Introduction to the EPR principle
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) was initially defined as a policy principle aimed at promoting environmental improvements across the entire life cycle of product systems by expanding the manufacturer’s responsibilities to various stages of the product’s life, particularly take-back, recycling, and final disposal. In doing so, EPR laws, in theory, shift the burden of managing the negative environmental impacts of products, along with the associated costs, from taxpayers to producers, aligning with the polluter pays principle. The ultimate goal of EPR is to tackle issues of resource consumption and rising waste production, based on the idea that producers are in the best position to implement the changes needed to reduce the environmental, social, and economic impacts of their products.[1]
EPR aims to drive environmental improvements throughout a product’s life cycle and focuses on two main environmental objectives. The first is to encourage manufacturers to create products that are resource-efficient and have a lower environmental impact (referred to as ‘eco design’). The second goal is to ensure effective collection at the end of a product’s life, environmentally responsible treatment of collected items, and enhanced reuse and recycling efforts. Central to the EPR approach is the creation of feedback loops, where better product design leads to optimized environmental performance and reduced costs for end-of-life management. This connects product design with both policy goals and practical implementation, linking design improvements to after-use treatment. When applied effectively, EPR can play a key role in advancing the transition to a circular economy.[2]
What products or material do EPR systems cover?
EPR systems have historically focused on specific product sectors. Over the years, the range of products and materials included in EPR systems has broadened, beginning with producer-funded deposit refund systems for beverage containers since at least the 1970s.
In the 1990s, countries began adopting EPR policy instruments for packaging. By the 2000s, the EU implemented directives requiring member states to enforce EPR for Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE), batteries, accumulators, and vehicles, while also encouraging EPR for packaging. A comprehensive review of global EPR adoption as of 2011 revealed that the largest portions of EPR schemes were for electronics (35%), packaging (17%), vehicles (12%), and tires (18%) (OECD 2016).
The EU’s single-use plastics directive, passed in 2019 to combat marine plastic pollution, is spurring the development and adoption of EPR systems in sectors where plastics are commonly used, such as construction materials, electronics, textiles, fishing, and vehicles. This directive is prompting European countries to expand EPR to products frequently found in litter surveys.[3]
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) in France
Extended Producer Responsibility has been established in France since 1975. The law mandates that producers, importers, and distributors may be required to contribute to the disposal of waste from their products. It wasn’t until 1992 that this law was first applied to household waste, and since then, the number of EPR channels has only grown in France and across Europe.
The effectiveness of these channels is undeniable: in 20 years, the collection rate of batteries has reached 80%, whereas they were not collected before. Thanks to the circular economy law passed in 2020, this system is evolving even further, modifying and strengthening the EPR framework.
Additionally, there is a stronger push for eco-modulation, with funds dedicated to repair, reuse, and various other initiatives that promote sustainable consumption patterns.[4]
Where does responsibility of a producer end? (e.g. of Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive)
EPR means that producers’ responsibilities are confined to meeting the packaging recycling and recovery targets set by national legislation, based on the quantities they place on the market. Under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the extent of producers’ responsibility for financing and managing the collection and sorting of used packaging varies between Member States. However, it is unacceptable for activities beyond producers’ control to fall under EPR. For instance, in most Member States, littering is considered an unlawful act by individual citizens, who are thus seen as the “polluters”. Therefore, litter clean-up is outside the scope of EPR. This does not exclude the industry’s role in supporting consumer education campaigns on litter prevention or providing guidelines on correctly sorting used packaging.
EU guidance specific to packaging on the roles and responsibilities of all actors involved in implementing EPR for used packaging (i.e., municipalities, citizens, public or private waste management companies, the obligated industry, EPR schemes, and local/national authorities) will be necessary to achieve the EU Commission’s objectives of enhancing the performance and cost-effectiveness of EPR systems across the EU. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities will help clarify who is accountable for what, based on what each actor can control, thus helping to prevent inefficiencies and gaps in the systems.[5]
Conclusion
First introduced in the 1990s by Germany, France, and Sweden, the concept of EPR has been continuously refined and adopted by an increasing number of countries worldwide. However, the current landscape and performance of EPR schemes are highly varied among EU Member States. Some EPR schemes consistently perform above average, meeting the increasingly ambitious targets set at the EU level (e.g., collection rates), while others continue to lag behind.
The case studies show that the performance of EPR schemes for WEEE, waste packaging and waste batteries is strongly influenced by both the socio-economic context and the national implementation modalities. Given the escalating significance of environmental challenges and the complexities inherent in implementing ERP regulations, the need to address this issue is more pressing than ever. To achieve the specified goals, researchers have identified and presented a range of overarching strengths and weaknesses for EPR.[6]
[1]https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/zero_waste_europe_IEEP_EEB_report_epr_and_plastics.pdf
[2] Op.cit.
[3]https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/67587b0b-en.pdf?expires=1722780159&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=68EA31B2255C5D53743A0B163E8BEEF4
[4] https://www.institut.veolia.org/sites/g/files/dvc2551/files/document/2021/11/22%20Extended%20producer.pdf
[5] https://www.europen-packaging.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EUROPEN-factsheet-on-EPR-for-used-packaging.pdf
[6] https://erp-recycling.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/adelphi_study_Analysis_of_EPR_Schemes_July_2021.pdf
A propos de Bahram MADANI
Étudiant en master 2, droit et gestion des énergies et du développement durable, Université de Strasbourg
