D 1.1. _PNO_ Report on Stakeholder Analysis

Transcription

1 Start date of project: 2015/02/01 Duration: 30 Months Identifier: D 1.1. _PNO_ Date: 2016/08/26 Class: Responsible Partner: Final PNO Annexes: 4 Distribution: Title: Public The project has received funding from the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE NEW_InnoNet CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE NEW_InnoNet CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT

2 AUTHORS & INFORMATION Miranda Verboon, MSc (PNO Consultants): Miranda Verboon is a NEW_InnoNet project member and works for PNO s Energy & Environment team since She holds a degree in Political Science (BA) and Industrial Ecology (MSc) from Leiden University. During her studies, she worked at Leiden University s Centre for Innovation and participated in several European research projects related to resource efficiency and production of metals. Her thesis research, which studied the environmental impacts of nickel production in different metal demand scenarios until 2050, was conducted at Yale University. Tjerk Wardenaar, PhD (PNO Consultants): Tjerk Wardenaar is project coordinator of the NEW_InnoNet project. Since 2014, he works as an innovation consultant for PNO Consultants with a special focus on water technology, climate action, and integral sustainability projects (e.g. industrial ecology, circular economy). Tjerk has a multidisciplinary background: Industrial Ecology (MSc), Philosophy (MA, BA) and Political Sciences (BA). After working as an environmental researcher for Leiden University, Tjerk joined the Rathenau Instituut. For this organization, he conducted research on the organization of large-scale climate programmes. In 2015, Tjerk obtained his PhD after publication of his thesis Organizing Collaborative Research: The dynamics and long-term effects of multi-actor research programs. More information: for more information on this report or the NEW_InnoNet project, please contact Tjerk Wardenaar (tjerk.wardenaar@pnoconsultants.com) or visit the project website ( NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 2 of 59

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS AUTHORS & INFORMATION... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS... 3 Executive summary Introduction & objectives Background Objectives Methodology Reading guide Stakeholders perspectives on Near-Zero Waste Introduction (Perceived) knowledge of zero-waste concepts Attitudes Barriers towards a circular economy Research priorities Plastic packaging Introduction Key collaboration Most influential actors Matchpoint analysis Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Introduction Key collaboration Most influential actors Matchpoint analysis End-of-Life Vehicles Introduction Key collaboration Most influential actors Matchpoint analysis Towards a Near-Zero Waste Europe Stakeholder expectations Towards a platform structure References Annexes Annex 1: Survey methodology Annex 2: Matchpoint methodology Annex 3: Full questionnaire Annex 4: Stakeholder list NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 3 of 59

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Europe generates around three billion tonnes of waste each year and it is expected that this amount will increase further. Approximately half of this waste is not reused or recycled, and aside from the environmental impacts associated with incinerating or landfilling this waste, a significant amount of potential secondary raw materials is lost (EC 2015a). Ambitious targets for a zero-waste Europe have been laid down in a number of policy initiatives, and have recently been updated, bundled and specified in the Circular Economy Package. While innovative recycling technologies have been successfully developed, market uptake is limited and varies drastically among EU member states and regions. Without market uptake of new technologies, the development of more innovations, and elimination of non-technological market hurdles, the targets for a near-zero waste Europe will not be fulfilled. The Near-zero European Waste Innovation Network (NEW_InnoNet) stimulates the development and implementation of near-zero waste technologies. NEW_InnoNet believes that in this respect, cooperation is essential. Not only will cooperation stimulate knowledge dissemination, it will also result in optimization of the use of raw materials and increasing collection and recycling rates. In order to induce more cooperation within value chains, NEW_InnoNet develops a European stakeholder platform ( NEW_InnoNet focuses first on implementing near-zero waste and circular economy approaches in three specific value chains and their three associated waste streams: Electronics and electric equipment (WEEE: Waste Electronics and Electric Equipment). Automotive (ELV: End-of-Life Vehicles). Fast moving consumer goods (Plastic packaging). In order to gain a more detailed overview of the (perspectives of the) stakeholders of these value chains a targeted study has been conducted. The study consists of analyses of the responses of 184 stakeholders and of the compositions of 226 European projects. Participating stakeholders represent the full value chain, i.e. from material production to product manufacturing, waste collection, waste managing and recycling. The stakeholder analysis enables NEW_InnoNet to develop its platform in line with the opinions, needs and expertise of stakeholders in the value chains. The stakeholder analysis shows that: Stakeholders are familiar with near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts. However, levels of expertise differ strongly among stakeholders and technological expertise is lagging behind. Stakeholders have positive attitudes towards (and expectations of) the circular economy. A positive correlation exists between level of expertise and attitude, i.e. more knowledgeable stakeholders have a more positive attitude. A strong correlation exists between the level of collaboration of stakeholders and their expertise of zero-waste concepts. This confirms the importance of collaboration and knowledge-sharing and underwrites the purpose of the NEW_InnoNet project. Stakeholders in different value chains share challenges: commonalities between value chains provide opportunities for cross-fertilization. At the same time, it is important to note that the value chains are also very different; observed bottlenecks, main research priorities and key stakeholders differ strongly per value chain. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 4 of 59

5 The concepts of near-zero waste and circular economy are increasingly important on the European research agenda. Since 1982, 226 European projects have already been developed with 1777 partners resulting in a large body of knowledge and innovation. Stakeholders have positive expectations of a European stakeholder platform, especially with regard to networking opportunities and providing visibility of front-runners. The stakeholder analysis provides the NEW_InnoNet project with clear recommendations and three main platform pillars: (Technological) information sharing: Although stakeholders are aware of near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts, the average level of expertise should be considered as relatively low and knowledge is fragmented in different sectors and among stakeholders. The lack of knowledge hampers progress in this area because: (1) stakeholders are not aware of possible solutions for their problems, and (2) stakeholders with less expertise are more pessimistic about the circular economy. Therefore, the platform should actively disclose available information on existing and developing technologies. A specific focus should be placed on the large body of knowledge that is (and has been) developed in the context of European projects. Networking and front-runners: Stakeholders expect networking opportunities from a European platform. In addition, stakeholders indicate that the platform should provide visibility for frontrunners in the field of recycling and sustainability. These expectations are in line with the current activities of the NEW_InnoNet project, e. g. on 8-9 June 2016 the project organized a stakeholder conference where stakeholders could network and frontrunners were provided an opportunity to present themselves as key-note speakers (for a report on the conference, see NEW_InnoNet 2016a). The project will continue these activities as well as stimulating on-line networking activities and providing front-runners a digital platform. Facilitating bottom-up actions: The differences between the value chains indicate that there is not a silver bullet solution for implementation of circular economy concepts. The NEW_InnoNet project will therefore support bottom-up initiatives and actions. By facilitating stakeholders to put issues on the agenda and to develop their ideas in collaboration with other stakeholders, NEW_InnoNet will not only increase commitment but (more importantly) induce actions for actual change. The platform will in this respect serve as a safe haven or incubator for innovative collaborations for near-zero waste technologies and a circular Europe. The methodology, results and detailed conclusions of the NEW_InnoNet stakeholder analysis are described in this report. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 5 of 59

6 1. INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES 1.1. BACKGROUND Europe generates around three billion tonnes of waste each year and it is expected that this amount will increase further. Approximately half of this waste is not reused or recycled, and aside from the environmental impacts associated with incinerating or landfilling this waste, a significant amount of potential secondary raw materials is lost (EC 2015a). Although innovative recycling technologies and processes have been successfully implemented for many years, market uptake varies drastically amongst the 28 Member States of the EU as well as within individual Member States. NEW_InnoNet therefore develops a stakeholder platform to stimulate market uptake of zero waste technologies and processes. Starting point of the platform is the recognition that in order to reach a European near-zero waste economy, value chain stakeholders must increase interactions and collaborations. Through collaboration and communication, generated knowledge, valuable insights and hands-on experiences can be more rapidly shared and spread. In addition, potential knowledge gaps and innovation needs can be identified and addressed. In this way, the NEW_InnoNet platform will enable stakeholders to enforce the required changes in the value chain structure collaboratively. NEW_InnoNet is a Horizon 2020 project started in In addition to developing the platform, the project drafts a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) on waste reduction for the European Commission. The SRIA builds on a set of sequential and complementary project activities: (1) identify and analyze existing bottlenecks for the transition from linear to circular approach in value chains, (2) develop roadmaps for three selected value chains that define where and how a difference can be made; and (3) initiated future use case to set the ground for building a transition towards circular economy OBJECTIVES In order to be able to develop and reinforce solid foundations for an European Near-Zero Waste Platform, a stakeholder analysis has been conducted by the NEW_InnoNet project. This stakeholder analysis contributes to the development of the platform by identifying the main stakeholders in three value chains and taking stock of their perspectives and expectations. The main objectives of the stakeholder analysis are: Getting insight into stakeholders perspectives and expertise on the circular economy and near-zero waste technologies (Chapter three). Identification of (the main) stakeholders in three value chains: o Electronics and electric equipment (Chapter three). o Plastic packaging (Chapter four). o Automotive (Chapter five). Assessing stakeholder needs and expectations of next steps of NEW_InnoNet (Chapter six). 1 Reports on the value chain and bottleneck analyses are available via: Keeping track of the progress on the roadmaps and providing input is possible via: NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 6 of 59

7 1.3. METHODOLOGY The stakeholder analysis is based on two research steps 2 : A survey was disseminated among 670 European stakeholders: The list was composed by the partners of the NEW_InnoNet project and is attached (anonymized) to this report as annex 4. The survey contains questions on the perspectives, actions and expectations of stakeholders with regard to the circular economy and near-zero waste technologies. The questionnaire served two purposes: first of all, to map the current playing field in terms of organizations knowledge, influence, interest and attitude towards zero-waste concepts. Secondly, to gain insight into stakeholders expectations and needs of a European platform on near-zero waste. A Matchpoint analysis of CORDIS-data for the period : In order to get an overview of (active) individual stakeholders involved in the different value chains, an analysis was made of all European projects related to the topics of WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging. Specifically, an analysis was made of the number of projects over time, the type and amount of project partners and the amount of funding over time. This enabled identification of the most active stakeholders (in European projects) and the salience and amount of funding of certain topics over time. The analysis was performed by using the Matchpoint tool developed by PNO Consultants READING GUIDE This report contains six chapters, 4 annexes and an executive summary. The first chapter provides an introduction to the background, objectives and methodology of the NEW_InnoNet project. Chapter two analyzes stakeholders knowledge of - and attitudes towards - circular economy concepts, as well as perceived barriers towards the transition to a circular economy and main research- and development priorities. Chapters three through five contain analyses of the value chains in terms of collaboration, influence and innovation for the three value chains: plastic packaging (chapter three), waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE; chapter four) and end-of-life vehicles (ELV; chapter five). Chapter six concludes with an analysis of stakeholders expectations of a near-zero waste platform and recommendations for a platform structure. 2 A detailed description of the applied methodologies, survey questionnaires and conducted analyses is provided in Annex 1 (survey methodology), 2 (Matchpoint methodology) and 3 (full questionnaire). NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 7 of 59

8 2. STAKEHOLDERS PERSPECTIVES ON NEAR-ZERO WASTE Main findings: Knowledge: Stakeholders are familiar with near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts. However, levels of expertise differ strongly among stakeholders and technological expertise is lagging behind. Attitude: Stakeholders have positive attitudes towards (and expectations of) the circular economy. A positive correlation exists between level of expertise and attitude, i.e. more knowledgeable stakeholders have a more positive attitude. Barriers: Barriers identified by experts in the bottleneck analysis (NEW_InnoNet 2016b; 2016c 2016d) are also recognized by the majority of stakeholders. Most important barriers for the value chains are: bad product design (plastic packaging); miniaturization, complexity, integration of functions (WEEE); and low-cost alternatives such as landfilling (ELV). Research priorities: Stakeholders in different value chains share challenges but identify different research priorities for their value chain INTRODUCTION The European Union has formulated ambitious targets with respect to waste reduction and the circular economy. These targets are formulated in the EU action plan for the Circular Economy (EC 2015b) as well as several directives on specific waste streams (e.g. directive 94/62/EC on packaging waste, directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life-vehicles and directive 2012/19/EU on electronic waste). In order to reach these targets, stakeholders throughout Europe will need to take action and change their working practices. The perspectives of stakeholders are therefore crucial for achieving a nearzero waste Europe. This part of the report discusses: (1) how knowledgeable stakeholders already are on these topics, (2) what their attitudes are with regards to feasibility and desirability, (3) what they see as main barriers, and (4) what research priorities they identify (PERCEIVED) KNOWLEDGE OF ZERO-WASTE CONCEPTS The concepts near-zero waste and circular economy have been around since the 1970s. Despite their growing popularity, however, they are not mainstream concepts and especially their practical implementation might be unknown by stakeholders. At the same time, knowledge is a condition for organizational change as well as an indispensable requirement for implementing new technologies. The questionnaire therefore asked stakeholders for a self-assessment of knowledge of different topics on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 indicated Very low and 6 Very high. The response on the survey shows that with an average score of 3.8 (N = 133) stakeholders indicate that they are familiar with near-zero waste and circular economy concepts. It should be noted, however, that the level of reported expertise varies largely between stakeholders (standard deviation is 1.08). Stakeholders from the ELV-chain report the highest level of expertise (4.1, N = 22), followed by WEEE (3.9, N = 60) and subsequently plastic packaging (3.6, N = 51). The highest score for the ELV-value chain is in line with expectations; after all, recycling and circular economy measures are already (to a large extent) established in this value chain (NEW_InnoNet 2016b). NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 8 of 59

9 Figure 1 distinguishes between two different types of knowledge regarding the circular economy, i.e. technical knowledge and socio-organizational knowledge. The latter category encompasses economic knowledge, regulatory knowledge, environmental knowledge and organizational knowledge. On average, all value chains report to have higher knowledge of socio-organizational issues than technical issues regarding the circular economy. This discrepancy is highest in the WEEE value chain, with a difference of 0.6 points. Stakeholders in the plastic packaging and WEEE value chains report on average that their level of technological expertise is closer to Low than to High Total Plastics WEEE ELV Technical knowledge Soc. org. Knowledge Figure 1. Technical and socio-organizational knowledge. Analysis of the knowledge topics show that the highest levels of expertise are reported in all value chains for: (1) environmental impact of waste disposal ( ), and (2) expertise on national and European directives regarding their value chain ( ). This may point to stakeholders awareness regarding the reasons for - and the urgency of - the circular economy. In all value chains, knowledge on tracking and marker technologies and circular business models are lowest. In addition, all value chains, especially WEEE, report to have less knowledge of product (eco- or re)design aspects ( ) ATTITUDES The reported knowledge levels indicate that on average stakeholders have an understanding of near-zero waste and circular economy concepts. In this part of the report, the focus is on the attitudes of stakeholders towards this change. Attitude is defined as an expression of favour, disfavour or ambivalence towards a specific attitude object (person, place, concept). Attitude was measured by two different concepts. First of all, respondents were asked to complete a semantic differential question in order to directly measure their attitude on different aspects of the circular economy. Figure 3 shows that the average attitude towards circular economy is very positive (4.9, N = 130). The plastics (5.1, N = 50) and WEEE (4.9, N = 57) value chains score on or above average, while the ELV (4.6, N = 23) value chain is slightly less positive. Analysis of the individual items shows that feasibility scored lowest in all value chains ( ), importance highest in plastics and WEEE (resp. 5.4 and 5.2), and desirability in the ELV value chain (5.0). It can thus be concluded that stakeholders in all value chains have a very positive attitude towards the circular economy, although they may perceive some barriers to the transition to a circular economy. These potential barriers will be addressed in paragraph Total 4.9 Total 4.9 Plastics 5.1 Plastics 5.0 WEEE 4.9 WEEE 4.8 ELV 4.6 ELV 4.5 Figure 2. Average attitude towards circular economy Figure 3. Perceived benefits of circular economy over linear economy.

10 Secondly, respondents were asked to rate the perceived benefits of the circular economy over the linear economy with regards to different social and organizational levels. The results are presented in figure 3. Overall, stakeholders expect that the benefits of a circular economy are higher compared to the linear economy (4.9, N = 127). Similarly to the measure of attitude presented above, the benefits are perceived to be larger by the plastic packaging value chain (5.0, N = 49). Stakeholders in the ELV value chain seem to be slightly more critical, yet still positive overall (4.5, N = 22). In addition, a comparison was made between stakeholders knowledge and attitude. It was shown that, on average, stakeholders with low scores on knowledge ( 3.5) scored lower on attitude than stakeholders with high (>3.5) knowledge of circular economy concepts. This difference was most pronounced in the plastic packaging value chain, where stakeholders with less knowledge scores 0.6 points lower on attitude than stakeholder with high reported levels of knowledge. The WEEE value chain also has a 0.5 point difference, while in the ELV value chain there is only a small difference (0.3) between the attitude scores of stakeholders with reported low- and high levels of knowledge BARRIERS TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY As demonstrated in the previous section, stakeholders in this study have positive attitudes on the circular economy. Stakeholders are least positive (although still positive) on the feasibility of the circular economy. This result is in line with previous value chain analyses of the NEW_InnoNet project (NEW_InnoNet 2016b; 2016c, 2016d). In these analyses, several bottlenecks were identified by value chain experts. In the survey, respondents were asked to what extent they recognized these barriers. All barriers in all value chains were confirmed to be barriers by stakeholders, with a range of 55% - 82% of respondents choosing an option that agreed with the statement. In order to be able to distinguish the most important barriers and prioritize measures to overcome them, an analysis is made of the amount of respondents that agree or completely agree (i.e. excluding slightly agree ).. Figure 4 shows the top five barriers identified by the ELV bottleneck analysis and the percentage of respondents that either agree or strongly agree to the existence of the barrier (N = 22). The largest barrier according to respondents is the low cost of energy recovery versus material recovery from ELV (45%), followed by the limited applications of nonmetallic materials from ELV (38%). A number of stakeholders stressed that while the framework for collection and monitoring of ELV is adequate, practical implementation and enforcement are often lacking. Low-cost of energy recovery and landfill versus material recovery; Limited and low quality applications of non-metallic ELV materials; Inadequate performance of ELV collection and monitoring; Inadequate performance of the separation, sorting and refining technology; Inadequate performance of vehicle dismantling and reuse; 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree Completely agree Figure 4. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the ELV value chain. Figure 5 shows the top five barriers to achieving a circular economy in the plastic packaging value chain (N = 50). Compared to the ELV value chain, the general level of agreement is significantly higher. Ranking highest are product NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 10 of 59

11 design aspects (63%) and the limited source separation of plastic packaging waste (56%). Similarly to the ELV chain, the plastic packaging value chain also experiences contradictory incentives regarding end-of-life processing due to the financial advantages of energy recovery. However, multiple stakeholders mentioned the absence of support of governments and legislation, for example in the form of appropriate legislation and financing mechanisms. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bad product design; Limited source separation of plastic packaging waste; Performance of separation and sorting technology; Export of plastic packaging waste for recycling outside EU; Performance of recycling technology; Agree Completely agree Figure 5. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the plastic packaging value chain. Figure 6 shows the barriers identified in the WEEE value chain (N = 57). Scoring highest are product design aspects (61%), closely followed by the lack of incentives to develop recyclable materials and products (60%). Additional input from stakeholders often concerned the lack of standardization in design as well as end-of-life treatments. Several stakeholders also identified the scarce information on product composition and monitoring of material flows as a significant barrier. Product design aspects: Miniaturisation, complexity, integrating of multiple functions; No incentives to develop recyclable materials and products; Illegal export of WEEE outside EU; Rapid changes in designs and materials; Fluctuating raw material prices. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree Completely agree Figure 6. Perceived barriers to the transition to a circular economy in the WEEE value chain RESEARCH PRIORITIES In order to overcome the barriers explored in the previous paragraph, stakeholders were asked to rate and prioritize different areas of research and development. These R&D priorities were divided into seven areas of interest displayed below. In line with the analysis of barriers to a circular economy, only the share of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing is displayed. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 11 of 59

12 Agree Strongly agree Plastic packaging WEEE ELV 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Design for recycling Waste prevention/reduction Market dynamics Performance of separation and sorting technology Policy and regulation Monitoring of waste streams Performance of collection schemes Figure 7. R&D priorities in all value chains In general, the level of agreement is quite high, especially in the plastic packaging value chain. Design for recycling is regarded as a top priority in the value chains of plastic packaging (N = 50) and WEEE (N = 56), an issue that is also emphasized by stakeholders in the open responses. In ELV (N = 20), design for recycling is prioritized least. More research into waste prevention and reduction is also encouraged, especially in the plastic packaging value chain, where it is perhaps also most easily achieved. In addition, and overlapping with both waste prevention and design for recycling, stakeholders stressed the necessity of remanufacturing and reuse and urged to improve the preconditions for establishing these concepts successfully. While confirming its importance, stakeholders in the ELV and WEEE chain prioritize the performance of collection schemes least. As outlined in the previous chapter, stakeholders in the ELV chain are relatively content with the regulatory and organizational framework of the monitoring and collection schemes. However, stronger enforcement is required in order to optimize the system and to enable a transition to a fully circular value chain. In the plastic packaging value chain, however, the performance of collection schemes is among the top priorities. Something that was not included in the survey, but was emphasized by several stakeholders, is the role of consumer behaviour in the transition to a circular economy. Consumers make choices daily about the amount and type of products they purchase. Taking into account global population and welfare growth, consumers constitute a driving force behind global demand for products and materials. Since demand for products and materials must first stabilize before a fully circular economy can be achieved, the role of consumers in the circular economy is paramount. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 12 of 59

13 3. PLASTIC PACKAGING Main findings: Collaboration: The overall level of collaboration in the value chain is high. One collaboration cluster can be identified at the beginning of the value chain and one cluster at the end. In terms of collaboration, the most important actors are situated at the end-of-life part of the value chain: waste collecting agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies. Influence: Product manufacturers and waste managers are the stakeholders who report sufficient influence to induce change in the value chain. While supporting stakeholders (funding- knowledge- and regulatory agencies) have little influence in the value chain, they may prove valuable partners for support and collaboration. Innovation: research organizations have been dominant in European projects on plastic packaging innovation. In terms of participation, the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Germany) is most innovative. The European Plastic Converters (Belgium) is the most innovative industrial stakeholder INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the plastic packaging value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is defined in three different ways: key collaboration partner (section 3.2); most influential stakeholder (section 3.3); and most innovative stakeholder (section 3.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of different stakeholders are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 68 stakeholders and 102 European projects. Respondents are from eleven EU-Member States. No stakeholders in the phases of retail/distribution and waste collection participated in this survey, and thus were not included in the results; except for in the network analysis, where the external assessment of collaboration provided the data KEY COLLABORATION In order to map the level and direction of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain, stakeholders were asked to indicate the frequency of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the categorization described in Annex 1. These data were converted into a network graph, displayed below. For purposes of clarity, only the primary stakeholder categories are included in this graph; supporting stakeholders (funding, knowledge- and regulatory agencies) were omitted. In addition, since this analysis is about collaboration between different stakeholder types in the value chain, collaborations within the same phase in the value chain are not displayed. The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in figure 8 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors in the value chain; the size and opacity of the flows stemming from the colored bars represents collaboration as reported by stakeholders themselves. Thus, it can be seen that most stakeholders collaborate fairly regularly with each other. The colored bars in the inner ring indicate which types of actors have reported to collaborate with the types of organizations represented by the bar on the accompanying outer ring. The other end of the flow represents the frequency of the collaboration according to the source. Following this logic, stakeholders who have a broad flow originating from their side that narrows on the other side have indicated to collaborate more frequently than has been indicated about their collaboration externally. Likewise, flows with similar sizes on both ends represent collaboration that was gauged almost equally. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 13 of 59

14 Figure 8. Collaborations between actors in the plastic packaging value chain. The tabulated results show that the average level of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain is highest of all value chains, with a score of 4.0 (N = 50). The strongest mutual collaborators in the plastic packaging value chain are raw material producers and product manufacturers; and waste managers and recyclers. The presence of these two clusters of collaboration (one at the beginning and one at the end of the value chain) may point to the fact that, in terms of collaboration, the linear economy is still the dominant principle in the plastic packaging value chain. In addition, product manufacturers report the highest collaboration with other stakeholders, especially with distributors, waste collecting agencies and waste managers. Excluding the missing stakeholder types, waste managers report the least collaboration overall. More specifically, the least collaboration takes place with product manufacturers and retailers and distributors. Comparing the level of collaboration as reported by stakeholders and reported externally (by other stakeholders) shows that raw material producers and component manufacturers tend to overestimate their collaboration with value chain partners. The greatest discrepancy is found in the self-assessment and external assessment of collaboration of raw material producers and product manufacturers. Raw material producers report high levels of collaboration with all partners in the value chain. However, this is only confirmed by product manufacturers and recyclers. In fact, raw material producers are the least collaborated with according to other stakeholders. Waste managers and recyclers, however, tend to underestimate their frequency of collaboration with other stakeholders. Waste managers self-report the lowest level of collaboration; however, external rating shows the complete opposite - waste managers are most selected as collaboration partner by other stakeholders MOST INFLUENTIAL ACTORS It is important to identify the (types of) stakeholders likely to play a role in the transition to a circular economy. Two analyses were therefore made: (1) an analysis of the influence of stakeholders in the current situation (status quo); and, (2) an analysis of their position towards transition. The analysis of the status quo is based on stakeholders influence and their willingness to exert that influence (activity). The analysis of the position towards transition is based on the one NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 14 of 59

15 hand on a comparison of stakeholders embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the perceived effects of change on their organization; and on the other hand, an analysis of stakeholders interest in change compared to their influence Position in status quo To assess the current state of affairs in the value chain, an analysis has been made of stakeholders influence and the willingness to exert that influence. Influence, or the ability of an actor to change or control the behaviour of others, can be derived from different sources; for example, from access to financial resources or knowledge. The willingness to exert influence was defined as the activity level, and measured by stakeholders frequency of participation in different types of activities, such as collaborative research projects or lobbying activities. In the plastic packaging value chain the average level of influence is 4.0 (N = 56). Funding agencies report the lowest level of influence (3.1, N = 3), while product manufacturers report the highest (4.6, N = 7). In general, stakeholders derive and exert their influence through their knowledge and the size of their network. Fewer stakeholders (approximately half) report having influence on regulatory issues. The average level of activity is quite high with a value of 4.0 (N = 55). The least active stakeholders are funding organizations (3.3, N = 3), while the recycling agencies (4.8, N = 12) are extremely active. Stakeholders are most active in dialogues and collaborations with other organizations (4.8; 4.7), and least active in lobbying activities (3.7). When putting these characteristics in a grid, it becomes clear that both product manufacturers and waste managers have the potential to induce change in the value chain. However, product manufacturers are less interested in this than waste managers, who are very willing to exert influence in the value chain. Actors with low influence, but who can play a supporting role, are displayed in the bottom row. Of these, especially knowledge organizations and regulatory agencies are willing to participate in activities related to the circular economy. Low Willingness to exert influence High Influence High Low C Product manufacturers A Raw material producers G Recycling agencies H Funding agencies F Waste managers I Knowledge organizations J Regulatory agencies Table 1. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the plastic packaging value chain Position towards the future Now an assessment of current affairs has been made, it is important to look at the potential effects of the transition to a circular economy on stakeholders; will they experience benefits from the transition, as they have already embedded circular economy principles to a large extent? Having a high level of embeddedness ensures that stakeholders are sufficiently prepared or have sufficient adaptability in order to perform well in a circular landscape. While the perceived effects of change do not predict anything about the actual effects of change, the perception of stakeholders is what is NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 15 of 59

16 relevant, since this determines the role they will assume in either facilitating or obstructing the transition to a circular economy. In order to measure these aspects, stakeholders have been asked to indicate the level of embeddedness of circular economy concepts in different aspects of their organisation, such as communication activities or daily work practices. In addition, the perceived effect of change and the direction of change that will occur during the transition to a circular economy are measured. The plastics value chain reports the highest level of embeddedness of circular economy concepts (4.2) of all value chains. After regulators (3.4, N = 4), product manufacturers (N = 7) and raw material producers (N = 3) report the lowest level of embeddedness (3.5) and waste managers (4.9, N = 9) the highest. Stakeholders report to have circular economy concepts mainly incorporated in the communication activities (4.5), and to a lesser extent in the training of employees (3.7). Similarly, the perceived effects of change are the most positive of all value chains (4.0, N = 50). The independency of the organization is assumed to be most negatively affected (3.2). Both the societal legitimacy and the network of the organization are expected to be most positively affected (4.4). This indicates stakeholders expect a tradeoff between independency and the size of their network, most likely due to increased collaboration. The organizations that report the most positive perception of change are recycling agencies (4,5, N = 9), while regulatory agencies are less positive (2.8, N = 4). Plotting these characteristics against each other yields in a typology displayed in Table 2. Assuming a high level of embeddedness of circular economy principles will lead to positive results in the transition to a circular economy, the absence of stakeholders in the top left section indicates there may be no prepared losers. However, there are quite some stakeholders who expect the transition to the circular economy to affect their organization negatively. Combining this aspect with the low level of embeddedness would make these stakeholders unprepared losers. Recycling agencies, who have low embeddedness of circular economy principles, would become unprepared winners; while waste managers and knowledge organizations would become prepared winners. Negative Expected effects of change Positive Embeddedness High Low A Raw material producers C Product manufacturers H Funding agencies J Regulatory agencies F Waste managers I Knowledge organizations G Recycling agencies Table 2. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for the plastic packaging value chain Champions, obstructers and bystanders In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the effects of change towards a circular economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the interest stakeholders have in NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 16 of 59

17 the change towards a circular economy. Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of change have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may have interest in maintaining the status quo. Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according to the typology in Box 1. Stakeholders with low scores on interest, but high on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while actors with high scores on both interest and influence have the potential to become key champions of the transition to a circular economy. Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to play a significant role in the transition to a circular economy would be limited to the role of bystander. Raw material producers: Raw material producers report to have little interest in change. In addition, they have limited influence and participate in few activities in the value chain, making them sceptic bystanders. Product manufacturers: Product manufacturers have high influence in the value chain. While they do not explicitly exert their influence in joint research projects or collaborations, they have potential to obstruct the transition process towards a circular economy. Waste managers: With a high score on all aspects, waste managers are likely to be the key champions of circularity in the value chain. Recycling agencies: While recycling agencies have positive interest in change, they have less influence in the value chain, limiting them to the role of enthusiastic bystander. Key obstructers : Stakeholders with enough influence to hinder the transition to a circular economy intentionally or unintentionally - due to interest in the status quo or absence of interest in change. Key champion : Stakeholders who have both the interest and influence to become front-runners in the transition to a circular economy. Bystanders : Stakeholders who lack the influence to induce any change in the value chain. These actors can still have an interest in change ( Enthusiastic bystanders ) or interest in the status quo ( Sceptic bystanders ). Supporting stakeholders (funding-, knowledge- and regulatory agencies): Supporting stakeholders generally have low influence in the Box 1. Stakeholder typology value chain, but may play a supporting role in the transition to a circular economy. Especially knowledge organizations, with high interest and high levels of activity, may be valuable collaboration partners. This analysis makes clear that it is essential that incentives are developed that will stimulate raw material producers and product manufacturers interest in the change towards circularity. While product manufacturers do not explicitly exert their influence through collaborative projects, they already derive influence solely from their position in the value chain; manufacturers choices with regard to product composition and design will influence the ability of waste managers and recyclers to process it successfully. While waste managers are a powerful actor in the value chain, initiatives for effective waste management (such as increased separation or more efficient recycling) are only one aspect of a circular economy. Without the inclusion of design- and production aspects into the transition process, the development of circular economy will be significantly hampered MATCHPOINT ANALYSIS In this section, key stakeholders will be identified by their participation in European projects. This was done by performing an analysis of (participation in) European projects using the Matchpoint tool by PNO Consultants. The full methodology can be found in Annex 2. In the analysis of funded European projects on the topic of plastic packaging, in total, 102 projects were found in the period between 1984 and These projects received more than 117 million in funding with an average of 1.5 million per project. In Figure 9, the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 17 of 59

18 No. of projects D Figure 9. Number of EU projects on the topic of plastic packaging (per funding scheme) Figure 10. Project participation in European countries A remarkable trend can be observed in Figure 9; the number of projects conducted increases up until FP4 and then decreases again until FP7, where a peak number of projects was conducted. It must be noted, however, that FP7 covers seven years instead of the previous programmes, which covered 5 years. The projects conducted in the H2020 programme are not at the FP7-levels yet due to the fact that the funding scheme is still in progress. Figure 10 shows the participation in EU projects for the plastic packaging value chain per country. It was composed by counting the countries of origin of the organizations in the project corpus. Overall, the most active participants are located in Western Europe. Spain and the UK rank first, with respectively 103 and 95 projects participated in. These countries are followed by Germany and Italy, and to a lesser extent, The Netherlands, Belgium and France. As for the participants in these projects, in total 661 partners were involved, of which 524 different organizations. 83 organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project was 6. The most active organizations are tabulated below. # Organization Count 1 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V (DE) 15 2 The UK Materials Technology Research Institute Limited (UK) 7 3 Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos Y Conexas (ES) 6 4 European Plastics Converters (BE) 5 5 Fundacion Gaiker (ES) 5 6 Nederlandse Organisatie Voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek TNO (NL) 5 7 VTT Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus (FI) 5 8 Gospodarsko Interesno Zdruzenje Grozd Plasttehnika - Giz Grozd Plasttehnika (PL) 4 9 Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible Sl (ES) 4 10 KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE) 4 Table 3. Top participants in projects on the topic of plastic packaging NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 18 of 59

19 Table 3 is mostly composed of universities and RTOs. This is in line with the overall division between knowledge and industry participants, i.e. 58% of the participants are knowledge organizations versus 42% industry participants. The division is similar to the one in the ELV value chain, with a slight majority of organizations involved in knowledge-related activities. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) European Plastic Converters; (2) Gospodarsko Interesno Zdruzenje Grozd Plasttehnika - Giz Grozd Plasttehnika; (3) Lajovic Tuba Embalaza d.o.o; (4) Biopac (UK) Ltd; and (5) Omniform S.A. At present, 20 European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon More information on the projects can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects available for its stakeholders: GREEN PACK (coordinator: AVEP): Fully recyclable 100% PET package for food contact with O2 barrier, improved transparency and low CO2 footprint ( ECOPET (coordinator: Holfeld Plastics): Demonstration of innovative, lightweight, 100% recyclable PET prototype formulations and process tooling for low carbon footprint packaging to replace current industry standard virgin plastics ( WHEYLAYER 2 (coordinator: Lajovic Tuba Embalaza): WHEYLAYER2: barrier biopolymers for sustainable packaging ( POLYMARK (coordinator: Petcore Europe): Novel Identification Technology for High-value Plastics Waste Stream ( SUPERCLEANQ (coordinator: The British Plastics Federation): Development of processes and quality procedures for the valorisation of recycled plastics for food contact applications ( SYNPOL (coordinator: Agencia Estatal Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas): Biopolymers from syngas fermentation ( BANUS (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos y Conexas): Definiton and development of functional barriers for the use of recycled materials in multilayer food packaging ( LEGUVAL (coordinator: Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible): Valorisation of legumes co-products and byproducts for package application and energy production from biomass ( PHBOTTLE (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de la Industria Agroalimentaria): New sustainable, functionalized and competitive PHB material based in fruit by-products getting advanced solutions for packaging and non-packaging applications ( BIO4MAP (coordinator: Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos y Conexas): Transparent and high barrier biodegradable film and sheet for customized Modified Atmosphere food Packaging ( SUCCIPACK (Association de Coordination Technique pour l Industrie Agroalimentaire): Development of active, intelligent and sustainable food PACKaging using PolybutyleneSUCCInate ( EUROPHA (Federacion de Cooperativas Agrariasde Murcia S Coop): Novel technology to boost the European Bioeconomy: reducing the production costs of PHA biopolymer and expanding its applications as 100% compostable food packaging bioplastic ( FILMSORT (coordinator: Fundacion Gaiker): Enhanced recycling of post-consumer film waste from light packaging by automatic sorting of trapped improper and degradable polymers ( NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 19 of 59

20 OLI-PHA (coordinator: Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible): A novel and efficient method for the production of polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer-based packaging from olive oil waste water ( N-CHITOPACK (coordinator: Mavi Sud): Sustainable technologies for the production of biodegradable materials based on natural chitin-nanofibrils derived by waste of fish industry, to produce food grade packaging ( NANOBIOCOMP (coordinator: Universidade da Coruna): Novel Nano-Reinforced Biodegradable Composites: Design and Characterization ( SCALEPHA (coordinator: Bio-On): Industrial and commercial SCALE-up of Bio-on technology for the production of PHA polymers from sugar industries waste, co- and by-products ( P4SB (Rheinisch-Westfälische Techische Hochschule Aachen): P4SB: From Plastic waste to Plastic value using Pseudomonas putida Synthetic Biology ( FLEXI-PYROCAT (coordinator: University of Leeds): Development of flexible pyrolysis-catalysis processing of waste plastics for selective production of high value products through research and innovation ( NANOBARRIER (coordinator: Stiftelsen SINTEF): Extended shelf-life biopolymers for sustainable and multifunctional food packaging solutions ( Box 2. On-going European projects on plastic packaging NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 20 of 59

21 4. WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT Main findings: Collaboration: The overall level of collaboration in the WEEE value chain is lower compared to that in other value chains. In terms of collaborations, the most important stakeholders are once again situated at the end-of-life part of the value chain; collecting agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies. Least collaborations take place in the value chain with raw material producers and retailers and distributors. Influence: Waste managers and recycling agencies have the most influence in the WEEE value chain. While recycling agencies report high interest in change, waste managers do not. Combined with their willingness to exert influence, waste managers thus are a potentially powerful stakeholder that can obstruct the transition towards a circular value chain. Innovation: Research organizations have also been dominant in European projects on WEEE-innovation. In terms of participation, the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Germany) is most innovative. Indumetal Recycling (Spain) is the most innovative industrial stakeholder INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the WEEE value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is defined in three different ways: key collaboration partner (section 4.2); most influential stakeholder (section 4.3); and most innovative stakeholder (section 4.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of different stakeholders are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 83 stakeholders and 55 European projects. Respondents are from twenty EU-Member States and represent all phases of the value chain except retail and distribution. They were thus not included in the results; except for in the network analysis, where the external assessment of collaboration provided the data KEY COLLABORATION In order to map the level and direction of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain, stakeholders were asked to indicate the frequency of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the categorization described in Annex 1. These data were converted into a network graph, displayed below. For purposes of clarity, only the primary stakeholder categories are included in this graph; supporting stakeholders (funding, knowledge- and regulatory agencies) were omitted. In addition, since this analysis is about collaboration between different stakeholder types in the value chain, collaborations within the same phase in the value chain are not displayed. The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in Figure 11 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors in the value chain; the size and opacity of the flows stemming from the colored bars represents collaboration as reported by stakeholders themselves. Thus, it can be seen that most stakeholders collaborate fairly regularly with each other. The colored bars in the inner ring indicate which types of actors have reported to collaborate with the types of organizations represented by the bar on the accompanying outer ring. The other end of the flow represents the frequency of the collaboration according to the source. Following this logic, stakeholders who have a broad flow originating from their side that narrows on the other side have indicated to collaborate more frequently than has been indicated about their collaboration externally. Likewise, flows with similar sizes on both ends represent collaboration that was gauged almost equally. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 21 of 59

22 Figure 11. Collaborations between actors in the WEEE value chain. In Figure 11, the collaborations in the WEEE value chain are displayed. The overall level of collaboration is lower than the other value chains, with an average of 3.7 (N = 56). There is also more fluctuation between different levels of collaborations between value chain partners. In addition, all stakeholders tend to self-report slightly lower levels of collaboration than the external valuation of collaboration. As is also visible in Figure 11, slight clustering occurs in the front and end of the value chain. The highest level of collaboration is reported by recycling agencies; they most frequently collaborate with waste managers and waste collecting agencies. Raw material producers and product manufacturers report the lowest levels of collaboration overall. Raw material producers collaborate least with stakeholders at the end-of-life part of the value chain: waste collecting agencies, waste managers and recycling agencies. Product manufacturers collaborate least with retailers and distributors and waste collecting agencies. The stakeholders reported to collaborate least are raw material producers and retailers and distributors. For raw material producers, this corresponds with the self-assessment of collaboration. For component manufacturers, the external rating shows the largest discrepancy with the self-assessment. The highest levels of collaboration as selected by other stakeholders are waste managers, recycling agencies and waste collecting agencies MOST INFLUENTIAL ACTORS It is important to identify the (types of) stakeholders likely to play a role in the transition to a circular economy. Two analyses were therefore made: (1) an analysis of the influence of stakeholders in the current situation (status quo); and, (2) an analysis of their position towards transition. The analysis of the status quo is based on stakeholders influence and their willingness to exert that influence (activity). The analysis of the position towards transition is based on the one hand on a comparison of stakeholders embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the perceived effects of change on their organization; and on the other hand, an analysis of stakeholders interest in change compared to their influence. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 22 of 59

23 Position in status quo The first step to assess the current state of affairs is to look at stakeholders influence (the ability to change or control the behavior of others) and the willingness to exert that influence (activity). In the WEEE value chain, the average level of influence is 3.9 (N = 61), comparable to the average level of influence in other value chains. The lowest is reported by funding agencies (2.9, N = 2), followed by product manufacturers (3.3, N = 5), and the highest by waste managers (4.5, N = 11). Similarly to the other value chains, stakeholders mostly exert influence through their knowledge and their network, and least through the market share and influence on regulatory issues. The average level of activity is 4.2 (N = 61). The lowest activity level was reported by product manufacturers (3.4, N = 5); the highest is reported by recycling agencies (4.7, N = 11). Stakeholders in the WEEE value chain mainly engage in dialogues with other organizations (4.8) and collaborations with other organizations (4.6). Stakeholders report less engagement in lobbying activities (4.3). In Table 4, influence and the willingness to exert that influence are plotted. It shows that waste managers and recycling agencies have both the influence and the willingness to exert that influence. Since part of the activity level is defined by the level of collaboration, these results are in line with the network analysis, which showed that waste managers and recycling agencies were among the top collaborating organisations. Low Willingness to exert influence High Influence High Low E Waste collecting agencies J Regulatory agencies A Raw material producers C Product manufacturers H Funding agencies F Waste managers G Recycling agencies I Knowledge organizations Table 4. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the WEEE value chain Position towards future To determine potential future consequences of the transition to a circular economy and stakeholders stance towards the transition, the characteristics of embeddedness and the perceived effects of change have been studied. As outlined previously, the level of embeddedness of circular economy concepts determines stakeholders preparedness for the circular economy; stakeholders perception of change is important in determining the role stakeholders will play in the transition. With a value of 3.8 (N = 58), the embeddedness of circular economy concepts is lowest in the WEEE value chain. Extremely low embeddedness is reported by product manufacturers (2.8, N = 5), while extremely high levels are reported by recycling companies (5.0, N = 10).Stakeholders report to have circular economy concepts mainly embedded in the communication activities (4.2), and least in the training of employees (3.4). The overall effects of change are expected to be quite positive (4.0, N = 56). Once again, the independency of the organization is assumed to be most negatively NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 23 of 59

24 affected (3.5). The network is assumed to be most positively affected (4.5). Extremely positive changes are expected by raw material producers (5.2, N = 1), while the least positive changes are expected by funding- and regulatory agencies (2.5; N = 2 and N = 4). Negative Expected effects of change Positive Embeddedness High Low J Regulatory agencies C Product manufacturers E Waste collecting agencies F Funding agencies G Recycling agencies A Raw material producers F Waste managers I Knowledge organizations Table 5. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for stakeholders in the WEEE value chain Champions, obstructers and bystanders In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the effects of change towards a circular economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the interest stakeholders have in the change towards a circular economy. Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of change have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may have interest in maintaining the status quo. Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according to the typology in Box 3. Stakeholders with low scores on interest, but high on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while actors with high scores on both interest and influence have the potential to become key champions of the transition to a circular economy. Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to play a significant role in the transition to a circular economy would be limited to the role of bystander. Below, the aspects of influence, interest and the resulting typology will be discussed per stakeholder. Raw material producers: With a positive interest in change, but limited levels of influence and activity, raw material producers are limited to the role of enthusiastic bystander. Product manufacturers: Product manufacturers report to have less influence in the value chain. On top of that, they have limited interest in the transition to a circular economy. Potentially, these types of actors will take on the role of sceptic bystander. Key obstructers : Stakeholders with enough influence to hinder the transition to a circular economy intentionally or unintentionally - due to interest in the status quo or absence of interest in change. Key champion : Stakeholders who have both the interest and influence to become front-runners in the transition to a circular economy. Bystanders : Stakeholders who lack the influence to induce any change in the value chain. These actors can still have an interest in change ( Enthusiastic bystanders ) or interest in the status quo ( Sceptic bystanders ). Box 3. Typology of stakeholders Waste collecting agencies: With a high level of influence in the value chain, but low interest in change, waste collecting agencies have the potential to become obstructers to the transition to circularity. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 24 of 59

25 No. of projects D 1.1 Waste managers: Waste managers report high scores on both influence and activity. They score just below the average for interest, something that is not in line with general expectations nor with the results from other value chains. Analysis shows that waste managers do expect positive changes from a move towards circularity in the WEEE value chain; however, waste managers score on embeddedness is very low. Recycling agencies: Recycling agencies score high on all aspects, thus earning them the role of potential key champion in the transition process. Supporting stakeholders (funding-, knowledge- and regulatory agencies): Supporting agencies mostly have limited influence in the value chain. Funding agencies will likely become sceptic bystanders, while knowledge- and regulatory agencies have more potential to fulfil a supportive role in the transition process MATCHPOINT ANALYSIS In this section, key stakeholders will be identified by their participation in European projects. This was done by performing an analysis of (participation in) European projects using the Matchpoint tool by PNO Consultants. The full methodology can be found in Annex 2. In the analysis of EU-funded projects for WEEE, total, 55 projects were found in the period between 1984 and These projects received more than 85 million in funding with an average of 2.6 million per project. In Figure 13 the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized. Figure 12 depicts the participation in EU projects per country for the WEEE-value chain Figure 12. Number of EU projects on the topic of WEEE (per funding programme) Figure 13. WEEE project participation in European countries. Once again more projects were initiated in the Fourth Framework Programme than in the previous programmes as well as in the Fifth and Sixth Programmes. FP7 once again marks a large increase in the number of projects. Remarkably, the number of projects in the Horizon 2020 Programme has almost reached FP7 levels, even though it is only halfway its duration. Figure 13 illustrates the dominance of Germany on the topic of WEEE. Germany is closely followed by the UK; however, most other countries seem to have a low count of WEEE-related projects. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 25 of 59

26 As for the participants in these projects, in total 451 partners were involved, of which 350 different organizations. 58 organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project was 8. The most active organizations are tabulated below. # Organization Count 1 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V. (DE) 8 2 Österreichische Gesellschaft fuer System- und Automatisierungstechnik (AT) 7 3 Fundacion Gaiker (ES) 6 4 Indumetal Recycling S.A. (ES) 5 5 Technische Universiteit Delft (NL) 5 6 Chalmers Tekniska Hoegskola AB (SE) 4 7 Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation (ES) 4 8 Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek TNO (NL) 4 9 Stiftelsen SINTEF (NO) 4 10 Technische Universitaet Wien (CH) 4 Table 6. Top participants in projects on the topic of WEEE Table 6 lists the top participants in projects related to WEEE. With only one industry partner and 9 knowledge- and research organizations, the list illustrates the dominance of knowledge institutes in the WEEE research projects. This is in line with the overall division between knowledge and industry participants, i.e. 62% of the participants are knowledge organizations versus 38% industry participants. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) Indumetal Recycling S.A. (2) Coolrec B.V. (3) European Plastics Converters, (4) Greentronics, (5) Relight S.R.L. It is interesting to note that in the top ten most active industrial participants only one product manufacturer is present versus six WEEE recyclers. This indicates that, at least at EU project-level, the focus is on the end-of-life treatment of the products rather than the design and manufacturing phases of the value chain. At present, fifteen European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon More information on the projects can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects available for its stakeholders: CloseWEEE (coordinator: Fraunhofer): Integrated solutions for pre-processing electronic equipment, closing the loop of post-consumer high-grade plastics, and advanced recovery of critical raw materials antimony and graphite ( EREAN (coordinator: KU Leuven): European Rare Earth Magnet Recycling Network ( HYDROWEEE DEMO (coordinator: KOPACEK KEG): Innovative Hydrometallurgical Processes to recover Metals from WEEE including lamps and batteries Demonstration ( ProSUM (coordinator: WEEE Forum): Prospecting Secondary raw materials in the Urban mine and Mining waste ( RECLAIM (coordinator: TNO Netherlands): Reclamation of Gallium, Indium and Rare-Earth Elements from Photovoltaics, Solid-State Lighting and Electronics Waste ( RECYVAL-NANO (coordinator: L Urederra): Development of recovery processes for recycling of valuable components from FPDs (In, Y, Nd) for the production of high added value NPs ( REECOVER (coordinator: NTNU): Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from magnetic waste in the WEEE recycling industry and tailings from the iron ore industry ( NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 26 of 59

27 REMANENCE (coordinator: C-Tech Innovation): Rare Earth Magnet Recovery for Environmental and Resource Protection ( ADIR (coordinator: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft): Next generation urban mining - Automated disassembly, separation and recovery of valuable materials from electronic equipment ( GREENET (coordinator: Coventry University): Globally Recoverable and Eco-friendly E-equipment Network with Distributed Information Service Management ( BIOLIX (coordinator: Comet Traitements S.A.): Bio-hydrometallurgical beneficiation of non-ferrous concentrate from Polymetallic shredder residue ( ZEROWIN (coordinator: Osterreichische Gesellschaft fuer System- und Automatisierungstechnik): Towards zero waste in industrial networks ( EWIT (coordinator: Consorzio Remedia): EWIT: Developing an e-waste implementation toolkit to support the recycling and the secondary raw material recovery strategies in metropolitan areas in Africa ( REE4EU (coordinator: Stiftelsen SINTEF): REE4EU: integrated high temperature electrolysis (HTE) and Ion Liquid Extraction (ILE) for a strong and independent European Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain ( CABRISS (coordinator: CEA): Implementation of a CirculAr economy Based on Recycled, reused and recovered Indium, Silicon and Silver materials for photovoltaic and other applications ( Box 4. On-going projects on WEEE NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 27 of 59

28 5. END-OF-LIFE VEHICLES Main findings: Collaboration: In terms of collaborations waste managers and recycling companies are the most important stakeholders in the ELV-value chain. Least collaborations take place with raw material producers and retailers/distributors. Influence: Key champions of change in the ELV value chain are product manufacturers and recycling agencies. However, product manufacturers have less interest in change, and can therefore pose a threat toward the development of a fully circular economy. Innovation: Research organizations have been dominant in European projects on ELV innovation. In terms of participation, however, Fiat Research Centre (Italy) is the most innovative stakeholder INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies the main stakeholders in the ELV value chain. The concept of main stakeholder is defined in three different ways: key collaboration partner (section 5.2); most influential stakeholder (section 5.3); and most innovative stakeholder (section 5.4). In addition to the identification of main stakeholders, characteristics of different stakeholder are compared and described. The analyses are based on the responses of 33 stakeholders and 68 European projects. Respondents are from nine EU-Member States and represent all phases from the value chain excluding raw material producers and retailers and waste collecting agencies KEY COLLABORATION In order to map the level and direction of collaboration in the plastic packaging value chain, stakeholders were asked to indicate the frequency of collaboration with different types of actors in the value chain, using the categorization described in Annex 1. These data were converted into a network graph, displayed below. For purposes of clarity, only the primary stakeholder categories are included in this graph; supporting stakeholders (funding, knowledge- and regulatory agencies) were omitted. In addition, since this analysis is about collaboration between different stakeholder types in the value chain, collaborations within the same phase in the value chain are not displayed. The size of the colored bars (outer ring) in Figure 14 indicates the frequency of collaboration reported by the other actors in the value chain; the size and opacity of the flows stemming from the colored bars represents collaboration as reported by stakeholders themselves. Thus, it can be seen that most stakeholders collaborate fairly regularly with each other. The colored bars in the inner ring indicate which types of actors have reported to collaborate with the types of organizations represented by the bar on the accompanying outer ring. The other end of the flow represents the frequency of the collaboration according to the source. Following this logic, stakeholders who have a broad flow originating from their side that narrows on the other side have indicated to collaborate more frequently than has been indicated about their collaboration externally. Likewise, flows with similar sizes on both ends represent collaboration that was gauged almost equally. With an overall collaboration level of 4.0 (N = 23), the ELV value chain has the highest level of collaboration together with the plastic packaging value chain. Less clustering of collaboration is apparent in the ELV value chain, although strong cooperation exists between waste management and recycling agencies. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 28 of 59

29 Figure 14. Collaborations between stakeholders in the ELV value chain. The figure shows that collaboration takes place between all phases of the value chain. The highest level of collaboration is reported by retailers and distributors, who report very frequent collaboration with partners in all value chains. The least collaboration is reported by waste managers; they report to cooperate especially rarely with retailers and distributors. The external assessment of collaboration shows the complete opposite of the results described in the previous paragraph; retailers overestimate their collaboration by a whole point, and are, in fact, the least reported collaboration partner along with raw material producers. Waste managers underestimate their level of collaboration by the same amount MOST INFLUENTIAL ACTORS It is important to identify the (types of) stakeholders likely to play a role in the transition to a circular economy. Two analyses were therefore made: (1) an analysis of the influence of stakeholders in the current situation (status quo); and, (2) an analysis of their position towards transition. The analysis of the status quo is based on stakeholders influence and their willingness to exert that influence (activity). The analysis of the position towards transition is based on the one hand on a comparison of stakeholders embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the perceived effects of change on their organization; and on the other hand, an analysis of stakeholders interest in change compared to their influence Position in status quo The first step to assess the current state of affairs is to look at stakeholders influence (the ability to change or control the behavior of others) and the willingness to exert that influence (activity). Influence, or the ability of an actor to change or control the behaviour of others, can be derived from different sources; for example, from access to financial resources NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 29 of 59

30 or knowledge. The willingness to exert influence was defined as the activity level, and measured by stakeholders frequency of participation in different types of activities, such as collaborative research projects or lobbying activities. The ELV value chain rated their level of influence with an average of 3.9 (N = 26). The level of influence is quite evenly divided among the phases in the value chain. The organizations who perceive themselves as least influential are regulatory agencies (3.2, N = 2), while recycling agencies rank highest in terms of influence (4.6, N = 4). On average, stakeholders exert influence on the basis of valued knowledge or due to their large network. Less influence is derived from the market share of the organization. Very inactive organizations in the ELV value chain are the regulatory agencies (2.7, N = 2), while other stakeholders are much more active, most of all recycling agencies (4.6, N = 4). Stakeholders main activities are focused on dialogues and collaborations with other organizations (4.8; 4.5), while they report less involvement in lobbying activities (3.8). Table 7 shows that for recycling agencies, the level of influence corresponds to the willingness to exert that influence. This in contrast to product manufacturers, who have the influence, but not the willingness, to induce change in the value chain. Stakeholder with lower influence are visualized in the bottom row of the table; of these, waste managers and knowledge organizations are willing to participate in collaborations despite their low level of influence. Low Willingness to exert influence High Level of influence High Low C Product manufacturers D Retailers/distributors J Regulatory agencies G Recycling agencies F Waste managers I Knowledge organizations Table 7. Influence - activity grid for stakeholders in the ELV value chain Position towards future In addition to the analysis of the current state of affairs, it is important to look at the potential effects of the transition to a circular economy on stakeholders. In order to do this, stakeholders have been asked to indicate the level of embeddedness of circular economy concepts in different aspects of their organisation, such as communication activities or daily work practices. In addition, the perceived effect of change and the direction of change that will occur during the transition to a circular economy are measured. In the ELV value chain the embeddedness of circular economy concepts averages 3.9 (N = 23). Waste managers (3.3, N = 3) have the lowest level of embeddedness, while perhaps unsurprisingly circular economy concepts are most embedded in the organizational structure of recycling agencies (4.5, N = 4). In general, the organizational aspect where circular economy is most embedded is the mission statement (4.3), and the least embedded in training of employees (3.7). While the latter is similar in the other value chains, the former is not; both the WEEE and plastics value chain report the highest level of embeddedness in communication activities. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 30 of 59

31 Overall, the ELV value chain agrees that a transition to a circular economy will positively impact their organization, most of all regulators (4.6, N = 1) and recycling agencies (4.6, N = 4). Surprisingly, waste managers expect the least positive consequences. This may indicate that to waste managers, zero-waste truly means zero-waste; and in the absence of waste, their existence is threatened. The independency of the organization is expected to be impacted most negatively (3.1), while the public image of the organization is expected to benefit most (4.1) from a transition to a circular economy. The embeddedness of circular economy concepts is highest in retailers and distributors (N = 2) and recycling agencies (N = 4). However, retailers expect mostly negative changes and may thus become prepared losers. Product manufacturers and waste managers have mostly negative perceptions of change and are thus likely to become unprepared losers. Knowledge organizations and regulatory agencies have positive expectations of the change towards a circular economy, regardless of the low embeddedness; thus, they may be `unprepared winners`. Negative Expected effects of change Positive Embeddedness High Low D Retailers/distributors C Product manufacturers F Waste managers G Recycling agencies I Knowledge organizations J Regulatory agencies Table 8. Embeddedness - effects of change grid for stakeholders in the ELV value chain Champions, obstructers and bystanders In the previous paragraph, the characteristics of embeddedness of circular economy concepts and the effects of change towards a circular economy were discussed. Together, these characteristics constitute the interest stakeholders have in the change towards a circular economy. Stakeholders who score high on both embeddedness and effects of change have high interest in change; stakeholders who score lower may have interest in maintaining the status quo. Using these characteristics stakeholders can be categorized according to the typology in Box 5. Stakeholders with low scores on interest, but high on influence have the potential to become key obstructers, while actors with high scores on both interest and influence have the potential to become key champions of the transition to a circular economy. Stakeholders with neither the influence nor the interest to play a significant role in the transition to a circular economy would be limited to the role of bystander. Below, the aspects of influence, interest and the resulting typology will be discussed per stakeholder. Product manufacturers: With high influence in the value chain but low Key obstructers : Stakeholders with enough influence to hinder the transition to a circular economy intentionally or unintentionally - due to interest in the status quo or absence of interest in change. Key champion : Stakeholders who have both the interest and influence to become front-runners in the transition to a circular economy. Bystanders : Stakeholders who lack the influence to induce any change in the value chain. These actors can still have an interest in change ( Enthusiastic bystanders ) or interest in the status quo ( Sceptic bystanders ). Box 5. Typology of stakeholders

32 No. of projects D 1.1 interest in change, product manufacturers have the potential to become key obstructers to the transition to a circular economy. Retailers and distributors: Retailers and distributors report to have a low level of influence in the value chain. On top of that, they have limited interest in the transition to a circular economy. In combination with their low activity level, product manufacturers will likely take on the role of sceptic bystander. Waste managers: Waste managers report low influence in the ELV value chain. Aside from that, they also have a negative interest in change. Recycling agencies: With sufficient influence to induce change, and the willingness to exert that influence, recycling agencies have the potential to become key champions of circular economy in the ELV value chain. Supporting stakeholders (knowledge- and regulatory agencies): The role of knowledge- and regulatory agencies will likely be mainly supportive. In the ELV value chain, both knowledge- and regulatory organizations have a positive interest in change, so will be enthusiastic bystanders to the transition process MATCHPOINT ANALYSIS In this section, key stakeholders will be identified by their participation in European projects. This was done by performing an analysis of (participation in) European projects using the Matchpoint tool by PNO Consultants. The full methodology can be found in Annex 2. In total, 68 European projects were executed in the period between 1984 and 2015, some of them ongoing. These projects received more than 124 million in funding 3 with an average of 2 million per project. In Figure 15 the amount of projects initiated over time is visualized. Figure 16 depicts the participation in EU projects per country for the ELV-value chain Figure 15. Number of EU projects on the topic of ELV (per framework programme). Figure 16. ELV project participation in European countries. 3 No or inconsistent funding reported before FP5. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 32 of 59

33 A clear upward trend in the number of projects in each funding programme can be observed, with a peak in the Seventh Framework Programme. Once again, since the Horizon 2020 programme is only in year 2 of its duration of 7 years, there are few H2020 projects included. In addition, an analysis was made of countries involved in the projects related to ELV. Figure 16 contains the results of this analysis, showing the amount of times organizations from each country participated in these collaborative research projects. Germany and France are top participants in the research on ELV, followed by Spain and the UK. As for the organizations involved in these projects, in total 671 partners were involved, of which 553 different organizations. 66 organizations participated more than once. The average number of partners per project is 10.The most active organizations are tabulated below. # Organization Count 1 Centro Ricerche Fiat S.C.P.A. (IT) 11 2 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V (DE) 6 3 Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation (ES) 6 4 Renault S.A.S. (FR) 6 5 Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (DE) 5 6 Solvay S.A. (BE) 5 7 Technische Universität Berlin (DE) 5 8 Volvo Car Corporation (FI) 5 9 Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IT) 4 10 Fundacion Gaiker (ES) 4 Table 9. Top participants in projects on the topic of ELV Table 9 shows the involvement of four industry partners, of which three major car manufacturers. This division is reflected in the overall division between industry and knowledge organizations in participation in ELV projects 4, i.e. 58% knowledge organizations versus 42% industry participants. The top five most active industrial partners consist of: (1) Fiat Research Centre; (2) Renault S.A.S. (3) Solvay S.A. (4) Volvo Car Corporation, (5) Saft S.A. At present, ten European projects are running in the context of FP7 or Horizon More information on the projects can be found via the included websites. NEW_InnoNet has formulated the aim to make information on these projects available for its stakeholders: DEVULC (coordinator: Phenix-technologies): Novel Devulcanization Machine for Industrial and Tyre Rubber Recycling ( LATEXFRI (coordinator: Fibroline): Latex replacement for automotive interior felts and building industry ( SHREDDERSORT (coordinator: Lenz Instruments): Selective recovery of non-ferrous metal automotive shredder by combined electromagnetic tensor spectroscopy and laser-induced plasma spectroscopy ( SMART (coordinator: European Tyres Association): Sustainable Moulding of Articles from Recycled Tyres ( 4 Analysis of all organizations that participated twice or more. This analysis reflects the share of organizations, not the number of projects participated in. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 33 of 59

34 RETYRE (coordinator: UAB Gumos Technologijos): Recycling waste tyres into devulcanized rubber ( DEMETER (coordinator: KU Leuven): Training Network for the Design and Recycling of Rare-Earth Permanent Magnet Motors and Generators in Hybrid and Full Electric Vehicles ( EVOLUTION (coordinator: Aalborg Universitet): The Electric Vehicle revolution enabled by advanced materials highly hybridized into lightweight components for easy integration and dismantling providing a reduced life cycle cost logic ( TAIMEE (coordinator: Acondicionamiento Tarrasense Associacion): Thermal and Acoustic Insulating Material from Finished Leather Waste ( BIOFIBROCAR (coordinator: AITEX): Melt Spun Fibres Based on Compostable Biopolymers for Application in Automotive Interiors ( COLABATS (coordinator: C-Tech Innovation): Cobalt and lanthanide recovery from batteries ( Box 6. On-going projects on ELV NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 34 of 59

35 6. TOWARDS A NEAR-ZERO WASTE EUROPE The NEW_InnoNet platform stimulates the development and implementation of near-zero waste technologies and innovations. Without market uptake of these technologies, development of new innovations, and elimination of nontechnological market hurdles the ambitious EU waste targets will not be fulfilled. NEW_InnoNet believes that stakeholder involvement and cooperation are in this respect essential. This chapter describes how the stakeholder analysis provides guidelines for the platform to facilitate more collaboration and involvement. The chapter starts with an analysis of the expectations of stakeholders from a European near-zero waste platform STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS In order to get an understanding of stakeholders expectations of a European platform on near-zero waste, a targeted question was included in the survey. The question asked stakeholders about their expectations of several functions of a platform. Figure 17 shows that the majority of respondents reported (very) positive expectations (N = 118). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% networking opportunities. participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling knowledge on funding and business opportunities. my organization with a voice in developing EU policy services to facilitate the innovation process, e.g. regarding Somewhat agree Agree Completely agree Figure 17. Stakeholder expectations of a near-zero waste platform A very large majority (85%) expects that a European platform on near-zero waste can and should provide networking opportunities. Further, substantial majorities of respondents also expect a role of the platform in providing: (1) participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling (71%); (2) knowledge on funding and business opportunities (67%); and (3) their organization with a voice in developing EU policy (65%). Stakeholders have least expectations of the platform although still 53% on providing services to facilitate the innovation process. NEW_InnoNet has actually developed its website in such a way that it already provides this kind of services. The website provides in its current form search functions for: funding; relevant project (funded and proposed); patents; and scientific literature. In addition, it is possible to propose your own project ideas and search for partners. Based on the outcomes of the stakeholder analysis, NEW_InnoNet platform will consult stakeholders to get feedback on the added value of and points of improvements for these services TOWARDS A PLATFORM STRUCTURE The analyses of stakeholders perspectives and positions on near-zero waste and the circular economy provide guidelines and focus areas for the NEW_InnoNet platform. In combination with the stakeholder expectations discussed NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 35 of 59

36 above (chapter 7.1), three main platform pillars can be identified: (1) Information sharing; (2) Networking and frontrunners; and (3) Facilitating bottom-up actions. The three pillars are discussed in detail beneath. Information sharing: Although stakeholders are aware of near-zero waste and circular economy technologies and concepts, the average level of expertise should be considered as relatively low. In addition, knowledge is fragmented in different sectors and among stakeholders (chapter 3.2). Low levels of expertise are a possible constraint on the adaptation of near-zero waste technologies and circular economy concepts. Comparison of respondents with high and low levels of expertise indicate a positive correlation between expertise and attitude. A correlation that can be observed in all three value chains (see Table 10). Low Expertise High Attitude (overall) Attitude (WEEE) Attitude (Plastics) Attitude (ELV) Table 10. Comparison of stakeholders' attitude based on their level of expertise The lack of expertise hampers adaptation of near-zero waste technologies also in a direct way, i.e. stakeholders might not be aware of possible innovative solutions for their problems. The roadmapping exercise in work package 3 of the NEW_InnoNet project shows, however, that numerous ideas and developments are around (NEW_InnoNet forthcoming a). NEW_InnoNet will therefore disclose and complement this information in a web-based database. The database will subsequently be open for new entries by stakeholders. A second focus area will be the large body of knowledge that has been developed in the context of European projects. The analyses of chapters 3.4, 4.4 and 5.4 show that an increasing number of projects have been funded by the European Commission. Figure 18 depicts this growing number body of knowledge by showing the cumulative number of project over time. NEW_InnoNet will attempt to make these projects more visible for stakeholders, e.g. via the website ( and by inviting projects for NEW_InnoNet conferences (see also NEW_InnoNet 2016a). In addition, project coordinators will be asked to reflect and/or provide input on several NEW_InnoNet activities, e.g. on the web-based database and the draft roadmaps for WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 36 of 59

37 No. of projects, cumulative D Plastics WEEE ELV 50 0 Figure 18. Cumulative body of projects on the topics of Plastics, WEEE and ELV Networking and front-runners: Stakeholders expect networking opportunities from a European platform (see Figure 17). Analysis of characteristics of collaborating stakeholders provide additional reasons to facilitate networking between stakeholders, i.e. a comparison between stakeholders that collaborate frequently (N = 86) and stakeholders that collaborate less often (N = 47) indicate a positive correlation between collaboration and level of expertise. This correlation can be observed in all three value chains (see Table 11). Low Collaboration High Expertise (overall) Expertise (WEEE) Expertise (Plastics) Expertise (ELV) Table 11. Comparison of stakeholders expertise based on their level of collaboration At the same time, analyses of the collaboration structures in the WEEE, Plastics and ELV value chains indicate that a lot of collaboration is already taking place (see also Figure 19). Most collaborations cluster, however, at the beginning and end phases of the value chain. A focus area for the NEW_InnoNet platform will therefore be networking throughout the value chain and also between value chains. The platform has started doing this already in the organization of its stakeholder conference whereby an integrated set-up was chosen (see NEW_InnoNet 2016a). Also the integration workshops in work package 4 will provide opportunities to organize this kind of networking. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 37 of 59

38 Figure 19. Network graphs visualizing collaboration in the plastics value chain (left), WEEE value chain (center) and ELV value chain (right) Networking events are also an opportunity to fulfill the another expectation of stakeholders, i.e. provide participants visibility as frontrunners in the field of recycling. The stakeholder conference gave frontrunners already an opportunity to present themselves as key-note speakers (see NEW_InnoNet 2016a). The development of future use cases (work package 4) and the website will be used by the NEW_InnoNet platform to continue the facilitation of a (digital) platform for front-runners. Facilitating bottom-up actions: Earlier analysis of the three value chains indicated commonalities between the WEEE, ELV and plastic packaging value chain, but also large differences (NEW_InnoNet forthcoming b). The stakeholder analysis confirms this observation. The main bottlenecks and R&D priority of these three value chains are for example different (see Table 12). bottleneck Most important R&D priority WEEE Miniaturisation, complexity, integration of functions Design for recycling Plastics Bad product design Waste prevention/reduction ELV Low-cost of energy recovery and landfill versus material recovery Market dynamics Table 12. Most important bottlenecks and R&D priorities in in the value chains The differences between the value chains indicate that there is not a silver bullet solution for implementation of circular economy concepts. The NEW_InnoNet platform will therefore support bottom-up initiatives and actions. By facilitating stakeholders to put issues on the agenda and to develop their ideas in collaboration with other stakeholders, NEW_InnoNet will not only increase commitment but (more importantly) induce actions for actual change. The platform can in this respect develop itself as a safe haven or incubator for innovative collaborations for near-zero waste technologies and a circular Europe. NEW_InnoNet H2020 CSA D1.1_RP_Report on the stakeholder analysis Page 38 of 59