To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY REPORT
Picking up
Evolving extended producer
responsibility rules for
packaging are rapidly bringing
more recycling costs under the
purview of manufacturers and
retailers around the world.
BY VICTOR BELL
RecyclingTodayGlobal.com the tab
E xtended Producer Responsi-
bility (EPR) programs, under
which producers take respon-
sibility for their products and
packaging in the postconsumer stage in
certain countries, states or provinces, is
gaining global traction.
The schemes shift some or all of re-
sponsibility (a.k.a. cost) for recycling
and waste disposal from local govern-
ments or municipalities to private in-
dustry or the entities that put those
products into the market.
These entities are the manufacturers,
retailers and in some cases distributors,
who are required to pay or subsidize the
cost to recycle their goods put into cer-
tain markets. The idea behind EPR is a
good one: to increase the recycling of
products and packaging. And it works
because the programs often contain
mandated recycling targets.
As another benefit, EPR also is hav-
ing an effect on how companies design
and choose materials for their products
and product packaging by creating an
incentive for them to make products
that are easier to recycle.
When it comes to product
packaging, EPR rules have
expanded and evolved in re-
cent decades to a far greater
level of complexity, and these
changes are continuing. What
follows is a review of recent
trends for EPR when it comes to packag-
ing, as well as some examples of newer
requirements in specific countries and
regions. A GLOBAL HISTORY OF EPR
Since the 1990s, an increasing number
of countries have implemented EPR pro-
grams. While they originated in Western
Europe, today there are more than 50
EPR programs for packaging in place in
parts of Asia, South America and Cana-
da. This major worldwide expansion has
included parts of the Middle East, East-
ern Europe, South America, Canada,
Asia and Russia.
Other trends include the use of high-
er fees for packaging that is difficult to
recycle, more categories of materials and
packaging types, more penalties, and for
some countries, the addition of printed
paper, such as technical manuals or in-
structional pamphlets as a material to be
included, even though that material isn’t
strictly product packaging.
One glaring exception, however,
is the United States, which has largely
had nothing more than bottle deposit
programs and/or litter/recycling fees in
some states. And while the global state
of EPR changed markedly from 2000 to
2015, it changed very little in the U.S.
over that same time period. However
model legislation for packaging EPR has
been released in the U.S. and the idea of
November/December 2015
Recycling Today Global Edition
37