the Waste Statistics Regulation, however, good quality time series
data is still lacking. (Eurostat, 2011a)
The data on waste streams in Europe used within this study to estimate mass relations
between tags and waste materials in selected streams or scenarios, have been primarily
taken from Eurostat and are therefore based on the NACE classification system (Eurostat,
2011a).
10
The same infrastructure can be used for different waste streams, e.g., waste incinerators accept MMSW but
may also accept SRF or sludge from waste-water cleaning or separately collected bulky waste
71
Table 15. European waste chapters
01 Wastes resulting from exploration, mining, dressing and further treatment of minerals and quarry
02 Wastes from agricultural, horticultural, hunting, fishing and aquacultural primary production, food
preparation and processing
03 Wastes from wood processing and the production of paper, cardboard, pulp, panels and furniture
04 Wastes from the leather, fur and textile industries
05 Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal
06 Wastes from inorganic chemical processes
07 Wastes from organic chemical processes
08 Wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints, varnishes and
vitreous enamels), adhesives, sealants and printing inks
09 Wastes from the photographic industry
10 Inorganic wastes from thermal processes
11 Inorganic metal-containing wastes from metal treatment and the coating of metals, and non-ferrous
hydrometallurgy
12 Wastes from shaping and surface treatment of metals and plastics
13 Oil wastes (except edible oils, 05 and 12)
14 Wastes from organic substances used as solvents (except 07 and 08)
15 Waste packaging; absorbents, wiping cloths, filter materials and protective clothing not otherwise
specified
16 Wastes not otherwise specified in the list
17 Construction and demolition wastes (including road construction)
18 Wastes from human or animal health care and/or related research (except kitchen and restaurant
wastes not arising from immediate health care)
19 Wastes from waste treatment facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the water industry
20 Municipal wastes and similar commercial, industrial and institutional wastes including separately
collected fractions
Source: European Commission 2005
Using these data and classification codes, Sections 4.3.1 and 4.6 provide process schemes
for waste treatment operations in different EOL phases. These phases are highlighted in
red in Figure 23 and include the following:
x Collection logistics phase
x Waste processing phase
x Subsidiary purification processes
x Secondary raw material provisioning phase
x Final disposal phase.
72
primary raw materials production secondary raw materials
primary resources user/consumer

disposal
waste
waste collection
waste
residue residue
waste/residue collection logistics

directly collected
pre-concentrates
(separate collection)
subsidiary MRF – light packaing waste

MBT – mixed municipal waste processing pre-concentrate purification seperately collected
solid waste processes fractions
incineration with or
dismantling of ELV
without energy recovery residue Concentrate dismantling of WEEE
(purified pre-concentrate)
secondary raw
final disposal material
provisioning
metal recycling
landfilling of residues paper recycling
plastic recycling
glass recycling
beverage carton recycling
End-of-life phases
Figure 23. Allocation of the waste treatment processes in EOL phases
The EOL phases presented above were developed for the purposes of this study in order to
be able to display the material flow through the waste treatment process. They therefore
differ from the legal definition in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). Moreover,
those operations that are classed as disposal operations under the WFD but still generate
products/residues themselves and therefore involve subsequent treatment processes, are
separated out in this analysis.11 Thus, the main focus of our approach is on these
subsequent EOL processes and the interrelated effects of both the presence of RFID and
the ways in which they might enter the treatment process.
It is also important to note that the complexity of waste treatment operations and/or
process chains depends on the interrelation between the homogeneity of the waste stream
that contains the target materials and the required quality/purity of the recovered
materials. This interrelation results in longer process chains and more detailed elaborations
for subsidiary recycling processes, as depicted in Figure 24 below.
11
An example of such a case is incineration. Even though the WFD defines incineration as disposal in Annex I,
incineration processes create solid residues that are either landfilled (mineral residues) or used for recycling
purposes (metals for recycling or mineral materials as building material)
73
homogeneity of waste streams target purity/quality of recovered products necessary treatement efforts
high separate single low meet criteria to qualify low single installations with
materials for landfill limited complexity in
process design
mixed collected waste

streams with defined single installations or
meet criteria to qualify
input catalogue (e.g. different installations with
for energy recovery
packaging waste) average process depth
mixed waste highly advanced single

streams or installations or complex
meet criteria for
low complex objects high high process chains with
material recycling
different installations
Figure 24. Qualitative relation between the homogeneity, the required product quality and the
necessary treatment efforts
As can be seen from these diagrams and the issues presented in this section, the standard
waste source codes and frameworks will not necessarily apply when analysing the
implications of RFID tags in waste management. There are additional layers of complexity
in the process chains that need to be considered and this will be elaborated on more fully
in the following sections.
4.1.2 Waste objects and RFID tags: single material objects and complex objects
Depending on the collection systems, waste streams are either homogeneous and composed
of similar materials, or heterogeneous due to the mixture of different materials. It is
important to state from the start that the implications of RFID tags on waste streams
cannot be generalised. This is because a distinction needs to be made between RFID tags
that contribute to an existing range of materials in a waste stream (e.g., mixed waste
streams) and those that contribute to a specific increase of special/unwanted components
(which may be the case for most single material streams). Understanding this requires an
appreciation of the different waste streams themselves, as well as their ultimate purpose.
One way of distinguishing between waste streams is the utilisation of the EU waste codes;
another is to ask whether a waste stream is providing a single material for material recycling
or not.
Separately collected waste streams can either be developed to isolate specific materials or to
concentrate specific properties. Table 14 gives an overview of the type of waste streams
from private households and commercial areas, why the waste stream exists and what its
properties are.
Complex objects, however, have different complexities depending on the design. The
impact that is created by an RFID tag depends on whether the waste stream is already
heterogeneous or the single object it is attached to is already complex.
The impact will also depend on the type of treatment process required. Material recycling,
for example, usually has high purity requirements and the recovery of pure materials
becomes more complex with an increasing number of materials in a waste stream or the
complexity of an object.
74
In fact, even attaching an RFID tag to a single material object means the recycling becomes
more complex. It is therefore expected that adding a composite (in this case the RFID tag)
to processes designed for the treatment of single material objects will increase treatment
costs. Conversely, there is not necessarily an impact for complex objects, because they
already consist of a variety of different materials and the processes are already designed to
cope with the related technical problems (e.g., the liberation of material compounds such
as beverage cartons or electronic equipment such as cell phones or computers).
The level of complexity of materials and objects will determine what technologies can be
applied for recycling recovery or disposal. Complex objects usually require dismantling,
deconstruction or comminution to liberate the materials contained within them. If
possible, these liberated materials are purified to an extent that allows them to be fed into
material reuse/recycling processes. Another possibility is that compounds are used in the
same process; either according to an overall calorific value that qualifies for energy recovery
or, in the case of material recycling, because all unwanted materials except the target
material can be removed or destroyed.12 Yet another option is that RFID tags can be
removed manually or remain applied to dismantled parts from complex objects and go into
the subsequent recycling or energy recovery steps. An example of this option is an RFID
tag applied to a plastic part of a laptop: if the tag is not removed, it will be fed into the
plastic recycling process and possible impacts could take place there. Conversely, the
primary dismantling process would not be influenced by the presence of the tag.
With the basic considerations that underpin this analysis in place, the impact of RFID tags
on each of the EOL phases identified and summarised above will now be considered.
4.2 The impact of RFID tags on waste collection processes

In Figure 23, which summarises the EOL phases, collection takes place in the “collection
logistics phase”. Collection includes municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and
industrial waste. MSW comprises a wide range of materials. Many different types of
collection schemes are established, with wide variations in the types of recyclable materials
targeted by individual authorities. This emanates from the different characteristics of the
households and commercial structures within an area and the interrelationships between
the various collection systems, sorting methods and frequency of collection, and also from
the requirements of those processing and utilising the collected material. In addition,
residual waste and different recyclable materials can be collected separately with different
collection frequencies or separate collecting equipment. In the UK, for example,
recyclables can be collected with the residual waste and picked up by the same vehicle
using different-coloured sacks to differentiate the materials (Letcher & Vallero 2011).
12
For example, the utilisation of printed circuit board assemblies (PCBAs) in smelting processes, where the
plastics applied are oxidised in the smelting process while metals are obtained as secondary raw materials
75
Despite this variation and locally contingent complexity, in general collection systems can
be divided into two categories: collection from the waste producer either with waste
containers/trash bins or containerless collection; and bring-it-yourself systems. Figure 25
gives an overview of the general collection logistic system in waste management.
Source: Kranert & Cord-Landwehr (2010)
Figure 25. Waste management collection logistics
Since RFID tags are smaller than the objects they are attached to, the capacity of collection
containers and waste bins will not be affected by them. In addition, the average RFID tag
mass and density (described in Section 2.3) is very low and comparable to materials such as
plastics. The fact that tags are flexible and embedded in or on top of other objects means
that they will usually imitate the objects’ physical behaviour, and have no considerable
influence on the bulk density of the collected materials. Therefore, overall no increase of
mass per unit of volume of waste can be expected and the impact of RFID technology on
this aspect of collection will be minimal.
RFID technology can be used in conjunction with PAYT collection systems (see Chapter
6), and this may have a more significant impact on collection logistics. This scenario is
considered in more detail in Part B of this study.
4.3 The impact of RFID tags on different waste processing systems
This section outlines how RFID tags behave in treatment systems. It discusses the
processes as well as how different steps work and what has been tested or is expected from
RFID tags.
76
4.3.1 Mechanical-biological waste treatment (MBT)

Mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) is found in the waste processing phase (see Figure
23). MBT is the name given to a technological system that does not represent a specific
technical set-up, but is, in general, a combination of mechanical and biological treatment
steps aiming to minimise the impacts of municipal solid waste disposal while at the same
time offering an alternative to incineration prior to landfilling. Depending on the system,
these goals can be realised to varying extents.
The use of MBT throughout Europe is displayed in Figure 26. It is clear that especially in
Italy and Austria a high coverage has been established.
Source: Steiner (2007)
Figure 26. The use of MBT technology in Europe 2006
The general design of an MBT plant can be described as a four-step process: comminution,
conditioning (with sorting), biological treatment and, in some cases, additional mechanical
processing. This basic design and process is depicted in Figure 27.
77
Figure 27. Basic scheme of an MBT plant
The purpose of the comminution and the mechanical processing technologies in the
conditioning phase is usually the generation of material streams with a reduced organic
content and a stream in which the organic matter is concentrated. The material streams
extracted before the biological treatment generally go for energy recovery or material
recycling in the case of the metals. The biological process is usually composting (in some
cases a part of the material is anaerobically digested). The target of the biological treatment
is to reduce the GHG emission potential that would be unlocked through anaerobic
digestion of the readily degradable carbon inside the landfill body. If the contained organic
matter is reduced in content, the generation of landfill gas through fermentation of
organics in landfills is reduced.
In the following paragraphs the different steps are described in further detail and
consideration is given to their target, functional concept and the effect of RFID tags.
Comminution
This first step and its processes are designed to liberate compounds and create a steady
material flow for the subsequent process steps. To some extent the plant is designed to
withstand mechanical stress and so none of the components in RFID tags would be large
enough to create any problems. Even though metals and silica are part of the tags, they will
be present in comparably low quantities and will therefore not create a problem.
Conditioning phase
The conditioning phase is usually comprised of screening processes that separate the
material stream according to particle size. This phase also includes processes that sort
materials by density or object geometry. The separation of metals happens via magnetic
separation or eddy current separators. None of these processes are likely to suffer from the
presence of RFID tags.
Biological treatment
Biological treatment is either aerobic or anaerobic. Both procedures depend on process
parameters, such as the proportion of biodegradable material. RFID tags will not
contribute to this, even if bio-polymers or biodegradable plastics are used, as the duration
of the biological process is usually not sufficient for bio-polymers to be
fermented/composted. However, the biological processes could suffer from materials or
substances that are either bio-toxic or antiseptic. If active or semi-active tags contain a
battery, they should be prevented from reaching wastes going into biological processes.
This could happen either through legislation that precludes batteries from waste designated
for biological treatment, or through technical installations that could be used to separate
78
metallic and metal-containing objects. With increasing quantities or metallic and metal-
containing objects likely due to the processes in the comminution step, damaged batteries
could cause the exposure of leaking chemicals into the processes.
Table 16 summarises the list of mechanical processes that are applied in MBT plants and
the way tags would interact with the processes and the negative impacts that could occur
when the technologies are confronted with RFID tags.
Table 16. Behaviour of RFID tags in mechanical waste treatment steps
Negative impacts on the

Process Interaction with RFID tags
process
Tags either pass without size reduction

Comminution -
or get destroyed
Tags are being redirected according to
Screening -
their size
Wind sifting -
mass-surface ratio
Ballistic separation -
object geometry
Tags are only discarded in the metal
Magnetic separation -
fraction, if applied on ferrous objects
Tags are only ejected if applied on
Eddy current separation -
non-ferrous metals
Conveying processes Tags are transported -
Overall, it can be concluded that RFID tags without batteries and the composition
described in Section 2.3 will not have negative effects that could compromise the
functionality of MBT plants. However, tags that do not have this composition could have
more negative impacts.
4.3.2 Material recovery facilities (MRFs)
Material recovery facilities (MRFs) are found in the “subsidiary purification phase” (see
Figure 23). MRF is a collective denomination for plants that incorporate the same basic
mechanical processing technologies as MBT. The difference is that no biological treatment
of any kind takes place, which is why MRFs are usually not as suitable for waste streams
with organic components and high moisture content.
The second aspect that distinguishes MBT from MRF is its main objective. MBT
technology has been developed as an alternative to incineration, with regard to treating
waste before landfilling so that fermentation processes (of biodegradable material) in the
landfill body generate less landfill gas (CH4 and CO2) (Steiner, 2007). The MRF, on the
other hand, aims to transfer materials that are suitable for material recovery into either
products or a refuse-derived fuel to be used in energy recovery processes. In essence, all
sorting facilities for dry waste materials, such as waste from deconstruction and
construction or commercial waste, separately collected paper, separately collected glass or
light packaging waste, fall under this category. In each case, the facilities are specifically
designed according to the materials being treated.
Most MRFs contain comminution, mechanical conditioning and sorting and purification
steps, just like MBT plants. The differences lie in the types of plant used, the order in
79
which the steps are applied, the magnitude and the materials to be sorted. Figure 28
captures most standard MRF applications.
material for
material for
thermal treatment
material recycling
of landfilling
material for
MSW comminution conditioning phase sorting phase thermal treatment
or landfilling
material for energy

recovery or co-
combustion

Figure 28. Basic scheme of an MRF
The basic processes that are applied in the comminution step and the conditioning phase
are comparable to the technologies in MBT plants. The differences according to the
processing target manifest themselves through the use of various screen sizes, air classifiers
and specific operational aspects. MRFs often use more sophisticated sorting processes and
technologies to concentrate materials for recycling.
Figure 29 displays the complexity of an advanced processing plant in Germany that sorts
light packaging waste. Comparable schemes apply for comingled waste in which not only
packaging materials but also other objects consisting of the same materials, are treated for
either material recycling or energy recovery (co-combustion).
80
Input
Trommel Trommel
middle Screen fine fine
screen screen
oversize grob
Overband
Airknife Airknife coarse ferrous
magnet
Overband
ferrous NIR-Sensor PGA Airknife
magnet
scrap
contraries Picking cabin Picking cabin NIR-Sensor
film
Mix plastic
tetra
Seperator for
tetra Picking cabin NIR-Sensor
non-ferrous
plastic Non-ferrous
residue Ballistic
NIR-Sensor NIR-Sensor
seperator
PPK
lights heavy
NIR-Sensor
Mix plastic NIR-Sensor
tetra aluminium
PET
Picking cabin PE NIR-Sensor NIR-Sensor
PPK PET PE PS Mix plastic

Source: Sutco (2010)
Figure 29. Exemplified advanced scheme of a light packaging waste sorting plant
Depending on the different sorting targets, various technologies have been developed.
Physical sorting technologies, such as magnetic separation and eddy current separation, are
81
still used, but the state-of-the-art in waste material sorting is the application of sensor-
based sorting equipment. These systems work as non-destructive processes, consisting of an
emitter, a sensor, a computer system and an ejection system. Table 17 indicates how
different sensor systems work and how RFID tags would interact with them.
Table 17. Behaviour of RFID tags in sensor-based sorting systems
Process Interaction with RFID tags Impacts on the process
Changes in a reflected near infrared spectrum are

measured to identify objects, only materials on the
Near infrared sorting -
surface are identified in the case of RFID tags,
plastic or paper
A ccd-camera measures the colour of the surface
VIS sorting of objects. Tags would be decided upon according -
to their colour.
Copper coils under a conveyor belt measure
whether conductive objects (metals) are on the
Induction sorting belt. The areal material of RFID tags can be -
recognised (with limitations regarding the distance
between tag and sensor)
X-rays are emitted to the material and a sensor on
the opposite site measures the absorption.
X-ray sorting Depending on the sensor settings and the -
resolution, RFID tags could be measured (with
limitations)

The table shows that the functionality of the applied technologies will not be compromised
by the presence of RFID tags. Experts consulted during this study also expect that the tags
will be sorted with the materials and objects they are applied too and that there will be no
effect on functionality. However, the question of how exactly tags behave in the processes
can only be answered after extensive testing and this has not yet been done.
4.3.3 Thermal treatment
Thermal treatment technologies are another type of waste treatment processing and can be
differentiated by their physical-chemical processes. Thermal processes are categorised by
their main objective of either disposal or (energy) recovery. Disposal involves the
elimination of hazardous potential and the volume reduction of waste, while (energy)
recovery encompasses energy generation or substitution of primary raw materials.
Depending on the temperature of the treatment technology and the surrounding
atmosphere, the different stages of the thermal treatment process are drying, pyrolysis,
gasification and incineration (Kranert & Cord-Landwehr, 2010).
In the 27 Member States, thermal treatment processes are applied in different waste
categories. Figure 30 gives an overview of the ratio of incinerated waste categories in the
EU.
82
Sorting residues
9.5%
Chemical wastes
2.9%
Common sludges Household and
2.5% similar waste
38.8% Household and similar waste
Hazardous waste Other non-hazardous wastes
8.1%
Hazardous waste
Common sludges
Chemical wastes
Sorting residues
Other non-hazardous
wastes
38.2%
Source: Schrör (2011)
Figure 30. Incinerated waste in the EU-27 by waste category in 2008
To develop a better understanding of the relevance of this treatment technology across the
EU and ultimately to RFID tags, Figure 31compares the generated municipal waste and
incinerated waste, including energy recovery, in all 27 Member States over a period of ten
years. Since waste incineration requires relatively high investment, the correlation with the
different Member State clusters as well as the GDP per capita (see Section 3.4) is also
reflected in the Figure. It can be seen that thermal treatment is a fundamental part of waste
management in all of the Member States in the first cluster. This suggests that thermal
treatment or waste incineration may play an important role in future waste management in
the EU.
83
900
800
700
600
[kg/capita*a]
[kg/capita*a]
500
quantities
amount
400
Waste
300
200
100
1999
waste generation
2000 2001
1999-2009
2002 2003 2004 incineration
2005 2006
incl. energy
2007 recovery
2008 1999-2009
2009
Source: Eurostat (2011b)
Figure 31. Amount of generated and incinerated waste in the EU-27 (1999–2009)
Nowadays, almost every thermal waste treatment process is equipped with some kind of
energy recovery system (heat, electricity). The most common thermal treatment process for
the destruction of organic contaminants in industrial and municipal waste is incineration.
Incineration facilities differ in the design of their combustion chamber. The most
commonly used waste incinerators are equipped with grate combustion systems (European
Commission, 2006b). Today’s incineration processes are designed for a wide range of
chemical compositions already contained in MMSW. Therefore, the presence of RFID
tags in the waste streams is not likely to cause any problems (VDI/VDE, 2007). This
conclusion is also made on the basis that the materials incorporated in RFID tags are
introduced into the process through other objects in the waste streams.
As an alternative to grate combustion systems, fluidised bed incinerators are often used for
mechanically pre-treated materials like refuse-derived fuel (RDF) or solid recovered fuel
(SRF). Pre-treatment of the material is necessary, because usually there are requirements
concerning particle size, energy content and contained substances. This means
heterogeneous mixed wastes such as MMSW cannot enter this system. Due to the fact that
during the pre-treatment not all unwanted materials are discharged, the techniques used in
fluidised bed incinerators are usually able to handle a moderate level of impurities.
Therefore, hardly any impacts from RFID tags on this combustion technology are
expected.
Other thermal treatment processes for disposal of hazardous waste, sewage sludge or
clinical waste must also be evaluated. Widely applied techniques for such wastes are rotary
84
kiln, static furnace and fluidised bed technology. Static furnace and rotary kiln
technologies are very simple and robust thermal processes that primarily aim to reduce the
hazardous potential of hazardous and clinical waste. Due to the robustness of these
processes, RFID tags are not expected to have an impact on these techniques.
However, in the case of co-combustion of RDF or SRF13 in cement kilns or in coal power
plants, limited values of copper are defined by the plant operators and usually depend on
bilateral agreements between the producer of RDF or SRF and the operator of incineration
or waste-to-energy plants. Therefore, the copper content may have to be considered.14
Limitations on aluminium and silver were not mentioned in this context (Beckmann
& Ncube, 2007).
In addition to the actual combustion technology, the output streams of thermal treatment
processes require attention. As displayed in Figure 32 solid residues from incineration
processes can be found in bottom ash (or bottom slag), boiler ash, flue ash, filter dust, salts
and loaded activated carbon from the flue gas cleaning.
Source: ITAD (2011)
Figure 32. Residues of waste incineration processes
The treatment of bottom ash – the main output of an incineration process – involves
mechanic processing and ageing to stabilise the ash before it meets the criteria for use as a
secondary building material or landfill. The mechanic processing mainly combines
13
RDF and SRF from mechanical and mechanical-biological treatment of MSW often contain light packaging
materials with high calorific values. In the case of extensive tagging of product packaging, increased entry of
RFID tags into RDFs and SRFs can be expected
14
The copper content estimated for RFID tags with copper aerials is 2 to 3 orders of magnitude higher than
proposed limit values
85
screening and extraction of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, which can be recycled. Usually
the aged ash can be used for the construction of roads or landfill construction. However,
one limitation to the recycling of bottom ash in construction applications is the amount of
heavy metals that can be washed out of the ash. Therefore, the only relevant matter to
consider in the impact of RFID tags is the copper contained from the aerial, which could
increase the amount of copper in bottom ash and make it more difficult to recycle in other
applications.
After bottom ash, solid residues from the flue gas cleaning are the next biggest waste stream
in an incineration process. Due to the high content of salts, heavy metals and organic
pollutants, this waste stream is categorised as hazardous. To prepare this waste stream for
landfilling, it may have to be treated to meet the waste acceptance criteria (WACs) of the
Landfill Directive. For example, organic pollutants can be destroyed with additional
thermal treatment. The same applies to prepared filter dust and other solid residues of flue
gas cleaning, which are usually classed as hazardous and require further treatment.
It is noteworthy, however, that aluminium particles found in the solid residues of flue gas
cleaning were found to be responsible for the generation of gaseous hydrogen (Metschke et
al., 2005). Experts believe the aluminium particles come from aluminium-coated
packaging materials. If proved true, thin aluminium aerials of RFID tags are likely to show
a similar behaviour and contribute to the production of hydrogen.
The gaseous output of the incineration process – the flue gas – is treated in an additional
cleaning process to ensure that emission limits are not exceeded. Zinc, nickel and copper
are the only components contained in tags for which the Incineration Directive provides
emission limits. The incorporation of both the Waste Incineration Directive and the IPPC
Directive into the Industrial Emission Directive (2010/75/EU) (transposition starts in
January 2013) requires an examination of the emission limit values for that directive.
To summarise, the impacts of RFID tags on thermal treatment processes are not expected
to be great for most of the processes and treatment steps, including for grate combustion
systems, fluidised bed incinerators and thermal treatment processes for hazardous wastes.
However, there may be some impacts resulting from the treatment of the incineration
output streams, including bottom ash and flue gas cleaning.
4.4 Final disposal at landfills
The final disposal of waste at landfills is regulated through the Landfill Directive
(1999/31/EC). Landfilling is defined as a “final disposal” EOL (see Figure 23).
In the EU, landfilling is still the predominant disposal route for MSW. In 2004, about 45
percent of the total MSW was landfilled, while less than 20 percent was incinerated
(European Environment Agency, 2007) Figure 33 makes it clear that in the majority of the
Member States landfilling is the most significant disposal operation.
86
700
600
500
400
kg/cap*year
300
200
100
1995 2000 2005 2009
Source: Eurostat (2012)
Figure 33. MSW disposal in landfills 1995–2009
The Landfill Directive divides landfills into three categories, for which different
requirements for pollution control systems as well as limit values regarding the properties
of the waste received (waste acceptance criteria) are defined (European Commission,
1999). The following table summarises the existing landfill categories and provides a short
description of the waste that is accepted.
Table 18. Landfill categories and their connected disposed waste
Landfill categories Deposited waste

Landfills for inert waste Glass-based fibrous materials
Glass packaging
Collected C & D wastes
Glass from different sources
Soil and stones
Landfills for non-hazardous waste municipal waste; stable non-reactive hazardous waste (e.g.,
solidified, vitrified)
Landfills for hazardous waste hazardous wastes that fulfil the requirements defined in Chapter 3 of
Annex II of the Landfill Directive
Landfills contain barriers to prevent negative effects on the soil and atmosphere. A landfill
bottom liner protects the soil and groundwater from leachate, which is collected and
treated so that polluting substances are not emitted. Furthermore, landfill gas mainly
coming from the degradation of organic material is captured and flared or used for energy
recovery. These aspects, as well as limit values that are part of the waste acceptance criteria,
have to be considered when RFID tags are landfilled. Though Member States differ in
their adoption of the Landfill Directive into their national law, limit values do constitute a
87
minimum requirement and are used as a baseline for our assessment of the impact of RFID
tags (European Commission DG ENV, 2007).
Copper used in RFID tags could be a cause for concern when considering the potential for
soil contamination (Aliaga et al., 2011). An estimation of the quantities required to
generate an impact cannot be foreseen, but according to the durability of the materials
enclosing the aerial in the tag it is expected that effects could occur in the medium or long
term. The behaviour of crushed RFID tags in the leaching test used to determine
compliance with waste acceptance criteria has not yet been investigated. However,
compared to other materials normally contained in wastes for final disposal in landfills,
RFID tags are not considered to contribute to a significant increase in the polluting
potential. In addition, emissions resulting from their decomposition fall under the scope of
the safety measures installed. This implies that no significant impact on the operation of
landfills or on their emissions is expected from RFID tags.
4.5 Recycling and the impact of RFID tags in different waste streams
Recycling treatment processes occur in the EOL phase entitled “provisioning of recycling
material” (see Figure 23). Recycling and treatment processes differ according to the
properties of the input streams and the target materials. In addition, different weaknesses
exist with regard to impurities in the processes. The following section describes the main
conditioning and recycling steps and evaluates where and if RFID tags can be removed and
what impacts are to be expected through their presence. In this analysis, the processes are
either fed with separately collected materials or with concentrates from MRFs.
4.5.1 Metals
The last steps in the recycling of metals are the pyro- or hydrometallurgical processes. The
feed material to these processes has to fulfil certain quality criteria regarding the chemical
composition and the limitation of impurities.
In the chain of recycling processes, the metals are first extracted from the waste streams and
then purified until they meet the requirements that qualify them as feed material for the
respective metallurgical processes. Metals contained in complex materials such as ELVs or
WEEE or in heterogeneous waste streams will have been concentrated and purified in
order to qualify as feed material.15
Because of the different metallurgical processes and the different techniques for the
extraction from heterogeneous waste streams, metals are subdivided into ferrous and non-
ferrous metals for further analysis.
Ferrous metals
Iron metallurgy is divided into steel making and the manufacture of cast iron. In Figure 34
the treatment of a ferrous (Fe) metal fraction in a steel making process is displayed. After
collection, post-consumer waste is pre-treated to extract ferrous metals and concentrate
them in a ferrous fraction. This separated fraction is made molten in a converter (EAF or
LD-Process) together with other scrap metal.
15
This process is described in Section 4.1
88
In the converter process, copper, which may be introduced into a ferrous concentrate via
diverse routes, dissolves in the melt and forms an alloy with the iron. Due to the decreasing
quality of the steel product when there are high levels of copper content, copper is an
unwanted element in steel making. For all grades, the target copper content is less than
0.50 percent (European Steel Scrap Specification 2005). Copper is not a specific RFID tag
problem, because the copper content in common metal scrap is much higher than the
share that is added through the tags (Behrendt, 2004). However, due to the fact that the
presence of copper is cumulative because it is not extracted at any point in the treatment
process, some industry associations are demanding a complete reject of copper-based RFID
tags on all steel products (American Iron and Steel Institute, 2006).
Silver also dissolves in the iron melt. However, in contrast to copper, silver is rarely present
in the ferrous concentrate. If the analytical content of copper or silver in the melt is too
high for the desired alloy, the melt can only be diluted with crude iron.
The behaviour of aluminium is totally different from that of copper. In a converter
process, aluminium is oxidised and transferred almost completely to the slag. Therefore an
aluminium aerial will have no impact on the quality of a steel product, but may increase
the amounts of slag.
Figure 34. Treatment of ferrous metal waste
Non-metallic (mostly organic) contents in non-homogeneous metal waste like coatings,

compounds or residuals (e.g., paper labels), are not a problem for the converter process due
to the high temperature. Organic matter is combusted in the converter process and thus is
transferred to the gas phase. In the case of RFID tags the paper and plastic content would
be burnt and the silicon of the chip would be retained in the slag.
89
Non-ferrous metals
The recycling of non-ferrous metals can be roughly divided into copper and aluminium
recycling. One important characteristic is the oxidation potential of the metals that allows
the extraction of different elements contained in a melt by selective oxidation. The
oxidation potential of copper is less than that of most other metals. This means that by
bubbling oxygen through a copper melt, metals with a greater oxidation potential can be
extracted. The opposite is true for aluminium, which exhibits one of the highest oxidation
potentials of the mass metals. Therefore, non-ferrous metal concentrates are further
separated into a light fraction (or aluminium concentrate) and a heavy fraction (copper
concentrate) as displayed in Figure 35. If detached from the carrier material during
separation based on differences in density, there is a chance of extracting RFID tags as a
process residue.
Figure 35. Separation of non-ferrous metals
Aluminium route
Due to the strong oxygen affinity of aluminium, the selective oxidation of unwanted
elements in the melt is hardly applicable. As a result there is little chance of purifying
molten aluminium other than by dilution with pure aluminium (Martens, 2011).
Since it cannot be dealt with as an output, the primary means of influencing and
controlling the composition of the aluminium melt is through regulation of the input
materials. A broad knowledge of the alloy composition of the input material is the basis for
the calculation of the composition of the product. Also, the melt can be contaminated by
coatings like varnishes, pigments, plastics or printings. Categorisation of the scrap
aluminium by the European Standard EN 13920 helps to prevent contamination of melts
(CEN, 2003). However, if contaminated, scrap aluminium has to be pre-treated in a
thermal process (e.g., pyrolysis). According to experts, the estimated composition of RFID
tags with aluminium aerials does not meet criteria that would allow their use as an input in
secondary aluminium processes.16
In Figure 36 the treatment of a light non-ferrous metal fraction in an aluminium route is
displayed.
16
An off-specification batch of RFID tags with solely aluminium aerials would not be accepted
90
Light metal fraction
Crushing
(for liberation of
components)
Non-metal orting by alloy

heavy metal
ferrous metal
composition
magnesium (purifying)
Alloy composition
Conditioning
Wrought (e.g. compacting) Cast
alloy alloy
Skimming, Skimming,
gas
Remelter Refiner gas
Wrought alloy Cast alloys

in mint condition
Separation of RFID tags or components
Figure 36. Treatment of non-ferrous metals in the aluminium route
Depending on the alloy composition, the feed material has to be differentiated into
wrought alloy and cast alloy. In wrought alloy, only a small content of alloying elements
such as Mn, Mg, Si, Li, Cu and Zn is allowed. Cast alloy can consist of a higher content of
Si, Cu, Mg and Zn (Martens, 2011). Due to the large variety of alloys in scrap aluminium,
there are no generally valid specification limits.
The recycling of aluminium concentrates extracted from heterogeneous waste streams (or
post-consumer wastes) is predominantly carried out by refiners, due to uncertainties
regarding the alloying elements/chemical composition. The higher content of alloying
elements in cast aluminium has a higher tolerance towards impurities. Remelting processes
are in place for homogeneous wrought alloy waste with better-known compositions.
In the context of extensive tagging at the item level, it is noteworthy that thin aluminium
packaging material requires a special treatment. Due to strong oxidation reactions the
amount of skimming17 is high and the melting yield is poor. To improve the results of the
melting process, thin aluminium is purified with mechanical and thermal processing
technologies. The organic components of RFID tags would probably be burnt during this
treatment while the metals would enter the melt.
17
Materials that exhibit a lower density than the melt (including aluminium oxide) float and are skimmed off
the surface of the melt or the salt covering the melt
91
In summary, alloying elements expected from RFID tags are copper, silver, nickel and
silicon. In particular, copper is an unwanted element in aluminium recycling. RFID tags
might lead to an accumulation of copper in aluminium recycling in the long term because
copper is not extracted at any point in the treatment process (Behrendt, 2004). This leads
us to consider how copper might be dealt with in the recycling process.
Copper route
In contrary to aluminium, the metallurgical copper processes offer excellent purification
possibilities along the different processing steps. Besides the separation of alloying elements
or other impurities, copper recycling also focuses on the production of concentrates of
these elements in order to recover them as secondary raw materials. Figure 37 displays the
process steps and the products from modern copper recycling processes. The variety of
possible input materials even with low copper content underlines the great tolerance of
copper recycling processes towards impurities.
Source: Deutsches Kupferinstitut (2011)
Figure 37. Flow sheet for the recovery of non-ferrous and precious metals in primary and
secondary copper mills
Organic impurities are burned and transferred to the slag or are burnt in early processing
steps involving thermal treatment. Most alloying elements in the melt can also be
transferred to the slag and extracted via selective oxidation, which applies to aluminium.
Gold and silver can be recovered during electrolysis.
Summarising, the copper route is not only considered to be unaffected by the presence of
RFID tags but is perhaps the most promising way of recovering both the energy content as
well as most metals (especially the precious metals) contained in RFID tags. However, in
the case of aluminium aerials, losses of most of the aluminium would have to be accepted.
92
4.5.2 Glass
The possibility of recycling glass is well known. It is also known, that this requires high
purities of used glass going into the recycling processes. The actual recycling happens in a
smelting process in which glass cullets and primary resources are used. One of the
advantages of glass recycling, in addition to the reduction of wastes that require disposal, is
the fact that remelting glass requires less energy than the primary production.
To ensure functionality of the smelting process, purities of over 99 percent are required.
Research shows (Erdmann at al., 2009), that these purities can only be economically
achieved through separate collection and subsidiary purification. The question of whether
RFID tags have an impact on the glass recycling process or the quality of the product
depends on if and where they can be removed in the processes prior to smelting. If they
cannot be removed, the non-combustible components such as silica and aerial material
from the RFID tags can impact on the smelting process or the quality of the glass.Figure
38 shows a flow chart for waste glass processing. In order to prepare the glass for the
subsequent sorting steps, it is crushed and screened. After this, magnet and eddy current
separation are used to remove the metals. In the last levels of sorting, a cascade with
different steps using optical sorters is used to remove inert objects (stones, ceramic and
porcelain) and then sort the glass cullets according to their colour until quality criteria for
the smelting process are met. The optical sorters present the most likely step in the process
chain in which RFID tags can possibly be removed. However, the ejection of glass particles
with attached RFID tags may result in a loss of material for recycling, which then goes into
disposal or lower-quality recycling. This cannot be quantified, though, without a practical
test.
93
Waste glass
Crushing
overflow
Screening
Impurities
Optical sorting (stones, ceramic,
porcelain)
Ferrous metals Magnetic separation

Optical sorting
Non-ferrous Eddy current

metals separation
Separation of RFID tags or components Green glass White glass Brown glass
Glass smelters Glass smelters Glass smelters
Source: INTECUS (2011)
Figure 38. Treatment of waste glass with conventional and sensor-based treatment steps
The metal separation steps (magnetic separation and eddy current separation) are able to
separate metal parts with a minimum particle size of around 0.6 mm (Zeiger, 2005). Our
own tests with eddy-current separation proved that tags are highly unlikely to be extracted
with this technology.
If the tags are attached to a label, for example, the tag is rejected during an optical sorting
step with other impurities. When the RFID tag is attached to the transparent part of the
glass product, this can reduce the efficiency of the separation with the automated sorters.
The success of this method depends on the recognisability of impurities. The small size of
the tag can prevent the optical sorting system from declaring the tag as “opaque” (Aliaga et
al., 2011) and, therefore, may direct a glass cullet with the attached RFID tag into the
stream designated for the material recycling.
Expert interviews and literature (in particular Erdmann et al., 2009) state that the
recognition process of RFID tags on glass cullets through a sensor-based sorting technology
should be supported by the proper application of tags on glass containers. The attachment
should happen on labels or caps of glass bottles instead of on the glass itself and should not
be transparent in order to increase the separation efficiency.
94
4.5.3 Plastics
In the recycling of plastic, the main polymer types are significant. The European demand
for different polymers is shown in Figure 39. In 2010, the total demand amounted to
approx. 46.4 billion kg.
Source: PlasticsEurope (2011)
Figure 39. Plastic demand in Europe 2010 by polymer
It is necessary to focus on the main polymers and isolate them, because a mixture of
polymers results in a decreased quality of recycling products and complicates or prevents
their utilisation in the primary industry. To understand possible sources for waste plastic,
the areas of application need to be considered and the resulting way of disposing of objects
has to be taken into account. Source: PlasticsEurope (2011)
Figure 40 shows that the two main areas of application of plastics are packaging and the
building and construction industry. Looking at the main areas of RFID tag application, it
becomes clear that the construction industry is not a primary issue with regard to the
application of RFID tags. The sectors this report focuses on are packaging materials,
electrical and electronic equipment and the automotive industry. While WEEE and ELVs
are complex objects and considered in Section 4.6, packaging waste is the focus of this
section.
95
Source: PlasticsEurope (2011)
Figure 40. Plastic demand in Europe according to segment
Plastics can be used in recycling processes in two main scenarios. Due to their calorific
value and the fact that plastics are oil-based products, they qualify for energy recovery
processes (with certain limitations, e.g., PVC, flame retardants) and for material recycling.
Energy recovery is discussed in Section 4.3.3.
Material recycling for all thermoplastics works on the same basic principles. Depending on
the waste source the materials have different purities. The highest qualities are usually
found in production wastes, which are in most cases directly fed back into production
processes. The next level contains separately collected fractions in the commercial sector
(e.g., PVC for installations) or PET bottles (e.g., the German beverage deposit system).
These materials need to be free of impurities such as caps, labels and objects, which have
been (wrongly) discarded with the material stream. The third level includes collected and
mixed plastics, light packaging waste and comingled wastes. These wastes usually contain
different plastic polymers and other recyclable materials, but are supposedly free from
fines, biodegradable materials and moisture. This reduces processing efforts in the
conditioning phase compared to mixed commercial or mixed municipal solid wastes. The
stages at which different waste streams enter this processing and recycling chain is
displayed in Figure 41.
96
Input materials
Light-packaging-
waste LPW,
fine, paper Conditioning phase mixed municipal
waste MMW
Increasing efforts
to produce
concentrates
that qualify for
material
recycling
Commercial
metals, mixed plastics Separation phase plastic waste
PE, PS, PET, others
Production
Residues/impurities Recycling phase residues
Separation of RFID tags or components

Products, granulates
Figure 41. Length of the chain according to the heterogeneity of the collected waste streams
Efforts necessary to derive plastics concentrates from waste streams, which are pure enough
for economically viable material recycling, increase with the heterogeneity of the waste
stream. Material recycling is usually only applied for plastics from separate collection or the
collection of light packaging waste, or comingled waste from private and commercial
sources. The scheme for the treatment of mixed recyclables (or light packaging
waste/comingled waste) was introduced in the MRF section. The applied technologies are
comparable to those from MBT plants but focus more on material recovery and use
sensor-based sorting systems for advanced separation and recovery.
97
Figure 42. Exemplified process chain for the separation and recycling of mixed collected light
packaging waste to plastic recyclate
In a standard design the polymers are pre-cleaned, which can happen after separation at
source, manually separated, density separated or separated through an automated sorting
process. In different set-ups they are then shredded into flakes, enter a washing process and
are separated according to density. This density separation happens in most cases using
centrifuges and the density of the separation media (e.g., water) is chemically adjusted
according to the density difference between the target polymer and impurities present.
It has already been pointed out that the RFID tags applied to products follow the products
through the conditioning and sorting steps. Since RFID tags are embedded in the
packaging, the tags will enter the plastic recycling facilities in which the objects are further
sorted and turned into granulate or further processed into final applications.
According to our initial consultation with experts, as well as our literature review, the
separation of RFID tags and their components is expected to take place in the density
separation step, since RFID tags contain metals, paper, adhesives and plastics that have
different densities from the polymer (Erdmann et al., 2009). However, a limited share of
metals and other impurities is expected to pass the separation and get into the extrusion
98
process. Such components can create technical disturbances blocking screens or nozzles of
extruders and can reduce the throughput (Aliaga et al., 2011).
In the German study, the Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt
(EMPA; Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology) conducted tests
with RFID tags and shredded plastics. Tags were washed in a sodium hydroxide solution
and remained in their compound, which supports the assumption that a separation in the
process is technically feasible (Erdmann et al., 2009).
According to experts (Erdmann, 2010) different actions are advisable. The adaption of
screens or the embedding of RFID tags into components in a way that supports the
separation in existing processes in one action, as is the technical analysis of tags in large-
scale tests. Future predictions regarding the development of RFID tags, their composition
and the future quantities of RFID tags also have to be considered.
For all materials entering recycling processes, purity is a major concern. Even if technical
impacts on the processes are not expected or cannot be controlled, they impact on the
processing costs and/or the quality of products. A related factor is the material loss and the
recovery rate, which both suffer from attachments that are complicated to remove.
According to experts from the plastic recycling industry in Europe (European Plastics
Recyclers, EuPR), a clear hierarchy regarding the application of other objects on plastics
for recycling is needed:
1. The number of components should be as small as possible (single materials).
2. If attachments are necessary, they should not be detachable with manual stress.
3. If mechanical influence is necessary, the following hierarchy applies
a. Detachment through mechanical stress (friction or comminution)
b. Short exposure to moisture
4. If attachments are required that cannot be detached as suggested under point 3,
the density of the attached objects or materials to the material to be recycled needs
to be significantly larger or smaller to enable separation according to density.
An increase of materials in the recyclate of mono-polymers is undesired, but different
sources exist. The idea of printing RFID tags directly onto plastic products only seems
advisable if technologies to remove the printings are available. As for the state-of-the-art
plastic recycling processes, the application of such printed electronics will otherwise be
undesired by recyclers.
4.5.4 Paper
According to recycling market research, the total potential for paper in the EU in 2006 was
approximately 80.5 billion kg and the overall recycling rate amounted to approximately 67
percent (Alwast et al., 2010).
The recycling of paper and cardboard is a well-established industry, which depends on a
separate collection of paper waste or a collection that ensures the absence of fine particles,
moisture and biodegradable material.
The process chain of paper waste from its source to the recycling plant and subsequent use
as a secondary raw material is displayed in Figure 43. The separately collected material
requires a treatment that includes the removal of pollutants such as fines and ferrous
99
objects and a sorting into different paper types (e.g., graphic papers, de-inking paper,
cardboard). This sorting can be done manually or by sensor-based sorting equipment (as
introduced in Section 4.3.2). This processing step is carried out either in special waste
sorting facilities, which represent one type of MRF, or in processing facilities that are
integrated within paper mills. The subsidiary processing, which is displayed for paper type
B in Figure 43,18 happens in a similar way to the other sorting processes. The only
difference is that the de-inking process is not applied for paper types that do not have
printings.
The different paper types are then transported to paper mills and are dissolved in a pulping
process. While paper is dissolved and exists in the process in the form of fibres, the metal
and plastic components keep their structure. This effect is used to separate impurities
before the recycling processes.
Since paper waste already contains small-scale metal and plastic objects, such as stickers or
paper clips, it is important to have separation technologies to eject these materials. Smaller
components remaining in the paper pulp are later discharged in hydro cyclones and curved
or slotted screens.
After the mechanical processing, papers with printing (especially graphic papers) will enter
a de-inking process in which washing solutions bleach the fibres and remove the colour-
giving component. After the de-inking process the fibres are “sorted” according to their
length, which basically happens through screening processes, and can then be used in the
process of paper making.
In the first phase of the processes, namely the conditioning and the manual or automated
sorting of waste paper, no impacts from the presence of RFID tags are to be expected. We
can be confident of this because these processes have already been considered in Section
4.3.1 and we saw there that no negative interactions with the processes are expected.
Therefore, tags will remain on the items they are attached to and follow them into the
subsidiary treatment paths. In the pulping process, paper-based RFID tags will be dissolved
and the metals and the chip will remain as solid objects in the solution. Plastic labels will
not be dissolved and therefore remain as complete objects. The items that are not dissolved
are then subjected to separation processes either according to densities higher or lower than
the paper pulp. This process happens directly in the pulping process itself or afterwards in
hydro cyclones or curved screens (Jansen et al., 2007).
18
A comparable set-up is applied for paper type A and cardboard in the figure
100
Figure 43. Scheme for the EOL phase of paper waste
Since separation processes are not 100 percent efficient, not all the contained materials will
be separated. However, an increase in certain materials would call for technical solutions to
solve this issue. Consider, for instance, if the separation of the RFID tags or the materials
contained in tags increases the content of metals, plastic components and inert
components in the residues from paper recycling processes. These residues are mainly used
in incineration processes or landfilled (Goroyias et al., 2004). With the future prospect of
printable antennae, the de-inking process could be included in the assumed process steps
in which RFID tags or their components could be removed. However, no reliable data are
available and the question of quantities requires in-depth analysis.
However, according to certain literature (Furuta et al., 2008; Erdmann et al., 2009), no
direct problems for the technical processes of paper recycling are expected. However, RFID
tags can influence the composition of solid and liquid residues and thereby impact on
disposal costs. The question of whether RFID tags increase or decrease costs depends on
the composition of the material and the applied disposal processes. The only highlighted
problem was that the increasing amount of adhesives in the pulp may result in an increase
of “stickies” (adhesives and fibres that are agglomerated). The “stickies” are a general
problem, which also result from other sources of adhesives (e.g., price tags, stickers, post-
its, envelopes). A solution that could help to avoid this problem is to choose adhesives that
can be dissolved in water. The German Adhesive Association stated that the problem with
the selection of adhesives that are more suitable for recycling is that different preferences
are connected with different recycling processes. The selection of ideal adhesives needs to
be related to the exact application and the state-of-the-art recycling process (TKPV 2009).
The application of low-density separation systems was connected with a reduced adhesive
content in the recyclate, but also with a loss in the yield of recyclate and an increased
energy consumption in the recycling process (Furuta et al., 2008).
101
This analysis of paper recycling processes indicates that the proper choice of embedment of
RFID tags on paper objects can have a positive effect on the recyclability and a better
predictability of the point in the recycling chain at which RFID tags can be separated from
the recyclate. A technical recommendation is that a proper choice of embedding would
probably be most effective in the prevention of impacts on recycling processes.
4.5.5 Beverage cartons
Beverage cartons were developed as light packaging solutions for highly perishable liquid
goods, like milk or juices; the packaging for one litre weights less than 30g. They are made
of different materials, which are combined into a composite. There are two different types
of beverage cartons.
The first type is composed of three layers. The inner and outer layers are made of polymer
(mainly polyethylene (PE) and account for about 20 percent of the total weight. The
middle layer is made of cardboard (c. 80 percent of the total weight) and provides
structural stability. This type of beverage carton is mainly used for milk and liquid with
low acidity.
The second type of beverage carton is made from more layers than the first type. It consists
of several polymer layers (c. 21 percent of the total weight), an additional aluminium layer
(c. 4 percent of the total weight) and a cardboard layer (c. 75 percent of the total weight),
which is applied as central layer of the compound. The polymer and the additional layers
prevent the content from interacting with light and oxygen. These beverage cartons are in
use for acidic contents (e.g., juice) (FKN, 2011a).
This waste stream is part of light packaging materials. It can be collected separately and fed
into recycling after collection. Alternatively, paper is collected with other packaging wastes
and the recycling takes place after proper purification, for example, in treatment plants for
packaging waste (MRF).
The separated or purified beverage cartons are treated as displayed in Figure 44. The sorted
product from the MRF treatment facility is processed in a similar way to paper and
cardboard.
102
Beverage cartons
Shredding
Pulper
Polymers/
Hole-slot sorter
aluminium
Paper pulp
Source: FKN (2011b)
Figure 44. Treatment of beverage cartons
The first step in the recycling process is the shredding of the beverage cartons to allow the
dissolution of the cardboard fibres. The shredded material is then conveyed into a drum
pulper. Here, the cardboard content is dissolved while polymers and aluminium remain
solid. The next step is the liberation of the pulp, polymer and aluminium. This can be
accomplished, for example, with hole-slot sorters, in which the dissolved fibres are
separated from solid contents (FKN 2011b). The pulp is then used to produce new
paper/cardboard products. The processing residues are a mix of polymers, aluminium and
other impurities, which are mainly used for energy recovery. A new treatment process is
being developed to recover aluminium from the dissolved fibre/solid mixture. This process
converts the polymers into gas and then separates the solid aluminium. Thus, the
aluminium content can be reused as a secondary raw material. The test plant was, however,
closed in 2008 for economic reasons (FKN 2011b).
Since RFID tags are applied on the outer polymer of a beverage carton, the tags are
expected to be ejected into the residues and thereby into the stream that is used for energy
recovery. The impact of RFID tags on this stream, then, is expected to be minimal.
To summarise, the impacts of RFID tags on secondary raw material provisioning processes,
including metal, glass, paper, plastic and beverage carton recycling, are varied. The metal
recyclates and alloying elements expected from RFID tags are copper, silver, nickel and
silicon. Of these only copper is considered to be problematic and particularly so in the
recycling of non-ferrous metals through the aluminium recycling route. However, the
copper recycling route of non-ferrous metals is not only considered to be unaffected by the
presence of RFID tags, but also poses the most promising way of recovering both the
103
energy content as well as most metals (especially the precious metals) contained in RFID
tags.
4.6 Subsidiary purification phase
The final EOL phase considered in this analysis is the subsidiary purification phase. This
phase includes MRF treatment processes, as well as the dismantling of WEEE and ELVs.
Since MRF was already considered earlier due to its similarities with MBT processes, we
only consider the impacts of RFID tags on WEEE and ELV dismantling here.
4.6.1 Waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE)
The treatment or disassembly of WEEE appears as part of the EOL subsidiary purification
phase (see Figure 23). The treatment of waste generated through the disposal of electric
and electronic equipment is subjected to a separate treatment to fulfil the requirements of
Directive 2002/96/EC, as amended. Electric and electronic equipment belong to a group
of complex objects, which is why the impact of RFID technology is only considered when
the separation of dismantled EEE into materials or mixtures destined for recycling, energy
recovery or disposal occurs. The recycling targets in the Directive vary, depending on the
type of application, between a minimum of 70 percent and 80 percent by an average
weight per appliance, and between 50 percent and 75 percent of components, material and
substances reuse and recycling by an average weight per appliance.
The dismantling process for EEE is displayed in Figure 45. Dismantling includes manual
dismantling and depollution and depends on the types of items that are being treated.
After this first step, the comminution aims to liberate the materials with the main mass
share, and they are purified for further recycling, energy recovery or disposal.
104
Figure 45. Treatment of WEEE
For complex EEE objects, recycling and recovery require the separation of materials
contained in the compounds and the creation of qualities or purities that can be applied in
recycling processes.
As no fixed scheme for the application of RFID tags to EEE are defined, the question as to
which parts and especially to which materials RFID tags are attached depends on the
composition and design of the item, which is why no fixed way of application can yet be
estimated. However, the function of RFID tags is reduced when directly attached to
metals, which is why they are expected to be attached to plastic parts. According to experts,
RFID tags will probably end up in the plastic residues or, as a result of being detached
during comminution, in filtration residues.
While metals are separated for material recycling, plastics are subjected to material
recycling or energy recovery depending on the qualities and the efforts necessary to create
concentrates suitable for recycling (Brusselaers et al., 2006).
105
Alternatively, one might also use metal-enriched plastics from WEEE treatment directly in
smelting processes in which the plastic serves as fuel and the metals can be recovered
through the process (Brusselaers et al., 2006). In either case, since the materials contained
in RFID tags are not generally different to the mixture of EEE in general, no problems in
such treatment or recovery paths are expected.
Therefore, our analysis suggests that the presence of RFID tags on EEE or components is
not expected to cause any disturbances or reduce the efficiency of dismantling processes or
specific recycling processes for material streams from the dismantling of WEEE.
4.6.2 End-of-life vehicles (ELVs)
The treatment or disassembly and shredding of WEEE belongs to the “subsidiary
purification phase”. The requirements regarding the recycling of ELVs are defined by
weight percentages. The targets of the directive are shown in Table 19.
Table 19. Treatment requirements of the ELV Directive
Reuse and recovery Reuse and recycling
2006 85% by average weight per car 80% by average weight per car
2015 95% by average weight per car 85% by average weight per car

According to a study (GHK, 2006) that examine the benefits of the ELV Directive and the
costs and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for recycling, reuse and recovery under
the ELV Directive, car manufacturers are considering “post-shredder technologies” as the
way to treat ELVs and PELVs.19 A large number of vehicles are sold into neighbouring
countries before reaching the EOL phase. These cars are not considered since they are still
traded as functional objects regarding their original purpose.
Cars that are being treated according to the directive are supposed to be treated in
authorised treatment facilities (ATF). The first step in the state-of-the-art treatment is to
drain fluids, such as oil, petrol and brake fluid, and direct them into the applicable
recycling or disposal paths. The liquids are not further considered in this study. Other
objects that are removed are mainly batteries and in some cases, parts that can be used as
spares. Especially in the latter case, no reliable quantities are available and tags on these
parts would leave the EOL phase through their re-application.
After draining and dismantling, the major mass share (car body) is fed into a comminution
process. The shredded materials are then separated according to their density. The so-
called automotive shredder residues (mainly the light fraction) contain plastics, textiles and
foams. The heavy fraction is further processed using ferrous and eddy current separation
technologies. The non-ferrous metals, which are separated through the eddy current
separator, are ultimately processed either using heavy media separation or automated
sorting equipment. The products consist of light (e.g., aluminium) and heavy metals (e.g.,
copper, zinc, brass). They are fed into the specific recycling paths that have been
considered previously in this section. The light residues can either be landfilled or
incinerated depending on national legislation.
19
Premature end-of-life vehicles (PELVs) are vehicles destroyed in accidents
106
Figure 46. ELV processing chain
According to our assessment of the nature of the applied dismantling and treatment
procedures, no technical problems in the treatment of ELVs containing RFID tags are
expected. Depending on the objects RFID tags are applied to and the resistance of the
connection to mechanical stress in large-scale shredders, the RFID tags are either
transported into the heavy fractions or the light fraction. Depending on the fraction, they
are subjected to different subsidiary material recycling, energy recovery or disposal
processes. All these paths have been considered in the previous sections and the
recommendations there apply. The question of whether the ELV processing chain offers
special opportunities to remove and separate RFID tags is arguable and depends on the
interaction between the complex object vehicle and the destructive dismantling process.
According to experts, the presence of RFID tags in ELV treatment and recycling processes
are not expected to provide problems. Due to the forces in shredders, experts assume that
RFID tags applied on the outside of objects will be removed and discharged through the
de-dusting systems. If not detached, the tags are likely to follow the objects they are
applied to into the subsidiary material recycling for the metals and energy recovery or
disposal for the light materials.
107
The interactions between the material and the processes do not allow assumptions as to
where RFID tags will accumulate in the process. The important point is that no negative
technical impacts on the draining, dismantling and the shredder process are expected
through the presence of RFID tags.
The impacts of RFID tags in the treatment of complex objects (exemplified by WEEE and
ELVs) can be summarised as follows. The fact that complex objects are either subjected to
dismantling and recycling of dismantled and separated material groups, shifts possible
impacts into the “recycling phase” (e.g., metal from ELVs or WEEE into metal recycling
[see Section 4.5.14.5.1]). The dismantling processes are designed not to suffer from the
presence of RFID tags. Due to the size of the tags, a controlled detachment is not expected
by experts, which is why the RFID tags either go into residual streams or follow the
materials they are applied to into the respective treatment paths.
108
CHAPTER 5 Conclusions on the impacts on waste

treatment technologies and implications
for national waste systems
x This chapter summarises the analysis conducted in Part A of the study.

x It outlines technical, environmental, economic and policy-relevant impacts of
RFID as inert objects.
x The distribution of RFID tags into waste treatment paths is modelled for one
country per cluster.
x Recommendations to support the sustainable future application of RFID
technology are given and research potential is outlined.
Chapter 5 summarises the findings from a combination of the clustering of Member States
into different levels of compliance with EU waste management targets, and the technical
considerations of possible impacts through RFID tags in different waste treatment paths,
particularly the EOL phases not considered under the Waste Framework Directive. The
overall findings from the German study (Erdmann et al., 2009) are generally verified by
this approach. The important difference between this study and the German one is that
the scope has been broadened to EU level and considers differences in waste management
in the different Member States.
The reason that RFID tags are considered controversial is that they are integrated into a
wide range of applications (and products). At the same time, the allocation of materials
into recycling streams is decided according to material (paper, glass, plastic), possible
treatment (biodegradable), complexity and hazardousness. Hence, the different
components of RFID tags find their way into different waste treatment paths. The
question being considered here is whether specific impacts from RFID tags in waste
streams can be expected, and if so, in what ways.
In order to answer this question, the impacts on the range of technical implications for
waste treatment in the Member States are used as a basis for comparison. Depending on
the waste management systems in each Member State, different ways of treating waste are
applied. The level to which a country is affected depends on the combination of quantities
109
of waste in the different systems, the number of RFID tags in the system and the type of
waste management applied (e.g., collection and treatment). To evaluate the necessity for
actions, the decision tree displayed in Figure 47 can be used.
Figure 47. Decision tree to derive recommendations
The remainder of this chapter uses the analysis presented in previous chapters to develop
models for each country cluster regarding the relative distribution of RFID tags into
different treatment paths. It then discusses the impact of RFID tags in several different
categories – including environmental, technical, economic and regulatory – in order to
derive recommendations for RFID technology in the future.
5.1 Results from modelling and forecasting

Before considering the impacts of RFID tags in different areas, from environmental to
economic, we first need to understand the relative distribution of RFID tags in different
waste treatment paths in the future. We first consider the forecast for RFID technology in
the future, and then use this information to model the distribution of RFID tags in
treatment paths in three representative countries from each Member State cluster.
5.1.1 Forecast
The forecast regarding the development of RFID tag applications indicates that an abrupt
increase happens at different points in time, depending on a drop in the costs of
producing/applying printed electronics. The prognosis of the development of RFID tag
numbers is shown in Figure 48, which is a copy of Figure 11 in Chapter 2.
110
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Conclusions Part A
Figure 48. Development of passive tag application depending on technical development
We can see from these data that the development of passive tag application would lead to a
comparable increase in the number of RFID tags being used in the EU 27 under any of the
three technological development scenarios: fast, medium or slow. The inclusion of this
consideration in the modelling (depicted in detail in the Annex and discussed further in
the next section) shows that according to the estimated increase of RFID tag application in
the field of consumer goods, the major share of RFID tags in this case will go into streams
destined for material recycling.
5.1.2 Modelling
The forecast data for the technical development of RFID tags were then fed into a series of
models to understand the distribution of RFID tags in each waste treatment path for each
Member State cluster. The composition of the models results from two aspects. The first is
the distribution of RFID tags applied in Europe into the different Member States. The
second is derived from the distribution of wastes into the different treatment paths in the
Member States.
The increase of RFID tag application on consumer goods in connection with the
requirements for recycling leads to an increase of RFID tags in waste streams designated
for material recycling. Depending on the waste management system installed in a country,
as well as on other factors (e.g., the disposal behaviour of consumers), parts of these waste
streams are directed to the appropriate treatment paths, while the rest is mainly introduced
into mixed waste streams.
Figure 49 shows the increase of RFID tag quantities under a medium technical
development scenario and the allocation of those tags into different waste treatment paths
in Germany. Comparable forecasts have been made for the UK and Greece and are
displayed. The waste management systems are depicted as static, which is intended to show
where the increasing number of RFID tags expected to be used in the future would end up
if no changes in waste management systems as they exist today occur. While we recognise
this does probably not reflect reality, it does show a theoretically possible scenario.
111
20000 m tags
Estimated amounts of tags going into waste treatment
15000 m tags
paths in Germany
10000 m tags
5000 m tags
0 m tags
2010 2012 2018 2024
Incineration Recycling Landfill Export
Figure 49. Forecast Germany (medium scenario)
The forecast for Germany, representative of Member States in cluster 1, is shown in Figure
49 above. The results of the different forecast scenarios in Germany are depicted in the
Annex. The major difference between the scenarios is the time at which the increase takes
place. Since the relative distribution of tags into the treatment paths is the same for all
scenarios, only the medium scenarios are discussed in this section. Due to recycling targets
(e.g., packaging, WEEE) and the limitations on landfilling, the distribution in cluster 1
countries is almost exclusively limited to incineration (preferably with energy recovery) and
material recycling. Figure 50 below shows the same forecast, but displays the relative
distribution of the future impacts of RFID technology in Germany.
112
100%
Estimated distribution of tags between the different

90%
80%
70%
60%
treatments
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2010 2012 2018 2024
Figure 50. Relative distribution of RFID tags between the different treatment paths in Germany
(medium scenario)
Figure 51 displays the annual estimated total number of RFID tags and their destination.
The UK represents a Member State in cluster 2, Germany in cluster 1 and Greece in
cluster 3.
113
90 m tags
80 m tags
70 m tags
60 m tags
50 m tags
paths
40 m tags
30 m tags
20 m tags
10 m tags
0 m tags
UK 2010 Greece 2010 Germany 2010
Figure 51. Comparison of total RFID tag distribution into waste treatment paths for one country per
country cluster
It is evident from the data shown in Figure 51 that the RFID tags are distributed
differently into the various waste treatment paths in each cluster. This is further supported
by the comparative relative distribution of the tags depicted in Figure 52.
100%
Estimated distribution of 100 % of tags into the different
90%
80%
70%
waste treatment paths
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UK 2010 Greece 2010 Germany 2010
Figure 52. Comparison of modelled relative RFID tag distribution into waste treatment paths
The results indicate that with an increasing use of RFID tags in the future, the share of
RFID tags going for disposal in landfills would increase, in clusters 2 and 3. The fact that
114
in Germany (cluster 1) RFID tags are still directed into incineration, suggests that
compliance with the Waste Incineration Directive20 to ensure legal implementation of
emission control is a vital aspect in preventing impacts through incineration of RFID tags
(see Section 4.3.3)
The following four figures (Figure 53 to Figure 56) display the results from the forecast of
the medium development scenario for Greece and the UK. The data indicate that in the
UK the shares are expected to shift from landfilling to recycling (Figure 53 and Figure 55).
In the projection for Greece, the same effect takes place, but according to the ratio between
recycling and disposal, the significance of disposal is still likely to be higher if no increase
in the recycling industry were to take place.
14000 m tags
12000 m tags
10000 m tags
paths in the UK
8000 m tags
6000 m tags
4000 m tags
2000 m tags
0 m tags
2010 2012 2018 2024
Figure 53. Future projections of absolute RFID tag numbers in waste treatment paths in the UK
20
The Waste Incineration Directive will be subsumed into the Industrial Emissions Directive from January
2013
115
Estimated distribution of 100 % of tags into the different 1800 m tags
1600 m tags
1400 m tags
1200 m tags
1000 m tags
800 m tags
600 m tags
400 m tags
200 m tags
0 m tags
2010 2012 2018 2024
Figure 54. Future projections of absolute RFID tag numbers in waste treatment paths in Greece
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2010 2012 2018 2024
Figure 55. Future projections of relative RFID tag numbers in waste treatment paths in the UK
116
100%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2010 2012 2018 2024
Figure 56. Future projections of relative RFID tag numbers in waste treatment paths in Greece
These models underline the fact that the major share of RFID tags in waste treatment are
likely to be deployed into material recycling processes in the future if the recycling quotas
from the framework legislations are incorporated into national legislation. The
recommendations that are given in Sections 5.5 and 5.6 for recycling-friendly design are
supported through this finding. The fact that the share of RFID tags going for final
disposal in cluster 3 waste management systems indicates that measures on emission
control in particular are important to avoid possible environmental impacts. These
measures are already required through the EU legislation in place.
Figure 57. Relation between cluster and direction of RFID tags into waste treatment systems
5.2 Environmental impacts

Environmental impacts can happen in two ways, either directly through causing harm to
the ecosphere or indirectly through the loss of primary resources. As explained in Section
2.6, the CO2 inventory is used to describe the ecologic value. Considering the expected
development of the use of different aerial materials as shown in Table 5, and a medium tag
size, the CO2 inventory of the RFID tags used in the EU-27 is estimated to rise from
980 Mg/a to 302,500 Mg/a as displayed in Figure 58.
117
350,000 Mg
300,000 Mg
250,000 Mg
CO2-equivalents
200,000 Mg
150,000 Mg
100,000 Mg
50,000 Mg
000 Mg
2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026
Year
Figure 58. CO2 inventory in the EU-27 in the medium scenario
As the aerials and gold bumps of the ICs were identified as main contributors to the CO2
inventory, in the following figures the CO2 equivalents of aluminium, copper, silver and
gold resulting from RFID tags are considered. Figure 59 to Figure 60 display the fate of
the CO2 inventory of the metals in waste management in Germany, the UK and Greece.
118
12000 Mg
10000 Mg
8000 Mg
6000 Mg
4000 Mg
2000 Mg
0 Mg
2011 2012 2018 2024
Aluminium incineration Copper incineration Silver incineration Gold incineration

Aluminium landfill Copper landfill Silver landfill Gold landfill
Aluminium recycling Copper recycling Silver recycling Gold recycling
Figure 59. CO2 inventory of metals contained in disposed RFID tags in Germany (medium scenario,
tag size 2219 mm²)
8000 Mg
7000 Mg
6000 Mg
5000 Mg
4000 Mg
3000 Mg
2000 Mg
1000 Mg
0 Mg
2011 2012 2018 2024

Figure 60. CO2 inventory of metals contained in disposed RFID tags in the UK (medium scenario,
tag size 2219 mm²)
119
8000 Mg
7000 Mg
6000 Mg
5000 Mg
4000 Mg
3000 Mg
2000 Mg
1000 Mg
0 Mg
2011 2012 2018 2024

Figure 61. CO2 inventory of metals contained in disposed RFID tags in Greece (medium scenario,
tag size 2219 mm²)
The loss of resources can only be avoided if the materials can be reused or recycled, and
when the financial and environmental costs of recycling do not exceed the benefits. It
becomes visible that aluminium and gold bear the highest CO2 inventory. In the case of
Germany, the metals end up mainly in recycling and incineration and are potentially
recoverable. In the UK, about one-third of the CO2 inventory is stored in landfills, where a
recovery is very unlikely. In Greece, a substantial share of more than 50 percent of the CO2
inventory is landfilled and lost.
Direct impacts can happen via disposal or recycling operations when output streams are
lead into the ecosphere (e.g., landfill gas). For example, mechanical treatment technologies
sort materials into pre-concentrates and residues for subsidiary purification processes and
final disposal respectively. In the subsidiary purification process(es) the material is further
split up into streams, clean concentrates and residues. No environmental impacts are
expected to occur as a result of RFID tags passing through mechanical sorting facilities.
The processing residues, which are no longer recyclable, will be incinerated with or
without energy recovery or landfilled.
With the data available, no hazards from either landfilling or incineration of RFID tags
could be investigated. In landfills, the increasing amount of RFID tags containing metals
or energy sources could result in increasing leachate contamination. However, EU
directives have already been approved – IPPC, Landfill, Incineration, and Battery – and
have been implemented in the Member States. These directives limit the amount of
substances or emissions into the ecosystem. According to this legislation, disposal facilities
120
need to comply with emission limits, which are achieved through emission control systems.
These technical installations should be adapted to the type of waste received.
This leaves two scenarios to consider. The first is that emissions from RFID tags cannot be
controlled by the emission control systems. The composition of RFID tags does not
indicate that this could happen. The second scenario is that the presence of certain
materials or substances increases the operational costs for emission control systems.
According to experts, this is considered unlikely.
With regards to the impact of RFID tags containing batteries, it is not yet known whether
active or semi-active RFID tags will be disposed of with used batteries. To increase the
recycling of batteries, Member States are obliged to take all available measures to enforce
the separate collection of batteries and accumulators and prevent their disposal with mixed
municipal solid waste streams. As the composition and design of large-scale applications of
active and semi-active RFID tags cannot be accurately forecasted, the impacts can only be
measured in terms of quality, not quantity.
In general, the emission of heavy metals through means of final disposal has to be
controlled according to EU legislation. It is possible that the large-scale application of
active or semi-active RFID tags could result in an overcharge of the control systems if
batteries incorporated in RFID tags are considered outside the scope of the Battery
Directive. Quantification of this can only be carried out when the design of active or semi-
active RFID tags and the applicable energy sources can be produced for prices that qualify
for mass applications, and where the design and the applied materials are known.
According to experts, at this point in time new batteries are under development, which
could perhaps be disposed of with other wastes without harming the environment.
5.3 Technical impacts

The first step after waste generation, waste collection and transport, is not expected to be
subject to any impacts through the presence of RFID tags in waste streams. However, the
presence of RFID tags could lead to disturbances in RFID-supported waste logistic
schemes. This has not yet been verified, but no interference has been observed in pilot
projects.
Technical impacts on final disposal and treatment prior to final disposal (landfills,
incinerators) are in general unlikely due to the fact that these installations (if operated
according to EU legislation) are designed to be able to process the components introduced
through passive RFID tags. One aspect to consider, though, is that an increase of copper
and aluminium could impact either on the composition of bottom ashes or the residues
from the flue gas treatment in incineration processes.
No technical impacts were estimated for the technologies applied to mixed material
streams into different subsidiary recycling or disposal paths. These technologies can be
divided into two main groups:
x MBT – mechanical-biological treatment
x MRF – materials recovery facility
121
The targets of both treatment technologies differ. While the aim of using MBT is mainly
disposal and energy recovery, the use of MRFs usually focuses on material recycling and
high-quality energy recovery. The differences in the applied technologies have been taken
into account when estimating possible impacts. In both cases, the functionality of the
process is not compromised through the presence of RFID tags in the treated waste
materials. The relationship between the different systems is depicted in Figure 62.
Figure 62. Interrelations between different stages of waste treatment
The possibility of technical impacts on material recycling increases with the dependency
of the recycling process on mono-materials. Plastic recycling, paper recycling and glass
recycling processes are especially vulnerable to certain impurities. The technical aspects
have been analysed in Section 4.5.
Metal recycling primarily distinguishes between ferrous metals (iron) and non-ferrous
metals (aluminium, copper, precious metals such as gold, silver, etc.). In the ferrous
recycling route, copper can have a negative impact on the product. The likelihood that the
quantities of copper introduced through RFID tags present a significant source of copper
in ferrous recycling routes is slim, especially due to the trend of using aluminium as an
aerial material instead of copper. The copper recycling path for non-ferrous metals does
not indicate the likelihood of RFID tags creating a problem because organic matter is
oxidised, precious metals can be recovered, while aluminium21 and inert materials are
21
It is noteworthy that aluminium is then likely to be lost for recycling
122
converted into slag and are lost. In the aluminium route, copper goes into the alloy and
cannot be removed, which could result in an undesired increase in copper content in the
aluminium product. Therefore, the use of RFID tags with a copper aerial on ferrous metal
and aluminium products should be avoided.
In plastic recycling, the purity of the plastic material is a precondition to ensure the
functionality of the final step in the recycling process and the quality of the product that is
comparable to primary materials. According to the plastic recyclers, the recycling processes
require applications to be removed as easily as possible in the recycling process. One
problem with labels in general arises from the adhesives used to connect a label with an
object. The adhesives can cause blockages in filtration or extrusion processes. Therefore,
the solubility of the adhesives should be appropriate for the process and RFID tags need to
be applied according to the needs of the recycling processes.
Two major requirements can help to reduce or avoid technical impacts:
x RFID tags should be applied in a way that allows detachment.
x Adhesives applied should be suitable for the material recycling processes.
Paper recycling is different from plastic recycling, since paper is dissolved in a solution
and all non-soluble objects can be separated. Problems in paper recycling processes can be
generally be attributed to adhesives, which can compromise the quality of the product or
cause blockages in the recycling process and reduce the efficiency of filtration systems. The
possibility of printing RFID tags instead of application with adhesives needs to be aligned
with the fact that not all types of paper are subject to treatment in de-inking processes.
Three major requirements can help to reduce or avoid technical impacts:
x In order to facilitate the separation, RFID tags should not dissolve with the paper.
x Applications with adhesives should be suitable for the recycling process and
designed to reduce the generation of “stickies”.
x Printed electronics incorporated into inks need to be suitable for de-inking
processes and should not be applied to papers that will not be treated with de-
inking processes.
In g lass recycling the main pollutants are the inert components such as metals and chips.
With increasing quantities and the inability to separate RFID tags or glass cullets with tags
from the pure cullets destined for the smelting (recycling) process, the possibility of
inclusions in the final product increases. The melted glass leaves the melting bath in the
form of a stream via the bottom of the container/vessel. The opening in the bottom of
melting baths can be blocked by inert materials. The small size of the tags suggests that this
may not be a significant problem. However, in order to prevent this, RFID tags should be
designed or attached in a way that allows separation in the purification process before the
actual recycling step.
Two major requirements can help to reduce or avoid technical impacts:
x RFID tags should be applied to labels or caps to increase the chance for discharge
through optical sorting systems prior to the recycling process.
123
x If RFID tags have to be applied to the glass itself they should be less transparent
and different in colour to the glass they are attached to (this approach allows
sorting, but will probably cause material losses).
The treatment of complex objects cannot be displayed as a general scheme. As described,

the constructive variety between different complex objects is significant (e.g., constructive
difference between mobile phones, cars and TVs). The aim of some producer responsibility
legislation such as ELV or WEEE is to facilitate the liberation or recovery of the contained
metals and the use of plastics for energy recovery processes. These processes are usually
designed to cope with the problem of complex objects so that no major impacts of RFID
tags, which can also be considered complex objects, are expected.
5.4 Economic impacts

The question of economic impacts through RFID tags in the waste management and
recycling industry cannot be answered at this point in time, either for the EU as a whole,
or for a single Member State. The complexity of the waste treatment industries and the
diversion of responsibilities between the EU, the governments, the public waste
management authorities and the private waste management industry are still subject to
changes in the implementation of EU legislation. Even in the producer responsibility
legislation, the costs of implementing waste management legislation have been shifted from
the communities to the producer, who has had to develop collection or take-back systems.
Without further additional data, the allocation of costs to specific processes or even more
detailed units is not possible.
The impacts from waste management and from materials in waste streams on the
environment have to be controlled and the means need to be financed. With rising raw
material prices, the revenues for recycling or energy recovery are increasing. Costs could be
associated directly with RFID tags if the materials incorporated are not used for any other
purpose, and could therefore be directly backtracked to the tagging. According to the data
on RFID tag composition, the materials applied are not limited to RFID tags, which
prevents a direct allocation. Adhesives in paper and plastic recycling are not only
introduced through RFID tags, but also through any other sticker application.
At the same time, the costs for final disposal are rising in most countries when either
stricter legislation is implemented and/or technical requirements become more
complicated in order to prevent harm to the population or the environment. The costs are
distributed between the private and public sector and depend on a number of factors such
as legal requirements, national specifications and regional specifications.
5.5 Regulatory and policy impacts at EU and national levels

According to the findings from different studies, sources and expert consultants, there are
no direct impacts that could be controlled or avoided through specific legislative measures
or political incentives. Future perspectives in the literature and in the approaches carried
out for this study are subjective and differ strongly depending on the intentions and
perspectives or backgrounds of the stakeholders involved. The complicated interrelations
124
between stakeholders in the waste management industry make clear that the definition of
technology-specific legislation is complicated. Examples for ELVs or WEEE cannot be
transferred to RFID tags hence the RFID tag only appears in connection with other
objects and items. This causes a wide spread of RFID tags into a growing number of areas
and waste streams that are already regulated. Any additional regulation would need to be
developed in a way that would not counteract legislation already in place.
A possibility would be to develop framework requirements for the application of RFID
tags to items regarding the possible ways of treatment, recycling or disposal. However, this
can only function within a scenario where all relevant pending legislation had been
implemented. In any other case, the number of possibilities and choices resulting from
Member States is likely to create a range of possible scenarios that would not be feasible to
consider.
As a result of this study, the recommendation from the German study has been found to
be relevant. Since all possible impacts depend on the future application of RFID tags (i.e.,
quantities and composition), it appears to be unwise to seek a direct reaction from political
stakeholders.
5.6 Implications for national waste systems and stakeholders

It is important to highlight that stakeholders in this context have been chosen on the basis
of RFID tags as inert objects in waste streams and in a technical context. Aspects
connected with the function of and information on RFID tags are not considered in Part A
of this study. The main stakeholder groups based on the above-mentioned criteria are:
x Public authorities
x RFID tag producers
x RFID tag users
x Waste processors, including recyclers and final disposers
x Waste producers
The multi stakeholder approach that was proposed in the German study is based on IOS
(2008), which proposed an approach that can be described in 6 steps (Erdmann et al.,
2009):
1. Theoretical assessment of the possibility that state-of-the-art recycling processes
are compromised through the presence of RFID tags.
2. Performance of tests to analyse whether state-of-the-art processes can compensate
for the possible negative effects or if the effects can be compensated for by process
modifications.
3. Development of regulations that can be used by RFID producers and recyclers.
Validation of these regulations by third parties (universities and research and
development institutions) with experience in the considered waste streams.
4. Communication of the validated regulation with national or regional
environmental authorities for approval.
125
5. Publication of the regulations for the professional associations of producers and

users to minimise impacts and maximise positive aspects.
6. Developing or nominating control authorities that approve whether specific RFID
tags fulfil the regulations (conformity declaration).
The first steps for points 1 and 2 have been undertaken already in the German study and
the study at hand. The other steps include a recommendation on how stakeholders should
interact. A systematic approach to develop RFID tags or material/adhesive/RFID tag
connections, which are suitable for recycling processes, is the most obvious strategy to
prevent problems. This approach would include:
x A specification of the requirements of material-specific recycling processes.
x The development of RFID tags for specific applications,22 including development
of an adhesive that fulfils requirements regarding solubility and an RFID tag that
fulfils requirements regarding the separation from the material for recycling.
x Lab-scale testing of RFID tags already in use or newly developed RFID tags with
the system “material/adhesive/RFID tag”.
x An industrial-scale testing of the system “material/adhesive/RFID tag”.
x The validation of results through R&D institutions.
x Approval by political authorities.
x The development of a seal of approval for RFID tags that clears an RFID tag for
application on specific materials.
The above would ensure the qualification of RFID tags for use in combination with state-
of-the-art recycling facilities and would increase specific experiences with regard to RFID
tags in the recycling industry, thus offering a chance to unveil possible future problems
before they even occur. The necessity for legislation in such an approach should be limited
to the legal requirement for RFID tags to be approved for recycling before application.
Since at this point in time no urgent measures appear to be required, this could happen
with the necessary preparation time to give RFID tag producers and the tagging industry
sectors time to develop the necessary systems and materials to prevent a slowdown of
technical developments.
In addition, the position of passive, semi-active and active RFID tags with regard to
existing framework legislation should be decided upon by the EC, to prevent delaying the
above introduced measures due to a lack of legislative transparency.
22
An example would be the development or approval procedure for RFID tags applicable on PET bottles,
which are suitable for PET materials recycling processes. The solubility of the adhesive that is used to attach the
RFID tag to the bottle should match requirements to increase the chances of detaching the RFID tag from the
bottle.
126
SMART TRASH: PART B
127
CHAPTER 6 Assessment of current and potential use

of RFID as a green technology in recycling
x This chapter gives an overview of the current state of play of RFID as a green
technology in the EOL phases of a product’s lifecycle.
x This is followed by the derivation of distinct use cases for RFID technology.
x The methodology behind how the use case research was conducted is briefly
described.
x Two promising use cases are assessed more deeply. The underlying methodology of
these studies is also explained.
6.1 Understanding the present state of play

RFID can attach a material object to a stream of data. This can be done either by a unique
identifier, linking the object to data that is stored in back-end systems or by reading and
writing essential data directly to and from a tag. Connecting object and data has direct
benefits. Therefore RFID is becoming more important in the field of product manufacturing,
forward logistics and retail.
There are many procedures in which RFID tag data can be used – manufacturing lines, recall
management, asset tracking and inventory management, assignment of responsibilities, etc.
However, this use of data is usually connected to systems with a high degree of technology
and, therefore, investment.
Manufacturing a TV set or a car, for example, is a highly automated procedure. Bringing it to
the market over a global supply chain also poses many challenges (e.g., cost), involving
logistic operations, product responsibility concerning manufacturer liability and many other
important issues. However, if these processes are designed efficiently, a high return-of-
investment can be expected.
RFID is currently penetrating the manufacturing and retail processes of a range of high-value
products. For low-value-added products, the retail sector is expected to drive the demand for
RFID. In the retail sector, RFID saves time during business-to-customer interactions. For
example, checking out at a supermarket by simply pushing out the shopping trolley and
having the cost deducted from a credit card is one such scenario.
129
These scenarios share one common factor: they raise the number of RFID tags that are part of
sold objects. A central aspect of this study is how environmental benefits could be realised by
using these tags.
RFID tags are already being used in some sectors as a green technology, particularly in
relation to the “green” management of supply chains. Paramount, for example, is a producer
of fresh food in the USA that uses RFID to “rationalise” the processing of fresh food
deliveries from its suppliers. Walmart uses RFID technology throughout its supply chain to
manage logistics and to reduce CO2 emissions by minimising the movement of goods.
Recycle Bank, Rewards for Recycling and Concept2Solution all employ various forms of
RFID systems to encourage recycling behaviours. Smart Vareflyt and Nestle are using RFID
to improve the flow of perishable goods through their supply chains and reduce waste, and
TruckTag uses RFID to support better and faster truck security inspections at a busy port,
thereby improving air quality (Bose & Yan, 2011). Most of these applications aim to
rationalise beginning-of-life (BOL) and middle-of-life (MOL) processes. Through the
optimisation of logistics, a cost-cutting effect is achieved (the operator’s focus), while savings
in transport movements, amount of trucks necessary, etc., have a direct positive effect on the
environmental performance as well.
One main challenge is the different capitalisation of EOL and BOL processes. While
manufacturing and selling a product may entail high profits, the EOL of a product is still
widely seen as a cost factor. Therefore the uptake of RFID in EOL processes is slow and
special attention is paid to the drivers for the uptake of RFID in EOL processes.
6.1.1 RFID as a green technology
Globalisation is driving changes in the nature of interactions amongst and within global value
chains and the way people, products and businesses interact within and amongst each other.
RFID has the potential to be a technology that can allow for a more holistic approach to
product lifecycle management, thereby enhancing environmental sustainability and helping
companies to reduce costs and generate revenues through the exploration of new market
opportunities (Edwards, 2008; Angeles, 2010; Bose & Yan, 2011). However, the
opportunities presented through RFID tags depend on the agreement of all participants in
the product lifecycle, starting with resource extraction, resource conversion, production of the
product and transportation of the product to the market it will be sold in. In some cases,
resources from three continents are used to create a product that is shipped to another
country and sold there. This is depicted in the diagram below.
130
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Assessment of current and potential use of RFID as a green technology
Figure 63. Challenges of resource recovery for “green” technology applications of RFID
This example shows the level of globalisation and the magnitude of information that needs to
be considered for efficient lifecycle management processes. It also emphasises that
“sustainability” is not just the responsibility of one producer in the supply chain. Since RFID
tags contain information that extends beyond the physical product, producers can demand
more of their production processes and supply chain relationships, while consumers can
demand more transparency in the nature of the goods they buy. When the environmental
footprints of products are made more visible, producer responsibility, consumer ownership
and processing of the product at the end of its life can become shared responsibilities. Linking
responsibility in this way can facilitate reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal by making the
elements of such waste management processes more transparent and the implications more
comprehensible.
The seminal article Towards trash that thinks (Saar & Thomas, 2003) demonstrated that
RFID tags can be used to enable “smarter” recycling and disposal systems that allow both
monitoring and understanding of the resource flows in the EOL phase and how to be more
efficient and sustainable in reducing, reusing, reclaiming and recycling our unwanted
products. Moreover, like the concept of “smart trash” that can transmit information about its
lifecycle, “smart cities” that contain and work on “smart” objects can enable us to make better
and more efficient use of materials and resources. All of this can be enabled by RFID
technologies. However, there are challenges to the realisation of this green potential,
particularly in the waste management sector, which has been explored throughout this report.
6.2 Potential areas of green RFID applications

Potentially, RFID could do much more than optimise logistical aspects. It could be used in a
“greener” management of entire product lifecycles. This greener approach increases the ability
of producers, consumers, and waste managers to “access, manage, and control product data
131
and information over the whole product lifecycle” (Jun et al., 2009). This applies at the BOL,
MOL and EOL stages, and more detailed examples of these potential applications have been
presented throughout this chapter.
At the disposal phase of a product, RFID tags could also help to improve the efficiency of
waste management processes. RFID could provide for more efficient recycling processes
improving reuse or the recovery rate of materials. It plays a major role in most PAYT
initiatives and could provide information on RFID-based filling levels for bins, the
management of infectious waste, and the recovery of electronic materials at the EOL stage.
Evaluating these options forms a major part of the use case research in this study, as there are
significant challenges and operational logistics about which we know too little.
One of the most promising areas of green RFID technology is in improved product recovery
and recycling at the EOL stage. There are real cost savings that can be attained through
improvements to product recovery systems (Parlikad & McFarlane, 2007), but it is in
product recovery in the waste management sector that some of the biggest challenges to RFID
use are posed. In order to be used and applied most effectively, RFID tags are embedded or
connected with their carrier objects in different ways. It is this very embedding within
different objects that can be problematic as the effects the materials within RFID tags will
have on different waste streams is unknown. In addition, the private consumption or
commercial utilisation of goods influences the way RFID tags are ultimately disposed of and
enter waste streams. Waste from private households emerges from a larger number of sources
and is supposed to be connected to a collection system, which is controlled by a public
authority, while the disposal routes for commercial waste can be chosen by the waste
producer himself (within defined limitations).
RFID technology can also enable consumers to make more informed choices about the
sustainability of the products they purchase. Applications of RFID technology in this way
focus on the MOL and EOL stages in providing both purchasing and disposal information.
Following this basic assessment, the principal areas of green applications can initially be
clustered into three main areas:
x Improved sorting and treatment processes
x RFID and sustainable consumption and production
x Improved (reverse) logistics.
6.2.1 Overview of use cases and case studies

Based on this guidance a systematic literature review was carried out and enhanced by expert
opinions in order to identify further relevant journals and sources. Following standard
practice, relevant industry, scholarly and peer-reviewed literature was matched within the
overall relevant product lifecycle frameworks and mapped to distinct products and
infrastructure. This approach is detailed in Section 6.3. Summing up, the literature review
raised the following industrialised applications, pilots or ideas for further use case modelling.
In this study, a use case consists of applications of RFID technology (used in a pilot,
described in literature or at least as a plausible concept). The applications considered as use
cases have a unique, inherent set of characteristics and fulfil a certain purpose.
132
Improved sorting and treatment processes

1. RFID-based WEEE EOL processes. Waste handlers can look up information on the
electronic device or subcomponent with the help of an RFID system connected to an
information system. The system helps to decide on the economically best way to deal
with the electronic devices or subcomponents: reuse, remanufacture, refurbish,
cannibalise or final disposal.
2. RFID-based ELV EOL processes. Waste handlers can look up information on the
vehicle or part with the help of an RFID system connected to an information system.
The system helps to decide on the economically best way to deal with the vehicles or
parts: reuse, remanufacture, refurbish, cannibalise or final disposal.
RFID and sustainable consumption and production
3. RFID-based consumer disposal decision support (donate, sell, repair, dispose). The
consumer can look up information on the product s/he is about to throw away with
the help of an RFID-enabled mobile device, e.g., a mobile phone with an NFC (Near
Field Communication) or UHF (Ultra-High Frequency) reader connected to an
information system. The system helps the owner to decide on what to do with the
product: donate or sell when the system indicates that the product still has value,
repair when repair manuals and parts are available or trash it.
4. Consumer purchase decision support based on environmental performance: the
consumer can look up information on the environmental impacts and other features
of the product s/he is considering purchasing with the help of an RFID-enabled
mobile device, e.g., a mobile phone with an NFC (Near Field Communication) or
UHF (Ultra-High Frequency) reader connected to an information database.
Improved logistics and waste handling
5. RFID-based disposal management of infectious waste. Tracking and control of (bio-)
hazardous waste from hospitals (e.g., medical waste, infectious waste) can be
supported by RFID. Tags or external databases store information about data on
chemical media, which can be used for decision support, transport, documentation
and further processing.
6. RFID-based filling level measurement. RFID is used to identify the public waste bins
in order to establish an optimised collection tour based on statistical data.
7. RFID-based waste sorting. Waste from private households is sorted at the recycling
stage. Waste that is not correctly disposed of can be automatically identified and
separated based on RFID.
Based on expert feedback, use cases 1 and 3 were selected for further case-study modelling.
6.3 Assessing the use of RFID

To assess the different possibilities of using RFID as a green technology, an overarching
framework was developed. The framework uses the lifecycle of a product as an entry point for
the assessment of any RFID deployment.
Applications can be grouped in two ways: by product lifecycle and by types of tagged item.
Product lifecycle can be divided into the BOL, MOL and EOL phases. The lifecycle can be
133
further divided into sub-steps including product design, manufacture, retail, consumer
purchase and usage, recycling and disposal.
In the second grouping, applications are classified by types of tagged item. As shown in Part A
of this study, different products are regulated under different legal EOL frameworks. EOL of
ELVs, for example, is based on the ELV Directive, while electrical and electronic waste is
regulated by the WEEE Directive. Furthermore, infrastructure can also be tagged, an example
being bins and containers in PAYT schemes.
Using these two groupings of product lifecycle and tagged items, green RFID applications can
be displayed in the following frameworks (see Figure 64 and Figure 65):
Ta g g e d p ro du c t
Ele c tro nic wa s te End-o f-life Ve hic le s Co ns ume r g o o ds B io ha z a rd o us wa s te
P roduc t de s ign
P ro duc tio n
P urc ha s ing
P roduc tion & Inte gra tion
P a c ka ging & S tora ge
S a le s & Dis tribution

P urc ha s e
UC_c ons ume r purc ha s e de c is ion s upport ba s e d on e nvironme nta l pe rforma nc e

Us a ge
Dis po s a l s ta g e
P rima ry dis pos a l UC_RFID ba s e d dis pos a l de c is ion s upport (s e ll, re pa ir, throw a wa y)
Life c yc le P ha s e
UC_RFID ba s e d dis pos a l de c is ion s upport (s e ll, re pa ir,

Colle c tion & Tra ns port
throw a wa y)
01a UC_a c c e s s building 01a UC_a c c e s s building

Dis s a s s e mbly & S orting
pla ns pla ns
01b UC_a c c e s s
01b UC_a c c e s s informa tion
informa tion on how to
Re -us e on how to dis pos e / s e pa ra te
R e c yc ling s ta g e
dis pos e / s e pa ra te
ma te ria ls
ma te ria ls
R e c yc ling 01c UC_va lue e s tima te 01c UC_va lue e s tima te
UC_bioha z a rdous wa s te
02 UC_R FID ba s e d dis pos a l doc ume nta tion a nd
02 UC_RFID ba s e d dis pos a l ma na ge me nt
dis pos a l de c is ion s upport
de c is ion s upport (R e us e ,
Fina l dis pos a l (Re us e , R e ma nufa c ture ,
R e ma nufa c ture , R e furbis h,
Re furbis h, Ca nniba liz e ,
Ca nniba liz e , Fina l Dis pos a l)
Fina l Dis pos a l)
UC_R FID ba s e d tra s h
s orting
03 UC_orga nis e WEEE
03 UC_orga nis e ELV
ha ndling (e .g.
ha ndling (e .g. ma nufa c ture r
ma nufa c ture r s pe c ific
s pe c ific wa s te ha ndle r)
wa s te ha ndle r)
04 UC_Ma nufa c ture r- 04 UC_Ma nufa c ture r-s pe c ific

s pe c ific a lloc a tion of a lloc a tion of wa s te dis pos a l
wa s te dis pos a l c os ts c os ts
Figure 64. Derivation of use cases for tagged products
134
Ta g g e d infra s truc ture
Co nta ine r B ins Rubb is h c hute
P roduc t de s ign
P ro d uc tio n
P urc ha s ing
P roduc tion & Inte gra tion
P a c ka ging & S tora ge
S a le s & Dis tribution

P u rc ha s e
Us a ge
UC_healthcare
UC_bioha z a rdous
wa s tewaste
dis pos a l
Dis po s a l s ta g e
P rima ry dis pos a l UC_P AYT

documentation
doc and
ume nta tion a nd
ma na ge me nt
management
Life c yc le P ha s e
Colle c tion & Tra ns port Filling-le ve l me a s ure me nt
Dis s a s s e mbly & S orting
Re -us e
Re c yc ling s ta g e
Re c yc ling
Fina l dis pos a l
Figure 65. Derivation of use cases for RFID-tagged infrastructure
It can be seen that some applications follow a distinct product through its EOL phases,
allowing for interventions at different phases of its lifecycle. These were grouped according to
this vertical (lifecycle-related) narrative, resulting in the following use case clusters:
x RFID-supported WEEE end-of-life processes.
x RFID-supported ELV end-of-life processes.
x RFID-based waste sorting.
x RFID-based biohazardous waste documentation and management.
Other applications follow a horizontal narrative in relation to the product’s lifecycle:
x PAYT schemes used in disposal processes.
x Consumer decision support schemes supporting sustainable purchase decisions.
135
x Consumer disposal decision support schemes, enabling the consumer to choose the
optimal and most sustainable way to dispose of different products.
x Filling level measurement of waste bins in order to optimise disposal logistics.
6.3.1 Use case assessments

The same methodology was used to follow all use cases, while considering their specifics as
well as gathering use case overarching insights.
As a first step, material flows were described along the relevant phases of a product’s lifecycle.
The material appeared in the different stages either as a raw material, a product or at EOL as
trash in specific waste streams.
Secondly, using this as a basis, the information flows relevant to the considered RFID
application were added to the lifecycle model. Also, for each stage the stakeholders were
identified.
An overview of this approach is shown in Figure 66 below.
Per use case:
Consumer Disposal Product design/ Process conception/
Recycling Purchasing
disposal logistics development management
Usage
Technical support Installation Sales Packaging Production,
Verification
& maintenance & EIS & distribution & storage Services
Per key activity: Value chain

Analytical ‘Lens’
Issue Analysis
Figure 66. Issue and stakeholder analysis in relation to lifecycle phase
One RFID use case generated a specific “use case diagram” that was structured using a
Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN) logic/process model. This helped to identify
further coherent areas of potential use case clusters. The use case was then transferred to text
(“storyline”) to represent its characteristics in a tangible way. The relevant research from the
literature was used to build up and amend the storyline.
The framework developed for each use case helped to organise evidence. The results of the
analysis were brought together in the case-specific Y-Matrix, as shown in Figure 67 and Figure
68.
136
Figure 67. Y-matrix structure of stakeholder and impact analysis results
Concrete evidence was needed to assess the strength of the impacts and was structured
according to the use cases’ impact matrix. This incorporated the organisation of a range of
relevant qualitative and quantitative evidence needed to assess the current state of and
prospects for RFID in the selected use case.
As shown in Figure 68, impacts that could not reasonably be quantified were evaluated by a
set of experts using questionnaires derived from the case-specific matrixes.
Stakeholder Type of impact
Organisational
Environmental
Technological
Commercial
Behavioural
Regulatory
Economic
Social
Trade
Legal
A- ADMINISTRATIONS
Local governments
Central governments
Standardisation/ regulatory bodies

(ISO, IEC, ASTM, DASH7, etc)
B- BUSINESS/INDUSTRY Includes quantifiable and non-quantifiable impacts . Where quantifiable data

is not available, we would use a scoring mechanism to make qualitative
RFID Producing industry (Producers of
chips, antennas, etc) findings more comparable across cells, ranking effects on a scale between
strongly positive (++) and strongly negative (- -), but also allowing for cases
RFID Using industry
(Waste, Manuf acturing industry, etc) where there is not enough evidence to make a judgement (#)
End-of -lif e: Recycling, reuse,

reclaiming industry
Other sectors/ technologies

(Internet of Things, competing (f uture)
technologies)
C – CONSUMER/CITIZEN
Figure 68. Intersection C of impact matrix
The use cases were evaluated by a set of experts from both the public and private sectors, and
fine-tuned by weighting the different dimensions. Structured questionnaires were developed
on a case-specific basis in order to address key impact areas. For the use case rating and
weighting by the experts, the metrics were transferred into a database that also contained
137
meta-information about the stakeholders (type of stakeholder (private/public), type of

industry or authority, country).
Figure 69. Use case expert evaluation
Conclusions for each use case were provided. Firstly, they were divided into commercial,
organisational, environmental and behavioural/social aspects, for which the requirements,
barriers and benefits inherent to the specific cases were given.
A thorough analysis of the derived use case clusters was conducted and is set out in the next
chapter. It consists of excerpts from the storyline for each cluster and states the evaluated
requirements, benefits and barriers.
6.3.2 Case study selection
Based on expert consultation, one horizontal and one vertical use case cluster was chosen to
represent the tension field between economic, societal and environmental interests as well as
the most divergent regulation and consumer-driven leverage. Hence, the use case clusters
WEEE and consumer purchase decision support were transferred to the case study
framework, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of possible scenarios and projections,
intervention logics and the interdependency of different aspects. The results are displayed in
Chapter 8.
6.3.3 Case study assessments
Transferring use cases into case studies allowed a more in-depth analysis in order to explore
and identify the causal interactions that explain the cases’ underlying principles. The use cases
simply describe the direct connections between influencing factors, whereas the case studies
enhance the collected data by systematically analysing information and reporting results by
modelling them in a holistic, interlinked and prospective way.
The case studies comprised a large number of factors as well as their variation over time and
their looped interaction chains. They attempt to cope with the complexity of the real world of
the use cases and to present variations of future views of surroundings, new forces and players
(scenarios) by, for example, varying the importance of enforcing or balancing loops. (To give
an impression of this complexity, the selected case studies initially comprised 107 factors and
163 interactions, as depicted later in this report.) However, to analyse such complex data
systematically, we used a software tool called iModeler,23 which manages and links all the
23
As of 8 February 2012: www.imodeler.net
138
quantitative and qualitative evidence of literature, research and expert consultation, thus
interconnecting chains of thought.
For the upcoming expert consultation, the tool will support analysis by systematically and
efficiently depicting, identifying and validating key findings, the relevance of impact factors
and looped interactions. Furthermore, the software will enable the generation of a set of
hypotheses (e.g., key impacts or drivers) and recommendations (e.g., interaction loops to
steer).
The results of the analysis were calculated by making use of the background simulation of
impulses, which were sent through the cause and impact model. The outcome was a potential
impact that a factor can have on a chosen target factor. Furthermore, the results indicated
how the development will be realised using feedback loops.
The m athematical function used for calculation by the iModeler is as follows:

F(t) = w1*F1(t) + wn*Fn(t) F = influenced factor
w1-n = weighting of interconnection of influencing factor

F1-n = influencing factor
Through a qualitative model it is possible to identify cause and effect relationships between
the factors. In order to make an analysis, target factors need to be defined first. Then further
factors can be introduced that directly or indirectly influence the target factor in a positive or
negative way. The influence of one factor on another is an interconnection that can be
weighted by roughly estimating the influences as increasing or decreasing, as weak, medium
or strong, and as immediate, mid-term or long-term. While developing the model, different
perspectives focusing on various parts of a use case can be viewed by setting different factors
as targets in the centre of the model.
The case study analysis was supported by an evaluation matrix, which enabled the
identification of possible risks and important levers over time. The horizontal axis shows the
impact different paths of influence may have on a chosen factor. The vertical axis shows the
short-term impact of feedback loops, which in the case of a dominance of reinforcing
feedback loops will lead to an increase in the positive or negative impact of a factor.
Balancing feedback loops in turn lead to a decrease or stagnation in the impact of a factor
over time. Furthermore the evaluation matrix presents how selected factors are impacted in
the short, medium and long term.
In summary, the cases studies assessment provided insights and comprehensive findings on:
x Identification of key parameters, leverage points, triggers, limiting factors/weaknesses
of existing practices and long-term trends.
x Causal effect chains and their relative strengths to form a holistic impact analysis
building the central framework logic.
x Impacts on specific segments of the value chain.
x Impacts of major discontinuities where the interests of stakeholders collide or looped
interactions compensate themselves in a negative sense.
139
x Areas of leveraging at political, societal, private and industrial level.

x Obstacles to large-scale realisations, including recommendations to overcome them.
140
CHAPTER 7 RFID as a green technology: use case

analysis
x In the following chapter, the derived use case clusters are analysed according to the
methodology detailed in Section 6.3.1.
x The main characteristics and insights are also summarised at the beginning of each
use case sub-chapter.
x For each case, requirements, benefits and barriers are elaborated.
x Results of a privacy assessment related to the cases are given.
x At the end of the chapter, the use case findings are summarised.
7.1 Use case analyses and preliminary findings
7.1.1 Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)
Use case summary:

Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) is an RFID-based waste pricing model for the disposal of municipal
solid waste, meaning that waste is charged according to the user’s actual waste generation,
measured by weight or volume. There are two different types of PAYT systems: either the
disposed waste is linked to waste producers or to waste bins. The latter is widespread and has
already been implemented in many countries.
Several prerequisites need to be considered to ensure a successful implementation of PAYT.
Systems that include incentive schemes based on waste recycling for private households have
proven to be more successful, because citizens are motivated to reduce waste if it is linked to cost
savings. Furthermore, a mature RFID infrastructure with maintenance services, consumer
support services and billing systems must be present. Additionally, a comprehensive education
programme is essential in order to inform consumers about the new system and policies. Privacy
concerns are still very dominant and hinder the acceptance of PAYT.
Although the implementation of PAYT schemes is subject to high investment costs, PAYT
incentive schemes or reward system-based waste recycling provide opportunities for
141
municipalities and waste hauliers to earn money from waste. In addition, the increased
transparency reduces costs for falsely unacquainted bins and containers, enabling better services.
According to the EWC (European Waste Catalogue, valid from 01/01/2002) “municipal
wastes including separately collected fractions” can be household waste and similar
commercial, industrial and institutional wastes (Environmental Protection Agency, 2002).
Due to already existing schemes for the latter three, this use case will only address private
households (denoted as “PAYT users”). PAYT users’ waste is charged for according to
actual waste generation measured by weight or volume.
Two scenarios are possible in the PAYT use case: waste that is disposed of can either be
linked to a waste bin or to a certain waste producer. The latter describes the “bring
scheme”, where users are identified by using an RFID ID card that unlocks a so-called
chamber system or waste lock installation. These are waste storage devices such as
containers that require the waste to be passed through a feeding chamber. When waste
enters this chamber, the user is registered and the amount of waste can be measured by
weight or volume with the help of a technical device such as a weight scale (Reichenbach,
2008). Another option is recycling at drop-off centres, where citizens may gain access by
identifying themselves with chip cards. The drop-off centres may be split between an area
where waste disposal is chargeable for certain types of waste, and an area where waste
disposal is free of charge for recyclables like glass (Urban, 2009). Also worth noting in this
context is the use of rubbish chutes in apartment buildings, where waste producers can use
a chip card to identify themselves; the waste thrown into the chute can be measured by
weight or volume by an integrated weight scale or by scanning of dimensions.
Waste bin identification is the most widespread PAYT system. The amount of waste
collected in bins is linked to fee models and individual incentives, independently of the
person who filled the waste bin. Waste can either be measured by volume or by weight.
Figure 70 shows an overview of the principle PAYT implementation alternatives:
142
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 RFID as a green technology: use
e case analysis
35/00-31
Contract reference 30-CE-039543
Source: Bilitewski (2004)
Figure 70. Principal PAYT imp

plementation alternatives
This use case focuses on onne of the options shown above: the identification of iindividually
assigned waste bins with weight-based accounting. Technically, this is ach hieved with
RFID-tagged waste bins and RFID-reader-equipped collection trucks. However,
experience has shown thaat a combination of “collect scheme” and “bring scheme” is
recommended for PAYT in i order to obtain the highest amount of recyclabbles, as the
collection of recyclables wiill yield an increase of about 10 percent (Reichenbach, 2008).
The recognition of PAY YT as an effective instrument for recycling-orieented waste
management has resulted in PAYT becoming operative in an increasing number of
European countries. One of o the first to implement PAYT in Europe was Germ many. PAYT
is already successfully imp plemented in Dresden, Cologne and Bremen (F Finkenzeller,
2006). Currently a third (88–11 million) of all waste bins are tagged in Germanny, of which
approximately 90 percent have
h RFID tags (Löhle & Urban, 2008). In Australiaa, the USA,
Japan, the UK, Sweden, Finland
F and Spain, PAYT has also become a reality, and the
number of countries introdducing PAYT is increasing.
PAYT can be implemented d in countries with different levels of recycling and in different
environments. It appears that
t the waste disposal behaviour of people in inneer city areas
tends to be the same as thaat of people living in the city outskirts and surrounddings once a
PAYT system has been set ini force (Reichenbach, 2008).
Many stakeholders benefit from this waste system. Households have the chancce to reduce
their waste disposal fee. Furrthermore, citizens become engaged in waste separattion and are
motivated by incentive proggrammes. A PAYT incentive scheme or reward systeem based on
waste recycling provides oppportunities for municipalities and waste hauliers to gain profits
by reselling recyclables. In
n contrast to charging fees by waste volume or weiight, PAYT
143
offers incentives for recycling by partially transferring profits to the customer (Wyld,
2010). For example, Recyclebank, a waste management company, rewards waste disposers
with Recyclebank points that are based on the volume of the recycled waste. These points
can be honoured by local and national reward partners (Wyld, 2010).
By observing the current market situation it is obvious that new PAYT systems are
constantly being developed and implemented. For instance MetroSense, a Finnish
company that develops different waste sorting solutions, invented a PAYT system that
allows households to collect separated waste in conventional plastic bags (MetroSense,
2009). The bags must be closed with waste identification stickers including an RFID tag
(which has to be purchased). The bags are thrown into regular waste containers. RFID
readers at the recycling centre automatically detect the type of waste, which can be
separated accordingly. Although this procedure does not represent a traditional PAYT
approach, the principle of the collect scheme can be recognised in this use case when bags
are weighed at the recycling centre, and the RFID tag provides the waste producer’s data.
Requirements
x Commercial requirements: municipalities have to set up system maintenance
services, data infrastructure, consumer support services and billing systems. In
addition to system-related costs, investments to enhance the systems for collecting
separated waste fractions and implementing public education measures also need
to be taken into account.
x Tax policies as well as pertinent legislation on waste would support PAYT in
controlling an increase in waste and the use of landfill, and would promote reuse
and recycling. PAYT does introduce the risk that people stop using waste services
and engage in unwanted disposal practices instead. This could result from privacy
concerns or the unwillingness to pay for waste disposal. A fixed fee or mandatory
minimum of payable services included in the waste charge is recommended.
x A strong organisational requirement is that PAYT needs to ensure the simplicity of
the recycling scheme and of billing. Also, new waste collection concepts for
different urban structures and environments must be adapted to specific city
planning and aesthetic concerns.
x Customer-oriented incentives and disincentives (rebates and fees) play an essential
role in a successful PAYT implementation (Saar & Thomas, 2003).
x Educating the business community before/during implementation about a
program’s final design and informing residents about how to participate will also
be the key to PAYT success.
x Generating positive media coverage will also be key to PAYT success.
x Informing citizens about PAYT system goals and also the consequences of
wrongful conduct is of critical importance to the introduction of PAYT. This is
considered to contribute to minimising misbehaviour encouraged by individual
waste charging (Reichenbach, 2008).
x Municipalities need to ensure equal recycling possibilities for every citizen by
means of accessibility, distance to container sites, simplicity of recycling schemes,
adequate amount of containers, etc. (Bilitewski, 2004).
x In view of large families and families with low income, innovative campaigns
assuring an equal treatment of all citizens have to be established (Bilitewski, 2004).
144
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 RFID as a green technology: use case analysis
x The robustness of technical systems will be key to the success of PAYT. Procedural
fall-backs to overcome system failures are mandatory and need to be efficient.
Also, RFID hardware implementation has to withstand the challenges of extreme
weather conditions such as high temperatures, rain, mud and snow. Potential
technical failures of RFID tags in PAYT applications have to be safeguarded
against with fallback processes (Löhle & Urban, 2008).
x Technical measures like locked waste bins or containers are beneficial to the
introduction of PAYT in order to prevent misbehaviour (Reichenbach, 2008).
x The integration of RFID in the context of PAYT takes one year to be fully
operative, mainly due to the required data management system and the IT
infrastructure (Löhle & Urban, 2008).
x Bins need to be securely locked to hinder waste tourism (people throwing their
waste into other users’ bins).
Benefits of using PAYT

x Commercial benefit: PAYT incentive schemes or reward system-based waste
recycling provide opportunities for municipalities and waste hauliers to earn
money from waste. In contrast to charging fees by waste volume or weight, this
scheme provides incentives for recycling (Wyld, 2010).
x The PAYT system provides the basis for highly transparent waste invoicing
(Friedrich & Neidhardt, 2005).
x The waste haulier profits from permanent waste bin inventory checks. This
additional transparency reduces costs for falsely unacquainted bins and containers
x PAYT leads to higher collection of recyclables and increased revenues from selling
them (Bilitewski, 2004).
x The waste haulier can profit from competitive advantages due to relatively high
initial investments that could prevent competitors from accessing the market. For
PAYT users, the system provides potential savings in waste fees. Overall, potential
savings outweigh the initial investment (Friedrich & Neidhardt, 2005).
x Experts note several environmental benefits: PAYT enables the reduction of
collected residual waste in parallel to an almost proportional growth of the
quantities collected by systems for source-separated materials (Reichenbach,
2008). Further development and advanced standardisation of RFID transponder
technology could enable increased transparency of waste masses and allocation,
which will allow paperless waste haulier route planning and bin cleaning planning
(Löhle & Urban, 2008). Waste hauliers have a greater understanding of supply
and demand and may be able to profit from reducing their truck pool (Friedrich
& Neidhardt, 2005).
x In Germany, where a third of waste collection uses RFID systems, municipal
waste disposal has been reduced by 35 percent and recycling has been increased by
17 percent (Thomas, 2008).
x Moreover, experts note that the closer the link between the waste charge and the
actual amount of residual waste services received, the higher the tendency of
people to engage in source separation and recycling efforts (Reichenbach, 2008).
145
x Inventory transparency, which accompanies PAYT roll-out, provides additional

gains (~3 percent) for municipalities by assessing unacquainted bins and container
x The implementation of PAYT reduces waste in bins and bags and encourages
households to do home composting (Dahlén & Lagerkvist, 2010). It also leads to
increased sorting of recyclables by private households.
x Among the organisational benefits, experts recognise that waste hauliers and waste
service providers can benefit from higher transparency of service and thus
promotion of a more reliable public image. They also benefit from legally
admissible emptying data for service confirmation, which helps prevent customer
claims (Friedrich & Neidhardt, 2005). Waste collectors are also able to optimise
their collection logistics based on generated data.
x Another organisational benefit is that for PAYT users, the system eliminates tasks
like the procurement and application of waste fee labels or waste fee tokens
x Moreover, when stolen or unregistered bins are recognised by an RFID system,
the clearance of the bin is aborted, and the free-rider problem is solved (Kreck,
2007).
x Experts recognise PAYT as a fairer waste fee system from a user’s perspective
x The higher general waste management costs are, and the more municipalities are
forced to commit their residents to these costs, the more people will demand the
chance to influence these costs. PAYT addresses this demand.
x PAYT can already use a commercially available and industrialised RFID system
set-up (Saar & Thomas, 2003).
Barriers to using PAYT

x Commercial barrier: in densely inhabited areas accountability needs to be ensured
via measures such as individually locked bins, locked container boxes and wire
cages set up for a known circle of users. This leads to more difficult accessibility
for waste collectors (Reichenbach, 2008).
x In some countries, there is strong opposition towards PAYT, as citizens consider
their privacy may be infringed or are afraid of being charged more for waste
collections.
x Municipalities need to ensure that a certain amount of waste reaches their waste
treatment facilities in order to keep operating costs and amortisation at reasonable
levels (Bilitewski, 2004).
x Besides an increase in unregulated disposal to bypass the system, impurities in
source-separated material can also grow as people can dispose of non-recycables in
free or less costly waste streams for recyclables (Bilitewski, 2004).
x Current regulations might not be strict enough to deal with misbehaviour
regarding aspects such as littering, bypassing the system, etc.
x Social barriers include the concern that PAYT users might avoid costs by burning
waste or transferring it to outside the PAYT area (Bilitewski, 2004).
146
x A very strong barrier, as agreed by experts, is that management of PAYT for

multifamily housing sharing one bin may lead to conflicts among the families.
x The implementation of PAYT can also lead to household waste being disposed of
at working places (Dahlén & Lagerkvist, 2010).
x There are also several technological barriers, including shortage of storage capacity
for source-separated waste in households, as well as poorly developed or not easy
to use systems for selective waste collection (Reichenbach, 2008).
7.1.2 RFID-based filling level measurement
Use case summary:

Most current waste collection techniques are not efficient, since collection trucks usually empty
waste bins at regular intervals. But, especially in the case of public waste bins and recycling
containers for glass or paper, the volume of waste can vary seasonally or geographically.
The route and schedule of collection trucks can be optimised via statistical filling level data,
gained by identifying and weighing bins using RFID. Each waste bin is equipped with an
RFID tag, which is read while emptying the waste bin. Several collections are necessary in order
to collect a sufficient amount of information to establish average filling levels. Using this input,
optimised collection truck routes for each individual tour can be developed.
The advantages of an RFID-based filling level measurement system are decreased maintenance
costs through fewer trucks and fewer tours, reduced taxes and fees, as well as less air pollution
and emissions through fewer tours and lower loading weight. Furthermore, efficiency and
flexibility of waste collectors increases.
Current waste collection techniques are often inefficient. In most cases, including private
households, waste bins are emptied at regular intervals, irrespective of the bin filling level.
Therefore, collection truck routes are longer than necessary or may drive through
neighbourhoods where collection is not needed at a particular point in time. Optimisation
of collection routes is of special importance, considering the fact that removal trucks are
among the least efficient vehicles on the road (One Plus Corp., 2011).
This problem is even more pronounced in the case of public waste bins (e.g., recycling
containers for glass or paper, waste bins in parks, etc.). The need for emptying varies
significantly between different public bins, depending on the season and the location.
If future waste collection systems are to be more efficient, precise information on the bin
filling level needs to be gained and communicated to the waste collector. This system needs
to be automated because the problem with the traditional collecting scheme is that the data
can be misread, misreported or mistyped, or workers can even refuse to collect the data
manually (Arebey et al., 2010). Furthermore, this is time consuming and adds extra tasks
to the truck driver’s core work.
As has been stated by Vicentini & Giusti (2009), “In order to design and implement a
suitable urban solid waste system, the first task is to forecast the quantity and variance of
solid waste as it relates to residual population, consumer index, season, etc. Then the major
147
effort is to focus on optimizing the schedule and routing of transportation trucks

considering cost, waste weight and volume, distances, road condition, etc.”
Collection costs can be reduced by up to 40 percent by using such a system because fuel
consumption and air pollution will decrease (One Plus Corp, 2011).
In order to provide real time information about the precise bin-filling level, several
solutions are currently being studied by various companies. Most of these use technologies
such as ultrasonic sensors or cameras in order to measure the filling level and further GPS
(Global Positioning System), GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) and GIS (Geographic
Information System) technology to transfer the data to the waste collector and thereby
enable real-time tour planning. RFID is only a secondary supporting technology and does
not play an important role in determining the filling level in this process. Therefore, this
use case will not focus on this scenario. For the sake of completeness, examples of this
system include “SmartBin”, developed by an Irish company, and the Finnish
MetroSense.24
The focus of this use case is on route optimisation via statistical filling level data, gained by
identifying and weighing bins (similarly to PAYT). Each waste container is equipped with
an RFID tag. Before emptying, the collection truck identifies the waste bin via an RFID
reader and weighs the content. This information is uploaded into a database after the
return of the truck to the collection centre.
After several non-optimised tours by the recycling truck during the introduction of the
system, average filling levels can be established. Using this input, optimised collection
truck routes for each individual tour are developed.
For example, some waste bins will have to be emptied twice a week, while others will only
need one single emptying per week or even once every two weeks. The bi-weekly tours can
therefore be shortened by only passing through the “bi-weekly full” bins and half of the
“weekly full” bins, reducing the duration of the tours and therefore the emissions generated
too. Thereafter, the collection truck continues to register and weigh the waste bins in order
to detect changes in the filling-pattern of the bins. Such changes are then regularly
integrated into the routes. By doing so, over-full waste bins can also be avoided.
Taking into account the focus on emptying public waste bins, another possibility is to
include municipal event scheduling in the tour planning. Statistically calculated waste
amounts can be predicted for public events.
Requirements
x Expenses for hardware as well as additional labour costs through bin tagging.
x There should be quantity and variance forecasts (Vicentini & Giusti, 2009).
x In terms of organisational requirements, truck driver training to get accustomed to
the new technology would be needed. Truck drivers would also need to be
educated about the benefits of this system.
24
As of 8 February 2012, see www.smartbin.com and www.metrosense.com/waste-
sorting/flv/wasteamount/animation.html
148
x Experience shows that a time span of one year is needed before a system with the
required complexity runs reliably.
x Public events or construction works on the route should be considered.
x To estimate savings, accurate information about the truck routes is necessary.
x The key technological requirement is having appropriate hardware.
x Experts also note that it is important for local communities to be educated about
RFID bin tagging, to reduce any health/privacy concerns that are sometimes
associated with RFID applications.
Benefits of using RFID-based filling level measurement

x Expert consultation has highlighted several commercial benefits, such as
decreasing maintenance costs through fewer trucks and fewer tours needed;
reduced taxes and fees; reduced emissions through fewer tours and lower loading
weight; increased efficiency; and increased flexibility of waste collectors as they can
use their resources for versatile tasks (One Plus Corp, 2011).
x There are also substantial environmental benefits, including reduced fuel
consumption and air pollution through decreased number of tours as well as
reduced road works because there is less wear and tear on the streets (One Plus
Corp, 2011).
x Among organisational benefits, experts agree that with RFID technology,
full/over-full containers can be avoided.
Barriers to using RFID-based filling level management

x Lack of appropriate understanding about the benefits of using RFID technology.
There needs to be an appropriate education programme aimed at different
stakeholder groups – for instance local community members, truck drivers, etc. –
about the costs and benefits of using RFID applications.
7.1.3 RFID-based waste sorting
Use case summary:

This use case describes the use of RFID to enable the extraction of homogenous waste fractions
and/or the separation of hazardous materials (e.g., batteries) from non-homogeneous waste
mixtures. Besides the required application of RFID tags, the availability of data on the material
composition of the tagged products is essential.
The main benefits of RFID-based waste sorting are seen in more purified waste fractions
resulting in a higher market value for these fractions and subsequently less waste being disposed
of in landfills.
The requirement for data on the material composition of products could be problematic for
manufacturers who do not want to share this information with competitors.
An important trend in the waste processing industry (next to the preference for prevention
and reuse over recycling) is the reorientation from a disposing towards a reuse/recycling
149
economy, which requires sufficient management of material streams. This trend is

encouraged by the Waste Framework Directive. Another trend is increasing material costs
in the industrial sector, which are driving the transformation of recyclables into new
materials.
In terms of waste stream management, it is essential to gather all information regarding
material or product composition. According to Löhle et al. (2009), the lack of this
information is impeding optimised and specific recycling of resources.
This use case describes the application of RFID technology in making the necessary data
accessible to enable the extraction of homogenous waste fractions and the separation of
hazardous substances or impurities from non-homogeneous waste mixtures, and build new
potentials for the recovery of recyclables (Löhle & Urban, 2008).
An essential requirement for the use of RFID is the application of RFID tags to the
products/items to which automatic sorting is going to be applied. To identify a product
using RFID, embedded information such as a Universal Product Code (UPC) is necessary.
Product codes might be used to sort items at a range of points along the EOL supply
chain: in households, at kerbside, at recyclers, or for pre-processing before incineration,
landfilling or smelting (Thomas, 2009).
As proven in the grocery sector, the use of a UPC provides potentials for savings. Similar
savings might be applicable for the waste management sector (Thomas, 2009). As a result
of the increase in product variety, and thus waste variety, through the introduction of
UPCs it is logical to put more emphasis on waste sorting concepts (Thomas, 2009).
The applicability of RFID technology to waste sorting processes was assessed in a test
facility at the Faculty of Waste Engineering at the University of Kassel. Successful
identification of tagged packaging has been demonstrated by these tests (Löhle & Urban,
2009).
As described in Löhle et al. (2009), automatic and manual (traditional) waste sorting is
composed of 5 steps:
1. The feeding and dispersion/singularisation of the fraction that is intended to be
separated.
2. The identification of objects.
3. The identification of object location and position.
4. The classification of objects according to predefined identification requirements.
5. Mechanic or manual separation of identified objects (Löhle & Urban, 2009).
The main task for RFID is to enable step 2, the identification of objects within the waste
stream. Although there are already other ways to identify materials in Material Recovery
Facilities (MRF), such as optical sorting mechanisms, RFID has a high potential to
increase efficiency (Löhle &Urban, 2009).
There are two ways of realising this task. Firstly, the identification of the object through
additional information such as the material composition of the identified object stored in
the tag’s memory, and secondly, just the identification of an object and the look-up of
150
additional information in a database. After an object is identified, the system triggers an

automated sorting mechanism or indicates the presence of an object by a signal and
determines the object’s location within the stream.
A waste fraction that is pre-sorted in this way would be homogenous and therefore easier
to deal with in subsequent recycling processes, which may also raise its market value.
In the subsidiary purification process phase RFID might serve as an additional control
mechanism to ensure that pre-sorted waste from municipalities or industry does not
contain objects that might contaminate waste fractions (e.g., through tagging of hazardous
waste like batteries or oil cans).
According to Thomas (2009), items in focus are small electronics, batteries, products
containing batteries or electronics, plastic-containing products, small fluorescent light
bulbs, athletic shoes and specially tagged valuables.
In addition, Urban (2006) states that the main application field for RFID technology
might be (pre-sorted) waste streams containing recyclable materials. A potential application
for residual waste streams, where only the rejection of hazardous materials (e.g., batteries or
electronics) seems realistic, does not appear profitable since residual waste is comprised of a
large share of organic material and small- and medium-sized components (e.g., fragments)
for which tagging is not expected (Urban, 2006).
Today, mandatory tagging may prevail only for some product groups. Two scenarios are
possible: 1) a negative selection where a recycling process might benefit from the removal
of products containing hazardous materials from the waste fraction; 2) a positive selection
where products containing valuable materials are sorted out. The latter scenario might
soon be adapted when manufacturers are required to or have an interest in regaining their
products and are therefore willing to tag their products (Urban, 2006). Here the increasing
prices for raw materials are seen as the main driver.
On the other hand, Urban (2006) states that “the public interest in increasing the recycling
of batteries is based on environmental considerations rather than economic considerations.
An environmental assessment of the costs and benefits of battery recycling would include
environmental impacts of the entire lifecycle of the batteries, their material content, and
the relative merits of recycling versus incineration or land filling”.
Referring to the earlier introduced lifecycle model this use case takes place in the waste
processing phase and the subsidiary purification process phase. The main involved
stakeholders are recyclers as well as manufacturers, as it is a prerequisite that manufacturers
tag their products and/or packaging at an item level and provide information such as the
material composition (either through storing it in the memory of the tag or in a database
that is accessible to other stakeholders).
Requirements
x Commercial requirements: expenses for RFID hardware and middleware; expenses
for data management and maintenance; critical mass of products must be tagged
to gain efficiency; individual tag location determination will generate additional
costs.
151
x Environmental requirement: tags mustn’t alter the classification of already eco-

friendly products.
x Organisational requirements include: a common naming scheme (Främling et al.,
2006); tags need to be applied directly to the product (Löhle et al., 2009); access
to product information must be limited to authorised organisations (Löhle et al.,
2009); closer cooperation between manufacturer and waste haulier (Saar &
Thomas, 2003); data should be saved on a back-end system as they may not fit on
the tag (Främling et al., 2006); waste processor need to assess the material's
impact.
x Technological requirements include: hardware and data infrastructure; long
lifespan (Urban, 2006); classification criteria to be stored on the tag (Löhle et al.,
2009); standardisation for common product identification (Jun et al., 2009); tags
need to be suitably integrated, taking into account the material composition of the
tagged product, size, frequency, orientation and placement of tags; to optimise tag
readings a standardised use of the tag’s memory areas is required (Urban, 2006);
in-stream product location needs to be reliable.
Benefits of using RFID-based waste sorting

x Commercial benefit: more purified fractions are of greater value.
x Several environmental benefits, including: less waste in landfills; less hazardous
waste in landfills.
x Also, today’s impurified fractions can be further separated.
x There is also a strong technological benefit as RFID can support existing optical
sensor systems.
Barriers to using RFID-based waste sorting

x Commercial barriers: unnecessary increase in costs if tagged products do not need
be extracted from waste fraction; differing frequency ranges; real benefit is
questionable due to already efficient processes; Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEMs) don’t want to share product information with potential competitors.
x Since today’s state of the art waste sorting processes are already efficient the
additional benefit might be questionable.
x Environmental barrier: raw material of the tag can hardly be recycled due to small
quantity (Löhle & Urban, 2008).
x Legal barriers: data protection laws may hinder use of stored information; user
might unintentionally be associated with the tagged products; information
gathering might infringe privacy protection laws (Löhle & Urban, 2008).
x Organisational barriers: huge amounts of data require complex coordination of
back-end systems; interrupted information chain if tag is removed from product
by user; common standardisation efforts among all stakeholders needed (Urban,
2006).
x Social barriers: removed or destroyed tags have negative impact on efficiency;
successful systems might make consumer pre-sorting obsolete.
x Technological barriers: metal or other materials can have an impact on tag
readability, as can metal-coated product packaging (Löhle et al., 2009); tags using
152
differing coding schemes can have negative impact on reading rate (Urban, 2006);
differing working frequencies are hindering cross-sector operation (Urban, 2006).
7.1.4 Consumer purchase decision support based on environmental performance
Use case summary:

The consumer purchase decision support (CPDS) use case describes the use of RFID on products
to support the consumer’s decision when he or she is about to purchase a product. Here RFID
facilitates the look up of product-related information regarding its environmental performance
(dynamic carbon footprint, energy consumption, hazardous materials).
The main requirements for this use case besides the tagging of the relevant products are the
availability of adequate ICT infrastructure and the needed product information. The main
benefits are of a environmental and commercial nature, setting incentives for manufacturers to
produce more eco-friendly or fair products.
The high investment costs caused by the required ICT infrastructure and the market penetration
of NFC-enabled devices in Europe are problematic. Also, standardisation of environmental
performance information and organisations providing fair and reliable data would need to be
set up or supported at a political level. Consumer awareness is also a strong prerequisite.
This use case describes the use of RFID to facilitate the look up of product-related
environmental information for eco-friendly consumers at the point of sale using a mobile
device (e.g., an RFID-enabled smartphone in combination with service applications). The
products in focus are mostly consumer-packaged goods (CPGs), vehicles, electronic devices
(PCs, mobile phones, flat-screens, etc.) and products containing hazardous materials.
This use case is partially based on the ideas and concepts of previous studies and of various
experts who revealed the challenges of carbon footprint accounting and its possible
influence on a consumer’s purchase decision.
To have any possible influence on a consumer’s decision, the first essential requirement is
to make the information about a specific product publicly available. This is secured by
providing a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) database that contains useful and
interesting facts about the product. This database is fed by the manufacturer with
information about the product (e.g., product ID, its composition, place and state of
production). The manufacturer is either forced to legally include information about the
product, or the manufacturer provides this information voluntarily, thereby highlighting
the eco-friendly or fair-traded features of the product. Pilot studies demonstrate increasing
ambitions to voluntarily inform consumers about the carbon footprint of products
(Thomas, 2008).
The data provided to the consumer can either be random information about the product
itself (e.g., product composition, manufacturer), and/or recycling advice that supports the
right disposal method (Urban, 2006). Both types of information can influence purchasing
153
decisions since eco-friendly waste management at the EOL phase is of major interest to
eco-friendly consumers.
RFID technology can provide consumers with information about a product due to its
capability to bridge the digital and the physical world (Riekki et al., 2006). For this to
work, it is necessary to a) equip the consumer with a reading device, and b) to integrate an
RFID tag on the product and/or its packaging. Later on, the tag will be used to look up
information in databases with the help of a mobile device. Mobile devices are evolving into
constant companions (Reischach et al., 2009a). It is logical to consider them as the most
relevant device to use, especially taking into account that mobile apps are more preferred
by users than web browsers. These applications are easier to handle and provide faster
services (Parks Associates, 2010). They also involve ubiquitous services (Reischach et al.,
2009b) such as fetching product information to confirm the authenticity of goods
(Friedlos, 2011).
A technological alternative already in use today is the barcode (1-dimensional or 2-
dimensional). Consumers can already use this technology with most mobile phones. An
integrated camera is the only technical prerequisite to scan the code, although the camera
and the product code always have to be in line of sight. Barcode labels are also very
sensitive. They can be easily obliterated by contact with liquid substances or scratching.
These difficulties can be overcome by RFID tags, which can be read, for example, using
Near Field Communication (NFC). The latest smartphones of diverse brands (e.g., Nokia,
Samsung, Google) provide NFC functionality and can thereby read NFC tags and most
high frequency (HF) tags that comply with ISO/IEC 18092. Today, NFC is already
applied in electronic payments (e.g., in supermarkets) and for ticketing in stadiums
(Tagawa, 2011). Forrester Research Inc. (2011) named NFC as its top mobile trend for
2011. The outlook shows that more mobile phone makers and even a tablet PC
manufacturer will launch NFC products in the near future. Other research work states that
by 2014 one in six users will have an NFC-enabled smartphone (Tagawa, 2011).
Unfortunately, the read range of NFC tags is not wide enough to be used for supply chain
monitoring.
Alternatively, two tags on a product can be integrated, one for HF and one for UHF
(ultra-high frequency). But this is likely to be too costly and cumbersome. Two possible
developments might solve this dilemma: either the application of a dual band tag or the
equipment of mobile devices with UHF reader modules.
The feasibility of a dual band tag antenna has been demonstrated by manufactured
prototypes (Mayer & Scholtz, 2008). A smartphone with a UHF reader module is
expected to have enormous potential in the consumer market (Friedlos, 2011). SK (South
Korean) Telecom developed the first inexpensive RFID UHF reader module in 2011; it
can be integrated into mobile phones, and its usability has already been tested.
Furthermore, SK Telecom has also developed a prototype integrating both UHF and HF
reader modules, to eliminate the need for multiple separate readers (Friedlos, 2011).
This use case has focused mainly on environmental data on products available to the
customer. To gather this information, a suitable method of providing relevant data needs
to be in place.
154
Current Greenhouse Gas (GHG) accounting cannot determine the carbon footprint of
individual products. However, with RFID technology customers can get accurate
information about the CO2 emissions of a particular product. Emission-relevant data are
dynamic in the sense that they change with time and among different variations of the
same product. These frequent variations have implications for calculating the product
carbon footprint values (Dada et al., 2009). With RFID they can be assigned to a specific
product at item level (e.g., reflecting changes or improvements in the production process).
For example, the Electronic Product Code (EPC) (Dada et al., 2008) network can provide
carbon footprint-related data to a consumer using the specific ID-number of the product,
which is stored and classified in the EPC Discovery Service. In this case, the particular
product-related emission can be compared to the average and the deviation displayed on
the consumer’s mobile device (Dada et al., 2009). One alternative to EPC provider EPC
Global Inc. – beside some others – is ID@URI, an identifier format linking tangible goods
to their information sources on the Internet. However, EPC is the state-of-the-art in this
field at present.
Requirements
x Consumers need to be properly equipped with an appropriate reading advice that
can recognise an RFID tag.
x Before entering the market, goods should be tested and rated by non-profit
organizations such as environmental or consumer protection agencies, so that
consumers do not have to solely rely on the manufacturer’s information.
x Initial expert consultation also uncovered several requirements, including:
o The need for a regulatory framework regarding product information
availability as well as security and privacy issues.
o Commercial requirements: tag prices need to be feasible. There are also
expenses associated with RFID infrastructure and data management.
o There is a need for a business model to measure the value of using RFID
in this consumer support context.
o The tag itself must not significantly alter the carbon footprint of the
product.
o In terms of organisational requirements, experts noted that a
manufacturer-independent recommendation system should be
implemented and situation-dependent information should be made
available (the position of a consumer, determined via GPS, influences the
carbon footprint of the product’s transport logistics).
o Research on more efficient ways to display carbon footprints on mobile
phones is needed. A common vocabulary should be adopted.
o Overall, there should be security, controllability and social acceptance.
o The application should propose near-by alternatives (e.g., the same type
of food manufactured in a more eco-friendly way or closer to the
customer).
o There needs to be an appropriate hardware/infrastructure, middleware
and adequate storage and administration for information.
o Tags need to be suitably integrated with common and comprehensive
standards.
155
Benefits of using RFID to contribute to CPDS

x The application of RFID has benefits for the retail logistics sector. After the entire
logistic process has been completely tracked and traced, the generated data are
used to create a consistent product lifecycle assessment (LCA), e.g., the dynamic
footprints of products. LCA is a standardised methodology (ISO 14040 series)
that quantifies resource consumption and potential environmental impacts of
products traced over their entire lifecycle (Dada et al., 2009).
x RFID technology is cost-effective for the retailer, who can store and categorise
goods more efficiently.
x Consumers also benefit from using RFID-enabled mobile devices (e.g.,
smartphones) to request product information and to make purchases. Consumers
become more empowered because they can make comparisons in terms of eco-
friendliness across a range of products.
x The use of RFID allows consumers to rate a product and to express their
experiences with their purchase. Several shopping platforms, notably Amazon,
already provide rating possibilities (Thomas, 2008). This practice contributes to
the notion of a decentralised consumer, which is deemed of high value (Reischach,
2009).
x The initial expert consultation has further contributed to greater understanding of
the benefits, including:
o Commercial benefits: RFID would enable real-time decision making as
well as checking of the authenticity of goods.
o Environmental benefits: less GHG emissions through carbon footprint
awareness promotes eco-friendliness, which in turn could result in less
landfill and decreasing energy consumption.
o There would be an increased level of granularity of carbon accounting.
o RFID could have social benefits by informing consumers and helping
them make more rational decisions.
o Use of RFID could contribute to the increase in this area of research.
Barriers to using RFID to contribute to CPDS

x Substantial monetary costs, at least in some cases (for instance, initial costs
associated with setting up RFID technology).
x Costs associated with the development of carbon footprinting, which tends to be
time consuming and expensive.
x From an environmental point of view, experts note that tags can lead to
supplementary pollution.
x A huge organisational effort is needed to guarantee information availability.
x Consumers might not adopt the system.
x From a technological perspective, item tagging is not economically feasible, and
liquids and metal have a negative impact on readability.
x Experts also note that NFC tags might not be the ideal choice, due to their limited
read range.
156
x Selecting the right application from a high number of offered applications may be
difficult.
7.1.5 RFID-based disposal decision support (sell, donate, repair, dispose)
Use case summary:

The disposal decision support use case describes the use of RFID to support the consumer’s
decision when the tagged product is no longer of use. Here RFID facilitates the look up of
product-related information in relation to what to do with it (sell, donate, repair, dispose) or
how it should be handled (how and where to dispose it) when it is at the intersection between
the MOL and EOL phases.
The main requirements for this use case are the RFID tagging of the relevant products and an
adequate ICT infrastructure to enable consumer access to the needed data. The main benefits
are environmental and commercial.
The challenges of this use case are relatively high investment costs (caused by the tagging of
products), the back-end systems needed, and the availability of reliable data to support an
informed customer decision.
This use case assesses the use of RFID to facilitate the look up of product-related
information in relation to what to do with it or how it should be handled when at the
intersection between the MOL and EOL phases.
The products in focus for this use case are mostly consumer packaged goods (CPGs),
electronic devices (e.g., PCs, mobile phones, flat-screens), and other products containing
hazardous materials like car batteries or oil cans.
Due to today’s heavy industrial processing in EOL operating enterprises, and labour-
intensive piecework as in computer refurbishing, a need for optimisation and an increase of
efficiency in these processes is required, along with the increased involvement of consumers
(Thomas, 2009).
To gain consumers’ commitment, they need to be able to benefit from these applications
directly or indirectly. By supplying information about a product (e.g., material
composition, manufacturer, place of production, estimated expiry date) purchasing
decisions are made easier and more rational, and recycling decisions support the right
disposal (Urban, 2006). The availability of this information to consumers may satisfy the
so-called “Green Conscience” and may benefit local enterprises by securing the
authenticity of purchased goods, and by contributing to savings on disposal fees.
Technically this could be realised by using RFID technology combined with mobile
devices such as smartphones, as described above.
Additionally, the mobile device could be equipped with a GPS module that would enable
location-based services – showing the user the way to the next recycling centre or helping
people to adapt to specific regional recycling policies. A mobile phone equipped with an
157
integrated camera might also serve to directly upload pictures of the identified product to
an online auction service or to a repair shop.
RFID should be taken into account as a possible technology to apply the mandatory
tagging of recyclables (Vogel & Strassner, 2004). RFID application at an item level,
enabling refurbishment and reuse, is seen as a promising application by many authors
(Thomas, 2008).
“Owing to RFID technology, a PLM system can gather accurate data related to
product lifecycle history at the collecting and dismantling phase of EOL products, e.g.
which components they consist of, what materials they contain, who manufactured
them, and other data that facilitate reuse of materials, components and parts.” (Jun et
al., 2009)
Requirements
x Technological hardware/infrastructure:
o Internet.
o Mobile phone capable of reading RFID tags and with internet access and
operating at the same RFID frequency used by the manufacturer and
retailer.
Optionally able to determine its own location (e.g., through
GPS).
Optionally able to take photos.
o Easy to use mobile application/product look-up service.
o Data availability (product data, shop data, disposal data).
o RFID tags and readers.
o Material needs to be tagged at item level.
o Back-end systems need to be implemented, sinceit is not feasible to store
all relevant PLM data on the tag (Främling et al., 2006).
o Tags need to be suitably integrated, taking into account reading materials,
size, frequency, orientation and placement of tags, in order to handle still
existing technical limitations of RFID (Jun et al., 2009).
o The use of RFID in all PLM phases does require new standards, especially
regarding different kinds of product identification IDs and the required
architecture for data transmission (Jun et al., 2009).
o The ideal tag location needs to be determined for each type of device.
This will result in additional costs for the manufacturer compared to
existing packaging labelling practices (Urban, 2006).
Benefits of RFID-based disposal decision support

x Commercial benefits: RFID is an efficient protection from counterfeit products;
RFID enables more efficient supply chains; and waste management costs could
decrease as more products end up in the right treatment paths.
x Environmental benefits: fewer products disposed of because more are recycled and
reused; less incorrect packaging disposal.
x Organisational benefit: efficiency of waste processes increased through pre-sorting
by consumer.
158
x Social benefits: more awareness of disposal rules; increasing awareness of charity

organisations; social conscience of consumer satisfaction; availability of
information technology abroad as more functioning used products could possibly
be sold to secondary markets providing, for example, better education access in
developing countries.
x Technological benefit: USIM card phones might serve as a substitute for fixed
interrogators; a passive tag would be sufficient.
Barriers to using RFID-based disposal decision support

x Commercial barriers: investment costs; increased reuse might reduce number of
sales; expenses for back-end data management.
x Environmental barriers: supplemental environmental pollution through item-level
tagging; tag itself might alter a product’s carbon footprint.
x Social barriers: consumer might not adopt the system; older generation of users
might have difficulties using modern technology.
x Technological barriers: differing requirements among involved stakeholders.
x Commercial requirement: tag prices need to reach feasible level.
x Legal requirements: potential need for a regulatory framework regarding product
information availability; need for a regulatory framework regarding security and
privacy issues.
x Organisational requirements: information availability; common standard for
product ID; consistent placement of symbols; common naming scheme.
x Technological requirement: hardware/infrastructure; individual tag location
determination.
159
7.1.6 RFID-based WEEE end-of-life processes
Use case summary:

Waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) represents the fastest growing waste stream
in Europe. A lot of precious materials but also hazardous substances are contained in WEEE.
RFID could enhance collection, disassembly, reuse, refurbishment, recycling, reassembly and
disposal processes. The cost-saving effects presumed in electronic equipment EOL handlings are
comparable to those in certain retail businesses.
RFID could greatly improve the recovery of value from EOL equipment and provide for safer
WEEE treatment, enforce individual manufacturer responsibility, and therefore push for more
eco-friendly designs.
The need for relatively high up-front investment in necessary hardware installations and for
organisational changes in the recycling industry are one of the strongest barriers here. Also,
RFID-based procedures can only become effective following a long lead-time, until tagged EEE
products have penetrated the market and end up in EOL processes.
Common standards for a lifecycle-phase overarching PLM or at least for appropriate tag data
content could foster the uptake of RFID in WEEE EOL processes. Also setting the right
framework, incentivising eco friendly design through a strong manufacturer individual
allocation of the of direct and indirect disposal costs, could foster the uptake of this use case.
This use case describes the utilisation of RFID to enhance EOL processes for electronic
and electrical waste, which in the EU falls under the scope of the RoHS and WEEE
directives. E-waste is the most rapidly growing waste stream in Europe and is increasing at
a rate about three times faster than average (Parlikad & McFarlane, 2004). Some sources
state a very high potential for future RFID-based EOL handling (Busch, Pötzsch, 2005;
Jun et al., 2009). (EOL is the phase where EOL products are collected, disassembled,
reused, refurbished, recycled, reassembled or disposed of (Jun et al., 2009), with potential
RFID enabled cost-saving effects equal to or even higher than certain retail businesses
(Thomas, 2009)).
The basic assumption for this use case is that future electronic devices will be tagged with
an RFID label containing either unique product code data (Thomas, 2009) or even a label
with more information, enabling item-level PLM. Some concepts even foresee the label
containing, for example, the item’s individual maintenance history (Harrison et al., 2004).
At first, the consumer’s decision whether to dispose of an item or sell it can be supported.
The consumer could assess the tag data with an NFC-enabled device such as a mobile
phone (Friedlos, 2011). Should the consumer be advised to dispose of the item in question,
RFID can be utilised to facilitate the consumer disposal process, indicating where the
equipment needs to be brought to for disposal in a consumer-convenient and
environmentally optimal way, fully conforming to the legislative framework in place.
These aspects are outside the scope of this use case and are dealt with in Section 7.1.5.
Secondly, RFID can inform the consumer about the correct recycling operator’s site. The
selection could take several aspects into account:
160
x Choosing operators who are specialised in dismantling or recycling a certain kind

of device or recycling specific materials.
x Choosing operators who are contracted by the OEM of the electronic device,
enabling a manufacturer specific allocation of disposal cost (Löhle & Urban,
2008).
Thirdly, at the recycling operator’s site, the construction plans of the device could be
assessed in order to enable best-practice dismantling operations. In this case a unique
product code can be read from the RFID label, enabling the operator to access the device’s
construction and material composition data via an externally stored database, most
probably accessed via the Internet. If the identifier contains a larger amount of data
allowing item-level PLM (Hans et al., 2010), intra-device part replacements and
maintenance information could be stored in back-end database systems (at present, the
option of having all data contained on the tag is only considered feasible for high-value
objects.)
Having assessed this information, the operator would be able to:
x Estimate the value of the device or the precious materials contained within it. This
value could therefore be best manifested by either reusing the device, refurbishing
it, remanufacturing it, cannibalising the device or recycling its materials, thus
supporting the decision on how the device should be treated optimally (Parlikad
& McFarlane, 2007).
x Obtain information about how to dismantle the device and about potential
hazardous substances contained within it. The optimal workplace and
environmental protection legislation conformant procedures to dismantle can be
chosen (Löhle & Urban, 2008).
As part of a visionary concept, literature indicates the possibility of “self-recycling-devices”,
where RFID information enables a product to be processed by semi- or even fully
automatic dismantling lines (Busch & Pötzsch, 2005).
Tracking WEEE EOL devices through RFID would also allow a real assignment of the
recycling cost of a device to its manufacturer. So far, this is mostly implemented by making
the manufacturers or retailers pay for the recycling of the same number of devices that they
brought into the market. Therefore no real incentives currently exist for manufacturers to
redesign their products in a more eco-friendly and easy-to-recycle way.
Requirements
x “A unique product identifier (e.g., EPC).
x Radio Frequency tags and readers to ensure timely and automatic identification of
product.
x Filtering, collection and reporting mechanisms for managing tag reads.
x An interface to a distributed product information database (e.g. the EPC
Information Service) linked to an information look-up service (the Object Name
Service) to ensure completeness and accuracy of product information.
161
x Standardised vocabularies for communication across the supply chain.” (Busch &
Pötzsch, 2005)
Benefits of using RFID for WEEE end-of-life processes

x RFID could help WEEE waste end up in the right waste stream. Electronic and
electrical devices are often wrongly disposed of in mixed domestic waste. Through
RFID, WEEE waste could be detected in domestic waste and separated from it.
This could help to raise the recycling rate and partially solve the problem of
inappropriate disposal (Löhle & Urban, 2008).
x “Tags could increase recycling efficiency. Tags on electronic equipment could be
linked to Web sites showing how to dismantle the product and how to make it
easier for consumers to resell the items on the Internet.” (Thomas, 2008)
x On entry of the product to the recycling site, the transmitted or queried
information (age, composition, components) could serve as a basis for deciding
whether to reuse, repair or cannibalise certain components. RFID-based
dismantling would also be economically beneficial and environmentally friendly
(Löhle & Urban, 2008).
x In a mechanical treatment facility, material balances could be created if all treated
devices entering it were equipped with RFID tags. The material composition of
the devices going in could be read from the tags and compared with the weight of
the recovered materials, allowing for an automated recycling quota determination
and generating data to improve the facility’s efficiency (Löhle & Urban, 2008).
x Moreover, the following benefits have been highlighted during the initial round of
expert consultation:
o Commercial benefits: recyclers become more specialised; increasing profits
through resale of returned products.
o Environmental benefits: increased reuse of products or parts; increased
recycling rates; better handling of hazardous substances; less waste
produced due to higher recovery rates; eco-design fostered in the long
term.
o Legal benefit: recycling targets and manufacturer responsibility could be
enforced or controlled.
o Organisational benefits: more specialised, safe and efficient workplaces
established at recyclers; higher degree of automation; improved decisions
through better information.
o Social benefits: image of waste management industry may improve;
awareness of EOL processes may impact on purchase decisions; as more
reliable information about used devices is available, trade in quality parts
could be enabled.
o Technological benefits: better visibility of whole product lifecycle; more
efficient disposal logistics; more automated dismantling processes; better
material and value recovery.
Barriers to using RFID for WEEE end-of-life processes

x One problem for the implementation of the RFID-based procedure is a high lead
time: “To benefit from RFID in the disposal phase, every product needs at least
162
one tag. This is problematic especially regarding the market penetration of long-
life products even when product tagging would be mandatory from now on for
each product.” (Urban, 2006)
x “Unlike conventional manufacturing and assembly processes, demanufacturing
and disassembly operations are characterised by a high variety in the type, quality,
and condition of raw materials (i.e., returned products) and because of the
numerous options available, this leads to high levels of uncertainties in
determining the destiny of a product at the end of its life. As a result of the
uncertainties associated with returned products, effective recovery of value requires
extensive information about the product identity and its condition at the time of
return.” (Parlikad & McFarlane, 2007)
x In addition, the following barriers and requirements have been highlighted during
the initial round of expert consultation:
o Commercial barriers: investment in automation; increased reuse could
decrease number of sales.
o Legal barrier: current legislation doesn’t set the right incentives.
o Organisational barriers: new knowledge profiles and working methods
needed; there is a need for specialisation.
o Social barrier: stakeholders might not be willing to invest.
o Technological barrier: high costs of infrastructure for collectors and
recyclers; automated dismantling might be very complex.
o Commercial requirements: expenses for RFID infrastructure must be
acceptable for ELV handlers/recyclers; expenses for RFID infrastructure
must be acceptable for OEMs; expenses for information handling and
maintenance have to be considered.
o Legal requirements: manufacturer-specific allocation of disposal costs
should be fostered; product ID cannot be deleted after point of sale
(POS).
o Organisational requirements: product information about usage needs to
be available at EOL; common standards.
o Social requirement: benefits of the system need to be promoted and
become a selling point.
o Technological requirements: hardware/infrastructure; products or
components need to be tagged; back-end systems need to be implemented
and maintained; tags need to be suitably integrated; standards for
identification; determination of placement of every single tag generates
additional costs.
163
7.1.7 RFID-based ELV end-of-life processes
Use case summary:

RFID could enhance the dismantling process of ELVs. Dismantling and depollution
information needed to enhance vehicle treatment could be made available through RFID
tagging of vehicle components or a PEID.
The status of exchanged parts in the vehicle that are still in adequate condition could be assessed,
enabling greater reuse and resale of the used parts, since, for example, the vehicle’s maintenance
history would be immediately available to the dismantler. This use case would also allow for a
better monitoring of recycling quotas.
Next to a common standard of car part tagging and related data, investment and change of
work processes would be needed from dismantlers. As car manufacturers seem to prefer to shred
vehicles as a whole after depollution and then to separate the materials, the implementation and
impact of this use case may be limited.
This use case describes the possible utilisations of RFID to enhance the treatment of ELVs,
which generate between 8 and 9 million tonnes of waste per year in the European Union.
To manage this waste, the ELV Directive was officially adopted in September 2000. It
aims to make vehicle dismantling and recycling more environmentally friendly, setting
clear quantified targets for reuse, recycling and recovery of vehicles and their components;
and to push producers to manufacture new vehicles with a view to their recyclability.
The basic assumption for this use case is that an ELV and/or its subcomponents will be
tagged with RFID labels containing a unique product code, or vehicles will be equipped
with an RFID-enabled Product Embedded Information Device (PEID) (Cao, et al., 2009).
The literature (e.g., Vogel & Strassner, 2004) refers to the two options as:
x Part-tracking: The car components are tagged, allowing for their identification.
Related PLM data or item-level PLM data of the components are stored in back-
end systems. RFID part-tracking could become an option in the near future as
OEMs are obliged to mark recyclable materials and components. Simple, passive
tags seem to be sufficient to identify related materials and components.
x Soft-tracking: A tag with higher memory content is attached or integrated in the
car’s bodyframe. It contains a unique identifier for the vehicle, and information
about the car’s production parameters at the BOL phase. The data are
continuously updated during the car’s MOL phase, recording, for example,
registration information, license plate, usage parameters, repairs/part exchanges
and maintenance information (Cao et al., 2009). At the EOL phase, certain
procedures (e.g., if the car has already been depolluted at the treatment facility)
could also be recorded in the PEID.
The EU-funded project PROMISE has developed an embedded “tagging” system that can
record information on a product throughout its entire lifecycle, while the EU-funded
CONCLORE project acquires PLC information using PEID devices (mostly RFID tags)
integrated into automotive parts. Using PEID, tracking and tracing with advanced sensors
164
and planning functionality for automated identification, sorting, classification, and routing
during dismantling recycling and continuous quality reprocessing is improved (Khan et al.,
2006).
There are several steps associated with treatment of ELVs; one is depollution. Here,
hazardous substances like fuels, lubricants, tyres, airbags and batteries are removed. RFID
could facilitate the choice of how such items are treated. They may be reused, reprocessed
or recycled depending on the information available on the car’s PEID, or based on the
specific components indicated on the tag. Based on the most economically feasible option,
the transmitted or queried information (age, composition, components) could serve as a
basis for deciding whether components should be reused, repaired or cannibalised.
RFID might provide similar information when dismantling a car. For example, if a
gearbox has been recently replaced, it could be reused. The dismantler would disassemble
the components of the vehicle, which would be processed accordingly. At the same time,
the newly generated lifecycle information and knowledge would be transmitted to the
PLM system, thus closing the product information loop (Cao et al., 2009).
Moreover, literature suggests a visionary closed-loop Decision Support System (DSS) as a
consequence of soft- and part tracking: The dismantler can improve decision-making at
EOL, exploring the usage data and information – measured by RFID sensors. The current
quality of the parts and components can be examined. The expected residual life for each
component can be predicted using the DSS, by comparison with the relevant product
lifecycle knowledge available in the PLM. Recovery decision-making is a process for
generating a list of components to be removed from the vehicle, as well as for deciding on
their further usage (i.e., by reuse or remanufacture) (Cao et al., 2009).
In a less visionary approach, existing DSS could be enhanced by connecting physical
objects with computer systems though RFID (Harrison et al., 2004), thereby facilitating
data queries from recycling support systems already in place. The operator would no longer
need to search by product code for a specific component or look through the car
production plans. The following DSS are used at present:
x The International Dismantling Information System (IDIS) is a software tool
developed by the major automotive manufacturers to make the recycling of ELVs
more effective. The software contains information on the component parts of
vehicle models, including how the parts are fixed, materials, weights, etc. The tool
is designed to assist in the dismantling of vehicles and the subsequent recycling of
ELV parts (GHK, 2006).
x The International Material Data System (IMDS) is a collective, computer-based
material data system used primarily by automotive OEMs to manage
environmentally relevant aspects of the different parts used in vehicles. It has been
adopted as the global standard for reporting material content in the automotive
industry. IMDS recognises hazardous substances by comparing the entered data
with lists of prohibited substances. The OEMs harmonised their requirements for
materials used by their suppliers with the establishment of one list, the Global
Automotive Declarable Substance List (GADSL).
165
Requirements
x Commercial requirements: expenses for RFID infrastructure need to be acceptable
for ELV handlers/recyclers and for OEMs; there will be expenses for information
handling and maintenance.
x Environmental requirement: the smallest possible environmental impact needs to
be a motivation for the manufacturers.
x Organisational requirements: product information about usage needs to be
available at EOL; there needs to be a common standard; organisational framework
needs to be set up according to requirements; PLM system needs to be in place
and accessible to all stakeholders.
x Social requirement: benefits of the system need to be promoted and become a
selling point.
x Technological requirements: hardware/infrastructure; vehicles or components
need to have PEID; back-end systems need to be implemented and maintained;
tags need to be suitably integrated; standards for identification are needed as well
as standardisation of hardware and data; data must be very reliable.
Benefits of using RFID-based ELV end-of-life processes

x It would improve the dismantling process by making it more efficient and less
costly, which is particularly important in light of the ELV Directive.
x RFID could contribute to greater take-up of existing tools for DSS. For instance,
even such data-sharing tools as International Dismantling Information System
(IDIS) are available on CD-ROM and DVD, they suffer from low usage (GHK,
2006). RFID could make the use of these systems simpler and foster their uptake.
x Additionally, RFID has potential for contributing to the sorting of parts during
dismantling by automating this process (CONCLORE Project, 2007) and
promoting “self-recycling devices”, as well as semi- or even fully automatic
dismantling lines (Vogel & Strassner, 2004; Busch & Pötzsch, 2005).
x The use of RFID could also foster the market for used vehicle parts. At present,
only 1–2 percent of reusable car parts are resold. This is due, in part, to the
asymmetry of information between buyers and sellers of used vehicle parts.
Through the RFID-enabled possibility of tracking a car’s usage history and the
replacement and maintenance of its components, this asymmetry could be
decreased (Vogel & Strassner, 2004).
x In addition to the benefits listed in the literature, the initial expert consultation
has highlighted the following additional benefits:
o Commercial benefits: increased profits through resale of returned
products; lower costs due to reuse.
o Environmental benefits: increased reuse of products or parts; increased
recycling rates; better handling of hazardous substances; less waste
produced due to higher recovery rates; eco-design fostered in the long
term.
o Legal benefits: Easier control of recycling quotes and enforced
manufacturer responsibility.
166
o Organisational benefits: more specialised, safe and efficient workplaces

established at recyclers; dismantling design will facilitate dismantling
processes; EOL data could become valuable in the BOL phase.
o Social benefits: image of waste management industry gets better;
awareness of EOL data influences BOL decisions; enabled trade in quality
used spare parts to bridge developed and developing countries;
opportunities for green marketing; counterfeited spare parts could be
identified.
o Technological benefits: better visibility of whole product lifecycle; more
automated dismantling processes; better material and value recovery; low
PEID price in relation to car price; spare parts are more difficult to
counterfeit.
Barriers to using RFID-based ELV end-of-life processes

x Main barrier: The automotive industry is investing in research into optimal post-
shredder fractions of ELVs. This would result in ELVs being shredded after
depollution, making the use of RFID obsolete. This point was stressed strongly by
the automotive industry.
x Commercial barriers: high investment in automation needed; increased reuse
could decrease number of sales.
x Legal barrier: missing standards.
x Organisational barriers: for mass-produced models, the recyclers are aware of how
to dismantle them. The need for dismantling information is considered low for
experienced operators.
x Social barrier: stakeholders might not be willing to invest.
x Technological barriers: high costs for hardware and infrastructure; automated
dismantling might be very complex.
167
7.1.8 RFID-based disposal management of healthcare waste
Use case summary:

Medical waste, mainly produced in hospitals, can cause a health risk. How to handle and
dispose of such potentially infectious waste is therefore strictly regulated at both the national and
European levels.
Several pilot projects have already been set up in order to test infectious waste tracking by RFID.
The tags can collect information about the nature and origin of waste, date of transport or
persons responsible. It can thus be assured that infectious waste ends up in an incineration plant
instead of being dumped illegally, for example. Moreover, RFID can contribute to a better
classification of waste, assuming that pharmaceutical products are tagged and can be distinguish
in waste types. This can lead to less hospital waste due to less erroneous disposal. Other benefits
of medical waste tracking include the minimisation of the exposure of waste treatment employees
to the waste-connected risks, and better transparency.
But the pilot projects have also shown that the idea of RFID-based disposal management of
healthcare waste is not mature yet. There are still too many technical, environmental and legal
barriers. As regards tagging medical waste directly instead of waste bins, it should be
remembered that healthcare waste includes organic waste or tissues that cannot be tagged.
The medical waste disposal sector deals with materials generated as a result of the
diagnosis, treatment, and immunisation of human beings or animals. Healthcare waste,
including biohazardous waste, can be generated by hospitals, dentists, nursing homes,
blood banks, funeral parlours, laboratories and research centres. Infectious waste includes
human remains and organ parts, waste contaminated with bacteria, viruses and fungi, as
well as larger quantities of blood and used medical equipment (notably cottons, needles,
scalpels, etc.). Some 80 percent of the generated waste in primary health care centres is
non-infectious (WHO, 2005). But inaccurate disposal of infectious waste can lead, for
example, to the spread of infectious diseases and to genetic defects. It is estimated that in a
developed country, about 1–5 kilograms of waste is produced per hospital bed per day
(Yadav, 2001).
This sector, due to its significant potential health risk to the populace, is heavily regulated
on a national and European level. The applicable European directive for the management
of infectious waste from the health sector is the Waste Framework Directive. Other
applicable documents have been published in the last few years, for example:
x Rules and regulations from the hygiene sector and epidemics legislation.
x Technical guidelines for the logistics involved in waste disposal.
x International standards for waste transport.
x Regulations for the handling of biological working substances.
x Other regulations from the public health and safety sector.
There have already been several pilot projects testing RFID systems for managing medical
waste. One example is the Japanese incineration service Kureha, which set up a waste
168
traceability system using IC (Integrated Circuit) tags in cooperation with IBM Japan in
2004. The testing was conducted at the Kureha Hospital in Fukushima prefecture (Das,
2011). The aim was to test effectiveness of RFID tagging in tracking medical waste
materials. Illegal waste disposal can thus be prevented by creating accountability for
hospitals and transportation service companies (Sullivan, 2004).
Further pilot projects were initiated in Korea and Taiwan. In the Taiwanese En Chu Kong
Hospital a comprehensive RFID system has been implemented, including a new waste
management system. This pilot project started in January 2004 in cooperation with
Hewlett Packard and has been partially successful (Tzeng et al., 2008). On a final note, no
detailed results of these pilot projects have been accessible so far.
Requirements
x From an organisational perspective, personnel need to be trained to prevent
frustration and uncertainty among those who are responsible for implementing the
system.
x Experts also noted several key technological requirements, including the necessity
of having appropriate hardware/infrastructure; middleware; connection between
systems and databases; and common standards.
x Tag design must consider the characteristics of objects.
x In order for RFID tags to provide more precise information on the risk level of the
waste contained in bins, a minimum level of information should be collected,
including:
o Weight in tonnes of the waste disposed
o Nature and origin of waste
o Date of transport
o Persons responsible
o Name and registered place of business of the disposal company or waste
logistics operator
o Nature and location of the waste disposal (Daschner, 2000).
Benefits of using RFID-based disposal management of healthcare waste

x The supply and use of some pharmaceutical products has to be accurately
documented. RFID reduces the error rate in the documentation as well as the
workload of clinic personnel. If pharmaceutical companies tag their products with
RFID, information about product composition, production date, obligatory
disposal process, etc., can be saved in a PLM database.
x Although a detailed analysis of this does not form part of this study, it should be
added that the tagging of the pharmaceutical products could be an efficient way to
combat counterfeited medicaments, optimise the reverse logistics, and improve
recall management.
x In the case of tagged medicaments, RFID enables a permanent inventory insight,
since products are registered as soon as they are in use. This information is also
stored in a PLM database. Thus the hospital is able to control its medicament
flows, detect any anomalies, and avoid abuse.
x RFID also contributes to better classification of waste. Medical waste is very
expensive to dispose of and a subsequent separation is not possible due to health
169
risks. An efficient and precise sorting is already necessary right after usage. This
could minimise the amount of waste that gets into the disposal cycle. But the
classification of waste according to material or contamination is only possible if
the definition allows a clear distinction of waste types (Daschner, 2000).
x RFID reduces uncertainty among the personnel charged with classifying hazardous
waste. Hospital departments, in which medical waste is produced, are equipped
with different waste containers. There is also a distinction between two waste
streams: non-infectious waste that will be treated like domestic waste, and
infectious waste that has to be disposed of and treated separately according to
legislation. An RFID reader on a waste bin would help identify the right waste
stream and thus significantly reduce the amount of non-hazardous waste, which is
often wrongly sorted into the hazardous stream. As a result, costs of hazardous
waste increase. The amount of hazardous waste tends to be higher because if
personnel are not sure whether waste is infectious or not, they would dispose of it
as hazardous to avoid potential risks. However, this increases the amount of
infectious waste unnecessarily. At disposal, the reader automatically indicates into
which container the waste should be placed. It classifies the tagged waste into the
correct category and opens the appropriate lid of the bin. This is possible due to a
comparison with data on a PLM database (Mallett et al., 2007).
x The biggest advantage, next to improving traceability compared to a paper-based
system, is the minimisation of the exposure of waste treatment employees to
waste-connected risks. As most identification steps are automated, hardly any
contact with the bins or bags is necessary. It is conceivable that an automated
transport system could also be established. Due to the use of RFID technology,
the automated system identifies the medical waste and transports it to the correct
treatment facilities inside of the plant within a minimum of time. It should be
noted that medical waste is usually not stored but treated as soon as possible after
collection.
x According to the initial expert consultation, the following benefits could apply:
o Less hospital waste due to less erroneous disposal
o Illegal disposal prevented
o Potential for higher cost transparency for hospitals
o Cost reduction through labour reduction
o Border crossing containers can offer detailed information to customs.
Barriers to using RFID-based disposal management of healthcare waste

x Disposal cannot be fully automated, as hospital personnel will still have to decide
ad hoc whether usually uncontaminated material has been contaminated while
being used. This would make it necessary to dispose of it in a special way.
x Some experts expressed their concern about the usefulness of RFID technology in
managing the disposal of healthcare waste. In particular, some EU Member States,
for instance Germany, stated that the current disposal management process is
already efficient:
o There are already effective electronic verification procedures existing
today (e.g., an electronic chain of custody that is been running in all
German hospitals for one year).
170
o Some experts expressed the view that the optimisation of these procedures
regarding hazardous waste with RFID is not worth the effort, since the
mass of infectious waste is not as significant as the mass of non-infectious
waste and, additionally, the generation of infectious waste does only take
place in a couple of areas like medical centres or quarantine units.
x Waste disposal decision support may not be very useful since hospital personnel
usually know how to dispose of waste already.
x Infectious waste usually includes organic waste or tissues that cannot be tagged.
Despite this barrier, according to the initial expert consultation, it is important to
note that resource separation via RFID within the hospital is worth considering,
together with its application in the supply chain, and for storage of medicines.
x Overall, several commercial, environmental, legal and technological barriers have
been outlined in the initial expert consultation, including:
o A large part of separation prior to disposal will remain manual.
o There needs to be some monetary effort for implementation, at least
initially.
o There will be additional costs for data management.
o In terms of legal requirements, experts stressed the importance of having
strict legislation.
o Moreover, there needs to be public pressure for implementation.
o It is important to bear in mind that liquids and metal can reduce
readability of tags.
7.1.9 RFID use cases privacy assessment

Although data protection is already legally regulated by EU directives, the mass application
of RFID technology in daily life still raises privacy concerns. After assessing the use cases
presented in this chapter, experts were asked to choose which privacy risks they considered
relevant (from the complete list in the PIA framework Annex III). The “Privacy Impact
Assessment (PIA) is a process whereby a conscious and systematic effort is made to assess
the privacy and data protection impacts of a specific RFID application with the view of
taking appropriate actions to prevent or at least minimise those impacts.” (PIAw@tch,
2011).
Furthermore, the experts were asked to estimate the likelihood of occurrence as well as the
magnitude of the privacy risks. The experts had the opportunity to explain their
understanding of the risks associated with the use case, and identify possible mitigation
actions. The results are summarised below.
Uncontrollable data gathering from RFID tags was identified as the most relevant risk.
The problem in the context of specific use cases could be access control over the personal
data that could possibly be linked to the tags carried around on the owned products. This
was proposed to be solved by introducing access control mechanisms. On top of this risk,
insufficient access rights management would also be likely to create a strong impact. The
problem is caused by the fact that access is not really limited to the owner of a (tagged)
product. To overcome this hurdle, an authentication mechanism, such as password
protection, was suggested.
171
Although the combination of personal and product-related data was seen to exceed its
purpose only with low probability, it would have a strong impact on the application.
Where, when and how data would be collected should be clearly determined (e.g., by using
privacy-by-design approaches).
The high likelihood of occurrence and the strong impact of missing erasure policies or
mechanisms might lead to refusal by consumers. Therefore, a regular review to delete
unwanted data is required.
Generally, educating users about the circumstances and purpose of data collection is
important. It was highlighted that involved consumers need to know where, when and
how data related to their person is collected. Proposals included tagging making tags
identifiable by a commonly agreed symbol or a similar mechanism. In either case,
unauthorized direct access to private data or involuntarily linking a person to its purchased
products needs to be prevented.
7.2 Use case conclusions

7.2.1 Emerging themes across the use cases
Based on literature research on each use case, dominant statements have been derived
describing requirements, benefits and barriers. As mentioned before, these statements have
been initially validated by several experts. In the following, the consolidated expert
feedback is summed up as emerging themes across all use cases, likewise structured into
main statements, benefits, requirements and barriers:
x Consumer Purchase Decision Support (CPDS) is already possible using barcodes.
RFID would only gain a handling advantage when there is no line of sight needed.
This advantage may not justify the investment effort to use RFID.
x RFID supported EOL processes for WEEE are seen as the most promising use
case, as there is potential to save materials of high value and scarce resources. The
electronic products market is the largest economic sector worldwide.
x RFID in ELV EOL handling is not considered very promising by the automotive
industry, since industry-funded research is focused on post-shredder technologies
(sorting of shredded waste by, e.g., material density, magnetic separation, sieving)
in order to gain a high recycling rate. Prior to that pressed car bodies are put into a
shredder or condirator as a whole. As a result, RFID use for disassembly
facilitation or automation is not seen as of high potential by the automotive
industry.
x The use case of healthcare waste is not considered to have a high potential impact
in developed countries because the amount of infectious waste in clinics is low
compared to other waste streams and non-RFID systems are already in place and
working. Furthermore, most material only becomes infectious after a particular
use and is thus not tagged adequately beforehand.
172
Some use cases require item-level product tagging to be implemented whereas others will
be successful with only tag-based infrastructure. Product tagging does not affect the
processes of tag-based infrastructure and vice-versa. The tagging of the infrastructure
characterized by a limited number of tagged items could already be beneficial to optimise
EOL processes (as demonstrated by the implementation of PAYT, for example), large-scale
consumer product tagging, especially for low-value products is considered to require
additional drivers and benefits in the BOL and MOL phases in order to sustainable or
profitable implementation.
At the moment, the incentives to invest in more efficient automated processes in EOL
alone are considered insufficient. Waste management is considered mainly as an additional
cost factor by manufacturers. Green marketing, change of environmental awareness and
behavioural patterns, rising raw material prices and legislative actions enforcing a strong
and manufacturer-specific product responsibility could change this framework conditions
in the coming decades. A closed-loop supply chain with strong connections between all
lifecycle phases, looping back from EOL to BOL by recovering most value from the waste
streams, could become a main competitive advantage for manufacturers.
In this context, nearly all use cases have common standardisation prerequisites for item-
level product tagging and PLM. In addition, this leads to the assumption that
standardisation, either driven by the industry’s target of realising BOL and MOL
optimisation or driven legislatively in EOL by sustainability demands, could lay the basis
for further applications. At the moment, the need for common standards is prominent, as
it is seen as a platform enabling scale effects to realize a broad spectrum of use cases cost
efficiently.
Furthermore, and aside from business retention in terms of cost-benefit ratio or
standardisation, experts pointed out that RFID technology has acceptance problems
foremost at a social level, primarily consolidated in privacy concerns. Acceptance issues
should be addressed through information campaigns, visibility of data usage and strong
privacy regulations to realise potential environmental benefits enabled by RFID
application in EOL. The potentially profitable end-to-end RFID application comprising
BOL, MOL and EOL is in a tension field with privacy concerns that manifest themselves
in the requirement to completely erase tag information at the point-of-sale, deleting any
added value for subsequent EOL processes.
Strongest requirements valid for all use cases were:
x Investment costs for hardware (tags, readers, etc.), middleware and system
maintenance need to be passed on to all involved stakeholders according to an
agreed cost allocation key.
x Controlling tools to measure the actual savings and benefits in a reliable way need
to be set up for all use cases.
x Legal frameworks for privacy protection and comprehensive information/

education about implementation needs to be in place in advance to increase the
user’s acceptance and make them feel comfortable with the system.
173
x Simple schemes and positive media coverage will gain wider acceptance of users.
x The engagement and participation of involved stakeholders would be increased by

common standards applicable to all stakeholders with regard to product
information availability, product naming schemes and thus product identification,
used systems and gained connectivity among these.
x Robustness of the technical system is crucial to avoid cost-intensive parallel

fallback processes. The system’s robustness has to cope with different
environmental conditions changing several times along the lifecycle, depending on
the particular circumstances the product has to pass through.
The environmental benefits of RFID most strongly stressed throughout the use case
evaluations were:
x Comprehensive product tracking over the entire lifecycle is the basis for reliable
carbon footprint accounting.
x Easier and safer handling of hazardous substances. They could be removed from
waste streams more easily.
Strongest rated barriers valid for all use cases were:

x Reluctance to invest, especially with regard to the time it will take even after
investment to make the system run properly and until the costs will be amortised.
Stakeholders also expressed concerns that a potential investment would not pay off
under the current framework conditions. This is seen as the strongest barrier of all.
x Assuming RFID implementation in EOL processes, the current role and

technological capability of recyclers managing waste of complex products (WEEE
and ELVs) potentially needs to be converted into a more specific product or waste
stream specialisation, where nowadays generalisation is competitive enough.
x Some processes (like car disassembly) are too complex and expensive to fully
automate under the current framework conditions. Other processes will need to
remain under manual control (like decisions about not tagging organic waste in
the case of healthcare waste handling).
x Tags could negatively influence existing recycling processes in terms of material

insertion and contamination of waste material treatment processes as assessed in
Chapter 5.
Derived from the use case assessment, the following table summarises significant
correlations between requirements, barriers and benefits that are valid for all use cases.
174
Table 20. Requirements, barriers and benefits for all use cases
Requirement Related barrier Envisaged benefit
Lower tag price level Upfront costs for RFID infrastructure Goal of better economic
and continuous tag investments sustainability could be fulfilled
through a high critical mass of
tagged products
Regulatory or industrial Material composition or production Reliable product transparency

framework needed on product details are not reliable enough to lead on environmental sustainability
information availability and to product market leads or sensitize
reliability consumers for environmental aspects
Regulatory or industrial Consumer might be associated with the Strengthen consumer

framework needed for privacy tagged products or consumption commitment as key driver of all
protection patterns EOL applications
Education means and Lack of consumer awareness and Reinforce environmental and
strong public relations understanding societal sustainability by
changing people’s mindset and
behavioural patterns
Industrial or regulatory Fair cost and benefit distribution for Economic sustainability as an
moderation needed to set up a hardware, middleware, data joint-value proposition
business case and business management and data maintenance integrating BOL, MOL and EOL
model overarching the whole throughout complex value chains
value chain
Robustness and user-oriented Cost inefficiency resulting from needed Economic sustainability driven
technical infrastructure fall-back procedures by increased efficiency,
flexibility, speed, accuracy of
end-to-end processes
Regulatory or industrial Complexity of data exchange, Economic sustainability and

framework needed formalising a accessibility and management between non-discriminating data access
common naming scheme and involved stakeholders. Furthermore a
standards regarding product certain dependency on specific data
identification and protocol managers might block industrial
transmission acceptance.
In a consolidated balance, RFID RFID implementation may counteract Increase of environmental

infrastructure and tags contribute the classification of already eco-friendly sustainability and
to the intention to monitor the products societal/consumer commitment
carbon footprint of product
lifecycle
Product specific regulatory or Value chain-wide agreement on Economic sustainability enabled

industrial framework on tag process responsibility and support to by disclosed data flows to
integration, removal, avoid interrupted or inaccessible current or new market roles
composition, accessibility, information flow
frequency, etc., is needed
175
CHAPTER 8 Case studies of RFID as a green

technology
x In this chapter two case studies are conducted, resulting in specific cause and effect
relation diagrams for green RFID usage in EOL processes.
x Interpretation of these cause and effect relations is provided.
x At the end of this chapter, the lifecycle overarching findings are summarised.
The process to select use cases for a more specific analysis within a case study assessment
was driven by several considerations of comparable relevance. The most promising use
cases were chosen according to their relevance to the tension field between the interests of
industrial, societal and environmental sustainability. The case studies chosen, the first on
WEEE and the second on CPDS, exemplify the importance of balancing and enforcing
reaction loops throughout implementation and in-field management. Furthermore both
case studies represent significantly different approaches and conditions within the tension
field. Regulation played a major role in the RFID-enabled WEEE case study, whereas the
individual consumer interest and participation was key to initialise and establish the RFID-
enabled CPDS case study.
177
Technological
Economic /
motivation organisational
feasibility
weighing and balancing of interests

Regulation
weighing of interests
Societal
Societal
opposition
motivation
(privacy
(positive
concerns,
environmental
behavioural
effects)
patterns)
Figure 71. Tension field of use case expert evaluation
Apart from these different leverages, the case studies cover the most promising, lifecycle
and stakeholder overarching (cause-effect) factor relationships and correlations derived
from the use case assessment as described in Section 6.2.
8.1 Case study 1: WEEE

The WEEE case study assessed the use of RFID in the EOL phases of electrical and
electronic equipment. The conditions, requirements and barriers for this RFID
deployment have been assessed in depth in Section 7.1.6. This use case is a prerequisite for
understanding the work that has been carried out in this project. The use cases described in
Chapter 6 resulted in structured findings that were transformed into factors. Each factor
influencing the use case can be assigned to multiple lifecycle phases. After having identified
the main factors, the main stakeholders were assigned to these through a brief stakeholder
analysis. In a further step, a cross impact analysis provided first insights into the
interrelated factors. These insights were used to build direct and indirect correlations
between different factors. Factors can have a strong, medium or weak impact on each
other. In the model, this is represented by the thickness of the connection between factors.
Time effects are also considered. In fact, factors can have short-, medium-, or long-term
effects on each other.
178
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Case studies of RFID as a green technology
Figure 72. Overview of the WEEE case study cause and effect net (details are described in the
subsequent figures)
179
By using the iModeler tool we built-up the cause and effect graph using the product
lifecycle phases as a guiding mechanism. In the top section of Figure 72, RFID-related
effects (costs or benefits) for BOL processes (design and production) and MOL processes
(logistics and retail) are depicted. The model helps to represent the beneficial effects of
reducing specific BOL and MOL processes as opposed to the costs for the implementation
of RFID tags and infrastructure set-up. The factors are set in relation to the specific cost
segment, while they also result in environmental effects. For example, more efficient
logistics result in a lower environmental impact through reduced transportation. How far
commercial and environmental effects run in parallel or lever each other is also determined
by certain external factors such as raw material prices. The implementation of RFID is
driven by BOL and MOL requirements as a determining factor for the effects RFID
application may have on the efficiency and environmental performance within EOL
processes. RFID uptake resulting from EOL requirements such as mandatory recycling
targets or recycling target monitoring is taken into account in the model.
In our model, stakeholders can be differentiated by different colours.
Table 21. Overview of WEEE stakeholders and colour-coding within the cause and effect net
Stakeholder Colour
Administration Government, EC, etc. Red
Multiple stakeholders Light blue
Business OEM/Manufacturer Blue
Recycling Operator Dark blue
Consumer Consumer Yellow
The table below captures the complex scenario model as described above. The first column
includes the relevant stakeholders identified for this case study: consumers, administration,
logistics operator, OEM, retailer, and multiple stakeholders. The second column lists the
factors as they are named in the case study cause and effect model. The third column
comprises social and behavioural impacts, as well as technological, organisational, legal and
commercial impacts. In the last column, every factor is classified according to which
lifecycle phases are most impacted.
180
Table 22. WEEE case study interlinkage of stakeholders, factors, impacts and lifecycle (following
assessment storyline)
Stakeholder Factors Impact type Lifecycle phases

EU-wide information campaign organisational Lifecycle overarching
Incentives for eco-friendly products commercial, legal BOL
Mandatory recycling rate legal EOL
Privacy legislation legal MOL
Administration
(e.g., EC) Recycling rate monitoring organisational, legal EOL
RFID in WEEE enforced by framework
guidelines legal EOL
Subsidies commercial, legal Lifecycle overarching
Manufacturer-specific allocation of
disposal costs legal Lifecycle overarching
Awareness of eco-friendly products social/behavioural MOL
Consumer purchase decision support social/behavioural MOL
Consumer
Demand for eco-friendly products social/behavioural MOL
Privacy concerns social/behavioural MOL
Costs of RFID system integration commercial Lifecycle overarching
Costs of RFID tag and application commercial Lifecycle overarching
Negative environmental impact environmental Lifecycle overarching
Product-/item-related data technological Lifecycle overarching
Resource scarcity environmental Lifecycle overarching
Reuse of EEE commercial Lifecycle overarching
Multiple
stakeholders Standardisation organisational, legal Lifecycle overarching
Sustainable development environmental Lifecycle overarching
Transparency about RFID organisational Lifecycle overarching
organisational,
Use of RFID technological Lifecycle overarching
organisational,
Use of RFID for WEEE technological EOL
BOL costs commercial BOL
Competitive advantages commercial BOL
Costs commercial Lifecycle overarching
Distribution costs commercial BOL, MOL
environmental,
Eco-design commercial BOL
OEM/
Manufacturer Eco-friendly image social/behavioural BOL, MOL
Eco-friendly product environmental BOL, MOL
EOL costs commercial EOL
Fixed rate commercial EOL
MOL costs commercial MOL
Price for raw materials commercial Lifecycle overarching
181

commercial,
Process efficiency technological BOL
Production costs commercial BOL
Revenue commercial BOL, MOl
Sales commercial BOL, MOL
Service & Repair Costs commercial MOL
organisational,
Use of RFID in logistics technological MOL
organisational,
Use of RFID in production technological BOL
organisational,
Use of RFID in service technological MOL
Profit commercial Lifecycle overarching
Costs commercial Lifecycle overarching
Costs for logistics commercial EOL
Costs per recycled product commercial EOL
commercial,
Efficiency logistics technological MOL
commercial,
Efficiency of recycling processes technological EOL
Recycling
Operator Profit commercial Lifecycle overarching
Real costs per recycled product commercial Lifecycle overarching
environmental,
Recycling rate organisational EOL
Recycling rate documentation organisational EOL
Revenue commercial Lifecycle overarching
Technically advanced recycling technological EOL
The functionalities of iModeler allowed us to choose a specific factor of the model as the
centre of our analysis. The graph representing the cause and effect net was automatically
restructured, displaying all other factors that influence the target factor either directly or
indirectly or which are influenced by this target factor. In the next sections, we focus on
some target factors considered of special relevance.
Key factors dedicated to sustainable development
Firstly, we focused our analysis on the sustainable development of a target factor, as this
was considered to have high-level and strong policy relevance. Figure 73 depicts which
factors of our model have a direct influence on sustainable development.
182
Figure 73. WEEE cause and effect description merging into target of sustainable development
Resource scarcity and negative environmental impacts reduce sustainability. The impact of
these two influencing factors can be lowered, either through greater reuse of electrical and
electronic equipment or subcomponents or by a higher recycling rate. The recycling rate is
influenced by the efficiency of the recycling process. Input factors include technical
advanced processes, legislative requirements and product design. Eco-design (e.g., EOL
process-efficient, material-efficient, energy-efficient disassembly and recycling) may
provide easier-to-recycle products if EOL treatment of products are taken into account. A
cross impact from the availability of product- or item-related data at EOL to the efficiency
of the recycling process can also be seen. For the example shown in Error! Reference
ource not found.Figure 73, raw material prices present a crucial framework condition.
As already mentioned in the WEEE use case assessment, better and more reliable product-
or item-related data at EOL can realise a positive effect on value recovery from related
waste streams through reuse. A strong driver RFID use in EOL is the standardisation of
PLM data and related systems, allowing for value chain and product-lifecycle overarching
RFID usage. A barrier for EOL deployment is privacy concerns, which should be
considered in appropriate standardisation efforts. Strong privacy legislation can also
enhance the transparency of how consumer information is used and therefore reduce the
customer privacy concerns.
Setting the factor “Reuse of EEE” into the centre of analysis (see Figure 74), we observe
that the waste handler’s profit could be raised by reselling more used products and
components. Here a direct cause-and-effect path is established between the usage of RFID
in BOL and MOL, its usage in WEEE recycling and environmental and commercial
benefits.
183
Figure 74. WEEE cause and effect description setting reuse of EEE into focus
Another important policy goal of the WEEE Directive is the manufacturer-specific

allocation of disposal costs, as shown in Figure 75. By focusing on this aspect, we observe
that the modelling of impact parameters leads to the uptake of eco-friendly design of EEE
products. Eco-design, on the other hand, has a direct impact on factors of different
lifecycle phases. While at BOL production costs may rise, technically advanced recycling or
self recycling devices may improve processes, resulting in reduced EOL costs. Also
competitive advantages could be realised by using eco-friendly design as a selling point.
Figure 75. WEEE cause and effect description setting manufacturer-specific allocation of disposal
cost into focus
As already mentioned, a higher recycling rate helps to fulfil the goal of sustainable
development. RFID could provide a higher level of automation, better documentation and
monitoring of achieved rates in the recycling operator’s processes. The analysis of
regulative requirements for monitoring and documentation is captured in the following
cause and effect graph (Figure 76).
184
Figure 76. WEEE cause and effect description resulting from (RFID-based) recycling rate monitoring
Focusing on the realised recycling rate itself, a comprehensive cause and effect overview is
automatically created. The colour coding of factors in the next graph (Figure 77) shows
how the different stakeholders and external factors interact in this complex network. The
recycling rate (performed and self-defined by the recycler) is always driven by the recycling
process efficiency corresponding to revenue potentials resulting from, e.g., the level of raw
material prices. Raw material price level, RFID application at item level, eco-design and
mandatory recycling rates or monitoring need to provide the means and motivations to
challenge the current process efficiencies. As a result of more efficient or profitable
recycling processes, a long-term reduction of EOL cost might reduce the manufacturer-
specific allocation of disposal costs.
185
Figure 77. WEEE cause and effect description setting the recycling rate as key lever into focus
Balancing and reinforcing looped interactions

The modelling technique also gives an opportunity to analyse the cause and effect network
to gain insights on balancing and reinforcing loops. A loop is a chain of factors that
directly influence each other in a closed sequence. An example is shown on the graph
below (Figure 78).
Figure 78. WEEE interaction loop balancing eco-design and recycling rate
(follow blue highlighted path)
186
It becomes clear that the manufacturer-specific allocation of disposal cost is a main

regulative element (red) linking EOL and BOL and therefore recycler processes (dark blue)
and manufacturer processes (blue). The strength of the interrelations remains to be
evaluated by further experts. However, it can be stated that individual producer
responsibility will constitute a much closer EOL-BOL link or even close the product
lifecycle with possible cost benefits for both recycler and manufacturer in a balanced
system. Only lifecycle phase overarching deployments and co-operations of stakeholders
could realise joint benefits here.
A reinforcing loop is shown in Figure 79. Here raw material prices are an important
externality. Outside the shown loop, higher prices are expected to foster recycling. Further
on, within the loop, a higher level of prices would result in higher manufacturing costs,
presenting a potential barrier to investments in RFID implementation if no sufficient cost
benefits could be realized by its usage. On the other hand, the availability of better and
more reliable product data at the EOL phase of a product could enable more reuse and
reselling of used EEE. This directly results in less demand for new products if a better-
informed, reliable and more trusted secondhand market could be created. The literature
(see Section 7.1.6) indicates the relevance of this, especially for developing countries. Also,
more efficient recycling would result in higher generation of secondary raw materials from
WEEE. Both mentioned cause and effect relations have an effect on lowering the raw
material price as element of the loop.
187
Figure 79. WEEE interaction loop reinforcing the use of RFID as a result of resource scarcity and
raw material prices (follow red highlighted path)
The evaluation matrix in Figure 80 helps us to understand the criticality and performance
over time of factors impacting the target factor recycling rate. Within this matrix it
becomes obvious that factors such as resource scarcity, price of raw materials, reuse and the
recycling rate are at the centre of factor disposition. Here, the recycling rate is the target
factor and is at the same time the impacting factor reinforcing the loop.
188
Recycling rate
Reuse of WEEE
Price for raw materials

Resource Scarcity
Figure 80. Evaluation matrix of WEEE factors backing recycling rate and reuse of WEEE as positive
reinforced factors (short-term perspective)
Resource scarcity initiates an increase of recycling rate, but on a mid-term perspective its
relevance is lowered as it is assumed that both eco-design and more efficient material
recycling processes slightly compensate for this factor as a driving force (see Figure 81). As
there is a direct link within the model between resource scarcity and raw material prices, a
comparable effect can also be assumed for the latter. High raw material prices initiate
higher recycling rates but will be subject to a lower relevance over time if highly efficient
recycling processes are fully capable and steady.
189
Recycling rate
Reuse of WEEE
Price for raw materials

Resource Scarcity
Figure 81. Evaluation matrix of WEEE factors backing resource scarcity and raw material prices as
critical reinforced factors (mid-term perspective)
On the other hand it can be stated that the recycling rate and the reuse of EEE become
positive self-strengthening factors over time. In comparison to the recycling rate, the reuse
of EEE is subject to a certain time delay. It results from the efforts needed to establish
technically advanced RFID-based recovery/recycling before this can contribute
significantly to an increase in the recovery/recycling rate.
190
8.2 Case study 2: Consumer purchase decision support/carbon

footprinting
This CPDS case study describes the use of RFID to facilitate the look up of product-
related environmental information for eco-friendly consumers at the point of sale by the
help of a mobile device, such as an RFID-enabled smartphone in combination with service
applications.
The relevant stakeholders have been identified in the use case assessment and are
differentiated by different colours within the model.
Table 23. Overview of CPDS stakeholders and colour-coding within the cause and effect net
Sector Stakeholder Colour in the model

Administration e.g., European Commission Red
Multiple stakeholder Light blue
Business OEM/Manufacturer Blue

Logistics operator Dark purple
Retailer Light purple
Consumer Consumer Yellow
Table 24 below serves as a caption for the complex scenario model. The Table is structured
as for the first case study WEEE.
191
Table 24. CPDS case study interlinkage of stakeholders, factors, impacts and lifecycle (following
assessment storyline)
Awareness of eco-friendly products social/behavioural MOL

Demand for eco-friendly products social/behavioural Lifecycle overarching
Demand for products with low carbon
Consumer footprint social/behavioural Lifecycle overarching
Privacy concerns social/behavioural MOL
Penetration of mobile RFID
infrastructure technological MOL
Campaign/PR for eco-friendly
products organisational BOL, MOL
Administration Incentives for eco-friendly products commercial, legal BOL
(e.g., EC)
RFID standardisation organisational, legal BOL, MOL
Subsidies commercial, legal BOL
Cost efficiency in logistics commercial Lifecycle overarching
Loss of products commercial MOL
Logistics Operator commercial,

Process efficiency technological MOL
commercial,
Process optimisation efforts technological MOL
Availability of fixed RFID infrastructure
(e.g., retailer) organisational Lifecycle overarching
Comparability of products organisational MOL
Costs for backend services commercial Lifecycle overarching
Costs of RFID system integration commercial BOL, MOL
Multiple
Costs of RFID tag and application commercial BOL, MOL
stakeholders
commercial,
Process efficiency technological BOL, MOL
Product evaluation (e.g., Greenpeace) commercial, social MOL
Transparency of products organisational BOL, MOL
Use of RFID at item level technological BOL, MOL
Competitive Advantages commercial EOL
Cost Advantages commercial EOL
Costs commercial BOL
Costs for recall and services commercial MOL
Eco-friendly image social/behavioural BOL, MOL
OEM/ environmental,
Manufacturer Eco-design commercial BOL
Fewer GHG emissions environmental Lifecycle overarching
Marketing commercial, social BOL, MOL
commercial,
Process efficiency technological BOL
commercial,
Process optimisation efforts technological BOL
192
Product quality commercial BOL

product quality/quality control commercial BOL
Profit commercial BOL
Reduction of Carbon Footprint environmental BOL
Revenue commercial BOL
Sales commercial BOL
organisational, social,
Selection of eco-friendly logistics environmental Lifecycle overarching
Sustainable development environmental Lifecycle overarching
Costs commercial MOL
Marketing at POS commercial, social MOL
commercial,
Process efficiency (e.g., out of stock) technological MOL
Retailer Profit commercial MOL
organisational,
Quality control technological MOL
Revenue commercial MOL
Sales commercial MOL
Figure 82 below models the interaction of introduced factors. The model was built
according to the same methodology as already detailed in the first case study.
193
SMART TRASH: Study on RFID tags and th
he recycling industry RAND Europe, I.A.R. a
and P3
Figure 82. Overview of CPDS case stu

udy cause and effect net (details are described in the
subsequent figures)
194
Figure 83. CPDS cause and effect description aiming for the reduction of carbon resulting both from
use of RFID for consumer information access and as a means to optimise logistics
The reduction of carbon footprint leads to reduced greenhouse gas emissions which is a
key factor for the overall target of sustainable development as shown in Figure 83. In order
to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases, first a technology enabling the determination
of the carbon footprint of individual products must be available. RFID at an item level
fulfils this requirement, providing individual information about the CO2 emissions caused
by a certain product and the means of transport necessary to reach its destination.
Secondly, there must be a demand for products with low carbon footprints from the
customer side. Although the awareness of eco-friendly products is present in some sections
of society, it still needs to be raised more broadly. This can be pushed by offering
incentives to buy more eco-friendly products or through education and advertising, for
example by starting a European-wide marketing campaign for ecological products.
On the one hand, RFID tagging at an item level gives consumers the chance to make
conscious decisions to buy eco-friendly products based on transparent information on the
level of CO2 emissions. But on the other hand, RFID gives manufacturers the chance to
optimise their processes and produce products with a lower carbon footprint. Both the
manufacturer and the selected logistics operators can increase their process efficiencies by
applying RFID along the value chain. Last but not least, the retailers can use the RFID
tags on products to optimise their processes, for example by avoiding running out of stock
or by eliminating the time-intensive handling of chains of custody sheets.
195
Figure 84. CPDS cause and effect description setting eco-design into focus
Efforts to optimise the eco-design of products have several positive impacts on sustainable
development as illustrated in Figure 84. As already described in the first case study, eco-
design leads to better recycling of electronic products. But, in addition, eco-design can also
be used for marketing, meaning that sustainable design of products can be advertised as a
unique selling point. This gives the manufacturer an eco-friendly image that possibly leads
to a competitive advantage in relation to other manufacturers.
Figure 85. CPDS cause and effect description setting use of RFID at item level into focus
The success of the CPDS case study is dependent on several requirements. One example is
shown in Figure 86 below, indicating that RFID standardisation would facilitate the
breakthrough of RFID at the item level. The impacts on other factors are wide-ranging
once RFID at the item level has become accepted. Besides positive effects for consumers
who can use the information on the RFID tag as a “shopping assistant”, the industry
196
profits from many advantages, such as lower costs for retail and services, increased quality
control and therefore better product quality. Furthermore, processes along the value chain
can be optimised more efficiently through RFID. The implementation of an overarching
RFID infrastructure, connecting the RFID systems from manufacturers, logistics
operators, retailers and independent stakeholders (testing and evaluating products) is
necessary but tied to high costs. Investments in RFID system integration, RFID tags and
application as well as for back-end services must be budgeted for.
Figure 86. CPDS cause and effect description showing mobile and fixed infrastructure as key
enablers
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the availability of a fixed RFID infrastructure is,
besides the penetration of a mobile RFID infrastructure, a key factor in enabling
consumers to read the information stored on the RFID tag. The awareness and finally the
demand for eco-friendly products may lead to customer demand for an enabling RFID
infrastructure.
197
Figure 87. CPDS interaction loop showing the mutual reinforcing of RFID usage and consumer
requirement in the context of an eco-friendly product (follow red highlighted path)
The demand for eco-friendly products can only increase with a rise in the awareness of
these kinds of products. Besides marketing, which can be applied to make consumers
register with the system, information about eco-friendly products must be provided to
make it accessible and understandable for customers. This transparency can be created by
making the attributes of products comparable. At this stage it is important not only to have
access to information provided by the manufacturer but also from independent
stakeholders who evaluate products with regard to their eco-friendliness. Besides
manufacturer-specific and product testing data, additional information about fair trade,
bio- or energy efficiency can be stored on the RFID tags. But in the context of carbon
footprint it is not necessarily guaranteed that fair trade or “bio” leads to lower CO2
emissions. Due to this fact, this type of information is not explicitly mentioned in the case
study model and its description.
Finally, there is a reinforcing loop that means the higher the demand for eco-friendly
products the more consumers wish comparability and transparency about products in
order to find products with low carbon footprints. Then consumers might even be willing
to pay for product rating information, like that from Stiftung Warentest, an independent
German consumer organisation and foundation involved in investigating and comparing
goods and services.25 The constant availability of comprehensive product information,
either through RFID-enabled mobile devices or RFID readers in supermarkets or other
25
As of 8 February 2012: http://www.test.de
198
retail shops, would raise the curiosity of consumers and consequently the demand for
sustainable products.
Figure 88. Complex CPDS interaction loop depicting the strong interaction and dependence of
involved stakeholders (follow red highlighted path)
The detail of the case study model shown in Figure 88 above shows the actual complexity
as well as the involvements and strong interactions between stakeholders. Consumers are
one of the most important driving factors of CPDS. If they request more eco-friendly
products, manufacturers will be forced to produce and sell the demanded products. Besides
efforts to optimise eco-design and in-house processes, manufacturers need to find logistics
operators who also support sustainable processes. A transparent value chain, from
manufacturer to logistics operator and retailer, allows consumers to differentiate between
products with high or low carbon footprints. Again this forces manufacturers to adapt their
product portfolio in order to fulfil customer requirements.
199
Demand for products with low carbon footprint

Awareness for eco-friendly products
Recycling rate
Incentives for eco-friendly products
Process efficiency
Figure 89. Evaluation matrix of CPDS factors backing the consumer’s key relevance to the success
of CPDS
The evaluation matrix shown in Figure 89 above illustrates by which factors the target
reduction of carbon footprint is influenced. Those factors located in the green and yellow
quarter have a positive influence. The factors awareness for eco-friendly products, products
with a low carbon footprint and incentives for eco-friendly products have a reinforcing
impact, meaning that their influence is increasing over time. Process efficiency, possibly
through RFID-facilitated logistics, is another important factor that supports the reduction
of carbon footprint, but the importance of this factor will decrease over time, as the
efficiency cannot be raised infinitely.
200
Use of RFID on item level
Cost efficiency in logistics
Costs for back-end services

RFID standardisation
Figure 90. Evaluation matrix of CPDS factors depicting, for example, the leverage of global RFID
application topics as key for CPDS
RFID may positively affect the success of CPDS. Those serving as a significant leverage are
named in the fourth quarter chart in Figure 90 above. Over time, cost efficiencies in
logistics, lower costs for back-end services and the introduction of RFID standardisation
will have a strong impact on RFID at the item level and are crucial for the success of this
case study.
8.3 Case study conclusions

Summing up the opportunities and challenges for RFID as a green technology reveals
some key themes across the use cases and their validation by case study modelling.
Under current framework conditions, RFID usage in EOL processes alone will not meet all
stakeholders’ business, environment or societal sustainability requirements (in terms of,
e.g., profitability, higher recycling rates or meeting privacy concerns).
Currently, RFID technology is not a key enabler of any of the assessed EOL applications.
Furthermore, RFID technology is unlikely to be developed further solely in order to
address EOL concerns. Some of the early RFID EOL applications were only introduced in
order to let companies demonstrate their technological leadership.
201
RFID can only become a powerful means of optimising EOL processes if it is seen in the
larger context of global information exchange, large-scale value chain integration and broad
societal technical and environmental objectives.
A successful RFID implementation needs to be based on defined end-to-end processes
with scale economies realised by shared application across industry sectors, coordinated by
agreed responsibilities and information exchanges like those used in mature and stable
production and logistics processes.
Such RFID implementation will only become self-sustaining if the narrowly commercial
drivers of process and business development are amplified by environmental and societal
concerns, etc. In particular, the key players must embrace (through market or policy
linkage, or via business model or preference internalisation) the entire product lifecycle.
Consumer sensitivity to, for example, the carbon footprints of bought products or the
opportunity cost of raw materials are currently not strong enough to push RFID into the
EOL end of the value chain. This situation can be reversed by suitable price or regulatory
incentives, by providing more relevant, understandable and comparable information to
consumers, and/or by catalysing an increase in the societal salience of EOL concerns,
carbon footprints and the like – in other words, by turning these aspects of tagged
products into “merit goods” in their own right.
Apart from these megatrends, we note that current actual and potential applications cannot
demonstrate the scale economies or growth potential needed to secure the funding and
support necessary for process re-engineering and complementary investments. To
demonstrate (and secure) these scale and dynamic effects requires an alignment of interests
and potentially new business models (e.g., to share the costs and benefits of RFID-
enhanced recycling). This finding raises the governance question: who would be able to
support, moderate, promote and exploit research; validate results and progress; stimulate
related programmes; organise awareness raising campaigns; and drive needed
standardisation efforts?
Most of the use cases assessed and explicitly the CPDS case study rely on a holistic value-
chain crossing scenario using RFID as a transversal data carrier within an open framework.
From a top level perspective this parallels on-going initiatives in the Internet of Things.
Both cases emphasise the vital importance of an open network accessible to heterogeneous
technologies, cost-free as well as billable micro services, and open standards to permit data
recorded and primarily intended for use within specific proprietary manufacturing, logistic,
and distribution systems to be read across independent – and also differentiated – waste
handling systems. This openness is essential for:
x Privacy, security and confidentiality of consumer inputs and information.
x Ease of participation, collaboration and innovation.
x Transmission of large-scale standardised product-related data via RFID tags and
linked back-end systems.
x Optimising the impetus provided by legislation, public procurement, etc.
x Facilitating adequate billing solutions to assure mid-term sustainability of
commercial drivers.
202
Such architectural scenarios for the future Internet of Things, including consumers,
companies and public institutions, are currently part of innovative concepts. The
requirement for an open, scalable, flexible, secure and sustainable infrastructure is a key
factor to enable the creation of new user-centric value-chain businesses. As a part of this
infrastructure, adequate information services need to be extended to provide broader
support for all kinds of identifiers. Discovery services enabling item-level discovery (e.g.,
ONS from EPCglobal) are essential to enable a look-up service for carbon footprints at an
item level as envisaged within the CPDS case study. At the present time, information
service discovery operates at the product class level and not at the item level.
203
CHAPTER 9 Interim conclusions and next-phase

issues
The project stands at a midway phase. This report has documented the analytic
framework, overarching research questions, policy context and the technical and market
analysis underpinning the research. It has also raised a number of specific issues that
require further investigation in terms of the relationship between RFID and waste
handling and potential market failures or other reasons for intervention or modification to
existing policies affecting RFID and/or waste.
The project as a whole considers RFID tags from three perspectives: i) objects whose
presence in waste streams has increasingly relevant implications; ii) functional capabilities
that can be harnessed to improve the economic and environmental impacts of economic
activity involving physical products; and iii) an important part of critical interacting
systems (notably waste handling systems and the Internet of Things) central to European
competitiveness and sustainability. This chapter takes stock of the significant findings of
the project from each perspective and identifies open issues to be explored during the next
phase, which will use an interactive and scenario-based workshop to validate the findings
and draw out their broader implications.
9.1 Challenges and opportunities arising from RFID tag use

Part A of the project concentrated on the occurrence of RFID tags in a variety of waste
streams and the specific environmental challenges resulting from interactions among
overlapping (and sometimes conflicting) technological, commercial and policy drivers. In
brief, conclusions at this stage are:
x RFID tags are used in an increasing range of products and end up in an increasing
range of waste streams.
x Tags come in a wide variety of forms and serve a number of functions throughout
the economy – as a result, their uptake and prevalence in different waste channels
are likely to change as the economy develops.
x This provides two points of connection between RFID tags and the waste disposal
system: i) RFID tags are physical objects with distinctive composition and
responses to waste handling processes; and ii) RFID-enhanced logistics and related
205
applications directly affect the scale, composition and environmental efficiency of

material flows throughout the economy (including waste streams).
x To date, the environmental costs and benefits associated with spiralling RFID use
do not appear to be adequately reflected in the design of tags, tagged products,
and sensor systems that use RFID to improve distribution, sale, purchase, use and
disposal.
x Measurement of such costs and benefits is complicated by the variety of waste
treatment processes and relatively patchy knowledge about the characteristics and
response to treatment of tags in different configurations and concentrations; the
project has conducted laboratory tests to improve this state of knowledge.
x Tags create a potential conflict of regulation for waste treatment processes, because
they typically enter waste streams associated with the objects in which they are
embedded. These streams may already be regulated (e.g., electronic and electrical
waste), but the RFID tags themselves might be subject to completely different
regulations due to their components.
x In general, the common framework provided by waste-orientated directives
confronts Member States approximating them into national legislation with a
series of choices or trade-offs reflecting their different legacy rules, waste treatment
systems that developed under them, differences in waste stream compositions,
organisation of collection, sorting and handling, etc. The prioritisation of specific
measures (e.g., regulations for tagged objects vs regulations for tags) may therefore
differ across Member States. The burdens of these regulations must be borne by
producers, distributors and users; this variation in approach could therefore
constitute a barrier to trade and reduce the “leverage” of the Single Market over
design and practice improvements.
x RFID tag recovery can also pose severe technical waste management challenges
that could distort uptake, exploitation and environmental optimisation of the
technology. For example, purity of materials is crucial to the integrity of high level
recycling and waste processing, so some countries have dedicated collection
systems for specific materials (e.g., glass, paper). The presence of “alien” materials
such as tags creates a technical hazard for the recycling process. At the same time,
budgetary and other pressures are increasing the prevalence of systems in which
“recyclables” are collected together and sorted later into single-material streams.
This opens the possibility the tags and systems could be redesigned to facilitate tag
removal, which would restore the effectiveness of high-level specific processes.
x As the RFID tag market expands, current trends (falling prices and rising volume
and variety of uses) are expected to continue, raising the complexity and scale of
the challenges posed by tags in waste streams.
x Active tags incorporate on-board power sources (often batteries); this poses
particular technological, regulatory and environmental challenges. These are not
206
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Interim conclusions and next-phase issues
necessarily resolved by including active tags in existing regulatory categories of

batteries or electrical and electronic waste; those regulations were crafted to deal
with larger-scale and more complex devices and may not provide the most efficient
way of dealing with active tags.
x As tag volumes increase and alternatives such as chipless (printed) RFID become
more attractive, the efficient matching of processes to different waste streams
should also change (e.g., some currently landfilled wastes may become suitable
candidates for recycling or incineration).
x Tags are produced and distributed in globalised supply chains, while tagged goods
are used in an expanding range of institutional and business model contexts.
European and Member State regulations are based on assumptions about the
geographic regions and market segments “reached” by the rules, and the responses
of users and other stakeholders to changes in tag prices, performance and
environmental characteristics and regulatory measures. These may need to be
reassessed, especially if tag design takes place beyond the reach of European
regulation. Ideally, the challenge of RFID in waste streams should be met through
a combined approach involving changes in waste treatment systems to handle
increasing volumes and changing varieties of tags and changes in economic and
regulatory incentives to encourage improved design, uptake and utilisation of
RFID tags and systems in ways that simplify detection, removal, etc. If significant
parts of the value chain lie beyond the borders of the EU, intervention could have
unintended or even perverse effects. In particular, a regulatory burden intended to
encourage design improvements may simply increase compliance costs for
European manufacturers of tagged products forced to obtain tags designed for a
less-regulated global market.
9.2 RFID tag functionality as green technology

9.2.1 Improved consumer decision-making
RFID can provide information that could increase the extent to which waste treatment
considerations are taken into account during consumer purchase, use and disposal
decisions. Purchase patterns should improve if RFID-borne information about the
composition, disposal costs and environmental “footprint” of tagged objects is made easily
available at time of purchase. Purchases would also improve if such information could be
verified and linked back to consumers at the time of disposal as the basis for charges or
rebates. Note that the first mechanism (better information at time of purchase) is not
necessarily linked to RFID tags; the same function could be served by label and product
fiche information as mandated under the Energy-Related Products Labelling Directive.26
RFID tags are more essential in the second case (waste sorting and charging) because such
26
Perhaps via enhanced information mandated in product-specific “Delegated Acts” giving force to the
Directive
207
systems should operate automatically and with a relatively high degree of assurance. As a
practical matter, consumers might disable tags if their disposal could trigger additional
charges; for this reason, rebates would probably be more effective. Other variants are
possible, from “deposits” linked to the original purchase to disposal levies on
manufacturers, but these need further discussion.
Consumers who know that they will (at time of purchase or disposal) pay for the
processing of their waste will have financial incentives to avoid products (and packaging)
whose handling is difficult and/or environmentally inefficient. This would in turn create
competitive incentives to design and supply products and packaging for which these costs
are minimised.
However, this monetisation of disposal externalities may produce rebound effects if e.g. i)
prices do not reflect full social marginal costs; ii) decisions are distorted by spillovers from
other monetised characteristics (e.g., economies of scale in production, increased energy
efficiency leading to lower per-unit energy costs that are more than offset by increases in
the number of units, etc.); iii) the characteristics triggering charges do not reflect changing
technology, etc. For this reason, monetary incentives may not be the best approach;
consumer behaviour may be more effectively influenced by using RFID tags to make
environmental aspects (e.g., carbon footprint, waste disposal consequences) of purchase
and disposal decisions visible, understandable and easy to compare or assess. This approach
can stimulate the inclusion of environmental awareness in consumer preferences rather
than prices. In this way, decisions can be further improved by additional information and
by the societal reinforcement. The use of non-monetary informational approaches enabled
by RFID tagging is entirely consistent with modern behavioural approaches to resolving
other regulatory challenges such as energy use, and aligns well with growing general
awareness of eco-friendly products.
Finally, as noted above, RFID tagged objects enter much larger waste streams. Instead of
charging for, or tracking, the disposal of each such object separately, tagged waste could be
counted against consumer “disposal budgets” (these need not be monetary, but could be
used to produce “performance ratings”) for aggregate flows of specific types of waste.
Where recyclables are collected together, tags would be read in the sorting process and
associated to the original purchaser either by collection location or (in the case of complex
objects) through serial number information.27
9.2.2 Improved disposal behaviour
RFID tags can improve the “automatic” behaviour of consumers as well as conscious
decision-making. Tags can be used to trigger “recycle me” notifications at the time of
disposal. For this to happen, tags would have to provide general recycling information
(identifying the right collection stream) or other relevant reuse/recycling information using
common open formats readable by common sensors.28 The issue of tags as part of the waste
stream can be addressed by “self-labelled tags” designed to respond to a common waste
27
This could also aid in the fight against “fly-tipping” or illicit disposal of waste, though again further
investigation and discussion are needed
28
An alternative would be to have this information only for specific classes of application – for instance, all
tagged plastic containers would have to report whether the container was made of PET or not
208
reader with information about their presence, composition, removal, etc., as well as the
characteristics of the object to which they are attached. This secondary, common tag
response would be independent of the primary use of the tags, which could (continue to)
involve proprietary and non-standardised information for logistic and other functions.
This would in turn sharpen redesign incentives for greater tag recyclability and material
recovery.
Challenges include technological conflicts and user interfaces, standardisation across
sectors and countries, and high variability in usage.
9.2.3 Improved reuse, processing, recycling and disposal
RFID tags containing recycling information can improve the visibility of EOL
considerations throughout the product lifecycle. At the same time, they can improve waste
handling efficiency and effectiveness (from sorting through recovery, recycling and
disposal). This can even change ultimate destinations – for instance, tags containing
composition and disassembly information have the potential to enable better material and
value recovery from specific complex goods (e.g., costly electronic goods).
However, this is not automatic: substantial technical, informational, organisational and
economic issues must be addressed to implement RFID as a green technology in this way.
Technical challenges are connected to central waste treatment operations such as
dismantling and particle size reduction. These processes obviously affect the structural
integrity of tagged items and the functioning of tags. The utility of RFID tags in “green”
applications may be limited if they cannot be reused or recovered as a result of treatment
processes applied to tagged objects; at a minimum, the necessary information should be
recorded before the tags are destroyed.
Another technical aspect is standardisation of tag characteristics (frequency ranges,
information formats, etc.). Tags are initially produced for specific products and
applications; these may be proprietary or (e.g., in the case of frequency ranges) nation-
specific. The ultimate fate of tags lies in waste disposal systems having neither legal nor
economic connections to tag suppliers nor to the logistic systems through which they flow;
it would clearly be inefficient to equip waste disposal systems with readers for all the
different tags that might arrive in the waste stream. Instead, a common standard must be
adopted (perhaps backed by regulation), at least for disposal-related information. This
standard should cover both the technical characteristics of tags (how they can be read) and
the format and contents of the disposal-related information.
This creates organisational and commercial challenges. The costs of adopting (let alone
monitoring and enforcing) these standards are incurred by tag designers and manufacturers
and therefore by their clients in the manufacturing and logistics/retailing parts of the value
chain. Some mechanism must be found to allocate these costs effectively, fairly and
efficiently; when tags or tagged objects originate in different countries from disposal
facilities, trade implications must also be factored in.
Standards implementation is neither costless nor simple on the disposal side, either. Waste
disposal systems vary among (and even within) countries; so do the costs and benefits of
adopting this green technology. Required specific disposal-relevant information may also
vary from system to system (since different systems need to track different aspects of tagged
209
objects). One solution would be a “universal” standard containing all possible relevant
information, but this may be excessively costly and might not be implemented if the
underlying regulation simply sets specific material targets.
Finally, tagging complex and costly objects to facilitate the reuse of systems, components
or even scarce materials is likely to be resisted by manufacturers, who wish to protect the
obsolescence of their products and to minimise competition from their own past sales.
9.2.4 Environmental benefits beyond recycling
Supply chains have become increasingly complex in terms of sectors, stakeholders, timing
and scheduling and the areas of the world through which they pass. RFID can improve
supply chain efficiency, visibility and predictability. Real-time information and tracking of
materials (including hazardous waste and valuable raw materials) could greatly improve the
efficiency and sustainability of many sectors by minimising waste in the production and
use of these goods and rationalising supply chains to minimise transport and storage costs.
9.2.5 Better data = smarter policy and better decisions
Finally, as noted throughout this report, precise estimation of costs and benefits is
complicated by the inconsistency and other weaknesses of data regarding the operation of
the system as a whole, including the flow of materials and its responsiveness to changing
environmental, economic, policy and other factors. Even if the use of RFID tags to provide
composition and recycling information has only a modest initial impact on behaviour,
design, pricing and waste disposal, it will inevitably produce a wealth of objective data that
is currently lacking. These data will improve our understanding of how the system
functions and allow us to calibrate stakeholder behaviour to the resulting costs and
benefits. This reduction in uncertainty should lead to greater exploitation of the green
potential of RFID by the market, and thus to a more sophisticated, proportionate,
transparent and reliable waste policy framework.
9.3 RFID as part of smart systems

As one of the key enablers of the Internet of Things, RFID technology faces organisational
governance issues. As the Internet of Things grows, applications may be interlinked with
critical infrastructures, and are likely to be of broader logistical importance such that
disruption to broader network architectures could have significant impacts. We need to
ensure that the operation of crucial systems is maintained and that access to information is
not disrupted (European Commission, 2007). These systemic effects can be seen in
relation to the economy as a whole, governance, the environment, and specific smart
logistic, disposal, etc., systems.
9.3.1 RFID in the broader economy
Market estimates vary, but all agree that the global RFID market is likely to increase
significantly in the next ten years. This growth will be strongest in traditionally large
markets in North America and Europe (Germany is largest, followed by the UK and
France). Emerging markets (particularly the Asia-Pacific region) are also expected to grow.
Thus the relevance of RFIDs in waste streams is expected to increase; while the present
study concentrates on RFID in European waste streams, there is a strong and obvious
linkage to these other areas. In the first place, tags are produced and traded on global
210
markets; Europe’s ability to enforce higher standards in terms of the composition and
recyclability of tags will thus depend on its share of the global market and potentially on
the importance of tags to suppliers and distributors importing tagged objects into the
Single Market. At the same time, compliance with stricter rules will impose costs on
European suppliers. But if European firms are able to sink the costs of improved tag
designs and uses, they will be able to “tip the balance” in terms of improved tag recycling
in the foreign markets into which they sell.29 In much the same way, if foreign suppliers
wish to sell into European markets, they will have incentives to sink the costs of
implementing better tag designs; having done this, they will be more likely to use the tags
in their domestic and other foreign markets. Again, this will have a positive feedback effect
on the adoption of improved waste handling techniques. Finally, to the extent that Europe
is able to lead in this regard, the European tagged products and European technologies
associated with their disposal will become more globally competitive.
The waste-specific economic benefits of improved RFID design and use could therefore be
large. On the other hand, they may also be highly sector-specific and might not accrue
equally to all stakeholders; for example, lower labour costs may not benefit employers and
workers to the same degree. There may be other spillover benefits, such as high
information accuracy, better quality and security (e.g., in counterfeiting applications), and
real-time visibility by making operations and processes more efficient and less costly. Note
that many of these are advantages of RFID adoption per se, rather than specific benefits of
better ways of handling RFID-containing waste or using RFID to improve waste handling.
What is important, however, is that these waste-specific developments reduce both the
specific and the societal opportunity costs of using RFIDs and can therefore trigger further
increases in use along with reduced environmental burden. This overall increase will
enhance the benefits of RFID use more generally.
However, these benefits have their own challenges. Among the most significant is the
infrastructure investment needed to support the RFID system, including hardware,
software, IT services, human capital and in-house management of RFID programmes. A
demonstration of strong investment returns is needed across all sectors in order to make
these challenges worth overcoming – this is particularly true for tags as part of general
waste streams, where piecemeal sector-by-sector adoption will produce less than
proportionate benefits. In relation to tags as part of waste management, e.g., RFID-based
waste sorting, the added benefits of such a system are at best incremental and the
commercial arguments for implementing a new system are weak.
As noted above, the commercial benefits of RFID technology include increased efficiency
in supply chain and product lifecycle management. By providing information on product
use and disposal patterns, firms can understand the intended (and unintended) uses of a
product. Such insights into product complexity can allow firms to better respond and
adapt their products to consumer needs. The use of RFID in carbon footprinting is a good
example; it enables improved real-time decision-making for producers and consumers and
29
In other words, if the use of “better” tags in European goods increases the prevalence of “better” tags in
foreign waste streams, the waste handling systems in those countries will be more inclined to adopt
technologies that minimise the impact of tags, or even the “green technologies” described in Section 9.2
211
also facilitates an increased awareness and valuation of low-carbon products. This decreases
environmental and monetary operation costs for firms, the supply chain in which they
operate and consumers alike.
Beyond this, there are obvious growth opportunities for the waste collection and handling
sectors, which may in turn facilitate other innovations and economies of scale. The
industries involved in the design, supply and operation of “smart” waste handling
procedures will also benefit; as indicated above, this may provide competitive advantages
for Europe if it is able to consolidate its leading position and leverage its existing
advantages in waste handling and other advanced technologies. In addition, new market
opportunities may develop in reusing/reselling returned products and recycling their
components, reclaiming their materials. Note that much of this currently takes place
abroad, in labour-intensive and often dangerous conditions (e.g., electronic waste disposal).
Such disposal could be repatriated and replaced with cleaner, safer and more efficient
RFID-enabled processes and business models.
9.3.2 Governance opportunities and challenges
Generally speaking, regulatory intervention must be justified in terms of market failure or
specific and necessary linkage to other common policy objectives. Regulatory intervention
at the European level must further respect the principle of subsidiarity and should conform
as closely as possible to the Better Regulation Principles.30 In particular, proportionality
demands that the burdens of regulation be minimised and appropriately allocated. In this
area, where current needs for environmental impact minimisation must be balanced with
economic development imperatives, commitments to minimise (in particular) public sector
expenditure (e.g., on enforcement as well as public waste handling) and the desire to
stimulate further innovation (Wager et al., 2005), any intervention should strive for
technological and economic neutrality. Overly prescriptive or burdensome regulation may
stifle innovation or crowd out superior alternative technologies and organisational/business
model innovations. It has been suggested that recycling and waste management regulations
should be clear, consistent and emphasise results rather than process (Saar & Thomas
2003). In addition, policies need to be designed with the complex nature of the EOL phase
in mind, with its associated “green”, waste management, technological, organisational and
economic issues factored in.
Regulatory challenges also apply to technical aspects of RFID tag application. Spectrum
harmonisation has been a major factor in limiting the uptake of RFID tags (European
Commission, 2010). Radio frequency is a scarce resource, and frequencies need to be
established within which RFID devices can operate; as noted above, spectrum allocation
can facilitate or impede international trade in tags or tagged objects and may impede the
ability of domestic waste systems to handle tagged wastes originating from different
spectrum policy jurisdictions. Strongly linked to the challenges of standardisation is the
issue of intellectual property rights. RFID-related intellectual property is protected through
standard mechanisms such as the European Patent Convention (Kruse et al., 2008).
However, issues arise when standardisation is required. If technologies that are patented are
set as European standards, this will hinder competition and block new entrants to the
30
Transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency
212
market, creating economic barriers to growth. In much the same way, unprotected
intellectual property (e.g., the informational content of tags) may create barriers to the
provision of “open” information to generic public readers.
Finally, as RFID becomes more pervasive in society, issues surrounding privacy and data
security legislation become more important. RFID tags can store personal data, but can
also be used to track the movement of people or monitor their behaviour. In this sense,
privacy is more than just about personal data, but is also about privacy of individual
actions. According to surveys, consultations and wider international bodies (OECD, 2008;
CapGemini, 2005; European Commission, 2007), public awareness and understanding of
RFID is limited, and lack of awareness limits the ability to assert choice with respect to
privacy issues. This is particularly relevant here, in the sense that schemes for monitoring
and analysing individual waste streams (e.g., as part of PAYT schemes) demonstrate clearly
that privacy issues associated with waste disposal are also a matter of substantial public
concern.
9.3.3 The social environmental ecosystem
The growing importance of the environmental agenda is provides a window of opportunity
for RFID technology. New environmental policy strategies like Product Stewardship (EPA,
2010; Adams, 2010) and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) (OECD, 2001) are
changing the behaviour of governments, corporations and citizens alike. This has led to the
development of new management principles, tools and strategies that can provide,
respectively, the basis for action, practices to apply and the approaches and systems that
can effectively embed sustainability into everyday business practice (Duque Ciceri et al.,
2009). Examples include Green Procurement (Salaam, 2011), Green Manufacturing
(Barreto et al., 2007), Environmental Management Strategy (IFS, 2010) and the Eco-
Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS, 2011). Reduced waste and greater awareness on
the part of consumers and a shift to producer responsibility are important to achieving a
range of environmental objectives, such as the promotion of carbon footprinting, which
could lead to fewer products with high GHG emissions and preferences for more eco-
friendly products.
However, item-level tagging could have negative environmental effects if tags cannot be
recycled, including adverse environmental impacts of tags that cannot be reclaimed and
potentially greater greenhouse gas emissions during the reuse process. Moreover,
calculating environmental benefits like true carbon footprints is costly and time-intensive
(Dada et al., 2010). Some have also found potentially irreversible environmental harms
from RFID. To prevent this, it may be necessary rapidly to implement measures such as:
use of closed loop systems where transponders are in the system for a long time; regulations
against the use of RFID tags in perishable goods; and application of eco-design principles
to RFID tags to replace toxic and valuable materials in smart labels with materials adapted
to the recycling and disposal paths of the tagged object. It is not known whether a failure
to mitigate these potential adverse environmental impacts outweighs the benefits of “eco-
tagging”, but with these measures the aggregate impact is more likely to be positive.
Global social and political attention on environmental sustainability is changing consumer
behaviour and, ultimately, supply chain management. The so-called “sustainability
imperative” (Lubin & Etsy, 2010) is leading companies to adapt and respond to consumer
213
demand. RFID tags could increase consumers’ awareness of the impacts of their behaviour
on the environment and the value of products. An improved product review culture could
reduce waste and enhance rational consumer choices (OECD, 2007). Of course, these
changes in attitudes and behaviour could take a long time and could be undermined by
consumer concerns over privacy and security that lead them to remove or destroy RFID
tags. Therefore, the use of RFID to drive “behavioural” progress on the environmental
front is potentially aligned with progress in addressing security and privacy concerns.
9.3.4 RFID tags as part of integrated smart product systems
RFID use can produce enhanced environmental benefits through, for example, its role in
smart logistics systems and its contribution to other aspects of the Internet of Things (such
as “Smart Cities”). It can also lead to self-organising waste flows, or smart charging
schemes that link disposal back to consumers (pay/earn as you throw systems in which
people have material disposal “budgets” and/or systems where people earn credits for
recycling, etc.).
9.4 Concluding remarks

RFID tags are an inescapable part of the modern economy; they are instrumental in
delivering a wide range of benefits and are becoming increasingly embedded in many facets
of daily life. Emerging shifts, from globalisation to the Internet of Things, will only
increase their centrality. This development raises a range of challenges; unaddressed, they
could diminish or even reverse much progress. Many of the challenges are already well
known (e.g., in relation to security and privacy). This report has drawn attention to
another domain of impacts: environmental efficiency, especially as regards waste disposal.
The challenges are sharply defined and supported by a considerable weight of evidence.
However, they are far from insurmountable. On the contrary, this report demonstrates
that RFID can move from an environmental problem in its own right to a central feature
of a “smart” solution to a much wider range of waste-related environmental, technical and
economic problems. Moreover, in doing so it can point the way to a more profound re-
engineering of governance; by providing a wealth of accurate, credible, understandable and
timely information, it can allow the system to move from formal controls that are costly to
monitor and enforce and need continual updating to keep pace with technological change,
to a form of “light-touch” governance that informs rather than constrains, and which
operates much closer to day-to-day decisions and decision-makers. In addition, the
proposed development of the waste disposal role of RFID tags is aligned with progress in
addressing other areas of concern (e.g., security, IPR) and realizing their holistic potential
in an increasing range of applications.
214
REFERENCES
215
Reference list
Adams G. 2010. 10 Principles of Responsible Product Stewardship. As of 6 February

2012: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/07/30/10-principles-responsible-product-
stewardship
Aliaga, C., et al. 2011. Influence of RFID tags on recyclability of plastic packaging. Waste
Management 31(6), 1133–38.
Alwast H, Birnstengel B & Häusler A. 2010. European Atlas of Secondary Raw Materials:
2006 Status Quo and Potential: Prognos.
American Iron and Steel Institute. 2006. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Tags:
Copper Content Detrimental to Recycling. As of 6 February 2012:
http://recyclingtech.org/AISI_SRI_RFID_2006.pdf
Angeles, R. 2010). The Significance of RFID in Green Supply Chain Initiatives. Working
paper: University of New Brunswick Fredericton. Fredericton, Canada.
Arebey, M., Hannan, M., Basri, H., et al. 2010. RFID and Integrated Technologies for
Solid Waste Bin Monitoring System. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering
2010, Vol.1.
Austria Glas Recycling GmbH. 2011. Glas recyceln. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.agr.at/fileadmin/redakteure/Grafiken/Glasrecycling_ist_ein_perfekter_Materia
lkreislauf_Materialflussbild.pdf
Barreto, L., Anderson, H., Anglin A. et al. 2007. Product Lifecycle Management in
Support of Green Manufacturing. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, technical paper.
Beckmann, M. & Ncube, S. 2007. Bio- und Sekundärrohstoffverwertung. Witzenhausen:
Witzenhausen-Inst. für Abfall Umwelt und Energie. (Fachbuchreihe Abfall-Wirtschaft des
Witzenhausen-Instituts für Abfall, Umwelt und Energie).
Behrendt, S. 2004. Produktbegleitende Informationssysteme auf der Basis von Smart Labels.
Im Rahmen des BMBF-geförderten Projekts “E-nnovation: E-Business und nachhaltige
Produktnutzung durch mobile Multimediadienste”, BMBF-Förderkennzeichen 01RN016.
Betts, K. 2008. Reducing the global impact of e-waste. Environmental Science & Technology
42(5): 1393.
Bilitewski, W. et al. 2004: “Handbook on the implementation of Pay-As-You-Throw.”
Eigenverlag des Forum für Abfallwirtschaft und Altlasten e.V. Dresden. 2004.
217
Bindel, A., Conway, P., Justham, L., et al. 2010. New lifecycle monitoring system for
electronic manufacturing with embedded wireless components: research paper. Circuit
World 36(2):33–39.
Binder, C. & Domnitcheva, S. 2003. When Waste Becomes Intelligent: Assessing the
Environmental Impact of Microchip Tagging. Proceedings of SETAC/ISIE/Swiss Discussion
Forum, Lausanne.
Binder, C., Quirici, C., Domnitcheva, S. & Stäubli, B. 2008. Smart labels for waste and
resource management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12(2):207–28.
Bose, I and Yan, S. 2011. ‘The Green Potential of RFID Projects: A Case-Based Analysis’.
IT Pro, January/February 2011: 41-47.
Bowyer, C., et.al. 2010. Supporting the thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling:
final report. European Commission DG ENV, service request five under contract
ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112.
Brusselaers, J., Mark, F. & Tange, L. 2006. Using metal-rich WEEE Plastics as Feedstock /
Fuel Substitute for an Integrated Metals Smelter. Brussels. As of 6 February 2012:
www.plasticseurope.org
Bundesumweltministerium (BMU). 2010. Verpackungen gesamt Verbrauch, Verwertung,
Quoten 1991 bis 2008 (in Kilotonnen) in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. As of 6 February
2012:
http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/entw_verbrauch_verwertung_bf.
pdf
Busch, G. & Pötzsch, G. 2005. RFID–Revolution im Abfallmanagement und Recycling.
Zeitschrift MÜLL und ABFALL 10:518–21.
Cao, H., Folan, P., Mascolo, J., et al. 2009. RFID in product lifecycle management: a case
in the automotive industry. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
22(7):616–37.
CapGemini. 2005. RFID and Consumers. What European Consumers Think About
Radio Frequency Identification and the Implications for Business. CapGemini.
CEN. 2003. Aluminium and aluminium alloys – scrap. EN 13920 1-16.
Cole, P.H. et al. 2010. “The next generation of RFID technology.” In Unique Radio
Innovation for the 21st century. (Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag)
CONCLORE Project - Final Report. Bremen Institute of Industrial Technology and
Applied Work Science (BIBA). 2007
Dada, A., Rau, A., Konkel, M., et al. 2009. The Potential of the EPC Network to Monitor
and Manage the Carbon Footprint of Products. Part 1: Carbon Accounting. Auto-ID Labs
White Paper WP-BIZAPP-047.
Dada, A., Rau, A., Konkel, M., et al. 2010. The Potential of the EPC Network to Monitor
and Manage the Carbon Footprint of Products. Part 2: Dynamic Carbon Footprint
Demonstrators. Auto-ID Labs White Paper WP-BIZAPP-054.
Dada, A., von Reischach, F. & Staake, T. 2008. Displaying Dynamic Carbon Footprints
218
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Reference list
of Products on Mobile Phones. In R. Mayrhofer et al. (eds.) Advances in Pervasive

Computing, Adjunct Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing,
pp. 119–121. As of 6 February 2012: http://www.pervasive2008.org/Papers/Demo/d5.pdf
Dahlén, L., Lagerkvist, A. 2010: “Pay as you throwStrengths and weaknesses of weight-
based billing in household waste collection systems in Sweden” in Waste Management 30
(2010) 23–31 available from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X09003766
Das, R. 2011. How Green is RFID? e-FlexoGlobal. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.flexoglobal.com/flexomag/09-July/flexomag-das.htm
Das, R. & Harrop, P. 2011. RFID Forecasts, Players and Opportunities 2011–2021.
IDTechEx.
Daschner, F. 2000. Practical Guide for Optimising the Disposal of Hospital Waste: Reduction
and Utilisation of Hospital Waste, with the Focus on Hazardous, Toxic and Infectious Waste
(LIFE96ENV/D/10). Institute for Environmental Medicine and Hospital Hygiene.
Day, C. 2006. Frequently Asked Questions on Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the
Use of certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS) and
Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). As of 6
February 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/faq_weee.pdf
Deutsches Kupferinstitut. 2011. Recycling von Kupferwerkstoffen. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.kupferinstitut.de/front_frame/pdf/Recycling%20von%20Kupferwerkstoffen%
20-%20final.pdf
Dubois, M., Martin Gonzalez, A. & Knadel, M. 2004. Municipal solid waste treatment in
the EU. Aarhus: Centre for Environmental Studies.
Duque Ciceri, N., Garetti, M., Terzi, D. 2009. Product Lifecycle Management Approach
for Sustainability. Proceedings of CIRP Design Conference at Cranfied University,
Cranfield, UK.
Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). (2012). 'Key elements of EMAS'. European
Commission: EMAS. As of 15 Feb 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/about/summary_en.htm
Edwards, J. 2008. The Green Technology. RFID Journal: April.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. European Waste Catalogue and Hazardous
Waste List. EPA Ireland.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. ‘Wastes – Partnerships – Product
Stewardship’. Environmental Protection Agency. As of 8 April 2011:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/stewardship/.
Erdmann, L. 2010. Zukünftige Risiken des Eintrags von RFID-Tags in den Siedlungsabfall.
Munich. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.isis-specials.de/profile_pdf/1i156_ed_rfid0310.pdf
219
Erdmann, L., Hilty, L. & Althaus, H.-J. 2009. Einfluss von RFID-Tags auf die
Abfallentsorgung: Prognose möglicher Auswirkungen eines massenhaften Einsatzes von RFID-
Tags im Konsumgüterbereich auf die Umwelt und die Abfallentsorgung. Dessau-Roßlau:
Umweltbundesamt.
ETRMA. 2010. End of life tyres: A valuable resource with growing potential. 2010 edition.
Brussels.
European Commission. Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
hazardous waste. As of 6 February 2012:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0689:EN:HTML
European Commission. 1994. Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
packaging and packaging waste. As of 6 February 2012:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994L0062:EN:NOT
European Commission. 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the
landfill of waste. As of 6 February 2012:
European Commission. 2000a. Council Directive 2000/53/EC of 18 September 2000 on
end-of life vehicles. As of 6 February 2012:
European Commission. 2000b. 2000/532/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2000
replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of
hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous
waste (notified under document number C(2000) 1147). As of 6 February 2012:
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=32
000D0532&lg=en
European Commission. 2000c. Council Directive 2000/76/EC of 4 December 2000 on
the incineration of waste. As of 6 February 2012:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0076:en:HTML
European Commission. 2003a. Council Directive 2002/95/EC of 27 January 2003 on the
restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.
As of 6 February 2012:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0095:en:NOT
European Commission. 2003b. Council Directive 2002/96/EC of 27 January 2003 on
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). As of 6 February 2012:
European Commission. 2005. Commission Decision 2000/532/EC
European Commission. 2006. Council Directive 2006/12/EC of 5 April 2006 on waste.
220
European Commission. 2006a. The Story behind the Strategy: EU Waste Policy. As of 6
February 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/story_book.pdf
European Commission. 2006b. Waste incineration: Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control. Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration. As of 6
February 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ippc/brefs/wi_bref_0806.pdf
European Commission. 2007. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. Radio Frequency Identification (2007) in Europe: steps
towards a policy framework. COM(2007) 96 final.
European Commission. 2008. Council Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on
waste and repealing certain Directives. As of 6 February 2012:
European Commission. 2009. Internet of Things – An Action Plan for Europe. As of 6
February 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/rfid/documents/commiot2009.pdf
European Commission. 2010. Commission Staff Working Document. On Retail Services
in the Internal Market. Accompanying document to the Report on Retail Market
Monitoring: "Towards more efficient and fairer retail services in the Internal Market for
2020". (SEC(2010)807).
European Commission DG ENV. 2007. Follow-up study on the implementation of Directive
1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste in EU-25. Final Report - Findings of the Study. As of 6
February 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/cowi_report.pdf
European Environment Agency. 2007. The road from landfilling to recycling: Common
destination, different routes. Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency. 2009. Diverting waste from landfill: Effectiveness of waste-
management policies in the European Union. Copenhagen.
European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. 2006. Waste Treatment Industries.
BREF Document.
European EPC Competence Center (EECC). 2010. “The UHF Tag Performance Survey.”
European Steel Association. 2005. European Steel Scrap Specification. As of 6 February
2012:
http://www.eurofer.org/eurofer/docs/EurSteelScrapSpec.pdf
Eurostat. 2011a. Commercial and industrial waste. As of 6 February 2012:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/sectors/commercialandindu
strial
Eurostat. 2011b. Waste Statistics. As of 6 February 2012:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/database
221
Eurostat. 2012. Municipal waste generated and treated: Deposit onto or into land. As of 6
February 2012:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/sectors/municipal_waste
Fachverband Getränkekarton e.V. (FKN). 2011a. Getränkekarton: Verbunde sind High-
Tech-Werkstoffe. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.getraenkekarton.de/01_seiten/page.php?nid=11
Fachverband Getränkekarton e.V. (FKN). 2011b. Recycling: Trennung mit konventioneller
Technik. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.getraenkekarton.de/01_seiten/page.php?nid=17
Finkenzeller, K. 2006. RFID-Handbuch: Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen
induktiver Funkanlagen, Transponder und kontaktloser Chipkarten (4th ed.). München;
Wien: Hanser.
Finkenzeller, K. 2010. „RFID Handbook: Fundamentals and Applications in Contactless
Smart Cards, Radio Frequency Identification and Near Field Communication.” (3rd ed.)
(Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)
Främling, K., Harrison, M. & Brusey, J. 2006. Globally unique product identifiers-
requirements and solutions to product lifecycle management. Proceedings of 12th IFAC
Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM), 17-19 May 2006,
Saint-Etienne, France, pp. 811–16.
Friedlos, D. 2011. South Korean Consortium Launches EPC Gen 2 Reader for Mobile
Phones: Developed by a group that includes SK Telecom, an inexpensive RFID
interrogator in the form of a USIM card is already being used to verify the authenticity of
whiskey. RFID Journal. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/8155
Friedrich, P., Neidhardt, U. 2005: „Wäge- und Identsysteme in der Entsorgungs-
wirtschaft“ in Müll-Handbuch (2005) available from
http://www.MUELLHANDBUCHdigital.de
Furuta, T., Tonooka, H. & Kobayashi, M. 2008. Research on Recycling Cardboard with RF
Tags/Labels. Tokyo, JAPAN: The Eighth International Conference on EcoBalance.
Gambon, J. 2008. “Printed-Electronics RFID Tags: from Promise to Reality.” RFID
Journal. As of 13 February 2012
Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung. 2011. Verbrauch von Getränken in Einweg-
und Mehrweg-Verpackungen, Berichtsjahr 2009. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3980.pdf
GHK. 2006. A study to examine the benefits of the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the costs
and benefits of a revision of the 2015 targets for recycling, re-use and recovery under the ELV
Directive. Final Report to DG Environment. Birmingham: GHK Consulting. As of 6
February 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/final_report.pdf
222
Goroyias, G., Elias, R. & Fan, M. 2004. Research into using recycled waste paper residues in
construction products: WRAP Project code: PAP009-011. Oxon: The Waste & Resources
Action Programme.
Goo, K., Lee, J.-Y. & Kim Y.-J. 2007. A Policy Making Procedure and Economic
Feasibility Analysis of the RFID System in the Medical Waste Management.
Greengard, S. 2010. Tracking garbage. Communications of the ACM 53(3):19–20.
Groh, H., Hoss, D., Jandt, S. & Löhle, S. 2010. Smarte Produktkennzeichnung von
Mobiltelefonen mittels RFID - Nutzung im Altgeräterecycling und datenschutzkonforme
technische Ausgestaltung. Müll und Abfall 7.
Guinard, D., von Reischenbach, F., Michahelles, F. et al. 2008. Mobile Toolkit: Connecting
the EPC Network to Mobile Phones. Proceedings of Mobile Interaction with the Real World
(MIRW 08 at ACM Mobile HCI 2008).
Hans, C., Hribernik, K. & Thoben, K. 2010. Improving reverse logistics processes using
item-level product life cycle management. International Journal of Product Lifecycle
Management 4(4):338.
Harrison, M., McFarlane, D., Parlikad, A. et al. 2004. Information management in the
product lifecycle - the role of networked RFID. Auto-ID Labs White Paper WP-BIZAPP-014.
Hilty, L. & Althaus, H.-J. 2009. Einfluss von RFID-Tags auf die Abfallentsorgung: Prognose
möglicher Auswirkungen eines massenhaften Einsatzes von RFID-Tags im Konsumgüterbereich
auf die Umwelt und die Abfallentsorgung. Dessau-Roßlau. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3845.pdf
Holmquist, L., Redström, J. & Ljungstrand, P. 1999. Token-Based Access to Digital
Information. In Gellersen, H. (ed.), Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science No. 1707, 234–45. Springer-Verlag.
IFS. 2010. ERP and Environmental Footprint Management for Manufacturers. IFS:
Sweden. Accessed on 15 Feb 2012 at: Abdoli, S. 2009. RFID Application in Municipal
Solid Waste Management System. Int. J. Environ. Res. 3(3):447–454.
Institute for European Environmental Policy. 2010. Proposed final report structure …
supporting the thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling. Service request five under
contract env.g.4/fra/2008/0112.
Ilic, A., Staake, T. & Fleisch, E. 2009. Using Sensor Information to Reduce the Carbon
Footprint of Perishable Goods. IEEE Pervasive Computing 8(1):22–29.
Inoue, S., Kanomi, S. & Yasuura, H. 2002. Privacy in the digitally named world with RFID
tags. Workshop on Socially-informed Design of Privacy-enhancing Solutions in
Ubiquitous Computing. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.c.csce.kyushu-u.ac.jp/lab_db/papers/paper/pdf/2002/sozo02_2.pdf
INTECUS. 2011. Best Practice Municipal Waste Management: Information pool on
approaches towards a sustainable design of municipal waste management and supporting
technologies and equipment. Dessau-Roßlau. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/abfallwirtschaft/best-practice-mwm.php
223
IOS. 2008. Information technology – Radio frequency identification for item management –
Implementation guidelines – Part 2: Recycling and RFID tags. ISO/IEC TR 24729-2:2008.
ITAD. 2011. Rückstände aus der Hausmüllverbrennung. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.itad.de/itad/reststoffe/index.html
Ivantysynova, L., Klafft, M., Ziekow H. et al. 2009. RFID in manufacturing: the investment
decision. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems Proceedings. As of 6 February
2012:
http://www.pacis-
net.org/file/2009/%5B39%5DRFID%20IN%20MANUFACTURING_%20THE%20I
NVESTMENT%20DECISION.pdf
Jansen, R., Gliesche, M. & Helmigh, M. 2007. Auswirkungen eines RFID Masseneinsatzes
auf Entsorgungs- und Recyclingsysteme. Diese Studie wurde im Rahmenprogramm
Mikrosysteme 2004-2009 durch das Bundesministerrium für Bildung und Forschung gefördert.
Förderkennzeichen: 16SV2280. Universität Dortmund, Fachgebiet Logistik.
Jun, H.-B., Shin, J.-H., Kim Y.-S. et al. 2009. A framework for RFID applications in
product lifecycle management. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
22(7):595–615.
Khan, O., Scotti, A., Leverano, A. et al. 2006. RFID in automotive: a closed-loop approach.
ICE conference proceedings.
Kopsick, D., Bearden, J., Varner, K. et al. 2008. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in
Tracking Hazardous Waste Across Domestic and International Borders: Supporting GPRA
Goal #5: Better Waste Management.
Kranert, M. & Cord-Landwehr, K. 2010. Einführung in die Abfallwirtschaft. 4.,
vollständig aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage. Wiesbaden: Vieweg + Teubner. As of 6
February 2012:
Kreck, M. 2007: „Funk auf dem Vormarsch“ in entsorga-Magazin no.6, 18-19.
Kruse, A., Mortera-Martinez, C., Corduant, V. et al. 2008. Final report Work package 5:
The Regulatory Framework for RFID. CE RFID. Kuhnhenn, K. & Urban, A. 2006.
Individuelle Produktverantwortung für Elektroaltgeräte – Durch RFID zum Ziel?:
Achieving individual product liability for WEEE with RFID. Müll und Abfall 12:638–44.
Lee, C. & Chan, T. 2009. Development of RFID-based Reverse Logistics System. Expert
Systems with Applications 36:9299–307.
Letcher, T. & Vallero, D. 2011. Waste: A handbook for management. Burlington, MA:
Academic Press.
Löhle, S. & Urban, A. 2008. Neue Wege: Potenziale von RFID in der Entsorgungswirtschaft.
Müll-Handbuch, no. 0155.
Löhle, S., Urban, A. & Reyes, J. 2009. Mehr Transparenz im Abfall – Experimentelle
Untersuchungen zur Erkennung gekennzeichneter Altprodukte in einem RFID-3D-gate
zur Unterstützung von Sortierprozessen. Müll und Abfall 5.
224
Lubin, D.A. & Etsy, D.C. (2010). The sustainability imperative. Harvard Business Review,
88: 42-50.
Mallett, S., Danta, R., Benson, J. et al. 2007. Handheld medical waste sorting method. US
Patent 7,303,081 B2.
Martens, H. 2011. Recyclingtechnik. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akad. Verl.
Mayer, L. & Scholtz, A. 2008. A Dual-Band HF / UHF Antenna for RFID tags. Vienna
University of Technology. As of 6 February 2012:
http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_167140.pdf
MetroSense. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.metrosense.com/
Metschke, J., Magel, G. & Spiegel, W. 2005. Wasserstoffbildungspotential in MVA/MPA-
Flugstäuben: Endbericht L24. Augsburg: Bayerisches Landesamt für Umweltschutz.
Monier, V. et.al. 2011. Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth: Final Report
prepared for European Commission DG ENV. European Commission DG ENV.
Odin Labs. 2010. “RFID Tag Pricing Guide.” (ODIN technologies Inc.)
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2008. Statistical
classification of economic activities in the European Community. Luxembourg.
One Plus Corp. 2011. Monitoring systems for computerized trash, waste, recycling
compactors. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.onepluscorp.com/hauler/green_benefits.asp
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Extended Producer
Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2007. Participative Web and
User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008. RFID Applications,
Impacts and Country Initiatives. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Pappu, M., Singhal, R. & Zoghi, B. 2005. RFID in hospitals: issues and solutions. RFID
Journal.
Parks Associates. 2010. Mobile preferences show generational divide as younger
smartphone users choose apps over Web browsers. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.parksassociates.com/blog/article/mobile-pr-nov2010
Parlikad, A. & McFarlane, D. 2004. Recovering value from End-of-Life Equipment.
Technical Report No. CUED/E-MANUF/TR.29. Cambridge University Engineering
Department.
Parlikad, A. & McFarlane, D. 2007. RFID-based product information in end-of-life
decision making. Control Engineering Practice 15:1348–63.
225
Parlikad, A., McFarlane, D., Fleisch, E. et al. 2003. The Role of Product Identity in End-
of-Life Decision Making. Auto-ID Labs White Paper.
PlasticsEurope. 2011. Plastics – the Facts 2011: An analysis of European plastics
production, demand and recovery for 2010. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.plasticseurope.org/Document/plastics---the-facts-
2011.aspx?Page=DOCUMENT&FolID=2
PIAw@tch. 2011. Privacy and data protection Impact Assessment for RFID applications.
http://www.piawatch.eu/pdpia-oia
Prüss, A., Giroult, E. & Rushbrook, P. 1999. Safe management of wastes from health-care
activities. World Health Organization.
Rahimifard, S., Abu Bakar, M. & Williams, D. 2009. Recycling process planning for the
End-of-Life management of waste from electrical and electronic equipment. CIRP Annals -
Manufacturing Technology 58:5–8.
Reichenbach, J. 2008. Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe – A review of
pilot research and implementation studies. Waste Management 28(12).
Reischach, F. von, Guinard, D., Michahelles, F. et al. 2009a. A mobile product
recommendation system interacting with tagged products. IEEE International Conference on
Pervasive Computing and Communications, 1–6.
Reischach, F. von, Michahelles, F. & Schmidt, A. 2009b. The design space of ubiquitous
product recommendation systems. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGMOBILE Conference on
Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, 1–10.
Riekki, J., Salminen, T. & Alakarppa, I. 2006. Requesting Pervasive Services by Touching
RFID tags. IEEE Pervasive Computing 5(1):40–46.
Roberti, M. 2011: The History of RFID Technology, RFID Journal. Available at
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/1338 [Accessed October 2011]
Robinson, B. 2009. E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental
impacts. Science of the Total Environment 408:183–91.
Saar, S. & Thomas, V. 2003. Toward Trash That Thinks: Product Tags for
Environmental Management: Product Tags for Environmental Management. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 6(2)133–46.
Salaam, M. 2011. Creating Sustainable Supply Chain Through Green Procurement.
International Journal of Business Insights Transformation 3(3):83–90.
Schrör, H. 2011. Generation and treatment of waste in Europe 2008: Steady reduction in
waste going to landfills. Statistics in focus 44. Eurostat.
Steiner M. 2007. MBT in Europe. Waste Management World. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/display/article-
display/304397/articles/waste-management-world/volume-8/issue-4/features/mbt-in-
europe.html
226
StEP. 2010. Annual Report. As of 6 February 2012:

http://www.step-initiative.org/pdf/annual-report/Annual_Report_2010.pdf
Sullivan, L. 2004. Japanese Waste-Management Company Tests RFID. Information Week.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/23902097
Sutco. 2010. Sorting Sytems for packaging waste. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.sutco.de/en/plant-engineering/sorting-systems/light-weight-
packagings/technical-information/
Tagawa, K. 2011. The Innovation Connection. How NFC is driving new global opportunities.
NFC World Congress. As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.nfc-
forum.org/resources/presentations/Koichi_Tagawa_NFC_World_Congress_Sept_19_final
.pdf
Taku, F., Hidetoshi, T. & Masaru, K. 2008. Research on Recycling Cardboard with RF
Tags/Labels. Tokyo: The Eighth International Conference on EcoBalance.
Thomas, V. 2003. Product Self-Management: Evolution in Recycling and Reuse. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 37:5297–302.
Thomas, V. 2008. Radio-Frequency Identification: Environmental Applications. Foresight
in Governance Project. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Thomas, V. 2009. A universal code for environmental management of products. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 53:400–08.
Thoroe, L., Melski, A., Schumann, M. et al. 2009. Item-Level RFID: Curse or Blessing for
Recycling and Waste Management? Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences: 5–8 January, 2009, Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii:
abstracts and CD-ROM of full papers. Los Alamitos, Calif: IEEE Computer Society Press.
TKPV. 2009. Klebstoffe im Papierrecycling: TKPV-Merkblatt 5. Düsseldorf:
Industrieverband Klebstoffe e.V. (German Adhesives Association). As of 6 February 2012:
http://www.klebstoffe.com/07_publikation/pdf/MB_5_Klebstoffe_Papierrecycling.pdf
Tzeng, S.-F., Chen, W.-H. & Pai, F.-Y. 2008. Evaluating the business value of RFID:
Evidence from five case studies. International Journal of Production Economics 112(2):601–
13.
Uckelmann, D., Harrison, M. & Michahelles, F. 2011. Architecting the Internet of Things.
Berlin: Springer.
UNEP. 2011. Basel Convention – On the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. Protocol on Liability and Compensation. Geneva.
Urban, A. (ed.). 2006. Stoffströme der Kreislaufwirtschaft (5th ed.). Kassel: Kassel Univ.
Press.
Urban, A. et al. 2009: „Mit RFID zur innovativen Kreislaufwirtschaft“ in RFID im
Abfallbereich - Behältermanagement und automatische Wägesysteme.
227
VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH. 2007. RFID: Potenziale für Deutschland: Stand
und Perspektiven von Anwendungen auf Basis der Radiofrequenz - Identifikation auf den
nationalen und internationalen Märkten.
Vicentini, F. & Giusti, A. 2009. Sensorized waste collection container for content
estimation and collection optimization. Waste Management 29:1465–72.
Vogel, S. & Strassner. 2004. M. Potenziale der RFID-Technologie zur Umsetzung der
Altautoverordnung. M-Lab Report No. 22.
Wager, P.A., Eugster, M., Hilty, L.M., Som, C. 2005. “Smart labels in municipal solid
waste - a case for the Precautionary Principle? “ Environmental Impact Assessment Review
25( 5): 567–86.
Wang, S.-W., Chen, W.-H., Ong, C.-S. et al. 2006. RFID applications in hospitals: a case
study on a demonstration RFID project in a Taiwan hospital. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Williams, E., Kahhat, R., Allenby, B. et al. 2008. Environmental, Social, and Economic
Implications of Global Reuse and Recycling of Personal Computers. Environ. Sci. Technol
42(17):6446–54.
WHO. 2005. Management of Solid Health-Care Waste at Primary Health-Care Centres, 1–
60.
Wyld, D. 2010. Taking out the Trash (And the Recyclables): RFID and the Handling of
Municipal Solid Waste. International Journal Of Software Engineering & Applications 1.
Yadav, M. 2001. Hospital waste – a major problem. JK-Practitioner 8(4):276–82.
Zeiger, E. 2005. Glasrecycling mit Mogensen Sortier- und Siebtechnik: Glass Recycling
with Mogensen Sorting and Screening Systems. Aufbereitungstechnik 46(6):1–7.
228
ANNEX
229
Annex: Estimations for the modelling of waste
streams in EU Member States
Introduction
RFID tags follow the products and materials they are attached to. Therefore, the
distribution of these products and materials to waste streams as well as the distribution of
those waste streams over treatments paths are modelled here in order to evaluate the
quantity of RFID tags that ends up in the relevant waste treatment. Modelling was done
with the Umberto software that has been developed by ifu Hamburg in Germany. It has
been designed to enable lifecycle analysis on the basis of material flow models and was
utilized for RFID tag allocations in the German study.
The relevance of the different treatment paths with regard to the presence of RFID tags
can thus be outlined. Umberto furthermore offers the advantage that the net that has been
designed to visualise RFID tag distribution up to the point that they reach the recycling or
final disposal process level.
Methodology
In order to complete a conclusive modelling, the most comprehensive data source for the
development of the different vectors was used. In the following, the underlying
assumptions for the distribution of RFID tags over waste treatments paths are explained in
order to offer the readers the chance to follow the approach and use alternative and
perhaps more accurate data published in the future to recalculate the model and keep it up
to date.
Development of tag quantities

The description of the estimated numbers of RFID tags in different countries and areas of
application have been introduced and described in Section 2.5.4. According to the
responses from tag producers and the applying industry, the allocations displayed in the
231
IDTechEx study have been rated as still reliable and were therefore widely applied in this
study. Based upon this, scenarios of the future projections of the numbers of RFID tags in
different areas of application in Europe were established. The scenarios, taking into
account the findings regarding technological progress explained in Section 2.5.4, are listed
here:
1. Fast development
2. Medium development
3. Slow development.
The tags are then distributed to the Member States according to the relative share of the
product of their GDP and their population (Eurostat data from 2010; GDP and main
components – current prices [nama_gdp_c], last updated 22.10.2011; demographic
balance and crude rates [demo_gind], last updated 18.10.2011). These data formed the
base for the modelling of RFID tags in the different waste streams with Umberto. The
table below shows the structure of this data for Germany.
Table A1. Structure of the development of the number of RFID tags per year and area of application
(excerpt from database)
Areas of application, waste streams and the fate of RFID tags

In order to allocate RFID tags to different waste streams and EOL processes, a material
stream network has been developed through which the deployment is calculated and
visualized. A similar approach with different background data was applied in the German
study. The approaches chosen will be presented to the first expert workshop and will be
verified there. The transition vectors and their concatenation are displayed in the
simplified scheme of the Umberto net in Figure A1.
232
RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3 Annex: Estimations for the modelling of waste streams in EU member states
Figure A1. Basic network for the deployment of RFID tags into different waste treatment paths
The network displays the possible waste distribution routes. Different transition vectors
were defined in order to calculate the transitions between usage and the EOL phases
involved. The main stages in between which transitions have to be considered are
x Areas of application for RFID tags

x (Collection Systems)31
x Waste streams receiving RFID tags
x Fate of RFID tags.
The first step was the allocation of RFID tags from the different areas of application from
the scenarios to the different waste streams within the EU. The areas of application for
RFID tags are listed in Table A2.
Table A2. Areas of application for RFID tags
Drugs Manufacturing parts, tools, assets Conveyances/rollcages/ULD/totes

Other healthcare Archiving (documents/samples) Passport page/secure documents
Retail apparel Military Other tag applications
Consumer goods Retail CPG pallet/case Contactless cards/fobs
Tyres Smart tickets Air baggage
Postal Books
The waste streams into which the tags applied in these areas were allocated to are listed in
Table A3.
Table A3. Waste streams receiving RFID tags
Paper and cardboard packaging

Plastic packaging
Wooden packaging
Metallic packaging
Glass packaging
Paper and cardboard
Plastics
Metals
WEEE
Household waste and similar commercial waste (in this work also referred to as mixed municipal solid waste
(MMSW))
Textiles
End-of-life tyres (ELT)
Table A4 lists the different ultimate destinations relevant in the modelling32 and gives the
corresponding processes in the EOL stages.
31
Collection systems are not described by statistical data and this transition step was not necessary and/or
sensible for all waste streams (see explanations of the respective vectors)
32
Relevant ultimate destination in this context is not equivalent to ultimate destination – e.g. in the case of
incineration a subsequent use of the process could be considered. However, this is not helpful in describing
impacts at the level of the thermal process
234
Table A4. Fate of RFID tags
Fate Corresponding EOL processes

Landfilling Final disposal
Paper and cardboard recycling Subsidiary recycling processes / provisioning of secondary raw
materials
Plastic recycling Subsidiary recycling processes / provisioning of secondary raw
materials
Metals recycling Subsidiary recycling processes / provisioning of secondary raw
materials
Wood recycling Subsidiary recycling processes / provisioning of secondary raw
materials
Glass recycling Subsidiary recycling processes / provisioning of secondary raw
materials
Textiles recycling Subsidiary recycling processes / provisioning of secondary raw
materials
WEEE recycling Subsidiary recycling processes / provisioning of secondary raw
materials
Incineration Waste treatment (waste incineration and energy recovery)
Transition vectors
The following sub-sections explain data acquisition for the different waste management
scenarios in the countries covered and describe how the transition vectors were defined.
The underlying assumptions are based on the statistical data provided by Eurostat. It
should be pointed out that all countries have different approaches regarding the acquisition
of data, so the transition vectors exhibit the same uncertainties that characterise the
statistical data.
The different datasets used will be referred to using the Eurostat file labelling, which is
listed in Table A5.33
33
The data is available at (as of 8 February 2012)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
SMART TRASH: Study on RFID tags and th
he recycling industry RAND Europe, I.A.R. and P3
Table A5. File labelling in Eurostat da

atasets on waste management
File labelling Content descrip

ption
env_wasgen Generation of wa
aste
env_wastrt Treatment of wa
aste
env_wasnmin Non-mineral was
ste generation
env_waspac Packaging waste
e
env_waselee Waste electrical and electronic equipment
env_waselv End-of-life vehicles: detailed data
env_waselvt End-of-life vehicles: reuse, recycling and recovery
env_wasmun Municipal waste
env_washaz Hazardous waste generation by economic activity
env-rwas-gen Regional genera
ation and treatment of municipal waste
env_rwas_cov Regional covera
age rate of municipal waste collection
To support orientation a screenshoot of the webpage is displayed in Figure A2.
Figure A2. Screenshot from Eurostat displaying

d where to find the datasets
236
Vector “RFID to waste”

Since there is no statistical database that allows the direct transition from areas of
application to receiving waste streams, this vector had to be based on expert knowledge.
The results of the allocation process are shown in Figure A3 and Table A5.
100%
90%
80% Air baggage

Allocation of areas of application to different waste streams
Archiving (documents/samples)
Books
70%
Consumer goods
Contactless cards/fobs
60%
Conveyances/Rollcages/ULD/Totes
Drugs
50% Manufacturing parts, tools, assets
Military
40% Other Healthcare

Other tag applications
Passport page/secure documents
30%
Postal
Retail apparel
20%
Retail CPG Pallet/case
Smart tickets
10% Tyres
0%
Paper & Plastic Wooden Metallic Glass Paper & Plastics Metals WEEE Wood MMSW Textiles ELT
cardboard packaging packaging packaging packaging cardboard
packaging
Figure A3. Allocation of areas of application to different waste streams
Table A6. Table regarding the allocation of areas of application to different waste streams
Vector “recyclables collection”

Based on the ratio between the rubric “waste generation” and the sum of the rubrics
“recycling”, “incineration with energy recovery at waste incinerators” and “energy
recovery” the share going to MMSW was determined. This was done for each country.
Vector “textile collection”

The distribution of RFID tags from textiles follows the route of used clothes. It is assumed
that used textiles are either promoted to a separate collection of used clothes or that they
are disposed of in mixed municipal waste. This ratio is determined based on the ratio
between textiles placed on the market (env_wasgen) and textiles that were treated
(env_wastrt).
Vector “WEEE collection”

Data according to env_waselee (2009) was split according to ratio between:
WEEE treatment (model) = “Treated in the Member State” + “Treated in another
Member State of the EU”
Treated outside EU (model) = “Treated outside EU”
Reuse (model) = “Reuse”
MMSW (model) = “Products put on the market” – (“Treated in the Member State” +
“Treated in another Member State of the EU” + “Treated outside the EU” + “Reuse”)
Vector “ELT collection”

The data is based on Annex I of ETRMA (2010). The waste stream is split into ELT
treatment, reuse and treatment outside the EU according to the ratio of:
“Reuse (A1)” + “Retreating (A3)” = Reuse (model)
“ELT (A4)” = ELT treatment (model)
“Export (A3)” = treatment outside the EU (model)
Vector “MMSW collection”

Since this waste stream is exclusively promoted to disposal operations such as landfilling
and incineration, at this stage a division of the tags contained in this waste stream does not
take place. This is consistent with the data from env_wastrt (data from 2008).
Vector “recyclables treatment”

Based on env_waspac (data from 2008) the subsequent treatment paths after collection are
identified. Landfilling of these fractions does not take place. The ratio between the
amounts going to incineration and the amounts going to material recycling were
determined as follows:
The rubric “recycling” was interpreted as material recycling and the sum of the rubrics
“incineration with energy recovery at waste incinerators” and “energy recovery” were
interpreted as incineration in the modelling.
Vector “textiles treatment”

Based on env_wastrt in the category “Textile wastes” the distribution was done according
to the ratio between:
Textile recycling (model) = “Recovery other than energy recovery”
Incineration (model) = “Energy recovery” + “Incineration without energy recovery”
238
Landfill (model) = “Deposit onto or into land”
Vector “WEEE treatment”

Data according to env_waselee (2009) was split according to the ratio of:
WEEE recycling (model) = “Total recycling and reuse” – “Reuse”
Incineration (model) = “Treated in the Member State” + “Treated in another Member
State of the EU” – “Recycling”
Vector “ELT treatment”

Is split into material recycling (or ELT recycling respectively), incineration and landfilling,
whereas:
ELT recycling (model) = “ELT Recovery” – “Material (B1)”
Incineration (model) = “ELT Recovery” – “Energy (B2)”
Landfill (model) = “Landfill & Unknown (C)”
Vector “MMSW treatment”

Based on env_wastrt in the category “household and similar waste”, the distribution was
done according to the ratio between:
Incineration (model) = “Energy recovery” + “Incineration without energy recovery”
Landfill (model) = “Deposit onto or into land”
P11:tags Germany
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

paper P7: plastic P13: metal P20: wood glass
packaging paper packaging plastic packaging metal packaging packaging
P44: P45: P46: P47:
textiles EEE tires remainder
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19: T21: T22: T23:

T24:
paper plastic metal wood glass textile WEEE ELT
remainder
collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection
collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
paper P39: plastic P40: metal P41: wood
glass P38: P43: P15:
packaging paper packaging plastic packaging metal packaging
packaging textiles WEEE MMSW
waste waste waste waste waste waste waste
waste waste collection
P37:
ELT
T3: paper T4: plastic T2: metal T8: wood T10: glass
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment T12: textile T13: WEEE T9: ELT T14: MMSW
treatment teatment treatment treatment
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
T5: landfilling T6: incineration
P25:paper P24: plastic P27: metals P28: wood P26: glass P31: textiles P29: WEEE P6: ELT
for recycling for recycling for recycling for recycling for recycling for recycling for recycling for recycling
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
bottom ash exhaust waste
material
for recycling gas water
Figure A4. Forecast Germany 2010
240
P11:tags Germany
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T17:
T15: T16: T18: T19: T21: T22: T23: T24:
metal
paper plastic wood glass textile WEEE ELT remainder
collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
T3: paper T4: plastic T2: metal T8: wood T10: glass T12: textile T13: WEEE T9: ELT T14: MMSW
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment teatment treatment treatment
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A5. Forecast Germany 2012

P11:tags Germany
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T17:
T15: T16: T18: T19: T21: T22: T23: T24:
metal
collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A6. Forecast Germany 2018 (scenario fast development)
242
P11:tags Germany
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19: T21: T22: T23: T24:

paper plastic metal wood glass textile WEEE ELT remainder
collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A7. Forecast Germany 2024 (scenario fast development)

P11:tags Germany
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19: T21: T22: T23: T24:

paper plastic metal wood glass textile WEEE ELT remainder
collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A8. Forecast Germany 2018 (scenario medium development)
244
P11:tags Germany
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T17:
T15: T16: T18: T19: T21: T22: T23: T24:
metal
collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
glass P38: P43: P37: P15:
packaging textiles WEEE ELT MMSW
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A9. Forecast Germany 2024 (scenario medium development)

P11:tags Germany
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T17:
T15: T16: T18: T19: T21: T22: T23: T24:
metal
collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
T3: paper T4: plastic T2: metal T8: wood T10: glass T12: textile T13: WEEE T9: ELT T14: MMSW
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment teatment treatment treatment
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A10. Forecast Germany 2018 (scenario slow development)
246
P11:tags Germany
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T17:
T15: T16: T18: T19: T21: T22: T23: T24:
metal
collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34: P8:
paper P39: plastic P40: metal P41: wood glass P38:
P43: P15:
packaging paper packaging plastic packaging metal packaging packaging textiles
WEEE MMSW
waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste
collection
P37:
ELT
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A11. Forecast Germany 2024 (scenario slow development)

P11:tags UK
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19:

paper plastic metal wood glass
collection collection collection collection collection
T21: T22: T23: T24:

textile WEEE ELT remainder
collection collection collection collection
P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
T9: ELT
T3: paper T4: plastic T2: metal T8: wood T10: glass treatment
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment T12: textile T13: WEEE T14: MMSW
treatment teatment treatment
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A12. Forecast UK 2010
248
P11:tags UK
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19:

T21: T22: T23: T24:

P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
T9: ELT
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A13. Forecast UK 2012

P11:tags UK
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19:

T21: T22: T23: T24:

P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
paper P39: plastic P40: metal P41: wood P38:
glass P15:
packaging paper packaging plastic packaging metal packaging textiles P43:
packaging MMSW
waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste WEEE
waste collection
P37:
ELT
T9: ELT
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A14. Forecast UK 2018 (scenario medium development)
250
P11:tags UK
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19:

T21: T22: T23: T24:

P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
T9: ELT
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A15. Forecast UK 2024 (scenario medium development)

P11:tags Greece
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19:

T21: T22: T23: T24:

P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
P37:
ELT
T9: ELT
T3: paper
treatment
treatment
T4: plastic T2: metal T8: wood T10: glass T12: textile T13: WEEE T14: MMSW
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment teatment treatment
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A16. Forecast Greece 2010
252
P11:tags Greece
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19:

T21: T22: T23: T24:

P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34: P8:
P38: P15:
packaging paper packaging plastic packaging metal packaging packaging P43:
textiles MMSW
waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste WEEE
waste collection
P37:
ELT
T9: ELT
T3: paper treatment
treatment T4: plastic T2: metal T8: wood T10: glass T12: textile T13: WEEE T14: MMSW
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A17. Forecast Greece 2012

P11:tags Greece
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19:

T21: T22: T23: T24:

P49:
reused
P9: P10: P35: P34:

P8:
glass P38: P15:
packaging paper packaging plastic packaging metal packaging P43:
packaging textiles MMSW
waste waste waste waste waste waste waste WEEE
P37:
ELT
T9: ELT
T3: paper treatment
P2: directed
to landfilling P3: directed
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A18. Forecast Greece 2018 (scenario medium development)
254
P11:tags Greece
T1
P12: P14: P21: P30: P32:

P44: P45: P46: P47:
T15: T16: T17: T18: T19:

T21: T22: T23: T24:

P49:
reused
P4:
treated
outside EU
P9: P10: P35: P34:
P8:
glass P38: P15:
packaging textiles P43: MMSW
waste waste WEEE collection
P37:
ELT
T9: ELT
T3: paper treatment
P2: directed
P3: directed
to landfilling
to incineration
P22: residues
incineration
P18: P17: P16:

P33: landfill
material
Figure A19. Forecast Greece 2024 (scenario medium development)

RFID Tags

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RFID Tags

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RFID Tags

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORKING

Interim Report (D3)

RAND Europe, Institut für Aufbereitung

This product is part of the RAND February 2012

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Preface ........................................................................................................................ iii

CHAPTER 1Introduction ......................................................................................... 21

SMART TRASH: Part A ............................................................................................ 27

CHAPTER 2A technical primer on RFID: tags, compositions, recyclability and

CHAPTER 3The background context for assessing the impacts of RFID

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

3.4 A clustering system of Member States .............................................................. 66

CHAPTER 4RFID tags in the waste processing industry .......................................... 69

CHAPTER 5Conclusions on the impacts on waste treatment technologies and

SMART TRASH: Part B ......................................................................................... 127

CHAPTER 6Assessment of current and potential use of RFID as a green

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

6.3.2 Case study selection ......................................................................... 138

CHAPTER 7RFID as a green technology: use case analysis ..................................... 141

CHAPTER 8Case studies of RFID as a green technology ........................................ 177

CHAPTER 9Interim conclusions and next-phase issues .......................................... 205

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 215

ANNEX ........................................................................................................... 229

Figure 1. Outline Part A – Environmental impact of RFID as inert objects.................... 25

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Table 1. Comparison of some of the typical features of passive vs active RFID.............. 33

ACP Anisotropic Conductive Paste

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

GDP Gross Domestic Product

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

PDM Product Data Management

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

ability to demonstrate the potential of tags in improving recycling efficiency and

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Figure 1. Outline Part A – Environmental impact of RFID as inert objects

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Figure 2. Outline Part B – Assessment of RFID as a green technology

SMART TRASH: PART A

CHAPTER 2 A technical primer on RFID: tags,

x This chapter gives a brief introduction to RFID, giving an overview on

2.1 Definition of RFID tags

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Referring to: Finkenzeller (2010)

Source: Finkenzeller (2010)

Figure 4. Overview of the most important auto-ID procedures

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

2.2 Types of RFID tags

Figure 5. The features of RFID systems

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

2.3 Passive and active RFID tags

Contract reference 30-CE-0395435/00-31

Table 1. Comparison of some of the typical features of passive vs active RFID

Feature Passive Active

Size and weight Small (or thin) Large