It has long been debated who should be responsible
for the life cycle management of products, including return, recycling, and
final disposal. The concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR) was
originated by Thomas Lindquist in Sweden in 1990. EPR tasks product
manufacturers and distributors with collecting and recycling their products,
not just consumers and governments. Good EPR means that products will be made
to be more recyclable and reusable. It is one version of the ‘cradle-to-grave’
concept of waste management.
EPR has been fairly successful
with products that pose risks, such as batteries, paint, mercury switches, old
medicines, and medical sharps. However, other less dangerous products have
poorer track records with EPR, including carpets and mattresses, both heavy and
bulky. For those products, incineration is often utilized, but there are
recyclable components of mattresses such as cotton, foam rubber, steel frames,
ticking (or textile covers), and wood. Electronic scrap recycling has also had
a disappointing track record. Recent trends have been for OEMs to handle
electronic scrap recycling. As a 2018 article in Waste Dive notes, previous
management of this e-scrap waste had some success and social benefits,
including hiring former prisoners to sort the waste.
“…the small businesses and non-profit enterprises that
previously handled end-of-life for this equipment did more than simply repair,
refurbish or recycle it. They also provided employment and training to workers
from disadvantaged communities, encouraging young people to learn skills and
computer literacy. They sold low cost machines to schools, community
organizations and families, enabling volunteers to provide thousands of hours
annually for training youth and under-employed residents. They also often furnished
additional social services that build strong communities such as family
planning, childcare training, budget and household management, and removal of
gang tattoos.”
EPR has resulted in significant
job creation, although those jobs are typically low-paying. EPR, which extends
to all printing, paper, and packaging (PPP) has had mixed results. Packaging
that is designed to be recycled has led to more packaging recycling. If the
producers are paying for recycling, they tend to make their products easier to
recycle. EPR-PPP programs by large beverage manufacturers like Pepsi,
Coca-Cola, and Nestle have disrupted traditional recycling programs.
“Large and small corporations are opposed to the
beverage industry giants’ EPR plans for national hegemony over recycling.
Hauling companies fear the loss of their current contracts. Hundreds
of companies and their trade associations opposed this unnecessary control.”
It has been argued that bottle
bills that provide a deposit for bottles and cans have been very successful.
However, the beverage manufacturers oppose them.
Laws against single-use plastics
such as straws, plastic bags, and K-cups have also had limited results. I wrote
about plastic bag bans early last year, with the
town I shop in having enacted a ban that thankfully was ruled unconstitutional
by the state. I find the use of plastic bags much more convenient and practical
than paper bags, especially when I have to carry multiple bags a long way.
Plastic bags work very well for used cat litter.
A 2024 article in Nature
Scientific Reports traces the evolution of EPR and proposes the three pillars
of EPR: 1) physical responsibility, 2) economic responsibility, and 3)
informative responsibility. Physical responsibility involves producers being
responsible for the collection, recycling, or disposal of their products. This
means that there should be a means for consumers to return those products.
Electronic devices often have trade-in policies for used products that have been
successful in reducing waste. Economic responsibility requires producers to pay
for the end-of-life management of their products. This provides powerful
incentives for producers to make their products more recyclable,
longer-lasting, and less impactful. Bottles and other products get lighter when
it costs to move them twice, once to be sold and once to be collected.
“Informative responsibility obliges producers to provide
clear, accessible information about their products’ environmental impacts and
proper disposal methods. This includes everything from labeling recyclable
components to educating consumers about responsible use and disposal.”
“You’ve probably noticed symbols on products indicating
recycling categories or disposal instructions. These aren’t just suggestions—in
many jurisdictions with EPR laws, they’re legal requirements that help
consumers make informed decisions and participate effectively in waste
management systems.”
The article notes two principles
that have guided the success of EPR: the polluter pays principle, where
producers must bear the costs of recycling. This shifts environmental impact
from a public burden to a business consideration. The second principle is
the cradle-to-grave responsibility, or full life-cycle
approach. This forces producers to consider the path their products will
take after they are used up. For large, manufactured products like cars, this
has led to making them in ways that make it easier to separate individual
components for recycling. The same is true for e-waste that can be mined for
materials and minerals. Some companies have developed their own recycling
facilities.
“In Japan, EPR principles merged with traditional
concepts of corporate responsibility to create highly sophisticated recycling
systems. The country’s approach to electronics recycling, for instance,
combines manufacturer responsibility with consumer participation in ways that
reflect Japanese cultural values around waste reduction and resource
conservation.”
“European Union countries have developed some of the
most comprehensive EPR frameworks, covering everything from packaging and
electronics to batteries and end-of-life vehicles. The EU’s approach emphasizes
harmonization across member states while allowing flexibility in implementation
methods.”
“Developing countries have adapted EPR concepts to
address their unique challenges, often focusing on informal waste management
sectors and creating systems that can work within existing infrastructure
constraints. These adaptations have led to innovative approaches that combine
traditional waste management practices with modern EPR principles.”
In the U.S., EPR laws are enacted
and enforced by the states, so they can differ considerably depending on the
state in which one resides. Some states have no EPR law,s while others have
many. There are also some local EPR laws.
EPR is a cornerstone of the
circular economy. The proliferation of e-commerce and global supply chains
presents challenges to EPR, as do new kinds of products that may be harder to
recycle. Recycling of scrap metals and minerals from e-waste has developed over
the years and can sometimes even be profitable. EPR pushes companies to design
items to last, allow for easy DIY repairs or upgrades to prevent unnecessary
waste, and establish takeback, buyback, or recycling programs for end-of-life
electronics.
Larger items like appliances can
be more difficult to recycle. These include refrigerators, washers, dryers,
stoves, microwaves, portable heaters, air conditioners, water heaters, and
more. My local recycling district just approved drop-offs of small appliances
during their specific recycling days. I was able to drop off a broken small
refrigerator. Sometimes those who install new appliances will take the old
ones, which is convenient. There are also drop-off days for chemicals and other
toxic products. Plant pots and containers may be recycled at garden centers,
even at Walmart. We should all do what we can to support circularity.
References:
The
Evolution of Extended Producer Responsibility. Waste Dive. Recycling.
Trendline.
EPR:
The good, the bad and the ugly. Neil Seldman. Waste Dive. March 22, 2018. EPR: The good,
the bad and the ugly | Waste Dive
Tracing
the Evolution of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): CSR Education. June
22, 2024. "Tracing
the Evolution of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)" • CSR Education
Extended
Producer Responsibility in the U.S.: Full Speed Ahead? Harvard Kennedy School. Mossavar-Rahmani
Center for Business and Government. Jennifer Nash and Christopher Bosso. 2013. Extended
Producer Responsibility in the U.S.: Full Speed Ahead? | Harvard Kennedy School
Unpacking
the Evolving Role of Producers in the U.S. Recycling System (Part 2). Tristanne
Davis. Waste 360. July 17, 2017. Unpacking
the Role of Producers in the U.S. Recycling System (pt 2)
The
Rise of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Laws in the U.S. Beegs. Recycle
Nation. June 19, 2025. The
Rise of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Laws in the U.S. - RecycleNation
No comments:
Post a Comment