1. Introduction
The European Union (EU) is transitioning towards a circular economy (CE), which can be described as an economy ‘where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste is minimized’.Footnote 1 The CE transition forms part of the EU Green Deal, in which the CE is described as a means to contribute to achieving the EU’s sustainability goals and climate neutrality by 2050.Footnote 2 For both objectives, batteries are considered a key product value chain.Footnote 3 They support low-emissions electro-mobility, contribute to stabilizing the power grid,Footnote 4 and are widely used in industrial applications as well as in electrical and electronic equipment.Footnote 5 The demand for batteries, especially for the predominant ‘lithium-ion’ chemistry used in electric vehicles,Footnote 6 will increase rapidly in the coming years.Footnote 7 Recognized as a strategic value chain, the EU aims to create an ecosystem for sustainable batteries, which includes responsible material sourcing, the lowest carbon footprint possible, and a CE approach.Footnote 8 The latter is considered to enable the battery value chain to become resource-efficient and to prevent the loss of potential value and secondary materials.Footnote 9 This approach addresses the supply of rare and critical raw materials typically used in batteries and contributes to reducing their environmental impact.Footnote 10 The transition towards a CE for batteries can be considered a prerequisite for the clean energy transition and climate neutrality.Footnote 11
To realize an ecosystem for sustainable and circular batteries, the EU has taken steps to review and revise the legislation governing the life cycle of batteries, including EU chemicals, product and waste legislation. Since the introduction of the first Circular Economy Action Plan,Footnote 12 the most notable development is the recently adopted Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 concerning Batteries and Waste Batteries (Batteries Regulation).Footnote 13 The Regulation aims to make batteries sustainable, safe, and circular throughout their entire life cycle. It is the first comprehensive legal framework to focus on the entire life cycle of a specific product.Footnote 14 The Batteries Regulation replaces Directive 2006/66/EC on Batteries and Accumulators and Waste Batteries and Accumulators (Batteries Directive);Footnote 15 it aims to eliminate barriers, while leveraging untapped opportunities for the transition to a more sustainable and circular battery chain.
This research aims to identify legal barriers to and incentives for this transition, and examines whether they have been adequately addressed by the Barriers Regulation. The Netherlands serves as a case study for this research. Additionally, a subsequent analysis focuses on any remaining challenges, particularly in relation to the European Commission’s new approach of regulating the entire life cycle of a specific product.
To facilitate an in-depth legal analysis, empirical legal research was conducted through semi-structured interviews, alongside legal doctrinal desk research. The aim of the empirical research was to identify potential barriers and incentives, as well as to validate those identified in the desk research. The Netherlands was selected as a focus for examining the implementation of this legal framework. Currently, the Netherlands ranks as one of the lower-performing EU Member States in terms of the collection percentage of (portable) batteries, while also being among the average to best performers in recycling efficiencies for batteries.Footnote 16 This status makes it an interesting case to examine both the successful implementation of battery legislation and areas for improvement. In September and October 2023, 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders representing the entire battery value chain in the Netherlands (see Table 1). Stakeholders were selected based on purposive sampling and snowball sampling.Footnote 17 Interviewed stakeholders were asked about their own experiences with the transition towards a more circular battery value chain, the barriers they encountered, and the solutions or incentives they would find desirable within the legal framework governing the life cycle of batteries.Footnote 18
Table 1. Overview of Interviewed Stakeholders
This article is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the barriers and (lack of) incentives for a more circular battery value chain, paying specific attention to the recently adopted Batteries Regulation. Section 3 analyzes the relation between the Batteries Regulation and the CE and presents general observations regarding the approach taken in the Batteries Regulation. Section 4 concludes.
2. Legal Barriers and Incentives for the Transition towards a More Circular Battery Value Chain
Both the literature and the interviews identified barriers to and incentives for the transition to a more circular battery value chain, including those relating to the legal framework governing the battery life cycle. The most notable development in this regard is the recent adoption of the Batteries Regulation,Footnote 19 which replaced the Batteries DirectiveFootnote 20 on 18 August 2025. The Regulation entered into force on 17 August 2023 and became applicable on 18 February 2024, with the exception of several provisions, the application of which will begin at various staggered dates up to 2033.Footnote 21 It should be noted that most of the literature predates the coming into force of the Batteries Regulation, which means that many referenced barriers and incentives were related to the Batteries Directive. Nevertheless, some of the literature referred to potential barriers and incentives based on the proposal for the Batteries Regulation.Footnote 22 These have been included where the text of the proposal corresponds to the adopted text of the Batteries Regulation.
2.1. EU Chemicals Legislation
The chemical substances used in batteries are regulated by both general and sector-specific EU chemicals legislation. In general, chemicals used in batteries are covered by the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation.Footnote 23 In addition, the Batteries Directive regulated the use of certain chemical substances in batteries by restricting the use of mercury and cadmium above a certain percentage by weight. It also required labelling when cadmium, mercury, and lead were present above certain thresholds.Footnote 24
Restrictions on hazardous substances under the Batteries Directive
The provisions in the Batteries Directive have been successful in reducing the amount of mercury and cadmium in batteries.Footnote 25 At the same time, the Directive was criticized for inadequately addressing the management of risks posed by these substances. Although the Directive did contain a provision aimed at incentivizing the use of smaller quantities of these dangerous substances or the use of less polluting substances, its evaluation indicated that this provision led to ambiguity in its interpretation.Footnote 26 As these harmful substances continue to be used in batteries,Footnote 27 it has been suggested that the focus should shift towards preventing the use of hazardous elements altogether.Footnote 28
Moreover, it was argued that the Batteries Directive was unable to address concerns related to the use of new substances in batteries. It failed to specify the criteria for identifying such substances, as well as potential management measures.Footnote 29 These critiques are especially relevant considering the many recent developments in battery chemistries involving other (hazardous) substances, as became evident in multiple interviews with battery manufacturers. As a result, the evaluation of the Directive stated that stakeholders would prefer to manage and regulate all chemicals used in batteries under REACH, rather than a sector-specific legal act.Footnote 30 REACH already regulates the use of cadmium, mercury, and lead in general, as well as the use of other chemicals in batteries.Footnote 31
Regulating hazardous substances under the Batteries Regulation
Similar to the Batteries Directive, the Batteries Regulation contains restrictions on the use of mercury and cadmium in batteries. It also introduces a restriction on the use of lead, all under certain conditions.Footnote 32 In other words, although the Recitals of the Batteries Regulation state that the use of hazardous substances in batteries should primarily be restricted at source,Footnote 33 the use of these chemicals in batteries is still allowed under the Regulation.
Nevertheless, the Batteries Regulation also introduces an additional restriction by implementing measures to monitor and control unacceptable risks to human health or the environment arising from the use of substances in batteries, as well as their use in manufacturing or during subsequent life-cycle stages.Footnote 34 In doing so, the Regulation appears to address the criticism of the inability of the Batteries Directive to address concerns related to the use of new substances in batteries. It could be argued, therefore, that this addition may also partly address the underlying argument that REACH would be more suitable for regulating all substances in batteries.Footnote 35
Moreover, the Batteries Regulation also shows improvement regarding the availability of information on substances in batteries and transparency across the value chain.Footnote 36 This is achieved through more extensive labelling requirements, as well as the inclusion of information on hazardous substances in ‘battery passports’ (see Section 2.2).Footnote 37 This information can facilitate the recycling of waste batteries,Footnote 38 and support the subsequent compliance with REACH requirements, which apply as soon as the recycled materials that have been recovered from waste batteries cease to be waste.Footnote 39
2.2. EU Product Legislation
The choices made at the design stage of batteries influence not only the use stage, such as the number of charging cycles, but also have an impact on resource extraction, as well as repair and end-of-life (EoL) treatment options.Footnote 40 However, both the literature and the interviews indicated that, currently, the design of batteries (particularly lithium-ion batteries) regularly hampers the repair, remanufacturing, re-use, repurposing, and recycling of batteries or their components.Footnote 41 In particular, it was frequently mentioned as an obstacle that batteries are difficult to remove or are not designed for easy disassembly.Footnote 42 All in all, as decisions made at the product stage affect achieving CE objectives for batteries, an increased focus on EoL or CE aspects in their design could contribute to realizing a circular battery sector.Footnote 43
Looking more closely at the situation in practice, some interviewed manufacturers said that they are applying strategies that could be considered in line with design for EoL or CE approaches, and that some cooperation already occurs across the value chain to this end. Examples include focusing on lifetime extension, modularity, disassembly, and recyclability. However, the interviewees clarified that their main motivation for adopting these strategies were often related to serviceability or costs, rather than the CE transition.
Several of the interviewed manufacturers confirmed that CE objectives are not yet considered in their battery design. In particular, start-ups and scale-ups stated that, although they have the ambition to apply secondary materials or design for EoL, their priorities are currently focused on other aspects, such as battery performance or securing a competitive market position. Other reasons include a lack of supply of secondary materials and components, performance-related uncertainties, and the fact that they are not yet confronted with the EoL stage because of the long lifetime of their product. Moreover, the manufacturers stated that prioritizing design for circularity, such as through design for disassembly or the use of recycled content, can result in potentially conflicting objectives regarding safety, technical performance or environmental impact.
Product design requirements prior to the Batteries Regulation
Many legal instruments currently contain provisions related to the product stage of either batteries or the appliances in which batteries are used, such as electric vehicles (EV) or electrical and electronic equipment. The Batteries Directive already required batteries in appliances to be readily removable.Footnote 44 Similarly, both Directive 2000/53/EC on End-of Life Vehicles (ELV Directive)Footnote 45 and Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE Directive)Footnote 46 require the dismantling of components (i.e., batteries) to be taken into account in product design, respectively promoting design in view of facilitating the dismantling of components.Footnote 47
However, as previously mentioned, batteries are still often difficult to remove or are not designed for easy disassembly or dismantling. One reason for this is the vagueness of the removability criteria in the Batteries Directive, particularly regarding when removal must take place. The criteria also lacked sufficiently detailed exemptions, leading to different interpretations, the creation of loopholes, and complications in implementation. In turn, this has a negative impact on collection and recycling objectives. In addition, the disassembly of the battery itself was not addressed. Another shortcoming concerns the absence of regulating the replaceability of batteries, which could lead to a situation where the entire appliance must be replaced instead of just the battery.Footnote 48
More generally, the Batteries Directive has been criticized for lacking (sufficiently detailed) battery design requirements, including those related to durability, recycled content, (minimum) performance, disassembly, recyclability, environmental quality, and environmental performance.Footnote 49 The respective labelling requirements of the Directive have also been criticized as being inadequate in contributing to EoL operations and circularity practices.Footnote 50
The extension of existing product requirements in the Batteries Regulation
The Batteries Regulation maintains and expands product requirements that were already in existence under the Batteries Directive and introduces new ones.Footnote 51 These product requirements aim to ensure that batteries are designed and manufactured to optimize battery performance, durability, and safety, while minimizing their environmental footprint.Footnote 52
The Batteries Regulation still contains requirements on the removability of batteries as well as on labelling and information. With regard to removability, it becomes clear that it now also addresses battery replaceability.Footnote 53 The new requirement clarifies what qualifies as removable and replaceable, specifies when removal must take place, requires the availability of spare parts, and formulates exemptions in more detail.Footnote 54 To further facilitate a harmonized application, guidelines have been published by the European Commission.Footnote 55 Many of the issues with the removability provision of the Batteries Directive thus seem to be addressed.
However, in contrast to the Directive’s provision, the new removability and replaceability requirement remarkably applies only to portable and light means of transport (LMT) batteries. The Recitals in the Batteries Regulation state that starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) and EV batteries, which are incorporated in motor vehicles, should be removable and replaceable by independent professionals. At the same time, the Recitals state that it is appropriate to consider a revision of the ELV Directive to ensure this.Footnote 56 From the perspective of the Batteries Regulation, such a provision also could, or perhaps should, have been included in the Regulation. In its absence, the issue of the removability of industrial batteries still remains to be addressed.
Moreover, the removability and replaceability requirement in the Batteries Regulation addresses only to a very limited extent the design for disassembly of the battery itself, despite the fact that such requirements could facilitate reuse, repurposing, and recycling.Footnote 57 Only with regard to LMT batteries does the Regulation require that both batteries and individual battery cells are readily removable and replaceable by a professional.Footnote 58 In practice, this means that those batteries should be designed for disassembly. Surprisingly, this requirement was strongly rejected by two interviewed repairers. They argued that the requirement not only will lead to questions from original equipment manufacturers regarding accountability, but also that it is not useful, as these repairers have practically never experienced the need to replace an individual cell.
With a view to the labelling and information requirements, it appears that the previous requirements of the Batteries Directive have been extended. Except for the requirement to show the presence of mercury through a chemical symbol on the label of the battery,Footnote 59 all batteries will soon have to bear a label containing general information. This information includes their chemistry, the presence of hazardous substances other than mercury, cadmium or lead, and the presence of critical raw materials present in a concentration of more than 0.1% by weight.Footnote 60 An interviewed waste operator stressed that detailed labelling requirements, especially regarding battery chemistries, are particularly desirable as they aid in sorting and recycling. The Batteries Regulation requires the above-mentioned information to be provided through a QR code.Footnote 61 Additionally, it requires the provision of information on the state of health and expected lifetime of batteries.Footnote 62
Altogether, the Batteries Regulation appears to address the criticism that the requirements under the Directive were insufficient, as it contains more extensive and detailed requirements for all batteries. These new requirements could help to inform stakeholders about the performance and quality of batteries and contribute to overcoming obstacles related to the diversity in battery design and chemistries. They also facilitate subsequent EoL management by providing more information about disassembly, dismantling, and recyclability.Footnote 63
The introduction of new product requirements in the Batteries Regulation
The Batteries Regulation introduces several new product requirements related to the sustainability and safety of batteries. These include the introduction of a carbon footprint for EV, rechargeable industrial and LMT batteries; recycled content requirements for industrial, EV, LMT, and SLI batteries; performance and durability requirements for portable batteries of general use and rechargeable industrial, LMT, and EV batteries; and, lastly, safety requirements for stationary energy storage systems.Footnote 64 In the light of the CE transition, the mandatory use of recycled content is an especially important new requirement. According to the Recitals in the Batteries Regulation, the use of recovered materials would not only support the transition towards a CE but also lead to more resource-efficient use of these materials. This is especially relevant for substances that are scarce or classified as critical raw materials, particularly those for which recycled content targets have been set: cobalt, lead, nickel, and lithium.Footnote 65
Several interviewees across the value chain were positive about the introduction of the recycled content requirement, arguing that it will contribute to creating a stable market for secondary materials. They also said that this development promotes the improvement of recycling facilities in the Netherlands. At the same time, various concerns were raised. A waste operator explained that manufacturers of cells and components depend on the supply of sufficient high-quality secondary materials, which are currently not always available. Battery manufacturers, in turn, stated that to comply with recycled content requirements, they rely on cell or component manufacturers, who are often located outside the EU. The manufacturers therefore expressed their concerns about the difficulty of monitoring compliance by cell and component manufacturers.
Some of the above-mentioned challenges are addressed in the Batteries Regulation. For example, the recycled content requirement progressively evolves from an information disclosure requirement to mandatory targets, taking into account the technical feasibility and the time needed to adapt supply and manufacturing processes.Footnote 66 In addition, the European Commission will further assess whether it is appropriate to revise these targets in line with the risk of supply shortages and developments in new battery chemistries.Footnote 67
The Batteries Regulation also introduces due diligence obligations and a battery passport. Economic operators with a certain net turnover will have to fulfil due diligence obligations related to the sourcing, processing, and trading of certain (critical) raw materials, in order to prevent and reduce the negative environmental and social impacts of these materials and create a sustainable battery value chain.Footnote 68 Some interviewed manufacturers reported that their clients already inquire about due diligence information or sometimes even request a reduction in the use of certain (critical) raw materials, both based on sustainability objectives and corporate social responsibility regulations. Although the latter could offer some relief in this regard, the interviewees nevertheless questioned its effect, especially in view of information reliability and enforceability.
Furthermore, the Batteries Regulation requires industrial and EV batteries to be accompanied by a battery passport. This electronic record is accessible through a QR code and contains information on, among other things, material composition, carbon footprint, share of recycled and renewable content, and expected lifetime.Footnote 69 The battery passport aims to enhance transparency across the value chain and to provide essential information for all stakeholders.Footnote 70 The literature and interviews frequently noted that this development could indeed facilitate repair, second-life and recycling processes, and more generally enable circular business models.Footnote 71 For example, the battery passport will provide dismantling information along with details of the state of health and status of the battery for repairers and second-life operators.Footnote 72 Several interviewed stakeholders in the value chain revealed that this obligation corresponds partly with the information they are already collecting. However, others stated that complying with the battery passport requirements will be a major challenge for the industry, especially in view of the high administrative burden.
2.3. EU Waste Legislation
Batteries that are (intended to be) discarded become waste batteries. The Batteries Directive focused mainly on this stage of the battery life cycle, containing provisions on the separate collection and recycling of waste batteries, for which producers were responsible through extended producer responsibility (EPR).
Management of waste batteries under the Batteries Directive
The evaluation of the Directive showed that it had a positive effect on the collection and recycling of batteries. However, it simultaneously criticized the provisions on collection and recycling for insufficiently reflecting CE and resource efficiency policies, as well as for not contributing enough to the objective of achieving a high level of material recovery.Footnote 73
The Batteries Directive’s collection target has proved to be insufficient for ensuring a high level of collection of waste batteries. Many Member States, including the Netherlands in recent years, have not met the collection target of 45% for all waste portable batteries, which means that the majority of waste portable batteries are not being collected.Footnote 74 Several factors could explain these low collection rates. The first is the difficulty in implementing the provisions on awareness raising and accessibility of collection points because of their lack of detail. Secondly, the limitation of the collection target only to portable batteries constitutes a challenge.Footnote 75 Thirdly, the inappropriate method for calculating the collection rate is a concern as this method, inter alia, does not take into account the varying lifetimes of batteries or exported batteries.Footnote 76 In the interviews, the latter was given as one of the main reasons for not meeting the collection target by the Dutch producer responsibility organization for portable batteries. Several interviewees suggested that a new calculation method based on ‘available for collection’ would be desirable.
Altogether, the issues with the provisions of the Directive on the collection of waste batteries not only have a negative effect on environmental protection but also on the achievement of other targets and objectives, such as material recovery. The lack of specific collection and reporting obligations for industrial batteries has been considered especially problematic.Footnote 77
Furthermore, the provisions on recycling, particularly those on recycling efficiency, have been criticized. As the definition of recycling efficiency is linked to the recycling process and based on the average weight of waste batteries, meeting recycling targets has not been leading automatically to high levels of material recovery.Footnote 78 The fact that there are no specific targets for the recovery of other (critical or hazardous) materials, besides lead and cadmium, also has a negative impact.Footnote 79 In particular, the classification of lithium-ion batteries as ‘other’ batteries has not ensured the recovery of lithium or lithium-ion batteries in general.Footnote 80 Furthermore, the recycling targets themselves, including their calculation method, have been criticized for interpretative ambiguity and unnecessary complexity, leading to misreporting and differences in implementation between Member States.Footnote 81
More generally, the waste management provisions of the Batteries Directive have been criticized for their varying provisions across battery classification, especially for failing to adequately address the management of waste industrial batteries.Footnote 82 Criticism was also directed at the inability of the Directive to keep up with incorporating new (technological) developments, such as those relating to battery chemistries and recycling technologies.Footnote 83
Management of waste batteries under the Batteries Regulation
The Batteries Regulation appears to be an improvement on many of the above-mentioned issues. Regarding the collection of waste batteries, it provides more detail on the separate collection not only of waste portable batteries, but also waste LMT, SLI, industrial, and EV batteries.Footnote 84 In view of the environmental impact and loss of materials caused by waste batteries not being separately collected, the Regulation gradually increases the collection target for portable batteries. It also introduces a similar collection target for LMT batteries,Footnote 85 although, remarkably, it does not extend this requirement to the other three battery categories, for which no collection targets exist.Footnote 86
Furthermore, the Batteries Regulation currently still maintains the criticized methodology for calculating collection targets, which will make meeting the increased collection targets challenging. However, the Regulation states that this methodology should be reviewed to reflect the actual volume of batteries available for collection, and the Joint Research Centre has since recommended adopting an ‘available for collection’ methodology.Footnote 87
With regard to the recycling of waste batteries, the Regulation gradually introduces stricter targets for recycling efficiency and material recovery, with the aim of guaranteeing that these materials are recovered within the battery value chain and returned as secondary materials.Footnote 88 The recycling efficiency targets are expanded with lithium-ion-based batteries as a separate category, reflecting their growing importance and application.Footnote 89 Although the criticized rules on the calculation of and reporting on recycling efficiency will continue to apply for the time being, the Recitals in the Regulation state that these rules will be reviewed by the European Commission.Footnote 90
Moreover, the Batteries Regulation fulfils the frequently mentioned incentive to introduce material-specific recovery targets for cobalt, copper, lead, lithium, and nickel.Footnote 91 Such targets could provide an incentive for more effective and efficient collection, and contribute to ensuring high-quality recovery of materials. This could stimulate the internal market for secondary materials, which, in turn, would contribute to meeting the recycled content requirements.Footnote 92 Some interviewees agreed with this line of reasoning and welcomed these new targets, but several others highlighted the practical difficulties of recovering materials in general, particularly recovering materials of sufficiently high quality. These challenges add to the currently non-existent recycling infrastructure in the Netherlands and the limited recycling infrastructure the EU for certain battery chemistries. Consequently, the current recycling outputs fall short of meeting the demand of the growing batteries market.Footnote 93 Moreover, it is important to note that high-quality recycling not only can have significant adverse impacts as a result of the hazardous chemicals and high-energy demand involved in the process but also may reduce the overall quantity of recyclate. Considering all these aspects, it is relevant to mention that the Batteries Regulation enables the European Commission to revise the recycling efficiency and material recovery targets, and to introduce new targets, where appropriate, as a result of market developments as well as technical and scientific progress.Footnote 94
Extended producer responsibility
The Batteries Directive established the principle of EPR for batteries, making producers of batteries organizationally and financially responsible for fulfilling the above-mentioned waste management requirements.Footnote 95 EPR is considered a key part of the EU’s CE transition and is said to be an effective tool for transforming towards a CE model.Footnote 96 EPR has led to the collection and recovery of waste batteries,Footnote 97 and has been deemed necessary by several interviewees because of the negative residual value of waste batteries. However, in the light of the CE transition, several shortcomings and issues have been identified regarding EPR for batteries.
In the first place, EPR has not led to increased resource efficiency, nor does it appear that EPR has had a positive impact on circular battery design (see Section 2.2).Footnote 98 Furthermore, the existing EPR framework has been criticized for hampering second-life operations of batteries. EPR schemes are evaluated based solely on collection targets, which can be considered contradictory to stimulating higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies,Footnote 99 such as reuse.Footnote 100
The relationship between EPR and the repair and reuse of batteries has raised additional issues. For example, uncertainties exist regarding which actor holds producer responsibility.Footnote 101 Furthermore, the interviews showed that, at least in the Netherlands, the EPR schemes – and especially the producer responsibility organization in the case of collective fulfilment – play a decisive role in stimulating and enabling repair, remanufacture, reuse, and repurposing, as companies depend on them for their supply. While these organizations aim to become as circular as possible, some interviewees criticized their role and functioning. Concerns were raised that the producer responsibility organization for portable and electric bicycle batteries is prioritizing repurposing over repair and remanufacturing, and that cooperation with repurposing companies is not always going well. These issues were also linked to the uncertainty about whether batteries are classified as waste.
The EPR framework under the Batteries Directive has also been criticized for its different approaches according to battery classification.Footnote 102 Especially with regard to industrial batteries, EPR obligations were considered vague and insufficient.Footnote 103 The interviews confirmed that this has led to confusion and practical obstacles, with interviewed governmental officials adding that their oversight over this battery category is more limited. In the Netherlands, this ‘omission’ has been resolved for EV and electric bicycle batteries. For these batteries, producer responsibility organizations have been established, which include organizational and financial structures. This has not been the case for the remaining types of industrial battery, where implementing EPR, especially financial responsibility, is further complicated by the long lifespans of these batteries. All in all, not only with regard to industrial batteriesFootnote 104 but also more generally, the extent to which the EPR framework has contributed to the CE transition has been criticized.
The Batteries Regulation continues to apply the instrument of EPR for the management of batteries at their EoL stage.Footnote 105 EPR is still considered as being able to contribute to reducing overall resource use, waste generation, and the adverse impacts of waste battery management.Footnote 106 To this end, the Regulation introduces new and more comprehensive rules. Producers are financially responsible for separately collecting, treating, and recycling batteries. Additionally, they are required to carry out surveys of mixed collected municipal waste, to report on (waste) batteries and to provide information to end users and waste operators about both appropriate management and reuse options for waste batteries.Footnote 107 These EPR obligations are now detailed for each battery category, including EV and industrial batteries.
The Batteries Regulation states that EPR could reduce the generation of waste batteries and thus seems to refer to the influence of EPR on prior stages in the battery value chain.Footnote 108 Despite not explicitly mentioning the potential of EPR to incentivize circular battery design, the Regulation requires the use of modulated fees in the case of collective fulfilment. These modulations are to be based, at least, on the battery category and chemistry and, where appropriate, also on rechargeability, the level of recycled content, whether the batteries have been subject to (preparation for) reuse or repurposing, and their carbon footprint.Footnote 109 Through these fees, EPR might increase its influence on the product stage of batteries. However, the interviewed producer responsibility organizations expressed mixed opinions on the desirability of fee modulation, indicating that its implementation poses significant challenges.
Moreover, the Batteries Regulation addresses the previously existing uncertainties regarding the transfer of responsibility in the case of (preparations for) reuse, repurposing or remanufacturing: EPR should apply also to the economic operators that place batteries resulting from these operations on the market.Footnote 110 Interviewees across the value chain perceived this development to be logical and desirable. Nonetheless, the evaluation of EPR schemes for portable and LMT batteries is still based on reaching the criticized collection targets.Footnote 111
The focus of the CE, and accordingly the Batteries Regulation, on higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies also raised more fundamental questions regarding the extent to which the instrument of EPR itself aligns with the CE.Footnote 112 An interviewed repairer and government official questioned whether the current EPR framework will remain necessary for all battery categories when economically viable alternative routes for those ‘waste’ batteries exist. Although an interviewed producer responsibility organization argued that EPR will remain necessary as batteries will become waste at some point, alternatives to the current framework were mentioned in both the literature and interviews. These alternatives ranged from a redirection to individual producer responsibility,Footnote 113 extending producers’ responsibility so that they retain ownership of and take back their own products, to redrafting the whole EPR concept to prevent sub-optimizing a system that originally did not focus sufficiently on higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies. Another suggestion, which relates to the criticism of the position of producer responsibility organizations, is to introduce a circular value chain management organization. This independent entity would bring together all economic actors related to value retention options to focus on the CE strategy for the product in question.Footnote 114 Although additional areas of improvement could be considered to better align EPR with higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies, overall, the Batteries Regulation shows progress.
Transport of waste batteries
Waste batteries are frequently transported for waste management purposes, both within and outside the EU. In the Netherlands, collected and sorted waste batteries are always exported abroad as there is currently no domestic operational recycling facility. Transport of waste batteries also takes place for preparation for reuse and repurposing operations.
However, at the moment, these transportations and the treatments of these (waste) batteries have been further complicated by the Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR).Footnote 115 Both the literature and the interviews showed that the possibility of transporting batteries is hampered by financial and administrative burdens, especially because of the classification of batteries as hazardous (waste).Footnote 116 Although this classification is understandable and strict regulation is necessary, interviewees said that the current situation leads to delays, as authorities take a long time to process applications. According to interviewed second-life and waste management operators, these interruptions and corresponding costs are exacerbated by the fact that legal requirements and classifications differ between Member States. At the same time, one interviewee revealed that these ambiguities are exploited by stakeholders, as they bypass Member States that apply stricter interpretations. This remark aligns with the picture that emerged from the interviews, namely that the current legislation on the transport of (waste) batteries is often approached creatively because of its strictness, such as willingly misclassifying batteries as non-hazardous. The fact that companies get away with this deliberate act is in line with the observation of an interviewed notified body and waste management operator, who stated that enforcement of waste battery transports is difficult for authorities and that there is a general lack of enforcement. Such shortcomings can lead to unfair or undesirable situations, such as the existence of free riders, illegal waste transports, and questionable exports of used batteries to non-member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), where these batteries can have negative environmental impacts.Footnote 117 At the time of this research, the old WSR was still in place, whereas the new WSR has now entered into force.Footnote 118 Although further research is required, the new WSR aims not only to improve monitoring and enforcement but also to facilitate shipments for reuse, repair, refurbishment or recycling within the EU.Footnote 119
The Batteries Regulation continues to allow shipment for treatment of waste batteries outside a Member State or the EU, provided that these shipments comply with the relevant legal framework. The Batteries Regulation also allows this treatment outside the EU to count towards its recycling efficiency and targets, provided that the waste management operator reports and proves that proper treatment has taken place.Footnote 120 The Regulation specifically addresses the prospective increase in batteries that will be transported for repair, (preparation for) reuse and repurposing. To this end, it also contains a provision allowing Member States to inspect shipments of used batteries in order to distinguish between used and waste batteries.Footnote 121 Furthermore, its Recitals acknowledge the need to revise the List of Waste to reflect all battery chemistries to enable proper sorting and reporting,Footnote 122 which has resulted in an update introducing new (hazardous) waste codes.Footnote 123 According to the two interviewed waste operators, creating a level playing field in the EU in this way would be desirable. Altogether, the Batteries Regulation appears to address, to some extent, the need for increased enforcement and a level playing field regarding the transport of waste batteries. In the literature and interviews, however, more far-reaching suggestions were made. These included the introduction of a simpler, fast-track system for waste batteries, agreements between Member States to facilitate transport of waste batteries with exemptions on WSR requirements and an increase in actual controls.Footnote 124
2.4. Lifetime-Extending and Second-Life Operations for Batteries
Used batteries, depending on their classification as waste or otherwise, can be subject to reuse, remanufacturing, repurposing, preparation for reuse, and preparation for repurposing.Footnote 125 These operations can prolong the lifetime of batteries or their components and are claimed to mitigate the environmental impact of batteries.Footnote 126 Repair, remanufacturing, and (preparation for) reuse and repurposing are higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies and can therefore be considered to be in line with CE objectives.Footnote 127 These value retention options are particularly relevant for used LMT, EV, and industrial batteries, for which a market is currently emerging.Footnote 128
Barriers to lifetime-extending and second-life operations
In the Netherlands, several companies are already reusing, repairing, and remanufacturing batteries as well as repurposing them as energy storage systems. Although these businesses prove that it is has been economically feasible and (legally) possible, the Batteries Directive has been criticized in the literature for not being well adapted to second-life options for batteriesFootnote 129 and for focusing on recycling rather than higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies.Footnote 130 The Directive did not consider the second life of batteries and lacked definitions for concepts such as reuse, repurposing, and remanufacturing.Footnote 131 It also did not contain any guidelines or incentives such as targets for reuse or repurposing.Footnote 132 Moreover, as previously mentioned, under the Batteries Directive it was unclear who was responsible for the EoL management of the second-life battery.Footnote 133 Altogether, this led to legal uncertainty, which hampered or even prevented the implementation of such strategies.Footnote 134
Waste legislation, more generally, was also identified as hindering lifetime-extending and second-life operations for (waste) batteries. In particular, the classification of used batteries as waste is an issue, as handling the latter requires waste permits, complicates transport, and overall generates additional administrative and financial burdens.Footnote 135 The waste status was pointed out as contributing negatively to enabling battery repair, in particular,Footnote 136 as all repairers would need waste permits. Two interviewees, including one producer responsibility organization, stated that the issues surrounding the classification of used batteries as waste leads to bypassing repair in favour of lower waste hierarchy strategies, such as preparation for reuse and repurposing or even recycling, as these options lead to an end-of-waste status.
Regulating lifetime-extending and second-life operations under the Batteries Regulation
The Batteries Regulation does appear to be adapted to lifetime-extending and second-life options for batteries.Footnote 137 The Regulation contains definitions on remanufacturing and (preparation for) reuse and repurposing. Although it lacks targets or standards for reuse or repurposing, multiple provisions specifically take into account, or even aim to support, lifetime-extending and second-life possibilities for batteries.Footnote 138 Examples include provisions on determining the state of health and expected lifetime of used batteries, requiring producers to provide information to end users, distributors, and waste treatment operators on preparation for reuse or repurposing, and clarifying the transfer of EPR.Footnote 139 In particular, the increased focus on providing battery information is in line with what in the literature has been deemed necessary for second-life operations.Footnote 140 Despite the fact that repair is not included as detailed in the Regulation, an interviewed repairer stated that this sector will benefit as well. Altogether, several interviewees across the value chain confirmed that the focus on (preparation for) reuse, (preparation for) repurposing, and remanufacturing is a positive development.
Although the Batteries Regulation appears to create a framework that facilitates lifetime-extending and second-life operations for batteries, some critical remarks, untapped potential, and challenges were identified in the literature and the conducted interviews. The Regulation’s facilitation of these operations has not been universally welcomed, according to the interviewees. Interestingly, interviewed repairers and second-life operators indicated that facilitating reuse, repurposing, and remanufacturing would not have been necessary for them at all, with some fearing that such facilitation might result in the loss of their competitive advantage in the market. Interviewees also mentioned more practical issues, ranging from difficulties related to safety and corresponding liability, technical difficulties related to performance, the limited availability of used batteries, and concerns for reputational damage.Footnote 141 Interviewed government officials added that the minimum requirements for shipments of used batteries, which aim to distinguish between used and waste batteries, are difficult to translate to the situation in practice. These requirements could, in fact, hamper repair and other R-strategies, as following these criteria causes batteries to be very quickly classified as waste.
Furthermore, in both the literature and interviews, suggestions were made to further incentivize lifetime-extending and second-life operations for batteries. Examples included setting quality standards for used batteries and introducing reuse and repurposing targets, as well as the possibility of introducing EU-wide end-of-waste criteria for waste batteries under the Waste Framework Directive (WFD).Footnote 142 This could remove the currently existing differences between Member States regarding the waste status of batteries and thus create a level playing field.Footnote 143 Moreover, in both the literature and interviews, it was pointed out that a dilemma exists between stimulating recycling, on the one hand, and higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies, on the other. Lifetime-extending and second-life operations can delay the availability of waste batteries for recycling and recycled materials.Footnote 144 Conversely, recycling targets and recycled content requirements could incentivize (high-quality) recycling over higher value retention options. In addition, the higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies are said to be not necessarily more sustainable, such as when a higher value retention option has a greater overall environmental impact.Footnote 145 These examples show the need to pay continuous attention to finding the proper balance between the benefits of (preparation for) reuse, repurposing and remanufacturing, and other strategies.
3. Analysis
Section 2 shows that the Batteries Directive already embodied CE aspects and life-cycle thinking to a certain extent. However, the evaluation of the Batteries Directive as well as its identified barriers and incentives make clear that issues remained and the relevant provisions did not fully reflect the importance of the CE transition.Footnote 146 The Batteries Regulation has addressed many of the highlighted issues that existed predominantly under the Batteries Directive and has implemented many of the identified incentives for the CE transition.Footnote 147 Overall, the Regulation appears to reflect CE and resource efficiency policies much better than its predecessor, despite remaining challenges and the need for additional improvements.
3.1. The Batteries Regulation and the Circular Economy
The aim of a CE is better reflected in the objectives of the Batteries Regulation and the provisions in which they are operationalized. Examples include the definition of value retention strategies, the recycled content requirements, and the reinforced provisions on collection and recycling of waste batteries, including the provisions on material recovery. The Regulation not only addresses CE practices; it also better reflects the waste hierarchy, which is most clearly indicated by the increased focus on lifetime-extending and second-life options.
Furthermore, by regulating the entire life cycle of batteries and emphasizing specific provisions that consider the whole life cycle, the Batteries Regulation demonstrates a strong commitment to life-cycle thinking. This approach is considered fundamental to a CE and a guiding principle in product legislation.Footnote 148 Taking a life-cycle approach is important to unlock synergies in pursuance of CE objectives.Footnote 149 For instance, the removability of batteries influences the achievement of the collection targets, which is connected to the recycling targets and ultimately affects compliance with recycled content requirements.Footnote 150 Similarly, information-providing instruments, such as labels or the battery passport,Footnote 151 could facilitate lifetime-extending and second-life options for batteries.Footnote 152 In addition, the Batteries Regulation also explicitly recognizes the interaction and need for coherence with other legal acts, such as the REACH Regulation,Footnote 153 the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation,Footnote 154 and the collection of waste batteries through collection schemes for WEEE or ELVs.Footnote 155
Moreover, the fact that the Batteries Directive is replaced by a regulation has been welcomed in both the literature and in almost all interviews, particularly in the context of the CE transition. A regulation creates a more harmonized legal framework and aims to reduce the currently fragmentated implementation, helping to ensure a level playing field.Footnote 156 In addition, aspects such as more detailed provisions, the introduction of clearer definitions, and the increased attention for standardization are considered to contribute positively to a harmonized internal market, as well as to the achievement of CE and resource efficiency objectives.Footnote 157 In short, the Batteries Regulation can be considered a welcome development for the CE transition.
3.2. Remaining Challenges and Additional Improvements
Despite the Batteries Regulation’s improved alignment with and reflection of CE objectives, a critical examination reveals that challenges remain and there is room for improvement.
Challenges regarding implementation
The interviews indicate that the practical implementation of the Batteries Regulation will be somewhat challenging for industry, especially as a result of the expected administrative burden, increased costs of compliance, and heightened difficulties in gaining and verifying all required information throughout the value chain.Footnote 158 The multitude of legal requirements and their accompanying differing timelines were also pointed out by interviewees as adding complexity. Other parts of the Batteries Regulation still need further clarification through delegated acts, which are still to be adopted, increasing overall legal uncertainty.Footnote 159 Several interviewees – start-ups and scale-ups, in particular – mentioned that while specific knowledge is often needed to understand and implement the legislation, they themselves lack the necessary manpower or capacity for gaining that knowledge. A more general concern is that many interviewed stakeholders across the value chain admitted to having no awareness of the applicable legislation, with some perceiving this as a larger trend in the sector.
Furthermore, it appears that, at least in the Netherlands, implementation might be challenging for the government as well. Interviewed government officials explained that despite the integrated approach of the Batteries Regulation, implementation at the national level is divided between various ministries and executive agencies. Furthermore, several interviewees questioned the enforceability of the Regulation. They mentioned not only their own experience with a general lack of enforcement of (other) batteries-related legislation, but also a lack of manpower and knowledge at enforcement authorities. This led interviewed stakeholders to be concerned about their own competitiveness if the combination of a lack of compliance and lack of enforcement leads to an uneven playing field, both within the EU and globally.
Moreover, rigid and complex legislation can hamper innovation and slow down the CE transition altogether. Eventually, such legislation might even discourage investment and lead to lower application for batteries, which in turn could have a negative effect on decarbonization and the energy transition.Footnote 160 The fact that legislation moves slowly and could become quickly outdated in this rapidly developing sector poses an additional complicating factor.Footnote 161 Although the Batteries Regulation itself often refers to the possibility of adjusting certain aspects or requirements through delegated acts in response to technological developments or market situations,Footnote 162 the importance of the stability of the legal framework, which is necessary for facilitating investment, should not be overlooked.Footnote 163 Additional solutions could include providing experimentation possibilities for start-ups or adjusting the scope of certain provisions, similar to the due diligence obligations, by making them applicable only to economic operators with certain turnover thresholds. Altogether, these examples show that aspects such as feasibility, enforceability, and alignment with practical realities should not be overlooked in a comprehensive legal framework like the Batteries Regulation.
Alignment with the waste hierarchy
The Batteries Regulation demonstrates a clear improvement in terms of its focus on the higher-tier waste hierarchy strategies through its provisions on lifetime-extending and second-life options. However, as discussed above, the Regulation could have addressed repair in greater detail, and targets for reuse or repurposing of batteries could also have been considered. In addition, the Regulation’s collection and recycling targets could incentivize recycling over lifetime-extending and second-life operations for batteries. Even though these recycling targets and recycled content requirements also contribute to the CE transition, by encouraging closed-loop recycling and reducing the dependency on primary resources,Footnote 164 such negative trade-offs should be taken into account.
Furthermore, the Regulation could have focused more on the highest value retention options, namely, to refuse or reduce the consumption of batteries. Although such a focus seems to contradict the fact that demand for batteries will increase because of their key role in the energy transition, not all batteries fulfil such key functions. For example, interviewees criticized the trend of cordless equipment and emphasized the idea of restricting batteries in disposable products such as vapes. Currently, the Batteries Regulation addresses in its Recitals only a need to ensure that fewer low-performing non-rechargeable portable batteries of general use are placed on the market, and only by establishing objective requirements for their performance and durability.Footnote 165 In addition, consideration should be given to the necessity and desirability of other batteries and battery-powered products. Similar steps to those for the above-mentioned portable batteries should be taken, either in the Batteries Regulation itself or possibly through the legislation governing the product in question (as further discussed in Section 3.3).
Interaction within the legal framework
The inherent interlinkages that exist between the life-cycle stages, as well as the legislation governing them, must be considered for the Batteries Regulation’s contribution to the CE to be successful. These interlinkages extend beyond the provisions of the Regulation itself, as several additional legal acts also regulate the life cycle of batteries. This highlights the need to pay attention to the effect of other legislation, as well as for streamlining the provisions of the Batteries Regulation with other legal acts, to prevent double regulation and inconsistencies. An example that makes clear how the provisions of the Regulation are interlinked with the legal framework of EU chemicals, product and waste legislation, more generally, are the issues regarding the waste status of batteries. It follows that even though the Batteries Regulation contains provisions that are in line with CE objectives and the waste hierarchy, adjustments or reconsiderations regarding the role of waste and waste legislation, including the WFD, might also be necessary.
Other issues that require attention in this respect are the need for streamlining provisions with the WEEE Directive and ELV Directive.Footnote 166 This also includes the identified difference in battery classification under the Batteries Regulation, Waste Shipment Regulation, and the Waste Statistics Regulation,Footnote 167 which could lead to misreporting and complicate managing notifications for waste transport.Footnote 168 In line with this, interviewed manufacturers and distributors expressed their fear of potential overlaps between the new information requirements of the Batteries Regulation and similar requirements from other legal acts, as well as between the Regulation’s due diligence obligations and corporate social responsibility legislation.Footnote 169 This is also the case regarding other legislation, which regulates the battery value chain but falls outside the scope of this research, such as safety legislation or financial regulations.
When considering the text of the Batteries Regulation, its relation to other legislation has already been touched upon several times, such as its relationship with the REACH Regulation or with the WEEE Directive and ELV Directive.Footnote 170 This further clarifies the interrelationship within the legal framework and could contribute to avoiding double regulation and inconsistencies. Nevertheless, the challenges regarding interaction within the legal framework governing the life cycle of batteries is likely to remain an important issue, especially given the many legal acts that have recently been adopted or are currently proposed, such as the Ecodesign RegulationFootnote 171 or the proposal for the ELV Regulation.Footnote 172
Moreover, considering the interaction between a battery’s life-cycle stages and the legislation governing them is also important because of potential negative trade-offs or conflicting objectives. For example, due diligence requirements can have an unintended negative impact on the recycling market, as these requirements may lead to using fewer or no critical raw materials in batteries, which can make the recycling of certain batteries or battery chemistries less interesting from an economic perspective.Footnote 173 Another example has already been mentioned in Section 2.4 – namely, that recycling targets and recycled content requirements can negatively affect reuse or other second-life operations, and vice versa. It has also been pointed out that although high-quality recycling or second-life operations are more in line with the waste hierarchy, they are not necessarily more sustainable in terms of their environmental impact.Footnote 174 This observation reveals a more substantial need to find a balance within the legal framework between CE practices and sustainability objectives more broadly. In finding this balance, the newly introduced carbon footprint requirement in the Batteries Regulation could be insightful, but also the waste hierarchy provision itself provides guidance, as it states that departing from the waste hierarchy can be allowed in order to deliver the best overall environmental outcome.Footnote 175 After all, the aim of achieving circularity should be seen as a means to contribute to the EU’s ambition to achieve a sustainable and climate-neutral economy.
Nevertheless, these negative trade-offs expose the complexity of balancing all these different aspects within the legal framework, including not only circularity, environmental impact and economic feasibility, but also technical possibilities, equitable supply chains, and safety considerations.Footnote 176 Continuous attention must be paid to identifying these (potential) negative trade-offs within the legal framework, in order to avoid or prevent unintended consequences and adverse effects from materializing.
3.3. The Batteries Regulation: A Blueprint for Legislation for the Circular Economy?
The Batteries Regulation is expected to contribute to the creation of a legal framework that stimulates the achievement of CE objectives and incorporates life-cycle thinking. It is the first regulation that fully reflects the fact that all life-cycle stages of batteries are inherently interlinked. This Regulation has therefore been named as a potential guideline for regulating the circular transition of other product groups or sectors.Footnote 177 Yet, the analysis identified some remaining challenges and raises additional questions about the approach taken in the Regulation.
The Batteries Regulation regularly refers to its interaction with other legal acts. Some of these references highlight potential difficulties that could exist with regard to taking a comprehensive life-cycle approach for a specific product sector. For example, the Batteries Regulation states that the revision of the ELV Directive would be appropriate to regulate the removability and replaceability of SLI and EV batteries in motor vehicles.Footnote 178 The Regulation also states that it is considered appropriate to set performance and durability requirements for batteries used in mobile phones and tablets, as well as for portable batteries in other appliances in (sometimes already existing) ecodesign regulations, instead of the Batteries Regulation.Footnote 179 These examples raise the question of how the decision to regulate these product aspects outside the Batteries Regulation relates to the premise that the Regulation aims to exhaustively regulate the entire life cycle of all batteries. This might even be considered a missed opportunity. The question could also be raised as to why the possibilities of the Ecodesign Directive have not been utilized for additional products, or why they will not be under the Ecodesign Regulation, which replaces the Ecodesign Directive.Footnote 180 These exceptions underline the importance of clearly defining the relation between all relevant legal acts in order to prevent double regulation and inconsistencies.
Moreover, these exceptions give reason to reflect on possible alternatives to the product-specific life-cycle approach taken in the Batteries Regulation. The above-mentioned examples show that batteries could be and currently are already governed not only as products but also as components of the products in which they are placed. An alternative to the approach taken could have been to regulate all design aspects or even the battery sector as a whole under the Ecodesign Regulation.Footnote 181 The latter aims to set ecodesign requirements for almost all physical goods on the EU market to improve their circularity and sustainability, and includes similar provisions and instruments, such as the product passport.Footnote 182 The suggestion to regulate all substances used in batteries under the REACH Regulation should also be mentioned here.Footnote 183 This discussion shows that governing the entire life cycle of a product can be approached from different perspectives.
Following these alternatives would mean that the entire battery life cycle would no longer be regulated under a single legal instrument, and life-cycle thinking might not be explicitly reflected in the legislative structure. However, this does not necessarily imply that the life cycle of batteries could not be sufficiently considered in an integrated way, even if regulated across multiple legal acts. The same applies to the interaction within the legal framework governing the life cycle of batteries, although new or different questions on interaction and coordination are likely to arise with each change in legislative structure. In short, further research is needed before endorsing the approach of the Batteries Regulation as a guideline for other products or sectors.
4. Conclusion
To create a circular and sustainable battery value chain, the EU has recently adopted the Batteries Regulation. This article shows that many of the barriers and incentives for the transition towards a circular battery value chain identified in the literature and interviews with stakeholders in the Netherlands have been addressed or incorporated in the Batteries Regulation. Notably, several provisions have been introduced to enable lifetime-extending or second-life operations for batteries and to incorporate a life-cycle thinking approach.
However, this article revealed some remaining challenges in the extent to which the Batteries Regulation is fit for purpose in achieving CE objectives. Firstly, the challenges associated with implementation of the Regulation should not be overlooked, as these will be important for its actual contribution to realizing CE objectives. Secondly, the Regulation could go further by encouraging higher value retention strategies. The focus on repair could be increased and consideration could be given to better address the reduction of placing on the market of certain batteries, such as those in disposable products. Thirdly, to further unlock synergies and avoid overlaps and inconsistencies, close attention should be paid to the interaction and interlinkages that exist not only between the life-cycle stages, but also within the entire legal framework governing the life cycle of batteries. Similarly, the interaction between circularity strategies must be considered, as potential negative trade-offs and conflicting objectives may arise. For example, there could be tensions between recycling or recycled content requirements and those aiming at lifetime-extending or second-life operations. Although, in principle, the waste hierarchy should be adhered to, it is important to take into consideration that a higher value retention strategy may not necessarily have a lower environmental impact. In these cases, a derogation from the waste hierarchy is justified, which is in line with the fact that the aim of achieving circularity should be seen as a means to contribute to the EU’s ambition to achieve a sustainable and climate-neutral economy. Nevertheless, in some cases this ambition might require difficult policy decisions to be made. Finally, the interaction within the legal framework on batteries requires continuous research to answer the question whether the product-specific life-cycle structure of the Batteries Regulation should be followed for other products, or whether alternative perspectives for approaching the legal framework could be preferred in the light of the CE transition.
Altogether, the identified challenges underline the importance of critically monitoring the implementation and further development of the Batteries Regulation to ensure its contribution to the transition towards a more circular batteries chain. The same applies to the legal framework on batteries as a whole, particularly in the light of recent developments such as the Clean Industrial Deal, including the announced adoption of a new Circular Economy Act.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for TEL for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Funding statement
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Open access
