EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is based on the polluter pays principle but goes beyond a manufacturer 's responsibility for pollution from product manufacture to make the manufacturer responsible for the environmental impact of a product from manufacture to disposal.
It was defined in a 1990 report to the Swedish Ministry of Environment (ILSR 2005) as:an environmental protection strategy to reach an environmental objective of a decreased total environmental impact from a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life-cycle of the product and especially for the take-back, recycling and final disposal of the product.
Normally, government authorities take responsibility for disposal of products and thus disposal is paid for by taxpayers. EPR, however, recognises that product design and manufacturing decisions can determine how environmentally damaging a product will be when used and disposed of, and how readily it can be recycled. Because governments have traditionally taken responsibility for waste management, manufacturers have created an excess of throwaway products and packaging without giving thought to the environmental and other costs associated with them. Manufactured goods now make up more than three-quarters of municipal waste (ILSR 2005).
By shifting the responsibility back to the manufacturer, EPR is supposed to provide an incentive to ensure that design, manufacturing and packaging decisions are made with an eye to environmental and disposal costs. There are four facets of EPR:
• Liability - responsibility for proven environmental damage caused by products
• Economic responsibility - responsibility for the cost of collection, disposal and/or recycling of products
• Physical responsibility - responsibility for actually collecting and dealing with products at the end of their lives
• Informative responsibility - responsibility to supply information on the potential environmental impacts of a product.
(ILSR 2005)'Product stewardship' is a related idea, in that it is concerned with the environmental impacts of the product throughout its life-cycle. However, product stewardship shares responsibility between all those involved in a product's life-cycle - including designers, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and consumers - rather than shifting it to the manufacturer.
EPR was adopted during the 1990s by various OECD countries. The Swedish eco-cycle legislation embraces EPR. In Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and France manufacturers have legal responsibility for taking back packaging and recycling their products; these countries also have 'end-of-life legislation and voluntary agreements concerning a number of complex products' such as cars and batteries (IIIEE 1998).
EU directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment
The EU's directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is an example of EPR. Electrical and electronic products, ranging from washing machines to television sets and mobile phones, are responsible for a rapidly growing waste stream that is estimated to be increasing at 3-5 per cent per year and will reach 12 million tonnes per year in Europe by 2010. Much of this waste stream currently goes to landfill but it contains hazardous materials and poses environmental risks (Waste Not 2002).
In 2001 the EU environment ministers proposed extending the polluter pays principle to cover disposal of products at the end of their useful life. In this case they defined the polluter not as the consumer but as the manufacturer of the electrical and electronic equipment. They reasoned that manufacturers should be responsible for the disposal and recycling of these products after consumers had finished with them.
The 2003 WEEE Directive (EC 2003) aimed at 'as a first priority, the prevention of waste electrical and electronic equipment, and in addition, the reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of such wastes so as to reduce the disposal of waste'.
It was therefore designed to encourage manufacturers to design products to enhance their potential for reuse, recovery and recycling: 'Member States shall encourage the design and production of electrical and electronic equipment which take into account and facilitate dismantling and recovery, in particular the reuse and recycling of WEEE, their components and materials' (Waste Not 2002).The equipment covered includes:
• Large household appliances
• Small household appliances
• IT and telecommunications equipment
• Consumer equipment
• Lighting equipment
• Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools)
• Toys, leisure and sports equipment
• Medical devices (with the exception of all implanted and infected products)
• Monitoring and control instruments
• Automatic dispensers.
The directive, which took effect in 2005, requires that consumers be able to return their used equipment free of charge, and that governments ensure collection facilities are made available. The final treatment of the collected equipment should use the 'best available treatment, recovery and recycling techniques'.
Further Reading
Dommen, Edward (ed.) (1993) Fair Principles for Sustainable Development, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, Hants, UK.
Coffey, C & J Newcombe (2001) The Polluter Pays Principle and Fisheries: The Role of Taxes and Charges, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London,
IIIEE (1998) Extended Producer Responsibility as a Policy Instrument, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, 1998,
JWPTE: Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment (2002) The Polluter-Pays Principle as It Relates to International Trade, OECD, Paris, 23 December.
Recommendation of the Council Concerning the Application of the Polluter-Pays Principle to Accidental Pollution (1989) OECD, Paris, 7 July.
de Sadeleer, Nicolas (2002) Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
White Paper on Environmental Liability (2000) European Commission, Luxembourg, 9 February,
More on the topic EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY:
- FROM PRODUCER TO SUPPLIER AND MOVING TO A NEW SINGULARITY
- Cognitively extended intellectual humility
- Collective moral responsibility is a species of moral responsibility and contrasts, in particular, with individual moral responsibility.
- Extended cognition
- The chapters in Part I discuss some of the central debates and theories in the area of collective responsibility including whether collective responsibility should be understood distributively, as attributions of responsibility to group members or non-distributively,
- Cognitively extended humility
- Implications of Collective Moral Responsibility for Group Members: (1) A Radical Disjunction Between Our Responsibility and Mine
- Part III of the Handbook focuses on the domains in which issues pertaining to collective responsibility arise, such as: collective responsibility in health care, in scientific communities, of the state, and of corporations.
- 39 EXTENDED COGNITION AND HUMILITY
- By the term “collective responsibility,” I will understand a collective consisting of two or more human moral agents that bears moral responsibility for an outcome that consists of a state of affairs.
- Part IV of this handbook applies theories and accounts of collective responsibility to real-world problems, including collective responsibility for: war, global poverty, climate change, conspiracy theories, environmental injustice, and institutional racism.
- Determining the value driver of value-based management using Du Pont extended formula in retail companies in digital marketing era
- Collective Moral Responsibility as Joint Moral Responsibility
- The debate about shared agency and its relationship to collective responsibility has focused on two related questions: (1) Is collective responsibility non-distributive or distributive—that is, should it be attributed to the group[2] as such or to its individual members?;