Extended Producer Responsibility

Definition

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a product-oriented approach in environmental policy. While producers have a moral responsibility for the environmental impacts of products, up until recently the legal responsibility has been different in two ways: it is time-limited, and it is usually restricted to guaranteeing the functioning of a product, regardless of the impacts of that functioning and the necessary post-consumer waste management. Consequently, EPR extends (a) responsibilities over time and (b) guarantees beyond mere functionality.

The OECD (2001) defines EPR as an environmental approach that extends the producer’s physical and/or financial responsibility for a product to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle. There are two intentions behind this: firstly, the direct mandatory effect that EPR shifts the responsibility for taking back, transporting, recycling, or disposing of products from municipalities and consumers directly to the producer. This allows the costs of waste management to be internalized in the product cost, encouraging consumers to choose more environmentally benign goods. Secondly and indirectly, EPR aims to encourage producers to integrate environmental considerations into the design of their products – often a logical consequence of EPR, as producers want to minimize the full costs of a product.

In this respect, EPR is related to the concept of ecodesign while they are not the same. Ecodesign is the systematic integration of environmental aspects into product design and development. This requires environmental aspects to be considered at the earliest stages of product development to minimize negative environmental impacts throughout the product’s life cycle, including product design and supply chain. EPR, on the other hand, stresses the end-of-life impacts.

History

The concept was first defined in a report to the Swedish Ministry of the Environment by Thomas Lindqvist in 1990, as a response to the growing volumes of waste generated by increased consumption. Several other institutions, such as the OECD (2001) or the European Commission, published guidelines in subsequent years in which the concept was also further elaborated (see Box 82.1). EPR is linked to other concepts, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Circular Economy and Society, and Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) criteria, as its goals align with the principles underpinning these frameworks.

The concept was first implemented in 1991 in Germany, where it was introduced by the packaging ordinance under the circular economy law. Other European countries, such as Austria, the Netherlands, France, and Sweden, followed suit and introduced similar obligations for packaging manufacturers. Regarding the second dimension of EPR, in 2005, the European Commission enacted a directive setting out requirements for the ecodesign of energy-using products. This directive has been further developed and currently includes over 30 product categories and criteria that go beyond energy efficiency, such as durability or recyclability. In addition, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) defines the social and environmental obligations of manufacturers along the value chain.

In the United States, efforts have been made to introduce EPR policies at the national level; however, these initiatives have primarily materialized at the state level. Notably, the product categories encompassed by EPR systems in the United States diverge from those in European countries, as they focus on waste streams such as thermostats and paints, and an EPR system for packaging was not implemented until 2021. Canada unveiled a national action plan for EPR in 2009, aiming to enhance waste prevention strategies and to embed the principle within Canadian waste policy frameworks. Since the early 2000s, EPR systems were also introduced in the Asia-Pacific region and South America. South Africa and Kenya passed EPR laws for packaging, among other things, in 2020. In addition, several countries (including the United States, Japan, and Australia) have adopted legislation similar to the EU Ecodesign Directive, thus focusing not only on the end-of-life phase but also on other stages of the product life cycle. However, internationally, there have also been multiple efforts to water down the implications of such legislative developments.

Different Perspectives

Although many aspects of EPR are already considered in different regulatory measures, in practice it is often reduced to a financial tool for the waste treatment of products. For example, most European Producer Responsibility Organizations for packaging do not reward circular design and thus do not incentivize manufacturers to change their design. While economic and environmental criteria are inherent to EPR regulations, social criteria (like bans on child labor) have been added by the CSDDD for the production process, but do not affect the design dimension of EPR. Since the design of the products affects what consumers can and will do with them, it is important to also consider behavioral implications when establishing the design dimension of an EPR system (see Behavior Change, Attitude-Behavior Gap, Social Practice Theory).

While current EPR regulations are a significant step toward responsibility for life cycle impacts, four kinds of improvement deserve to be highlighted to make EPR effective under 21st-century conditions:

1. Beyond discounting: With increasing knowledge of long-term damages (e.g., from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS] and other ‘eternity chemicals”), and the future cost they will cause (like the “eternity cost” of mining), it becomes obvious that damage assessments based on cost discounting ignore environmental realities. As polluting facilities do not necessarily live long enough to pay for the damage they have caused, upfront payments into restoration funds could be a condition for licensing.
2. Understanding constraints: While in the past, relative scarcities could be balanced by the market (every demand is fulfilled given sufficient purchasing power), this will not be the case in a resource-constrained economy, as the projected demand for critical raw materials vastly exceeds the known resources. EPR requires a rethinking of the goods produced, and their contribution to the well-being of society, beyond a few high consumers: what to build instead of private jets?
3. Accepting boundaries: The EU has defined its aim as human well-being within the Planetary Boundaries (see Doughnut Economy). However, products accumulate in the environment, so transgressing them is not an individual, but a cumulative collective act. Collective responsibility could be defined by revitalizing the bubble concept, known in air pollution regulation since the 1970s. Rather than limiting the emissions from individual sources, the concept attributes accountability to all producers under the bubble. EPR would then imply collective limits, instead of individual limits per firm, with obligations allocated to individual firms based on regional carrying capacity and company performance.
4. Responsible corporate citizenship: beyond the frequent focus on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), citizenship – a concept from the 1990s – includes all activities of a company intended to improve societal welfare. It should be revitalized and extended to cover accountability for corporate actions trying and/or succeeding to influence political decisions and social processes.

While being an important tool, EPR cannot be a stand-alone policy; to effectively reduce consumption, it must be part of an integrated policy mix with technical regulations, environmental taxes, corporate social citizenship, and others (see Personal Carbon Allowance, Co-Benefits of Climate Policy, Ecosocial Contract). For political and market competition reasons, flexible but binding global environmental governance is needed.

Application

Despite still-growing waste volumes, EPR has been considered an effective instrument for the end-of-life management of a wide range of products. However, it is mainly developed for industrial countries and application to countries of the Global South requires adaptations and effective institutions for enforcement. Moreover, EPR is often implemented as a recycling scheme, instead of upstream interventions and for rethinking the entire value chain.

Apart from packaging, the EU prescribes mandatory EPR systems for other product categories, including end-of-life vehicles and waste electrical and electronic equipment. Some European countries have regulations for other product categories as well, such as tires or medical products. It is important to note that there is no universal principle for all product groups and all countries. The design of an EPR system for medicines is not transferable to textiles – nor is an EPR system in Spain, say, applicable to another country. Consequently, there must be individually adaptable models for each product type and region, see Box 82.2 for an example.

Further Reading

Ekvall, T., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., Eboli, F., & Śniegocki, A. (2016). A systemic and systematic approach to the development of a policy mix for material resource efficiency. Sustainability, 8(4), 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040373.

European Commission. (2014). Development of guidance on extended producer responsibility (EPR). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/waste/target_review/Guidance%20on%20EPR%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf (accessed: 8 January 2025).

Grabs, J. (2023). Business accountability in the Anthropocene. Environmental Policy and Governance, 33(6), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2081.

Macdonald, K. (2023). Accountability in the Anthropocene: Activating responsible agents of reform or futile finger-pointing? Environmental Policy and Governance, 33(6), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2084.

OECD. (2001). Extended producer responsibility: A guidance manual for governments. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264189867-en (accessed: 8 January 2025).