Towards a Closed-Loop Supply Chain: Assessing Current Practices in Empty Pesticide Container Management in Indonesia

Abstract

Pesticides are essential to modern agriculture, significantly enhancing crop yields and quality to ensure global food security. Their critical role in preventing hunger is highlighted by the notable increase in global pesticide trade over the past decade. In Indonesia, pesticide usage has surged, with a 24% rise in registered pesticide formulations between 2017 and 2021. However, this increase presents challenges, particularly in the disposal of empty pesticide containers (EPC), which pose substantial environmental and health risks if improperly managed. To address this, a closed-loop supply chain (CLSC) is proposed as an effective, eco-friendly solution for the management of EPC waste. This study evaluates the implementation of a CLSC for EPC in Indonesia, employing rich picture analysis and stakeholder interviews to identify key challenges, opportunities, and strengths. Notable challenges include regulatory gaps, financial and operational feasibility, and limited farmer engagement. However, opportunities exist in enhancing environmental sustainability, generating economic benefits, and gaining support from industry groups. One key strength is the widespread practice of triple rinsing among farmers, with 62.63% of respondents already adopting this method. This study underscores the important of establishing clear and enforceable regulations, introducing financial incentives and supportive policies, promoting public–private partnerships, creating targeted behavior change interventions, and ensuring organizational commitments and training programs. These insights are crucial in developing a sustainable CLSC, ensuring both environmental and economic benefits.

1. Introduction

In modern agriculture, pesticides are widely used to improve quality and yields, ensuring food security for the world’s ever-growing population [1]. Many agriculture professionals fear that, without pesticides, global starvation would occur [2]. The global increase in the export and import of pesticides over the past ten years supports this viewpoint [3]. Pesticides have been pivotal in enhancing public health by reducing disease vectors and augmenting food production [4]. Despite these advantages, the usage and disposal of pesticides have inadvertently led to the unwanted discharge of hazardous substances directly into the environment [5]. Numerous articles have addressed the issue of pesticide use and its risks to both human health and the environment. These articles go beyond discussing the impact of pesticides on crops, also examining farmers’ attitudes and actions regarding good agricultural practices [6,7,8,9]. The study conducted by Istriningsih [7] asserted that having knowledge of good agricultural practices does not necessarily translate into farmers implementing them in their everyday activities. Farmers tend to overuse pesticides to better control microbial diseases and pests [10], which is accompanied by the improper disposal of pesticide packaging waste [6,11,12,13,14,15,16]. The improper disposal of pesticides poses significant environmental and health risks. Improper disposal can lead to the contamination of water sources, soil pollution, and harm to wildlife, including disruptions to biodiversity and ecosystems [7,8,17]. Additionally, exposure to pesticide residues from discarded containers can cause serious health effects in humans, such as respiratory problems, skin irritation, neurological disorders, and even cancer [8].

Concern about pesticide usage is also prevalent in Indonesia. Puspitasari [18] revealed that farmers have not fully embraced integrated pest management (IPM) technology. Instead, there exists a prevailing belief that the use of pesticides will enhance crop productivity and mitigate the risk of crop failure due to pest and disease infestations. Consequently, the prevalent practice of pesticide application remains routine, regardless of the presence or absence of pests, resulting in the continual escalation of pesticide consumption. This is substantiated by recent data from the Indonesian Directorate of Fertilizer and Pesticides, indicating that, in 2021, approximately 5675 pesticide formulations were registered, marking a 24 percent increase compared to the figures in 2017, as shown in

Table 1. Accumulation of registered pesticide in Indonesia, period 2017–2022.

Pesticide Type	Year
	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Miticide	16	16	18	18	18	0
Attractant	30	34	34	36	39	23
Wooden biocide	75	78	85	88	91	57
Bactericide	7	11	11	13	18	12
Fumigant	42	45	54	55	58	40
Fungicide	728	778	838	890	957	763
Herbicide	1128	1205	1313	1378	1488	1181
Insecticide	1463	1574	1706	1789	1932	1519
Others	12	13	15	17	17	17
Molluscicide	86	92	103	107	111	84
Nematicide	3	4	5	5	5	3
Household pesticide and human vector control	375	399	472	510	547	414
Repellent	44	44	53	66	66	0
Rodenticide	83	85	88	90	94	61
Plant growth regulators	179	186	207	222	234	190
Total	4271	4564	5002	5284	5675	4364

Source: Indonesian Directorate of Fertilizer and Pesticides [19].

.

The increase in registered pesticide formulations has not only escalated pesticide consumption but has also significantly aggravated the challenges associated with the management of empty pesticide containers (EPC). As the routine use of pesticides becomes more common, regardless of actual pest presence, the volume of EPC generated also rises. This surge in pesticide consumption leads to a proportional increase in the number of containers that must be safely disposed of or recycled, heightening the environmental and health risks associated with improper EPC management. The improper disposal of these containers, which often contain residual hazardous chemicals, creates additional challenges in managing hazardous waste and underscores the need for stricter regulations and better disposal practices.

Unfortunately, there is currently no formal obligation in Indonesia for either pesticide manufacturers or farmers to properly manage EPC. The only requirement for pesticide manufacturers is to provide a recommendation on the bottle label, advising farmers to perform triple rinsing and dispose of EPC by burying them at a depth of 1.5 m, far from any water sources.

To promote sustainable agriculture for the benefit of farmers, consumers, and the environment, CropLife Indonesia has led initiatives to manage used pesticide containers. CropLife Indonesia is a member of CropLife International, a global federation that includes regional and national associations from 91 countries. These efforts aim to provide product stewardship and support sustainable agriculture, rooted in research highlighting farmers’ low awareness of proper pesticide container disposal. The current practice is for farmers to dispose of empty pesticide containers in open dumps, leave them in fields, store them at their homes, or incinerate them alongside other waste materials [7,20,21].

Indonesian regulations classify empty pesticide containers (EPC) as hazardous waste due to the fact that, even after the pesticide has been used, traces of hazardous chemicals often remain inside the containers. These residues can continue to pose significant risks to both human health and the environment. For instance, herbicides like paraquat and glyphosate are particularly dangerous. Paraquat, which carries hazard codes such as H311 (toxic on skin contact), H330 (fatal if inhaled), H315 (causes skin irritation), and H410 (very toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects), can lead to respiratory failure, skin damage, and environmental pollution. Likewise, glyphosate, labeled with H312 (harmful if in contact with skin), H318 (causes serious eye damage), and H411 (toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects), can cause severe skin and eye damage, as well as contributing to water pollution and harming aquatic life. The remaining residues inside these containers, even in small amounts, classify EPC as hazardous waste, requiring their handling to follow strict hazardous waste regulations. This means that all parties involved, such as waste collectors, transporters, and processors, must obtain permits from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) at the central government or regional levels. This situation renders the EPC collection program in Indonesia stagnant, as, in other countries, most initiatives for EPC collection programs are driven by legislation [22]. The EPC collection program initiative in the agrochemical industry is driven by the awareness that the improper disposal of used pesticide containers on farms has severe environmental and public health consequences [23]. Similarly, other industries have begun considering environmental concerns in supply chain activities over time. One solution to cover environmental aspects is to introduce a closed-loop supply chain for the management of EPC in Indonesia.

This study aims to illustrate the current management practices for empty pesticide containers in Indonesia and identify the challenges and opportunities in transitioning to a closed-loop supply chain system. Numerous studies have investigated agricultural waste, its implications for human health and the environment, and methods to dispose of EPC and enhance farmer awareness appropriately. However, limited research delves into the reasons behind inadequate agricultural waste management—specifically EPC. This research endeavors to offer comprehensive insights into the existing protocols and regulations governing the management of pesticide containers and assess their alignment with established sustainability criteria. The following research questions guide this research.

RQ1: What are the current practices in pesticide container management within Indonesia’s agrochemical sector, and what factors contribute to their effectiveness or inadequacy?

RQ2: How can Indonesia’s agrochemical sector’s existing pesticide container management practices be restructured or enhanced to align with closed-loop supply chain principles and mitigate adverse environmental and health impacts?

To address the above research questions, this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on EPC management across various countries and its alignment with local regulations. This section also encompasses previous studies focusing on EPC management in two specific countries, constituting a significant portion of the research on EPC management. Section 3 introduces a conceptual framework and presents theoretical propositions. The methodology utilized to address the research questions is explained in Section 4. Section 5 delves into the current practices of pesticide container management in Indonesia and presents findings from this study. Finally, the paper concludes with recommendations and discusses the managerial and policy implications.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Worldwide Implementation of Empty Pesticide Container Management

To compile a comprehensive review of prior articles addressing empty pesticide container (EPC) management, the authors gathered articles from Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Nevertheless, the significant majority of relevant articles were located in the Scopus database, reflecting their coverage across various databases and their usefulness in evaluating the research impact, particularly in the field of social sciences [24]. We conducted article screening using the keywords “closed-loop supply chain” or “reverse logistics” combined with “packaging” or “container”. This process resulted in the selection of 275 English-language articles for inclusion in our study, which were published between 1995 and 2023.

The bibliographic networks and research trends by year were constructed and visualized using the VOSviewer^® software (version 1.6.18), developed by Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. Figure 1 shows that the keyword “reverse logistics” is the most significant mark, indicating that the topic is prevalent and networked with the keywords “pesticides”, “closed-loop supply chain”, “containers”, and “packaging”.

The keyword “pesticide” reoccurred seven times in the bibliometric analysis, with a small mark, indicating that, while many studies have been conducted on the reverse logistics topic, those focusing on the closed-loop supply chain for pesticide containers are extremely limited.

Among these articles, 28 specifically discussed the disposal and management of empty pesticide containers (EPC). Most of these articles, spanning the past decade, primarily focused on research conducted in Brazil, indicating the significant attention given to EPC management issues in this region.

A three-field plot was obtained using Bibliometrix version 4.1.2, an R-tools-based program, depicted in Figure 2. It illustrates the correlation analysis between the authors’ keywords, countries, and journals ranked in the top 20 according to the highest number of articles. The advancement of reverse logistics research concerning pesticide container recycling highlights Brazil’s leading position in this field. Regarding publication proportions, the term “reverse logistics” is the most focused keyword, with most related articles appearing in journals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production and the Sustainability Journal.

A review of 28 articles on EPC management was conducted to assess the presence of regulations in the countries where the studies were conducted. As shown in

Table 2. The number of articles addressing EPC management topics categorized by country and the corresponding national legislation.

References	Country	Total Count of Articles	Legislation That Regulates EPC Management
[22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]	Brazil	11	Yes
[33,34,35,36,37]	China	5	Yes
[38,39]	Canada	2	Yes
[17,40]	Greece	2	Yes
[41]	Belgium	1	Yes
[11]	Bolivia	1	No
[42]	Indonesia	1	No
[43]	Nigeria	1	No
[44]	Mexico	1	No
[45]	Sri Lanka	1	No
[46]	USA	1	Yes
[47]	Worldwide	1	-
Total		28

, the analysis of EPC management across different countries highlights key differences in how various nations handle the disposal of empty pesticide containers. Notably, countries like Brazil, China, Canada, Greece, Belgium, and the USA have established legislation to regulate EPC management, indicating a structured approach to mitigating the environmental and health risks posed by hazardous pesticide residues. In contrast, Indonesia, alongside countries such as Bolivia, Nigeria, Mexico, and Sri Lanka, lacks specific regulations governing EPC management.

The EPC management practices in the USA, Brazil, and China highlight a range of approaches to tackling pesticide container waste. In the USA, the Ag Container Recycling Council (ACRC) operates a voluntary program, collecting and recycling approximately 28% of pesticide containers annually, with strong support from federal and state regulations [48]. Brazil takes a more structured approach, with its National Institute for Processing Empty Containers (InpEV) coordinating a mandatory eight-step reverse logistics system, requiring farmers and vendors to return and process containers through recycling or incineration [22]. In China, while policies like the Soil Pollution Prevention and Control Law mandate the recycling of pesticide packaging, the lack of a unified national system means that efforts are still fragmented, relying on regional pilot programs [33]. The common feature between these countries is the recognition of the need for structured, multi-stakeholder systems involving both voluntary and mandatory regulations to manage EPC effectively, minimizing the environmental and health risks

2.2. Review of Past Studies on EPC Management

The Campo Limpo System is the name of the Brazilian reverse logistics program for empty crop protection packaging, in which InpEV acts as its intelligence hub. InpEV, a non-profit organization founded by the Brazilian chemical industry, is composed of 99 percent pesticide manufacturers [22]. In the Campo Limpo System, farmers are required by law to practice triple rinsing by pouring water into the pesticide container, stirring it gently, and pouring it back into the spraying tank for further use. Once completed, they must return the empty containers to the receiving stations and keep package delivery vouchers and product purchase invoices [25]. Distributors must specify the return location for post-consumption packaging on the bill of sale, properly receive and store the material, issue a proof of return to farmers, and educate producers on the importance of correct procedures and participation in reverse logistics [23]. Pesticide manufacturers must supply a manual detailing procedures for the return, disposal, transportation, recycling, reuse, and disposal of empty containers and include a label instruction stating, “It is required to return the empty package”. The EPC that have been collected are recycled or sent to the incinerator [22]. However, according to a recent study by Marsola [26], who calculated the environmental impact for all EPC management scenarios through life cycle assessment (LCA), EPC recycling is the best option to reduce the environmental impacts, rather than the incineration process.

Since its launch in 2002, the Campo Limpo System has grown significantly and now ensures that approximately 94% of primary plastic containers (those that come into direct contact with the product) are properly disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner. This success is measured by the increase in the return rate over the last 10 years, although the number of collection points has decreased over time [23]. In addition, Bouzon [27] stated in his research that the gaps in reverse logistics in Brazil are in information technology, facility locations, inventory control, outsourcing, and performance measurement. Marsola [23] adds that the Campo Limpo System’s implementation lacks producer awareness, alternative means of returning containers, and data transparency, as evidenced by the decreasing number of collection points available, while the number of pesticide sales, crop area, and return EPC are increasing. This was followed up by [28] in his research, who proposed using the Internet of Things (IoT) concept to track or inspect the status and mobility of packages along the reverse supply chain and on the farm.

In China, Li et al. [34], in their study, constructed a set of reverse logistics network models of pesticide waste from the perspective of network structure design. Their research weighted the factors affecting the reverse logistics network and used an analytical network process (ANP) to conduct a sequencing analysis of the affecting factors. The result indicates that there are four factors affecting the reverse logistics of EPC: (i) infrastructure (construction cost, operational cost, maintenance cost, and location selection); (ii) social impacts (negative externality, policy support); (iii) transportation costs (transport volume, vehicle choice, transport distance); and (iv) recycled attributes (quantity, type, quality). Using the model’s assumptions and parameter definitions, and accounting for the weights of each parameter, the authors developed a location model for the EPC reverse logistics network that minimizes economic costs and reduces negative social impacts. Their study was published after the Chinese State Council issued guidelines in 2017 to promote green agricultural development through innovative systems and mechanisms. This set of guidelines emphasized the creation of a recycling and centralized treatment system for EPC, as well as the responsibility of users for proper collection and producers and operators for recycling. The Chinese Ministries of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Ecology and Environment jointly issued the “Management Measures for Waste Pesticide Packages Recycling and Treatment” in August 2020, which clarified the corresponding recycling and disposal obligations and requirements for pesticide producers, operators, and users. However, according to Huang et al. [49], no proper corresponding systems and models have been established in China, and most regions are still following the “government purchase services and farmers return” model. There is a need to explore various strategies for EPC recycling. In response to this challenge, the researchers used a choice experiment method to observe farmers’ preferences in different EPC recycling policies. The study was carried out in Zhangjiakou, Hebei Province, China, and the result of their research indicated that farmers’ preferences for EPC recycling policies are heterogeneous, and 55.5% of farmers preferred incentive-type policies.

The geographical context is a limitation of these studies, because not all countries share a similar strategy to manage their EPC, and the nature of pesticide consumption in some countries is at a traditional level, where farmers use manual sprayers instead of aerial sprays. In Brazil, EPC is categorized as non-hazardous waste, since farmers have triple-rinsed them. However, its reverse logistics process (collection, storage, transportation, and disposition) is managed by InPEV, an organization whose members are agrochemical companies. In Indonesia, where the regulation on hazardous waste recycling does not stipulate in detail the process system for the management and return of EPC, its management must comply with hazardous waste regulations. Therefore, this condition presents an opportunity to conduct research focusing on EPC management within the Indonesian context.

3. Conceptual Framework and Propositions

The initial conceptual framework is based on a literature review on EPC management in agricultural companies, with supplementary variables relevant to the Indonesian context. In developing an initial conceptual framework for a closed-loop supply chain in pesticide management, researchers need to consider the roles and interactions of key actors, including the government, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, sales distributors, and recyclers. The conceptual framework depicted in Figure 3 integrates the key elements discussed, providing a structured approach to understanding the adoption and impact of sustainable supply chain practices in emerging economies.

Based on the aforementioned conceptual framework, the following propositions are developed in the proposed research and are described in more detail.

• P1: Enhancing farmers’ awareness about the negative environmental and health impacts of improper disposal methods, such as burning EPC in the field, will significantly reduce the incidence of such practices.
• P2: Increased awareness among farmers about the benefits and importance of recycling will lead to a higher rate of EPC return for recycling.
• P3: Strong regulatory compliance will result in higher collection efficiency of empty pesticide containers.
• P4: Facilitated hazardous waste (B3) transportation permits will ease the transportation process of collected empty pesticide containers (EPC) from scattered collection points.
• P5: Increased collaboration among stakeholders (farmers, manufacturers, recyclers, and regulatory bodies) will improve the collection efficiency of empty pesticide containers.
• P6: Enhanced stakeholder collaboration will improve the collection rates and lead to more efficient waste processing.
• P7: Attractive economic incentives (e.g., product discounts and bonuses) will encourage farmers to return EPC at collection points.
• P8: Competitive pricing will lead to higher demands for products containing recycled material.

In summary, these propositions underscore the critical factors influencing the effective management of empty pesticide containers (EPC). The authors will subsequently detail the methodology to guide and test the research with the propositions established.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Single Case Study

A qualitative descriptive research approach was selected following a single case study design to investigate and understand Indonesia’s empty pesticide container (EPC) management practices. This method allows for the systematic examination of current practices within the agrochemical industry. The single case study is designed to provide a comprehensive understanding by delving into the issue’s nuances. As Yin [50] indicates, in many research cases, the lines dividing the studied phenomenon and its environment often become blurred, with each aspect intricately linked to and influencing the other. This is particularly true for EPC management, which is influenced by many contextual factors, such as agricultural practices, government regulations, manufacturing policies, recycling capabilities, and socioeconomic conditions.

4.2. Rich Pictures and CATWOE Analysis

Various methods exist for logical intervention in human affairs, rooted in systems thinking to grasp the natural world’s complexity. The soft systems methodology (SSM) is one approach within systems thinking, initially formulated by Peter Checkland [51]. The SSM offers a problem-solving methodology that addresses scenarios involving multiple viewpoints and diverse stakeholder opinions. At the core of the SSM is the formulation of a root definition that succinctly outlines the fundamental purpose and elements of the system under examination. This paper applies the SSM only up to the systems thinking stage—specifically, until the step of defining the root definition of the problem in the system with the help of a rich picture. The rich picture method captures diverse aspects of a system or situation, including people’s perceptions, emotions, and relationships, through visual representations called rich pictures, avoiding pre-existing narratives and emphasizing the underlying connections between systems [52]. This study created a rich picture of the interconnectedness of the stakeholders involved in pesticide container management and their roles in ensuring proper disposal, recycling, and environmental protection. The rich picture is a valuable tool for the analysis of the data gathered through focus group discussions, site observations, and interviews.

To address the research questions, a relevant system is selected to formulate the root definition that can be identified as a potential problem in this system. A root definition is well formulated if it covers the elements in the mnemonic CATWOE [51]. CATWOE is applied to analyze the transformation process, making it the most relevant system to address the problems depicted in the rich picture.

4.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Several data collection methods were used in this study, including focus group discussions (FGD), on-site observations, and interviews with individuals from various sectors, such as the agrochemical industry, government agencies, waste collectors, and recyclers. Secondary data were utilized to enrich the depiction of the situation. These secondary data came from a farmers’ survey conducted by CropLife Indonesia in 2023, which focused on farmers across Indonesia regarding container management practices.

The FGD was conducted twice, in Jakarta on 20 August 2022 and Yogyakarta on 23 December 2023. These FGDs were facilitated by the Chairman of CropLife Indonesia and attended by its members—six multinational agrochemical companies and representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ministry of Industry, Association of Plastic Recyclers (ADUPI), and many more. The FGD participants invited were stakeholders potentially involved in the formulation of policies or regulations related to the pesticide industry and hazardous waste management (B3 waste), as well as relevant industry players. These stakeholders were selected to ensure a comprehensive discussion on the challenges and opportunities in managing pesticide waste, as well as to gather insights into potential policy improvements and industry practices.

Table 3. List of FGD participants.

Participant	Participation in
	FGD 1	FGD 2
Representative from the Ministry of Industry	Yes	Yes
Representative from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry	Yes	Yes
Representative from the Ministry of Health	Yes	No
Representative from the Plastic Recycle Association	Yes	Yes
Technical Committee of Pesticide Commission	Yes	Yes
Representative from the Environmental Expert Association	Yes	Yes
Member of Stewardship and Anti-Counterfeit Division, CropLife Indonesia, represented by 6 multinational companies	Yes	Yes

provides an overview of the participants involved in both Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 1 and FGD 2, including representatives from various government ministries, industry associations, and expert organizations.

Following the FGDs, the authors conducted separate semi-structured interview sessions with the Director of CropLife Indonesia, the Brebes Agriculture Officer, the Business Heads of agrochemical companies, the Plastic Recycler Association Chairman, and retailers. The interview participants consisted of actors with specific expertise in their respective fields. The Director of CropLife Indonesia provided a detailed explanation of CropLife Indonesia’s objectives, particularly its initiative to facilitate the EPC management program among its members. Meanwhile, the Brebes Agriculture Officer offered insights into the potential regulatory measures and practical considerations for the implementation of EPC management in their area. The Chairman of the Plastic Recycler Association was interviewed for their expertise in recycling and waste management, particularly regarding plastic waste.

In the agrochemical sector, three agrochemical companies are members of CropLife Indonesia. The respondents from these companies were the Country Business Heads, the decision-makers for their respective companies or business units. The Business Heads of agrochemical companies were chosen because they are decision-makers within their organizations and members of CropLife Indonesia, which gives them a strategic view of the agrochemical industry and its practices.

In the distributor channel category, the participants included retailers and kiosk owners from the research area who had been in business for more than five years. Retailers and kiosk owners were included as key actors in the distribution channel given their long-standing experience and direct interaction with end-users. Waste collectors and recyclers represent the waste management sector, with respondents from their management teams who had the authority to make decisions and had been in the business for more than two years.

The semi-structured questions combined a pre-determined set of open questions (questions that prompted discussion) with the opportunity for the interviewer to explore particular themes or responses further. The questions were the following: (1) What are your thoughts on implementing a closed-loop supply chain for used pesticide packaging? (2) What challenges are faced in implementing this system? (3) What are your views on the environmental regulations categorizing used pesticide containers as hazardous waste? (4) Are there any ways to encourage farmers to send their used packaging to collection points? A specific question for waste handlers was the following: (5) What are your thoughts on the environmental regulations categorizing used pesticide containers as hazardous waste, which might require you to handle the necessary permits?

Site observation was also conducted in the Brebes region in August 2023 to gather real-life information on EPC. The Brebes region is recognized as one of Indonesia’s largest shallot production centers, contributing approximately 30% of the national output, totaling over 1.4 million tons annually [53]. Shallots are a horticultural crop that is highly vulnerable to pests and diseases, resulting in significant pesticide consumption [54]. This makes shallot farmers in Brebes an ideal example to explore the implementation of EPC management.

The interview transcripts were analyzed through deductive coding, a process in which a predetermined set of codes was established. Relevant segments from the interviews were then identified based on their alignment with these predefined codes. The codes in question encompassed various aspects based on the established propositions (awareness, economic factors, stakeholder collaboration, and regulatory compliance), which had been translated into current practices, opportunities, challenges, and strengths faced by each actor within the closed-loop supply chain for EPC. This systematic approach to coding and analysis allowed for a structured and comprehensive examination of the interview data, facilitating a deeper understanding of the key themes and factors affecting the agents’ experiences within the CLSC for EPC.

In analyzing the data gathered from research on EPC management, a multifaceted approach to data analysis was adopted, drawing upon the analytical techniques outlined by Robert Yin [50]. One of the critical techniques to be used involves explanation building, which entails constructing causal explanations about the case under study. This method allows for an in-depth exploration of the complexities inherent in EPC management, aiming to clarify the underlying causal sequences driving various outcomes within the system. Through several iterations of the theoretical propositions and a comparison with case study data, the process of explanation building enables the refinement and revision of explanatory propositions, leading to a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. This approach is particularly pertinent for explanatory case studies, which aim to uncover critical insights into public policy processes or social science theory. By systematically examining and revising explanatory propositions in light of case study evidence, this iterative process facilitates the gradual refinement of explanations, contributing to advancing the knowledge in EPC management.

5. Results

5.1. Current Practices of Pesticide Container Management in Indonesia

In their daily agricultural practices, as observed on-site at the scallop farm area in Brebes, Central Java, in August 2023, farmers routinely ensure the thorough use of pesticides by adding water to the pesticide container to utilize every last drop. This aligns with the principles of good agricultural practices, where the triple rinsing method involves pouring water into the pesticide bottle, shaking it, and repeating this three times. The rinse water is then poured into the sprayer and used for spraying. This practice emphasizes minimizing pesticide residue in used pesticide containers, aiming to reduce environmental contamination. The packaging labels also offer further instructions for the handling of used pesticide containers, explicitly recommending that the packaging be torn before disposal. This precaution is taken to prevent the misuse, illegal refill, and sale of used containers as counterfeit pesticide products.

A farmer’s survey conducted by CropLife Indonesia in 2023 on the practice of triple rinsing pesticide containers revealed various actions that farmers take in managing empty pesticide containers (EPCs). The survey, conducted online, reached 578 farmers across Indonesia. Of the 578 respondents, 362 (62.63%) reported rinsing EPC, while 216 (37.37%) did not rinse them. Among those who rinsed the containers, 315 stated that they reused the rinse water in the sprayer, 30 disposed of it in the farm’s drainage system, and another 30 disposed of it in public drainage systems. Disposing of EPC in public drainage systems poses significant environmental and health risks, leading to water contamination, harming aquatic ecosystems, and making water unsafe for human and animal consumption. For unrinsed containers, 59.26% of respondents said that they destroyed them, while 40.74% stated that they did not destroy the used pesticide containers. Of those who destroyed the containers, 107 disposed of them, 42 sold them to collectors, 23 burned them, and the remainder disposed of them through other means. Nearly half of the respondents (48.27%) were located on the island of Java, while 26.92% were from Sumatra, and the remaining 22.4% were spread across other islands in Indonesia [55]. This distribution reflects the fact that most farmers are concentrated in Java compared to other regions, making the surveyed group fairly representative of the broader population.

Site observations conducted in August 2023 found few plastic waste collectors in the Brebes region, and the majority of plastic containers collected were from beverage packaging, mainly composed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Figure 4 and Figure 5 illustrate the waste management infrastructure in the Brebes region, including a communal waste incinerator and a collection and sorting facility for used plastic packaging in the Gandasuli area, both observed during the site visits in August 2023. Waste disposed of in the communal waste incinerator is not sorted by its characteristics; instead, all types of waste, including household waste, agricultural waste, and other forms of waste, are piled together and burned at the site. At the collection and sorting facility for used plastics, most of the plastic waste comes from beverage bottles. The bottles and their caps are separated and then sorted by plastic type and color. The sorted materials are then gathered and sent to a plastic recycling facility. During the observation, a few used pesticide containers (EPC) were found; however, according to the staff, these EPC were not included in the recycling shipments due to the different types of plastic used in the bottles.

5.2. Closed-Loop Supply Chain for Sustainable Management of Empty Pesticide Containers

A closed-loop supply chain is proposed to ensure that the management of empty pesticide containers complies with regulations regarding specific waste and aligns with sustainability principles. The closed-loop supply chain for empty pesticide containers encompasses intricate procedures, including the collection, transportation, recycling, and regulatory compliance phases. This system involves many actors—specifically, agrochemical companies, distributors/retailers, farmers, waste collectors, recyclers, governmental authorities, and industry associations.

Table 4. Actors and their roles in the closed-loop supply chain network for empty pesticide containers.

Actor	Role
Government	Establishes policies, regulations, and incentives that guide and regulate the management of pesticide containers. They enforce compliance with environmental standards.
Industry Associations or NGOs	Provide a platform for stakeholders to collaborate, share knowledge, and advocate for sustainable practices.
Pesticide Manufacturers	Produce pesticide products with or without recycled packaging material.
Distributors/ Retailers	Act as temporary collection points for empty pesticide containers from farmers.
Farmers	Initial users of pesticide products and the first link in the closed-loop supply chain.

outlines each actor’s distinctive role within the closed-loop supply chain, and their collaborative engagement is indispensable for the practical realization of this framework.

Each actor maintains distinct concerns and must exhibit a capacity for cooperation to actualize the closed-loop supply chain for empty pesticide containers. However, to establish the initial closed-loop supply chain network for empty pesticide containers, synchronization is required to align and overcome the challenges faced by each actor. Therefore, a rich picture visually illustrates the challenges or gaps, opportunities, and strengths relevant to the current pesticide container management practices. The rich picture in Figure 6 depicts the complex network of the CLSC for EPC, involving various actors, each of whom plays a critical role in the system’s overall sustainability and effectiveness.

The rich picture in Figure 6 provides a comprehensive visualization of the challenges, opportunities, and strengths of implementing a closed-loop supply chain for empty pesticide containers (EPC) in Indonesia. One of the primary challenges identified is the regulatory hurdles faced by stakeholders. EPC is categorized as waste containing hazardous material, necessitating expensive permits and licenses for handling and disposal. This classification is intended to ensure safe disposal practices but imposes significant financial and operational burdens on pesticide manufacturers. An interviewee highlighted this issue, stating, “Currently, if these containers are classified as hazardous material (B3), the high costs are primarily due to transporting them from end users back to the bottle factory. This is expensive because it requires permits, which are not cheap” (Country Business Head of a crop protection company, interviewed by the authors, 25 July 2023).

Financial and operational viability also pose substantial challenges. Implementing a closed-loop supply chain requires considerable investment in infrastructure, training, and coordination among various stakeholders. Companies must navigate these financial constraints while fulfilling their environmental responsibilities. As the interviewees noted, “Company alone cannot do it because then it does not make operationally viable this project”; “If we include everything in the cost of goods, and related to pricing, it will suffer because our products are priced at a premium” (Country Business Heads of crop protection companies, interviewed by the authors, 25 July and 1 August 2023).

Farmer engagement is another significant challenge. Often, farmers lack incentives and awareness about proper EPC disposal. The survey data revealed that 37.37% of respondents did not perform triple rinsing or tear the containers, instead discarding the empty pesticide containers in the field. Consequently, EPC’s return and recycling rates are minimal without adequate engagement and motivation. However, as highlighted in an interview, if there is a system in place that creates an attractive scheme—perhaps with bonuses or some incentive—and assigns monetary value to each bottle, it will undoubtedly encourage farmers to collect and bring the bottles to the designated collection points (Officer of Agriculture and Food Security Department of Brebes Regency, interviewed by the authors, 22 August 2023).

Despite these challenges, significant opportunities arise from the implementation of a closed-loop supply chain. One significant opportunity is to enhance the environmental sustainability. Properly managed EPC, through cleaning, recycling, and reuse, can substantially reduce environmental pollution and minimize waste and contamination. This is crucial in maintaining healthier ecosystems. An interviewee remarked, “This is an initiative from the industry, demonstrating our desire to engage in more environmentally friendly management” (CropLife Indonesia Executive Director, interviewed by the authors, 31 May 2023).

Concerns about counterfeit products have heightened the need for robust authenticity and safety measures within the pesticide industry. These concerns present a significant opportunity for the implementation of a closed-loop supply chain for empty pesticide containers (EPC). Ensuring that EPC are returned, adequately cleaned, and recycled reduces the risk of counterfeit products entering the market. One interviewee emphasized this: “Break the pesticide bottle. Why? Because right now, it almost feels like counterfeit products are being produced, as collectors are buying these bottles and then resold” (Country Business Head of crop protection companies, interviewed by the authors, 1 August 2023).

Support and advocacy from NGOs and industry associations present another critical opportunity. These organizations can be pivotal in advocating for better policies and support systems. They can influence policy and practice through collaboration and advocacy, facilitating the smoother implementation of closed-loop systems. An interviewee shared, “Stakeholders we can engage include not only us but also field colleagues from the Department of Agriculture, friends from the Environmental Department, and representatives from the village” (Officer of Agriculture and Food Security Department of Brebes Regency, interviewed by the authors, 22 August 2023).

The rich picture also highlights several strengths that can support the implementation of a closed-loop supply chain. Through policies and financial incentives from the government, regulatory support can help to overcome barriers and encourage stakeholder participation. Government backing is essential for the widespread adoption of these practices. Additionally, a significant strength lies in the fact that farmers have already applied the triple rinsing process, driven by the costliness of pesticides. The survey results indicate that 62.63% of respondents have already performed triple rinsing, demonstrating a readiness among farmers to adopt sustainable practices. Another strength is that waste banks are standard in many villages, as regulations require the regional government to manage household waste, with one method being through waste bank programs. The waste bank serves as a collection point for sorted waste from unit waste banks and households, which is then distributed to plastic processing factories to be transformed into new products.

The rich picture explanation, supported by insightful quotes from the interviewees, provides a comprehensive understanding of the current state and potential of a closed-loop supply chain for empty pesticide containers. In comparison,

Table 5. Challenges/gaps, opportunities, and strengths of each actor in implementing CLSC for EPC.

Actor	Challenges/Gaps	Opportunities	Strengths
Farmers	Disposal of empty containers on fields or selling to recyclers Limited awareness about proper disposal	Supportive initiatives with attractive incentive schemes Willingness to return containers to retailers or distributors	The triple rinsing process is applied because of the costliness of pesticides. This practice can reduce pesticide residues in containers
Retailers	Limited geographical coverage for collection points Fear of suspicion and potential legal allegations if collection takes place at retailers	Express support for the program Suggest collaboration with village heads for better community communication	Direct interaction with farmers, facilitating communication and trust
Waste Processor	Manual removal of labels during the cleaning process Location of collection point	Willingness to endorse the program contingent upon requests from agrochemical companies Equipped with vehicles authorized for hazardous waste transportation	Familiar with existing regulations related to hazardous waste management
Plastic Packaging Manufacturer	Uncertainty about the availability of users for recycled materials	Willingness to endorse the program	Have implemented a recycling process for non-hazardous plastic packaging
Agrochemical Companies	Regulatory hurdles in engaging licensed hazardous waste companies Substantial costs associated with permits, affecting operational costs Difficulty in raising awareness among farmers about proper disposal	Concerns about counterfeit products drive authenticity and safety measures	Commitment to product stewardship and sustainable practices
Government/Local Authorities	Bridging the knowledge gap among farmers Ensuring effective collaboration up to the village level	Providing clear guidance and standards for manufacturers and distributors Involvement of village-owned enterprises for financial support	“Waste bank” program is established in many areas Regulation related to hazardous waste from non-industrial activities has been established Mandate inclusion of regulations and instructions on pesticide packaging labels
Industrial Association	Ensuring constructive engagement with government agencies	Collaborating with other relevant associations for a comprehensive approach	Influencing policy discussions and regulatory matters Advocating for responsible pesticide container management

summarizes the identified challenges/gaps, opportunities, and strengths, highlighting the multifaceted aspects involved in implementing this system in Indonesia, described in the rich picture.

Based on the rich picture design, several potential challenges can be identified in the closed-loop supply chain for the empty pesticide container system. These challenges can be clustered into four main transformation statements: (i) the awareness of farmers about proper disposal, (ii) unclear policies regulating the disposal of empty pesticide containers by farmers, (iii) geographical challenges in collecting EPC, and (iv) economic aspects of operational arrangements.

The transformation statements are converted to build relevant systems to formulate the root definition. The relevant systems that can be identified are as follows:

• A system that increases farmers’ awareness;
• A system that establishes standards for the cleaning of empty pesticide containers (EPC) to ensure pesticide residue-free material;
• A system that coordinates and operates EPC management on a national level;
• A system that regulates the return of empty pesticide containers from farmers;
• A system that defines the nearest collection point.

Methodologically, the selection of relevant systems was accomplished by forming a fundamental root definition. A root definition is well formulated if it covers the elements in the mnemonic CATWOE [51]. The relevant system is aligned with the root definition, and its CATWOE analysis is detailed in

Table 6. Relevant system aligned with the root definition and its CATWOE analysis.

Relevant System	CATWOE Analysis	Root Definition
A system that increases farmers’ awareness	C: Farmers	A system that transforms agricultural knowledge and practices to increase awareness among farmers by sharing information, organizing training programs, and implementing awareness campaigns to promote sustainability and implement good agricultural practices (GAP).
	A: Government (PPL—Field Training Officer), Pesticide Manufacturer, Non-Governmental Organization
	T: Providing relevant information, organizing training programs, creating awareness campaigns on how to perform triple rinsing, breaking the containers, and returning them to the collection point
	W: Sustainable agriculture, implement good agricultural practices
	O: Ministry of Agriculture, Pesticide Manufacturer
	E: Limited resources, varying levels of education among farmers, cultural differences
A system that establishes standards for the cleaning of empty pesticide containers (EPC) to ensure pesticide residue-free material	C: Farmers, Waste Collectors	A system that ensures the proper collection and disposal of empty pesticide containers, regulating the return process by actively involving farmers, collection centers, and regulatory authorities to meet environmental protection standards.
	A: National Standard Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Pesticide Manufacturers.
	T: Setting cleaning standards
	W: Pesticide residue-free materials, environmental sustainability, regulatory compliance
	O: National Standard Agency, Agricultural Regulatory Authorities (Commission of Pesticide Control)
	E: Technological limitations, cost implications
A system that coordinates and operates EPC management on a national level	C: Farmers, Collection Centers, Waste Management Services, Government Agencies, Pesticide Manufacturers	A system that centrally coordinates and operates the management of empty pesticide containers nationally, integrating collection, disposal, and awareness efforts to align with national environmental policies and ensure efficient coordination.
	A: Collection Centers, Government Agencies, NGOs
	T: Coordinating collection, disposal, and awareness programs on a national scale
	W: National environmental policies, sustainable waste management, efficient coordination
	O: Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Industry
	E: Geographical variations, political factors, budget constraints
A system that regulates the return of empty pesticide containers from farmers	C: Farmers, Pesticide Manufacturers, Pesticide Container Suppliers, Recyclers	A system that ensures the proper collection and disposal of empty pesticide containers, regulating the return process by actively involving farmers, collection centers, and regulatory authorities to meet environmental protection standards.
	A: Farmers, Waste Collectors, Pesticide Manufacturers, Distributors/Retailers
	T: Collection and proper disposal of empty pesticide containers, regulatory compliance
	W: Environmental protection, waste management, regulatory compliance
	O: Ministry of Environment, Agricultural Regulatory Authorities (Commission of Pesticide Control)
	E: Lack of awareness, resistance from farmers, inadequate collection infrastructure
A system that defines the nearest collection point	C: Farmers, Collection Centers, Waste Management Services (Transporter)	A system that uses geographic analysis to determine and establish the most convenient collection points for empty pesticide containers, ensuring accessibility for farmers and cost-effective waste management.
	A: Collection Centers, Farmers, Local Authorities
	T: Identifying suitable locations, establishing collection points, optimizing routes
	W: Accessibility for farmers, cost-effectiveness of transportation
	O: Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Industry
	E: Geographic variations, infrastructure limitations, cost implications

below.

6. Discussion

The soft systems methodology adds to our knowledge by using systems thinking directly in the process. It starts by naming specific purposeful activity systems (human activity systems), known as “root definitions”, which are expected to help to explore the problem. This research identified five activity systems, which can help researchers to recognize and decide on areas where they can intervene and improve. These five activity systems are (i) the system that increases farmers’ awareness; (ii) the system that establishes standards for the cleaning of empty pesticide containers (EPC) to ensure pesticide residue-free material; (iii) the system that coordinates and operates EPC management on a national level; (iv) the system that regulates the return of empty pesticide containers from farmers; and (v) the system that defines the nearest collection point.

The system that increases farmers’ awareness can benefit significantly from insights drawn from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), particularly aligning with previous research highlighting the gap between knowledge and practical implementation among farmers [7,43,56]. The TPB underscores that behavior is influenced by factors beyond mere knowledge, including attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [57]. While knowledge is essential, it is insufficient to predict behavior accurately, emphasizing the need to address attitudes, norms, and behavioral control in interventions to foster behavior change. This is especially relevant when considering decisions about EPC disposal, as farmers tend to exhibit risk-averse tendencies, prioritizing profit maximization through conservative actions, yet they may face challenges in translating willingness into action [58]. Furthermore, community recycling programs often capitalize on subjective norms to enhance participation [59], as strong subjective norms have proven effective in boosting individuals’ willingness to protect the environment [49]. Additionally, Zhao et al. [60] identified a significant positive relationship between subjective norms and cognition, indicating that farmers’ motivation to engage in recycling is often bolstered by oversight and support from village committees.

Previous research findings show the effectiveness of specific cleaning methods, such as triple rinsing, in reducing pesticide residue levels in containers. The Indonesian government must establish standard methods for the removal of pesticide residues in EPC. This proactive measure aligns with the overarching goal of adhering to established cleaning standards to ensure proper disposal and minimize the environmental impact. Surveys carried out by CropLife Indonesia [55,61] showed that the triple rinse practice in Indonesia is common as farmers wish to utilize every drop of pesticide content. The study by Huyghebaert [41] demonstrated that rinsing three times with water significantly reduces the pesticide residue levels, highlighting the effectiveness of this cleaning method.

Similarly, Garbounis [62] found that triple rinsing renders all waste containers non-hazardous waste, further supporting the efficacy of triple rinsing in decontaminating pesticide containers. Miles [63] also observed that while unrinsed containers may contain unacceptable pesticide residues, most rinsed containers are deemed acceptable for disposal at municipal sanitary landfill sites, emphasizing the importance of following proper cleaning protocols. However, it is essential to note that triple rinsing by farmers may only partially decontaminate plastic containers if the appropriate protocol is not followed or if the containers are not rinsed immediately after emptying, suggesting a need for consistent and timely adherence to cleaning standards [64]. Moreover, the responsibility extends beyond regulatory bodies to include the pesticide industry, which should collaborate with multilateral cooperation to ensure the environmentally sound disposal of banned or obsolete pesticides and used containers. This collaboration should encompass reuse or recycling efforts, with minimal risk where approved and appropriate [65].

The system that coordinates and operates empty pesticide container management nationally plays a pivotal role in ensuring the effective implementation of reverse logistics systems. This aligns with previous studies in Brazil and China, where the legislation defines the concept and implementation of reverse logistics systems [22,66]. Critical barriers to implementing reverse logistics include a lack of supportive government policies [67] and interventions, including punishment, subsidies, and rewards [33,68]. Aside from establishing national policies, involving cooperatives substantially impacts farmers’ choices regarding recycling [69]. The PNRS outlines these requirements in Brazil, whereas, in Latin American countries, the motivations extend beyond legal compliance to include income generation opportunities for impoverished individuals [70]. Conversely, in the economic and market dynamics in developed countries, public environmental awareness predominantly drives motivation, albeit in conjunction with legal mandates [43].

The system to regulate EPC from farmers aligns with the view that effective waste management systems require active involvement from various stakeholders. Through a nationwide strategy, successful program start-ups under volunteer initiatives can lead to programming harmonization and significantly improved efficiency, as research shows [38]. However, despite the necessity for regulatory instruments to support waste collectors and other stakeholders in these systems [59], several critical barriers hinder the effective implementation of such frameworks. These barriers include high costs, a shortage of skilled professionals, inadequate government policies, organizational culture issues, and insufficient resources and infrastructure [66]. To overcome these challenges, governments must prioritize establishing a robust recycling system for pesticide packaging waste. As observed in different agricultural production modes, implementing paid recycling models and reward schemes can incentivize participation and enhance recycling efforts [33,49].

There is a need for a system that uses geographic analysis to determine and establish the most convenient collection points for empty pesticide containers, ensuring accessibility for farmers and cost-effective waste management. This aligns with the study conducted in China, indicating that the local availability of waste disposal facilities, along with factors such as the number of recovery points, existing collection modes, and publicity, significantly influences the agricultural waste disposal behaviors of farmers—particularly their willingness to recycle pesticide packaging [66,71]. This is necessary to reduce or prevent farmers in Indonesia from disposing of used pesticide bottles in rivers, which negatively impacts health and the environment. The challenge of defining the nearest collection point for waste management systems in Indonesia is strongly related to the country’s vast geographical expanse and the varying levels of infrastructure development across different regions. This aligns with Marsola’s research [2], which highlights how disparities in infrastructure contribute to low collection rates due to the accessibility challenges and high transportation costs faced by farmers. A similar issue has been addressed in the USA, where EPC management is coordinated by the AG Container Recycling Council, an industry-funded non-profit organization. They have successfully tackled these challenges by appointing contractors in each state to collect EPC, leading to the recycling of approximately 180,000 tons of agricultural plastics since 1992 [72]. This aligns with the notion that the total size of Indonesia, coupled with its diverse infrastructural landscape, poses significant hurdles in establishing an effective system to define collection points.

On the other hand, studies carried out by CropLife Indonesia [55,61] present a somewhat contradictory perspective. While the majority of farmers demonstrate a willingness to participate in collecting empty pesticide containers at the nearest collection points, the reluctance of distributors or retailers to provide space for container collection presents a notable obstacle. This discrepancy suggests that although there is potential for community engagement and cooperation among farmers, the lack of support from certain private entities may hinder efforts to establish collection points effectively.

7. Conclusions

The need to implement a closed-loop supply chain for empty pesticide containers cannot be ignored. This study’s results have significant implications, especially in illustrating the discrepancy between farmers’ practices regarding empty pesticide container disposal and sustainable principles and the ensuing challenges encountered by all stakeholders. This research contributes valuable insights into the establishment of sustainable waste management methods and the efficacy of environmental endeavors engaging various stakeholders. The soft systems methodology offers a valuable approach to understanding and addressing complex problems by identifying critical activity systems and areas for intervention.

The following key actions should be emphasized and prioritized by policymakers and stakeholders to successfully implement the closed-loop supply chain (CLSC) for empty pesticide containers (EPC).

• Establish Clear and Enforceable Regulations

This study underscores the urgent need for policymakers to enact comprehensive regulations governing the management of empty pesticide containers (EPC) in Indonesia. It can be started by establishing and campaigning for a standardized practice of triple rinsing to ensure the effective removal of pesticide residues, aligning with international best practices.

• Develop a National Closed-Loop Framework

Additionally, there is a pressing need to develop a national framework that configures EPC management towards more sustainable methods, such as a closed-loop supply chain, which positively impacts the environment. This framework should prioritize the establishment of a CLSC, where EPC are collected, recycled, and reused efficiently. A vital aspect of this framework would be to ensure coordination among stakeholders, including the development of geographically accessible collection points, particularly in regions with low infrastructure development. Policymakers must define immediate action points, such as identifying suitable collection locations and designing a roadmap for their implementation.

• Introduce Financial Incentives and Supportive Policies

Furthermore, policymakers should prioritize establishing supportive policies, including financial incentives, aside from regulatory interventions, to overcome critical barriers to EPC management. Financial incentives, tax reductions, or subsidies for stakeholders actively participating in EPC recycling programs would help to address financial barriers, encourage farmer participation, and facilitate industry-wide adherence to CLSC practices.

• Promote Public–Private Partnerships

A coordinated effort between the public and private sectors can ensure the successful implementation of a CLSC for EPC. By fostering public–private partnership, policymakers can leverage the expertise and resources of private agrochemical companies while creating a joint commitment to sustainable practices. These partnerships should prioritize investments in waste management infrastructure and the establishment of convenient collection networks across Indonesia.

• Create Targeted Behavior Change Interventions

Insights from the Theory of Planned Behavior suggest that, beyond regulations, addressing attitudes, norms, and behavioral control is key to promoting participation in sustainable waste management. Tailored behavior change interventions, such as community-based training, local awareness programs, and incentives for proper EPC disposal, should be rolled out immediately. These interventions should focus on changing farmer practices that are currently inconsistent with the CLSC’s principles.

• Organizational Commitments and Training Programs

From a managerial perspective, agrochemical manufacturers and distributors must embed waste management strategies into their operational frameworks. This involves training employees and educating farmers on sustainable practices such as triple rinsing and proper disposal methods. These organizations should also collaborate with local communities and regulators to establish and maintain collection points, contributing to both environmental sustainability and compliance with emerging regulations.

It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study, including its focus on a specific geographic area and the complexity of waste management systems. Future research should explore the feasibility and effectiveness of different policy interventions and the potential impact of emerging technologies in improving waste management processes. Additionally, comprehensive studies involving stakeholders from various sectors and regions could provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities in pesticide packaging waste management. By addressing these gaps, future research can contribute to developing sustainable solutions that promote the implementation of a closed-loop supply chain for the management of empty pesticide containers.