The future of waste...Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

I first read about EPR in Annie Leonard's book The Story of Stuff a couple of years ago (summary of the book to come in another post).

What is EPR?

Extended Producer Responsibility makes manufacturers responsible for the entire lifecycle of the products and packaging they produce.

So, in real terms, Remington have to deal with your hairdryer when it's gone bust, Apple have to deal with your dead iPod, Kelloggs have to deal with your cornflakes box and that silly plastic bag thing inside it.

It's an extension of CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility - where large companies are expected to plough some of their profit back in to society. In reality, this is often more of an 'ethics-wash' and a very small slice of profit. EPR enhances it by saying it's not enough to pour some funds into 'good works', but that companies should also take responsibility for the product at the end of its lifecycle (the end-product). 

In some places it's referred to as "polluter pays", "take-back" and "product stewardship".

Why is it such a Genius Idea?

The Commonsense Sniff-o-meter
on youcanarguewithstupid:
rotten haddock - eggy - pine fresh

Once you know what EPR is, it seems blindingly obvious and definitely pine fresh on the Common Sense Sniff-o-meter.
Why on earth are we or our local council spending time and money sorting through our waste for recycling, or searching online for where we can safely dispose of our electrical/white goods? Why is taxpayers' money being forked out to dispose of the toxic chemicals in our fridges?

EPR puts the practical and financial burden of waste on the producer instead of on the local council.

Doing this has a number of benefits:

• it encourages the producer to use packaging or components that are less toxic (white goods, e-waste) and made of materials that are more easily recyclable 

Google images outdoes itself with this
prime example of planned obsolescence

• it encourages producers' to make more sustainable products, and  discourages a culture of planned obsolescence

• it internalises the costs of waste management; companies have an easy ride at the moment because they don't have to worry about this end of the chain

The main disadvantage cited against EPR is that it can drive the price of the product up, because the manufacturer is factoring in the costs of recovering the end-product.

However, the costs of recovery exist whether you put them on the council, the consumer or the producer. EPR creates a more accurate pricing of the whole lifecycle of the product.

This is already happening...

There are actually EU-wide and UK laws on Producer Responsibility (links below), which state that as of 1998 onwards, UK producers are expected to "take reasonable steps to recover and recycle packaging waste".

There are 3 main requirements in the law:

1) Source Reduction: limiting packaging weight/volume to the minimum adequate to maintain the necessary level of safety, hygiene, and acceptance for the product and the consumer;

2) Minimum Presence of Hazardous Substances: manufacturing packaging in a way that minimises the presence of hazardous substances in emissions, ash, or leachate when packaging or packaging waste is incinerated or landfilled; and

3) Recovery, Reuse, and Recycling: the packaging should be designed, produced, and sold in such a way as to permit its reuse or recovery, including recycling, and to minimise its impact on the environment when disposed.

Ways of putting it into practice

Now, manufacturers are savvy and the reality is that on a large scale, they're not going to deal with your empty juice cartons or Babybel wrappers. So they do what they do so well - they outsource.

In the UK one of the main providers of "producer responsibility and recycling solutions" is Valpak. To take the burden off producers' hands, Valpak issues them with something like a certificate (Packaging Waste Recovery Note or PRN) proving that they have bought Valpak's services to recycle/recover their waste for them.

In Europe, they're big on the Green Dot.

Pro-Europe's Green Dot trademark

An umbrella organisation called Pro-Europe gives this trademark out to producers and it acts like a signal for consumers telling them that the producer is taking some responsibility for the recovery of the end-product.

Further abroad, the USA is lagging behind with no mandatory EPR rules in place, although the Product Steward Institute over there is trying to drive the idea forwards. Taiwan and Japan have take-back schemes on home appliances that have been in place since 1999 and 2001 respectively.

So EPR is out there and gathering steam, but there is still plenty to be done. EPR needs to be more comprehensive - that is, to involve more end-products (not just packaging, but also e-waste, batteries, clothing etc), and it needs to be a more conjoined effort. Out-sourcing to companies like Valpak combined with local authority schemes can make the whole thing look a bit disjointed. Having a UK-wide comprehensive EPR strategy across all end-products that is effectively monitored and enforced would be an enormous leap forward for sustainability and waste management.

youcanarguewithstupid

Further reading/sources:
Greenpeace report on EPR: "Throughout this report empirical evidence has been provided that clearly illustrates that the environmental performance of products subject to EPR law has improved, particularly regarding hazardous materials reduction and improved recyclability and recycling." here

Useful article on how long different materials take to decompose here

Telegraph article on methods of dealing with our waste after the traditional landfills are filled up here

Bernard London's famous 1932 pamphlet on 'planned obsolescence' here

The UK govt Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging  Waste) Regulations 1997 here

1994 EU directive on packaging and packaging waste here

and a useful summary of it here