Malcolm, R (2011) Integrated product policy: Products and their impact on energy. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 3(1), pp. 48-64. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the Ecodesign Directive and the extent to which it provides a regulatory framework for life-cycle assessment approaches which underlie integrated product policy (IPP), thus providing a horizontal approach to product legislation as a new approach to regulating pollution. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on academic commentary as well as official papers, European communications and legislation. Findings – The development and application of the Ecodesign Directive is highlighted along with the different regulatory approach it poses which is shown to result from the application of life-cycle assessment and IPP. Practical implications – The impact on the development of products will be extensive in that they will be required by mandatory rules to be designed with a view to the reduction of their whole life environmental impacts. Originality/value – The approach is to highlight a new paradigm for regulating pollution and environmental impacts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Europe; law; pollution; product management |
| Index terms: | paradigm, pollution, Europe, environmental impact, methodology, legislation |
| Subjects: | environmental health, research methods, physical geography and landforms, education and knowledge transfer, legal systems, environmental impact |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Sustainability, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here