Choice of cases

When choosing cases, Eisenhardt (1989b) argues that the concept of a population is crucial because an appropriate population controls extraneous variation. Inchoosing cases within the same waste industry (i.e. collection of electric and electronic products), we have been able to achieve this level of control. Eisenhardt (1989b) further argues that specification of the population clarifies the domain of the findings. As we have chosen to study reverse distribution systems within the waste sector, our fmdings have relevance primarily for other waste systems.

Choosing cases from a population is, according to Eisenhardt (1989b). unusual when building theory from case studies. The argument refers to the distinction between theoretical and statistical sampling. The goal in hypothesis-testing studies is to sample randomly from a population (i.e. statistical sampling). The goal in theory building, however, is theoretical sampling, i.e. to choose cases that replicate previous cases or extend theoretical categories and provide examples of polar types (Eisenhardt 1989b). The specific demands for the cases in

our study are derived from the conceptual framework. Therefore, for our purposes, the following dimensions have to be reflected in the cases:

• "A whole system"

• Physical and commercial interests

• Variation in coordinated action

Three factors have been identified in order to distinguish "a whole system". The industry organizations are obligated to the authorities to provide "systems that secure collection and environmentally responsible reprocessing of EE-waste,,33. The industry organizations have established waste management companies to take on the operative responsibility". The waste management companies are, in other words, given a mandate to provide "a whole system".

Thus, departure from the waste management companies is what defmes a given system. The waste management companies are easily identified as they are registered with the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (i.e. registered at SFT).

The EE-products also help us to identify "a whole system". The products to be collected are clearly defined and all electrical and electronic products in the market are structured by customs numbers and are sorted into 18 categories (Hjellnes Cowi 1996). Within the industry agreement, the waste management companies are given responsibility for their separate categories (i.e. consumer electronics, white goods and household appliances, general electric) - thus enabling the systems to be defined. There are also independent waste management companies (i.e. not part of the industry agreement), and these companies do not necessarily collect products within the above product categories. A third criterion that helps us to distinguish "a whole system" is the stipulated 80 % annual collection rate. All the waste management companies registered with the authorities have to report the collected volume twice a year. The volumes have to be reported in the defmed categories, thus the performance of a system is reported. Inthis manner, the waste management companies and the collected volumes identify the "whole system".

The exchange we are studying is 'the collection of EE-products at end-of-life'. The physical flow is the physical collection and movement of EE-products at end-of-life. The commercial interest, however, is represented within the industry organizations and EE-companies. That is,

33The citation is taken from the industry agreement.

90

the responsibility for the products is given to the EE-companies (i.e. the producer responsibility). The industry organizations have signed the industry agreement on behalf of the EE-companies and the waste management companies have taken the operative responsibility on behalf of the industry organizations. However, the fmal choice of how to handle the producer responsibility is placed with the individual company. That is, the EE-companies have the commercial rights to the products. This is reflected in the fact that the waste management companies have to recruit members to their systems. For a waste management company to be registered with the authorities it must have members. Inthis way, the waste management companies take on the commercial rights for their members.

Consequently, in order to include both the physical flow and the commercial interest of the

"whole system", it is necessary to include the waste management company, the collection system and the stakeholders in the case. Thus, a typical case in our study includes the parts as illustrated in the figure below:

Collection system Stakeholders

Figure 5.1: The content of 'a case' in our study

We need to distinguish between systems in order to achieve variation in coordinated action-Le. achieving comparison in coordinated action. We have identified and included three possible cases that fill the demands of our study. The choice of the specific cases is based on a combination of the waste management companies, the product categories and the industry agreement. That is, each case has to include both physical and commercial interests. A physical flow involves a collection system, while the commercial interests include members.

The waste management companies combine the two flows into one system. When using more than one case, the cases should be chosen either to (a) predict the same result, or (b) give the opposite results but for predictable reasons (Yin 1994). We have included three cases, which cover all 18 product categories in order to understand coordination beyond product specifics.

34Documented inthe membership contracts issued from the wastemanagement companies.

Also, the independent cases are included to control for the industry agreement. In summary, the cases are included to explain coordinated action in systems.

The first of our cases is "the El-retur system", which has come about through cooperation between two of the waste management companies, "Elektronikkretur AS" and "Hvitevareretur AS". This system is responsible for consumer electronics (Elektronikkretur), and white goods and household appliances (Hvitevareretur). The waste management companies have different owners and different members but cooperate on the logistics operations, i.e. organize one collection system.

The second of our cases is "the RENAS system". RENAS is the name of the waste management company and the system. The company is responsible for the category of general electric products. RENAS consists of one waste management company and organizes one collection system.

The third of our cases is referred to as "the independent systems". This case consists of the two waste management companies, RagnSells AS and Eurovironment AS. The companies cooperated on the collection when the systems were established, i.e. cooperated with respect to the physicalflow. The cooperation was initiated because the Eurovironment system concentrated on reuse activities, and the RagnSells system concentrated on recycling activities. The Eurovironment system was dependent on access to recycling activities. Over the period of our study, the cooperation diminished because the Eurovironment system started performing recycling activities as well.35 The waste management companies are identified . because they are registered with the authorities, and they have their own separate groups of

members.

These cases represent distinct reverse distribution systems. The figure gives an overview of the cases in our study.

35We will return to this in more detail in the case description in chapter 8.

92

The El-retur collection system Stakeholders

III ..

Stakeholders ~ ~ _{The RENAS}

collection system

~

..

Stakeholders

's

^{~ ~} The Independent

system(s)

Figure 5.2:The cases (reverse distribution systems) in our study

Our study starts out from 1999 when the collection systems within the industry agreement were being established. Working with these particular systems over time has revealed a nice variance design. The waste management companies were responsible for setting up the reverse systems for the collection of EE-products at end-of-life. However, they did not invest in equipment and logistics solutions on their own. This task was contracted out to actors from the waste industry. A tender was issued in the fall of 1998, giving the actors contracts that would start June lst1999. The contracts were for a three-year period.

The contract period from 1999 to 200 l disclosed that the system had a' number of weaknesses and, as the second tender period approached, the criteria were changed significantly, The second contract period was also for three years, The systems changed during the two periods, providing the study with variation on its key variables,

The independent systems did not operate with contracts and contract periods and this is described in the case later on. However, these systems also experienced changes over the time period. As the EE-regulations came into force July I" 1999, all the cases had the same starting points and frames of reference. Inorder to make the cases as comparative as possible, we

limit the study to the two first contract periods, as defmed by the waste management companies within the industry agreement The design is illustrated below:

l,t contract period Zød contract period

Time June l,t June l't

ZOOZ Z003

JuneI"

Z006 June l"

1999

..__c_as_e_l_-_l_'t_p_e_ri_od_-,--___,11Case 1 - Zød period

l,t contract period Zød contract period

r~---~ y~----~~'----~~

Time June l,t

ZOOZ

June l't ZOOS June l"

1999

CaseZ -l't period

II

^{CaseZ - Zød period}

Case 3 - I" and Zød period

Figure 5.3:lllustration of the periods of comparison within the cases

In sum, we have identified cases that provide theoretical variation. We have selected a few cases that represent our variables and give variation to the variables. In this way, the cases have been chosen on the basis of theoretical sampling. Beyond our cases are a number of companies that are registered with the authorities as waste management companies (ref.

chapter 2), plus there are EE-companies that have programs for the collection of EE-waste as a private initiative. However, when looking for cases for our study (i.e. variation and comparison), we found that these other companies and systems did not suit our purposes.

We explored the possibility of setting upa design, which could compare reverse distribution systems for recycling with reverse distribution systems for commercial return (Flygansvær 2001). Even though both types of systems address the return of products, it turned out that

94

reverse distribution systems in general are not one context. Drawing on this experience, we found that collection systems for EE-products at end-of-life was the relevant context in which to address our research interest. Inthe same study, we also compared a reverse distribution system on the industry level with an internal company case (i.e. Xerox' program for returning copiers). We experimented with this design before developing the one used in this study. The systems did not compare well on the variables that we were interested in and, therefore, we chose not to continue with such a design.

In document Coordinated action in reverse distribution systems (sider 110-116)