Extended producer responsibility (EPR) refers to a policy approach where producers are given responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the product lifecycle. Based on the polluter pays principle, this approach requires producers to finance the costs of recycling or disposing of products that consumers no longer want. It aims to shift the costs associated with the management of dealing with solid waste away from the local government.
The term EPR was first coined in 1990 by a Swedish professor, Thomas Lindhqvist, who introduced the idea of producers being responsible for their products to the Swedish Ministry of the Environment. The first example of EPR came in Germany in 1991, where manufacturers picked up household packaging alongside municipal waste collections. Since 1990, countries around the world have adopted EPR policies around key sectors such as packaging, electronics, batteries, and vehicles.
EPR creates a financial motivation for producers to design products that last longer and can be recycled. This is because EPR places the end-of-life costs on the producer. EPR has historically been successful in the managing of products that pose risks to communities such as batteries, paint and old medicines. EPR has led many producers to redesign these items to reduce their risks. Finally, due to ERP closing the loop (循环) on materials management, this approach uses much less energy than it takes to produce items from the beginning.
However, critics of EPR have issues with producers adding recycling costs to the initial price tag of a product. Another disadvantage is that at the international level, it can negatively affect imports to countries that have strict EPR policies as producers in other countries will not want to be subject to extra fees from these policies. Additionally, it restricts competition at the local level as producers who take on the extra costs to accommodate EPR policies are at a competitive disadvantage to those who are able to bend the rules and get out of paying these costs.
A. The Constantly Varying Policy EPR
B. Challenges of EPR Implementation
C. Holding Back Global Trade and Competition: EPR
D. Reducing Waste and Shifting Responsibilities: EPR