Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 7, Issue 3, 2012
Reverse logistics strategic antinomies: the case of the automotive
sector
George Blanas
T.E.I. of Larissa, Department of Business Administration
Peripheral Rd., 41110, Larissa, Greece
Telephone: +30 2410 684343
Email: blanas@teilar.gr
Stelios Koukoumialos
T.E.I. of Larissa, Department of Business Administration
Peripheral Rd., 41110, Larissa, Greece
Telephone: +30 2410 684338
Email: skoukoum@teilar.gr
Stamatia Kylindri
T.E.I. of Larissa, Department of Business Administration
Peripheral Rd., 41110, Larissa, Greece
Telephone: +30 2410 684623
Email: skilindri@gmail.com
Abstract
Legislation plays a major role in the automobile manufacturing sector. The European legislation has a prominent
international role in this respect. We examine the impact of the European Parliament, Council (2000) Directive
2000/53/EC on the EU automobile sector reverse logistics activities in the light of the Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) principle. We argue that there is an antinomy in the application of the Directive that is
supposed to support an EPR strategy. The antinomy is expressed by [1] the absence of the necessary capabilities
of Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) to advance to higher reverse logistics activities like
remanufacturing [2] an indefinite delay of the possibility for transformation of the current forward chain
manufacturing model, [3] a stability in the strategic group formation of the European automobile manufacturing
sector that prevents the further diffusion of manufacturing and remanufacturing capabilities within EU with
profound positive economic impacts in favour of the industrialized countries with a strong automotive
manufacturing sector and negative impacts to less industrialized countries. We also argue that the proper
application of the EPR strategy is in favour of established EU manufacturers and can act as a barrier to entry for
non-European firms.
Keywords: automotive sector, reverse logistics, strategy, legislation, EC Directive, EPR
George Blanas, Stelios Koukoumialos and Stamatia Kylindri
4
1 INTRODUCTION
According to the European Council Directive 2000/53/EC (2000) for The End-of Life Vehicles (ELVs),
reverse logistics is defined as “the process of planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, cost
effective flow of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods and related information from the point of
consumption to the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing value or proper disposal”. The Directive
2000/53/EC has been amended by a number of Commission Decisions (2002/525/EC, 2005/53/EC,
2005/438/EC, 2002/151/EC, 2003/138/EC, 2001/753/EC, 2005/293/EC) and then by the Directive 2008/33/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council. Critical issues in the EU ELV legislation is that manufacturers
should achieve reusability and/or recyclability of at least 85% and if measured against the international standard
ISO 22620 to achieve reusability and/or recoverability of new vehicles produced after 2008 of at least 95% by
weight and that this goal should be reached by 2015. Producers are pushed by legislation to take the
responsibility to manufacture new vehicles with a view to their recyclability. Other important issues are: [1] the
use of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium are prohibited in materials and components in vehicles
put on the market after 1st of July 2003, [2] the block exemption regulation that provides to independent repair
businesses open access to information on parts and repair processes, [3] that newer vehicles’ ecology should
concentrate on CO2 emission reductions, [4] that preference of plastic materials that are recyclable, and [5] that
member EU countries legislate collection – dismantling systems for ELV management that ensure that all
vehicles are transferred to authorized treatment facilities, and the last holder of an ELV is able to dispose it free
of charge.
While the Directive is based on the so called Extended Producer Responsibility Principle (EPR) that
requires from the producers to accept the responsibility to apply the Directive most manufacturers do not seem
to have the capability or the capacity to do that individually, mainly due to asymmetries in manufacturing and
remanufacturing capabilities.
The aim of this paper is to identify possible asymmetries in manufacturing and remanufacturing
capabilities between countries within the European Union. Moreover, there has been an effort to identify the key
characteristics of the EU manufacturing automobile industry profiles and directions.
The remainder of this paper begins in section 2 with a brief presentation of literature background on reverse
logistics in the automotive sector. Section 3 accommodates the analysis and the findings of this research, while
the paper concludes in the Section 4 with arguments arising from this study, useful managerial insights and
definition of future research challenges for the authors.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND INSIGHTS
In the last years reverse logistics has become a critical aspect in global competition, forcing companies to
adopt certain policies and practices. The outcome is that the optimization of reverse logistics processes, by
taking into consideration financial, environmental and regulatory issues, constitutes a rapidly evolving research
field (Xanthopoulos et al., 2012, de Brito, 2004). Reverse logistics offer the appropriate contextual framework
within which the examined problem can be tackled comprehensively. According to Rogers and Tibben-Lembke
(1998) “reverse logistics is the process of planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, cost-effective
flow of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods, and related information from the point of
consumption to the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing value or proper disposal”. The integrated
supply chain model as developed by Thierry et al. (1995) includes both forward and reverse logistics operations
and distinguishes three main areas, i.e. waste management, product recovery management and direct reuse.
According to Rogers and Tibben-Lembke (1998) the possible reverse logistics activities for products are “return
to supplier, resell, sell via outlet, salvage, recondition, refurbish, remanufacture, reclaim materials, recycle and
landfill”. Out of the corresponding reverse logistics activities remanufacturing has the higher relative impact on
energy preservation (Steinhilper, 1998).
In the automobile sector, ELV waste flow is a major environmental concern because of its rapidly
increasing amount and special composition of hazardous substances (Simić & Dimitrijević, 2010). In that
direction, the European Parliament Council (2000) 2000/53/EC Directive legislates critical issues in the
European Union (EU) End-of Life Vehicle (ELV) legislation and is based on the so called Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) principle that is holding producers responsible for the recovery management of their
products at the end of their life. Under the Directive, member EU countries legislated collection – dismantling
and shredding facilities for ELV management acting as PROs for the vehicle manufacturers.
According to Reinhardt (2005) the application of the EU Directive is not standardized across the EU
countries and result in non-standard practices. He also states that the automotive industry prefers that higher
level of reuse is being determined by market and is against the application of quotas. The impact of the EC
Directive to manufacturing and remanufacturing activities has drawn increased global research attention (Yu,
Welford & Hills, 2006). Thierry et al. (2005) identified the antinomy of legislation that cannot be enforced on a
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
5
global scale while trade is global. According to Golinska and Kawa (2011) the European manufactures are
closing the supply loop mainly due to the legislative requirements. Carter and Ellram (1998) introduced a
hierarchy framework in environmental management giving special attention to the potential contribution of the
resource reduction environmental legislation strategies, while Wu and Dunn (1998) added the contribution of
resource substitution strategies. Subramoniam et al. (2009) argue that legislation can act as a driver or as a
barrier for remanufacturing and address the absence of strategic analyses in the area. Zuidwijk and Krikke
(2008) investigated the impact of EU Directives on reverse logistics and found little evidence to support this.
Sakkas and Manios (2003) reviewed a number of strategic issues related to the cost benefit analysis of reverse
logistics activities as legislated in Greece.
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
The first step of the analysis includes the data collection of manufacturing plants, vehicle production,
remanufacturing units, and ELV recycling and reuse in the 27 EU countries. A cross-tabulation of the above
data and statistical analysis with the use of SPSS 20.0 have been employed as a commonly used mapping and
visualization analysis tool in order to identify possible asymmetries in manufacturing and remanufacturing
capabilities between countries. The selected data is presented in Table 1. The data regarding the manufacturing
plants and vehicle production figures have been mined manually from the ACEA (European Automobile
Manufacturer’s Association) (2012) reports, the remanufacturing figures have been mined manually from the
APRA (Automotive Parts Remanufacturing Association) search engine on the website (www.apra.org/directory)
and the recycling and reuse quantities have been retrieved from Eurostat (2013) data on end-of-life vehicles:
reuse, recycling and recovery.
Taking under consideration that none of the remanufacturing plants in Table 1 is operated or owned by
automotive manufacturers, we argue that automotive manufacturers still favour the forward logistics business
model that maximizes their profits based on economy of scale and capital investment.
Taking under consideration that dismantling facilities acting as PROs for the last few years have not
advanced to higher reverse logistics activities and that also none of them has an invested interest in
remanufacturing, the EPR principle remains de facto unattended by manufacturers, justified exactly by the
Directive that has been legislated for its reinforcement.
Table 1: Manufacturing plants, vehicle production, remanufacturing plants and ELV recycling and reuse
per country (EU27)
A/A
Country
Manufacturing
plants
Production year 2011
(number of cars)
Remanufacturing
plants
Recycling and Reuse
year 2010 (tones)
1
Austria
6
152.505
NA
57.255
2
Belgium
8
562.386
7
156.973
3
Bulgaria
1
NA
1
66.136
4
Cyprus
0
0
NA
9.543
5
Czech Republic
11
1.199.834
1
108.790
6
Denmark
0
0
7
94.947
7
Estonia
0
0
NA
5.937
8
Finland
2
2.540
1
98.139
9
France
36
2.294.889
11
1.223.990
10
Germany
46
6.311.103
27
492.907
11
Greece
0
0
1
77.867
12
Hungary
5
202.800
3
12.803
13
Ireland
0
0
1
130.216
14
Italy
23
790.348
10
1.031.369
15
Latvia
0
0
1
8.270
16
Lithuania
0
0
1
20.159
17
Luxemburg
0
0
NA
5.173
18
Malta
0
0
NA
185
19
Netherlands
9
73.151
10
193.533
20
Poland
14
837.132
8
193.226
21
Portugal
6
192.242
NA
79.736
22
Romania
3
335.232
1
131.136
23
Slovakia
3
639.763
1
24.216
24
Slovenia
1
174.119
1
4.698
25
Spain
15
2.353.682
3
666.723
26
Sweden
14
189.969
2
175.085
27
UK
30
1.463.999
5
933.315
George Blanas, Stelios Koukoumialos and Stamatia Kylindri
6
From the cross-tabulation in Table 1 we can identify the following cases:
1. Denmark has no production plants but has proportionally one of the largest remanufacturing capabilities
(number of remanufacturing plants) in EU27.
2. Belgium, Netherlands, Poland and Czech Republic host relatively high manufacturing and have
developed comparatively very high remanufacturing capabilities.
3. The originator countries of OE manufacturers like Germany, Spain and Sweden have comparatively low
remanufacturing capabilities. Specifically, in the case of Germany the rate of ELV recycling and reuse is
significantly lower than the production rate.
4. From the rest of the countries that host manufacturing plants, only Italy has developed satisfactory
remanufacturing capability.
5. Most other countries are underdeveloped in this respect.
We can see that some economically weaker countries have not developed reverse logistics capabilities that
would be in favour of their own economic sustainability interest (e.g. Bulgaria, Estonia, Portugal, Rumania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia). This also holds for countries with large markets that can support the demand for
remanufacturing products and are hosting considerable manufacturing capabilities (Austria, Spain, and UK).
Greece is amongst those countries that have developed some remanufacturing capability despite the fact that it is
one of the 3 countries; the other two are Denmark and Luxemburg, with no vehicle manufacturing plants.
Moreover, in order to come up with more reliable conclusions a statistical analysis (with the use of SPSS
20.0) was performed. Spearman’s rho and Mann-Whitney tests were employed.
In a first step was examined the correlation between production and ELV recycling and reuse quantities.
Spearman’s coefficient (0.707) is significant at the 0.01 level, whereas the coefficient’s positive sign indicates
that the larger the production capability of a country is increases the number of recycled cars. In addition, the
correlation between the number of remanufacturing plants and ELV recycling and reuse quantities is also
significant (rho=0.716, p=0.000).
Then, it was examined the difference in the quantities of recycled and reused cars between producer and
non-producer countries within the EU. The coefficient U took the value 25.0, which corresponds to a high
significance (p=0.003), whereas the mean rank (Table 2) confirmed that a larger number of cars is recycled in
producers countries.
Table 2: Mann-Whitney test for the variables X and Y
Ranks
Producer Country
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
Recycling_Reuse
yes
18
17,11
308,00
no
9
7,78
70,00
Total
27
Test Statistics
a
Recycling_Reuse
Mann-Whitney U
Wilcoxon W
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
25,000
70,000
-2,880
,004
,003
b
a. Grouping Variable: Producer_Country
b. Not corrected for ties.
However, when limiting the analysis in 9 countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy,
Poland, Slovakia, Spain and UK) with produce higher than the European average (approximately 500,000 cars),
the correlation between the size of production and the recycling numbers is non significant (rho=0.467,
p=0.205), despite the fact that outnumber the small producers (<500,000 cars) in some of the other
measurements, as it is presented in Table 3.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
7
Table 3: Data for Producer and Non-Producer Countries
Producer Countries
(<500.000)
Producer Countries
(>500.000)
Non Producer Countries
Mean
N
Std.
Deviation
Mean
N
Std.
Deviation
Mean
N
Std.
Deviation
Manufacturing
Plants
6,83
9
4,35
18,90
9
14,50
,27
9
,646
Production
Quantities
164131
9
47886,12
1678836,80
9
1770050,702
230,90
9
765,83
Recycling and
Reusing Quantities
87185
9
80404,46
496264,50
9
440862,52
46961,09
9
47337,87
Especially in producer countries with capacity above the 1.000.000 cars (Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Spain and UK) the same test gives a very small Spearman’s value (rho=0.1, p=0.873) confirming that
in these countries the recycling is not related with the volume of production. Furthermore, although the
correlation between recycling and remanufacturing plants is significant (rho=0.716; p=0.000) in the top five
countries there is not significance (rho=0.400; p=0.505), despite the fact that the number of remanufacturing
plants is higher (mean value: 9.4 vs. 3.29 in the other European countries).
All the above show a profound asymmetry in both manufacturing and remanufacturing capabilities across
the EU27 countries. The asymmetry in manufacturing can be explained by a number of forward chain based
factors related to economies of scale. The asymmetry in remanufacturing is not justifiable under an EU strategy
based on the EPR principle and can only be remedied with a change in the legislation that would enforce the
cooperation of PROs and manufacturers in organized advanced reverse logistics activities. We argue that such
policies not only will decrease asymmetries in capabilities between countries and will increase employment
opportunities in countries with small manufacturing base, but the business model will be in favor of EU
manufacturers as well because these structures cannot be developed as effectively by non-European
manufacturers. This becomes evident from the information provided in Table 4 that shows the domination of
certain European manufacturers and the relatively small penetration of non-European manufacturers in EU
countries. In order to identify the characteristics of the manufacturing automobile industry profiles and
directions, a strategic group analysis methodology has been employed. Strategic group analysis of competitive
strategies in an international context has been carried by Bogner, Thomas and McGee (1996) who investigated
the entry paths and competitive positions of European pharmaceutical firms in the U.S. market based on their
strategic assets and competencies. Hatten and Hatten, (1987) assessed the consequences of a collective
movement by many firms into similar competitive postures or to verify similarities of strategic direction across
an industry. Strategic group analysis has also been applied in order to reveal whether there is a strong group
manufacturing identity (Peteraf & Shanley, 1997). Environmental legislation in EU provides a common
framework of beliefs, values and related research activities that help in the development of similar identities in
several international sectors.
Porter (1980) and McGee and Thomas (1986) suggested that the two categories of dimensions for strategic
group analysis are the scope of activities and the resource commitment. Under the scope of activities category
fall the dimensions of product diversity, geographical coverage, number of segments served and number of
distribution channels used. Under the resource commitment category fall the dimensions extent of branding,
marketing effort, extent of vertical integration, product or service quality, technological leadership, and size of
the organization.
The data in Table 4 have been mined manually from the ACEA reports (2012) and include information on
Geographic Distribution (number of producer countries), Product Types (number of products types: Passenger
Cars, Light Carriage Vans, Carriage Vans and Buses), Engine Plants (number of engine plants), Vehicle Plants
(number of vehicle assembly plants), Mixed Plants (number of engine and vehicle assembly plants) and Vehicle
Sales (within EU) for the European and non-European automobile manufacturers.
George Blanas, Stelios Koukoumialos and Stamatia Kylindri
8
Table 4. Information for European and non-European Automobile Manufacturers
Host
Country
Manufacturer
Geographic
Distribution
Product
Types
Engine
Plants
Vehicle
Plants
Mixed
Plants
Vehicle
Sales
(within
EU) year
2012 (in
thousands)
Scope
of
Activities
(*10)
Resource
Commitment
(*1.000)
Germany
DAIMLER
AG
10
4
5
22
2
800,7
4
23,2
BMW
GROUP
5
2
2
9
1
811,1
1
9,7
VOLKSWAGEN
AG
15
4
4
33
8
3.276
6
147,4
PORSCHE
3
2
1
2
0
45,3
0,6
0,1
Italy
FIAT S.p.A.
6
4
4
13
2
986,5
2,4
18,7
IVECO
6
3
3
14
0
49,4
1,8
0,8
France
PSA PEUGEOT
CITROEN
9
3
3
18
0
1.784,9
2,7
37,5
RENAULT SA
8
3
3
13
3
1.300,3
2,4
24,7
Sweden
VOLVO
GROUP &
VOLVO
CAR
CORPORATION
6
4
4
18
0
245,6
2,4
5,4
UK
JAGUAR
LAND
ROVER
1
1
1
3
0
141
0,1
0,6
ASTON
MARTIN
1
1
0
1
0
1,8
0,1
0,0
NON-EU
with
produ-
ction
plants in
EU
TOYOTA
MOTOR
EUROPE
9
2
3
10
0
576,3
1,8
7,5
FORD
OF EUROPE
7
3
6
5
4
1.112,9
2,1
16,7
HYUNDAI
MOTOR
EUROPE
5
4
0
11
1
432,5
2
5,2
GENERAL
MOTORS
EUROPE
8
2
4
5
2
1.084,9
1,6
11,9
The Scope of Activities measure is characterized [a] by the number of production types and [b] by
geographical production coverage represented by the number of countries where manufacturing takes place.
These proxies represent product diversity and geographical coverage respectively. The number of distribution
channels is not taken under consideration since the market is saturated by distribution channels and outlets that
are in close vicinity to the customers and additionally under the EPR principle this characteristic seems to have
no significant effect in the development of the remanufacturing industry.
The Resource Commitment Measure is characterized [a] by the number of engine production plants [b] by
the number of vehicle assembly plants, [c] by the number of mixed plants owned by the manufacturer and [d] by
the number of vehicle sales. These proxies represent the characteristics of vertical integration, technological
leadership, quality (partially) and size. Characteristics like extent of branding, marketing effort and quality
(partially) can be proxied partially by vehicle sales.
The Scope of Activities and the Resource Commitment dimensions that are used for the identification of
the strategic groups for countries and manufacturers can be either quantified as combinations of additions and/or
multiplications of their measurable characteristics or as vectors of the relevant characteristics i.e. sequenced
numbers in brackets separated by commas. The vector for Scope of Activities is (Geographic Distribution,
Product Types) and for Resource Commitment (Engine Plants, Vehicle Plants, Mixed Plants, Vehicle Sales
within EU). As an example, the vectors for Volkswagen AG are Scope of Activities (15, 4) and the Resource
Commitment (4, 33, 8, 3.276).
Quantifiable measures could be taken by the multiplication of the figures in each vector in case of non-zero
values. Specifically, Scope of Activities = Geographic Distribution * Product Types, while Resource
Commitment = (Engine Plants + Vehicle Plants + Mixed Plants) * Vehicle Sales within EU. The Volkswagen
AG example Scope of Activities=15*4=60 and Resource Commitment = (4+33+8)* 3.276=147.420.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
9
From the data presented in Table 4, we can identify the manufacturers with the highest rankings for Scope
of Activities and the Resource Commitment measures, which are:
1. For the Scope of Activities Dimension: Volkswagen AG (60), Daimler AG (40), PSA Peugeot Citroen
(27), Fiat S.p.A. (24) and Renault SA (24).
2. For Resource Commitment Dimension: Volkswagen AG (147.420), PSA Peugeot Citroen (37.500),
Renault SA (24.700), Daimler AG (23.200), and Fiat S.p.A. (18.700).
From the values of dimensions listed Table 4 we can identify the following strategic groups in the
European automobile supply chain:
1. The 1st Group is consisted from Volkswagen AG (60, 147.400) and PSA Peugeot Citroen (27, 37.500).
The manufacturer Volkswagen AG is leader in both dimensions within EU.
2. The 2nd group is consisted from Daimler AG (40, 23.200), Fiat S.p.A. (24, 18.700) and Renault SA (24,
24.700). The manufacturers in this strategic group have developed highly in both dimensions.
3. The 3nd group is consisted from Iveco (1.8, 0.8), Porsche (0.6, 0.1) and Jaguar (0.1, 0.6). The
manufacturers in this strategic group are less developed but more specialized.
Germany is the host country for Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG, France is the host country for PSA
Peugeot Citroen and Renault SA, and Italy for Fiat S.p.A. From the above, it can be easily concluded the
domination of European manufacturers in the automobile sector. The non-European manufacturers show
relatively small penetration in EU automobile market. For example, Ford of Europe is in the 7th place in the
Scope of Activities dimension and in the 6th place in the Resource Commitment Dimension, while Hyundai
Motor Europe is in the 8th and 11th places respectively.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The current automobile manufacturing business model is based on short term efficiency that depends on the
established automated manufacturing processes rather than long term effectiveness processes that are mostly
related to man-powered systems requiring special knowledge and expertise. The legislated by the 2000/53/EC
Directive assignment of the EPR principle application to PROs does not lead to advanced reverse logistics
activities like remanufacturing and proves an antinomy in the application of the legislation of PROs that do not
serve the EPR strategy and preserve the existing asymmetries in the manufacturing capabilities between EU
countries and manufacturers.
The application of the Directive’s EPR principle requires the application of practices and the development
of reverse supply networks that are difficult to be developed for non-European manufacturers with small
manufacturing network in EU that means that such a development can become a strong barrier to entry for other
manufacturers that do not have the capacity to develop such an operations network in the EU market.
The strategic group analysis has shown that the European automobile industry is dominated by strong
European OEMs with relatively small participation from non-European OEMs (Ford and GM from USA and
Toyota from Japan). Germany dominates the industry but there are several big European players as well and
there exists a wide distribution of assembly plants all over Europe.
The comparison of production levels, and manufacturing and remanufacturing distribution in Europe
indicates that some economically weaker countries seem to fell for the short term interests of manufacturers
rather than developing national reverse logistics strategies that would be in favour of their economic
sustainability interest. It seems that increased import taxes can make a big difference in developing sustainable
reverse logistics operations. Such an example is Denmark that has the higher taxes in Europe for automobiles
and has so achieved by large the best development in remanufacturing operations. The application of the
Directive on higher levels of reuse will give more possibilities for less developed areas to invest in labour
intensive sustainable reverse logistics operations that will have a positive impact on both energy preservation
and advanced skill job creation.
REFERENCES
ACEA (2012) The automobile industry pocket guide 2012. Retrieved January 19, 2013 from
http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/ACEA_POCKET_GUIDE_2012_UPDATED.pdf.
ACEA (2012) Year 2012 by manufacturer and by vehicle category (Enlarged Europe). Retrieved January 10,
2013 from http://www.acea.be/news/news_detail/new_vehicle_registrations_by_manufacturer/
APRA (2012) Automobile assembly & engine production plants in Europe by Manufacturer. Retrieved January
19, 2013 from
http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/PA_Plants_A4_2013_BY_MANUFACTURER.pdf
APRA (2012) Automobile assembly & engine production plants in Europe by Country. Retrieved January 11,
2013 from http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/PA_Plants_A4_2013_BY_COUNTRY.pdf
George Blanas, Stelios Koukoumialos and Stamatia Kylindri
10
APRA (2012) Automobile assembly & engine production plants in Europe – Overview. Retrieved February 05,
2013 from http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/PA_Overview_in_Figures.pdf
Bogner, W., Thomas, H. & McGee, J. (1996). A longitudinal study of the competitive positions and entry paths
of European firms in the U.S. pharmaceutical market. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 85–107.
Carter, C. & Ellram, L. (1998). Reversed logistics: a review of the literature and framework for future
investigation. Journal of Business Logistics, 19(1), 85–102.
de Brito, M.P. (2004). Managing Reverse Logistics or Reversing Logistics Management?. PhD Thesis, Erasmus
University Rotterdam.
European Parliament Council (2000). Directive 2000/53/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of
18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles. Official Journal of the European Communities, L269, 34–42.
European Parliament Council (2001). 2001/753/EC: Commission Decision Commission Decision of 17 October
2001 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L282, 77-80.
European Parliament Council (2002). 2002/151/EC: Commission Decision of 19 February 2002 on minimum
requirements for the certificate of destruction issued in accordance with Article 5(3) of Directive
2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles. Official Journal of the
European Communities, L50, 94-95.
European Parliament Council (2002). 2002/525/EC: Commission Decision of 27 June 2002 amending Annex II
of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles. Official Journal of the European Communities, L170, 81-
84.
European Parliament Council (2003). 2003/138/EC: Commission Decision of 27 February 2003 establishing
component and material coding standards for vehicles pursuant to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles. Official Journal of the European Communities, L53,
58-59.
European Parliament Council (2005). 2005/53/EC: Commission Decision of 25 January 2005 on the application
of Article 3(3)(e) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to radio
equipment intended to participate in the Automatic Identification System. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L22, 14-15.
European Parliament Council (2005). 2005/293/EC: Commission Decision of 1 April 2005 laying down detailed
rules on the monitoring of the reuse/recovery and reuse/recycling targets set out in Directive 2000/53/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L94, 30-33.
European Parliament Council (2005). 2005/438/EC: Commission Decision of 10 June 2005 amending Annex II
to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of life vehicles. Official
Journal of the European Communities, L152, 19.
Eurostat (2013). End-of-life vehicles: Reuse, recycling and recovery, Totals. Retrieved February 24, 2013:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_product_code=ENV_WASEL
VT.
Golinska, P. & Kawa, A. (2011). Remanufacturing in automotive industry: Challenges and limitations. Journal
of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(3), 453-466.
Hatten, K.J. & Hatten, M.L. (1987). Strategic groups, asymmetrical mobility barriers and contestability,
Strategic Management Journal, 8, 329–342.
McGee, J. & Thomas, H. (1986). Strategic groups: theory, research and taxonomy. Strategic Management
Journal, 7(2), 141–160.
Peteraf, M. & Shanley, M. (1997). Getting to know you: A theory of strategic group identity. Strategic
Management Journal, 18, 165-186.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy, New York: Free Press.
Wolfgang, R. (2005). Steer towards clarity, Auto industry seeks improvements to the ELV Directive. Waste
Management World, Recycling, Nov.-Dec., 63-72
Rogers, D. & Tibben-Lembke, R. (1998). Going backwards: Reverse Logistics Trends and Practices. US
Reverse Logistics Executive Council.
Sakkas, N. & Manios, T. (2003). End of Life Vehicle Management in Areas of Low Technology sophistication:
A case study in Greece. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 313-325.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
11
Simić, V. & Dimitrijević, B. (2010). Perspectives for Application of RFID on ELV CLSC. Proceedings of 1st
Olympus International Conference on Supply Chains (Olympus ICSC 2010), Eds. Aidonis D., Manikas I.,
Folinas D., Katerini, Greece, 1 – 2 October 2010, CD-ROM Edition.
Steinhilper, R. (1998). Remanufacturing, the ultimate form of recycling. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D. & Chinnam, R. (2009). Remanufacturing for the automotive aftermarket-
strategic factors: literature review and future research needs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 1163-1174.
Thierry, M., Salomon, M., Van Nunen, J. & Van Vassenhove, L. (2005). Strategic Issues in Product Recovery
Management, California Manufacturing Review, 37(2), 114-135.
Wu, H.-J. & Dunn, S.C. (1998). Environmentally responsible logistics systems. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 25(2), 20–38.
Yu, J., Welford, R. & Hills, P. (2006). Industry responses to EU WEEE and ROHS Directives: perspectives
from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 36, 286–99.
Xanthopoulos, A., Aidonis, D., Vlachos, D. & Iakovou, E. (2012). A planning optimization framework for
construction and demolition waste management. Special Issue on “Integrated Manufacturing and Service
Systems”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering (IJISE), 10(3), 257-276.
Zuidwijk, R. & Krikke, H. (2008). Strategic response to EEE returns: Product eco-design or new recovery.
European Journal of Operations Research, 191(3), 1206-1222.
