Tag Archives: producer

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAMS FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS

Leave a reply

Producer responsibility is a policy approach where producers are assigned responsibility for the entire life cycle of a product, especially for the take-back, recycling and final disposal of a product. This approach provides incentives for producers to incorporate environmental considerations into the design of their products. For plastic products, several countries and jurisdictions have implemented producer responsibility laws and programs.

One significant example is the European Union’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive which was instituted in 1994 and updated in 2018. It establishes minimum requirements for plastic packaging waste management and recycling across all EU member states. It requires producers of plastic packaging to contribute financially to waste management systems through fees paid to compliance schemes. Packaging producers must minimize the volume and impact of plastic packaging waste, set up systems to take back packaging waste from consumers free of charge, and meet minimum recycling and recovery rates that will increase over time. The directive has led to substantial increases in plastic waste collected and recycled in EU countries over the past few decades.

In Canada, programs for plastic packaging and printed paper have been implemented under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment framework since 1993. In Ontario, the industry-led Multi-Material Stewardship Western program requires producers, brand owners and first importers of plastic packaging to register and pay fees that fund Blue Box recycling collection from households. Minimum recycling targets are set by the government which have gradually increased to 70% by 2025. The fees paid by the companies to manage end-of-life products incentivize them to use less material in their packaging designs.

Another notable initiative is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws passed in several US states for plastic bags, packaging and polystyrene food containers (commonly called Styrofoam). For example, in California the Plastic Bag Ban and Plastic food containers law (Senate Bill 270) required stores to provide reusable or compostable checkout bags to customers for a fee as of July 2015. This has significantly reduced single-use plastic bag consumption in California. Stores must provide an at-store dropoff program to recover plastic food containers, plastic bags and plastic films for recycling. Stores also pay annual administration fees to the state agency overseeing the program. Similar EPR laws have passed in Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and Maine among other US states.

Many countries in Asia have also passed producer responsibility regulations for plastic waste such as South Korea’s Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources and China’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Control of Regulation. In South Korea, producers must meet recycling targets and are required to report on their plastic products placed on the market. They also have to join a recycling fund managed by local authorities to pay for collection and sorting of plastic waste. Under China’s new regulation passed in 2020, producers are responsible for setting up recycling systems and are accountable for abandoned plastic waste on land and in waterways. The regulation also bans certain single-use plastics in major cities.

A few industry-led initiatives complement the mandatory policy approaches. For example, PRO Canada operates voluntary take-back programs for flexible plastic packaging and plastic bags in multiple provinces funded by industrial fees. Operation Clean Sweep, a global program led by the plastics industry, aims to eliminate plastic pellet, flake and powder loss from production, storage and transport facilities to stop this pollution from entering waterways and oceans.

Producer responsibility regulations help shift the burden and costs of plastic waste management upstream to producers rather than downstream to municipalities. By requiring producers to finance the end-of-life management and adopting minimum recycled content standards, it encourages design of plastic products and packaging for recyclability and reuse. These policies have collectively led to increased recovery and recycling of plastic waste globally as part of the transition towards more circular plastics economy. While challenges remain in improving plastics recycling infrastructure and rates, mandating producer responsibility has proven effective in many jurisdictions at reducing plastic pollution and waste. As more countries adopt versions of EPR laws for plastic products, it stands to significantly curb plastic leakage into the environment over the long run.

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN REDUCING PLASTIC WASTE?

Leave a reply

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies aim to make producers responsible for managing the waste from their products and packaging throughout the value chain. By shifting financial and management responsibility for end-of-life products to the manufacturers and importers, EPR policies provide strong incentives for producers to reduce waste and shift towards more sustainable product design. There are several examples from around the world that demonstrate how EPR policies have been effective in reducing plastic waste:

One of the most well-known successful EPR programs is Ontario’s Blue Box Recycling Program, which was introduced in Canada’s Ontario province in the 1980s. Under this policy, municipalities provide curbside collection of recyclable materials like plastic, glass and aluminum containers. The costs of collecting, sorting and reprocessing these materials are borne by producers through an industry funding organization called Stewardship Ontario. By shifting the financial responsibility away from municipalities and onto producers, the program stimulated packaging redesign towards recyclability and increased the recovery rates of valuable materials. Over the past 30 years, the program has led to consistent increases in diversion rates. It is estimated that between 86-90% of Blue Box materials are now diverted from landfills through recycling or composting.

Another notable EPR policy is Germany’s Green Dot program introduced in 1991. The Green Dot, or Grüner Punkt, trademark is licensed by Germany’s Duales System Deutschland (DSD) to packaging producers. License fees paid by companies to DSD are used to fund curbside collection and sorting of packaging waste. The program led to major changes in Germany’s recycling infrastructure through standardized collection and increased public awareness. By 2017, Germany’s recycling rate for plastic packaging was over 50%. Key to its success was the requirement that all packaging carry the Green Dot logo, providing producers full financial responsibility without exceptions. The scheme has since been replicated in many other European countries.

One of the earliest plastic bag-specific EPR policies was introduced by Ireland in 2002. Under this policy, retailers are required to charge customers for each plastic bag provided at checkout. The per-bag levy, which is paid by retailers to a state-approved Compliance Scheme, was originally €0.15 but increased to €0.25 in 2007. Revenues generated from the levy are used to fund reusable bag promotion campaigns and environmental projects like beach cleanups. The plastic bag levy resulted in Ireland achieving dramatic reductions – usage declined by over 90% within the first year. A 2016 review found single-use plastic bag consumption remained very low at 21 bags per person compared to an estimated 328 bags prior to the levy.

California became the first state in the U.S. to implement an EPR policy for packaging when its Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act took effect in 2016. Under the law, mattress producers are required to develop and implement stewardship plans approved by state regulators. The plans outline how each brand will finance and provide for free mattress recycling services statewide through approved third parties. In just the first few years, the mattress recycling rate increased to over 80% as producers supported convenient collection infrastructure. The success indicates individual producer responsibility models can work effectively in the North American context when regulations mandate measurable goals and transparency.

These highlighted programs provide real-world examples of how EPR policies have significantly reduced plastic waste and changed consumer behavior when the financial burden is placed on producers versus taxpayers or municipalities. Key factors contributing to their success include full producer funding and involvement in waste management systems, sustained or increasing costs borne by producers tied to the volume of products put on the market, standardization that increases collection convenience, and measurability through set targets and reporting requirements. Looking to the future, EPR presents a promising policy approach with potential for even broader application to other problematic plastic items if designed and implemented comprehensively with the right incentives and oversight structure in place. These case studies demonstrate extended producer responsibility can deliver impressive reductions in plastic pollution when implemented successfully.