Extended producer responsibility
In twenty-five nations, companies are now using the Green Dot as the financing symbol for the organization of recovery, sorting and recycling of sales packaging.
The OECD published a guidance manual about EPR in 2001[1] after several years of discussion by experts in this field, and updated it in 2016[12] to include developing countries' perspectives, based on experiences and policy changes.
In response to the growing problem of excessive waste, several countries adopted waste management policies in which manufacturers are responsible for taking back their products from end users at the end of the products' useful life, or partially financing a collection and recycling infrastructure.
The primary goals of these take-back laws therefore are to partner with the private sector to ensure that all waste is managed in a way that protects public health and the environment.
[19] Many governments and companies have adopted extended producer responsibility to help address the growing problem of e-waste—used electrical and electronic equipment that contains materials that cannot be safely thrown away with regular household trash.
In 2007, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, people threw away 2.5 million tons of cell phones, TVs, computers, and printers.
[21] The kinds of chemicals found in e-waste that are particularly dangerous to human health and the environment are lead, mercury, brominated flame-retardants, and cadmium.
Lead is found in the screens of phones, TVs and computer monitors and can damage kidneys, nerves, blood, bones, reproductive organs, and muscles.
Brominated flame-retardants found in cables and plastic cases can cause cancer, disruption of liver function, and nerve damage.
[22] According to analysis done by the Product Stewardship Institute, some states have not enacted EPR laws because of a lack of recycling infrastructure and funds for proper e-waste disposal.
[25] In order to dispose of e-waste in China today, a license is required and plants are held responsible for treating pollution.
[27][29] Thus, extended producer responsibility is often cited[30][31] as one way to fight planned obsolescence, because it financially encourages manufacturers to design for recycling and make products last longer.
In addition to fighting planned obsolescence, by allocating part of the financial responsibility for paying for and managing waste on the producer, the pressures placed on governments may be alleviated.
[32] Placing responsibility on producers to dispose of their products can give governments more freedom to create legislation which benefits sustainability with little cost to both parties, while also raising awareness about the issues EPR seeks to solve.
[34] Some people have concerns about extended producer responsibility programs for complex electronics that can be difficult to safely recycle, such as lithium-ion polymer batteries.
[39][40] EPR has been implemented in many forms, which may be classified into three major approaches: It is perhaps because of the tendency of economic policy in market-driven economies not to interfere with consumers' preferences that the producer-centric representation is the dominant form of viewing the environmental impacts of industrial production: in statistics on energy, emissions, water, etc., impacts are almost always presented as attributes of industries ("on-site" or "direct" allocation) rather than as attributes of the supply chains of products for consumers.
[42] On the other hand, a number of studies have highlighted that final consumption and affluence, especially in the industrialised world, are the main drivers for the level and growth of environmental pressure.
[43] The nexus created by the different views on impacts caused by industrial production is exemplified by several contributions to the discussion about producer or consumer responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions.
The official Danish emissions inventory includes a correction for electricity trade and thus applies the consumer responsibility principle.
"[48] "The major impetus for EPR came from northern European countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as they were facing severe landfill shortages.
Moreover, applying conventional life cycle assessment, and assigning environmental impacts to producers and consumers can lead to double-counting.
Gallego and Lenzen demonstrate and discuss a method of consistently delineating producers' supply chains, into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive responsibilities to be shared by all agents in an economy.
The Canada-Wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility (CAP-EPR) was adopted in Canada in 2009 under the guidance of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
[51] The CAP-EPR followed years of waste and recycling efforts in Canada that remained largely ineffective as the diversion rates from landfills and incineration persisted.
[51] Since the CAP-EPR's 2009 inception, most provinces have enforced legislation or restrictions on a wider range of products and materials under EPR programs.
"[52] In Russia, EPR was launched in 2015 but financing of waste management facilities still largely relies on taxes paid by the Russian population.
The core issue is with identifying a way to encourage polluters to take on the responsibility rather than pass on the cost to suppliers or end consumers[54] In India, the E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 introduced the concept of EPR for the first time, while the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016 set more stringent targets for collection of end-of-life products and simplified the process of applying for EPR authorization.
