Electrical and electronic waste, or e-waste, is growing rapidly in many countries as the technological revolution deepens and expands. Indeed, growth in e-waste is set to accelerate as technologies, especially those geared to consumer communications, extend into new areas and prices continue to fall. At the same time, stakeholders along the value chain increasingly recognise that e-waste that ends up in landfills, or is improperly treated, is both toxic for the environment and to people. Many countries, as a result, have been developing policies and systems to confront the problem, some of which are becoming ever-more sophisticated. European countries, in particular, have developed e-waste systems that rely heavily on the principle of Extended Producer responsibility (EPR). Essentially, EPR stipulates that the manufacturer of an electrical or electronic device bears responsibility for that product beyond the initial sale. This is a core principle of the European Union’s Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Directive, which outlines the producer’s responsibility to manage the collection and recycling of these products. Crucially, this principle requires the producer to assume the cost of the recycling. Thus, producers of electrical and electronic devices in Europe have a financial interest in the life cycle of these products. Other countries, however, use different approaches. Japan, for example, places the majority of the cost on the consumer, who pays a fee when recycling. Compared with these countries, Australia’s e-waste system is in its infancy. It is guided by the National Waste plan and has at its core the Product Stewardship Act. Like the EU’s WEEE directive, producers and importers of electrical and electronic devices in Australia bear a financial responsibility for the life cycle of their products. But coverage under Australia’s e-waste system, outside of voluntary schemes, is limited to personal computers, computer accessories and televisions, whereas the EU directive applies to a much broader range of electrical and electronic equipment. A lesson for Australia, therefore, is to expand the scope of the products that are covered by the e-waste system. As e-waste programmes evolve, a number of the countries covered in this report are considering ways to encourage greater participation of households and consumers. Some countries, including Japan and Finland, are also making a special effort to encourage the collection and recycling of smaller devices. Another lesson for Australia, then, is to entice and encourage consumers to become more active players in the management and recycling of their electronic waste, especially smaller e-waste. While EPR has put producers at the heart of e-waste systems, it is becoming increasingly important to promote the “shared responsibility” of all participants. The e-waste system being developed in Europe, in particular, involves not only national governments, producers and recyclers, but also consumers, retailers and municipalities. For Australia, a final lesson refers to a greater role for both local governments, who can incentivise the e-waste recycling of households, and retailers, who can provide collection points as the volume of e-waste grows in coming years.