Last year, I could not tell you what Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) meant. However,
over the course of the year, I have learned this term to be much more than what initially seemed like little more than an environmental sustainability buzzword. EPR programs are systems that reduce the waste generated by industrial production by charging producers for the waste they generate that isn’t recyclable or recollected. This system encourages producers to meet otherwise untouched recycling and reduction rates.
One question that logically follows this statement is, “How do producers increase recycling rates when consumers are the ones who decide whether or not to recycle?” There are a couple types of EPR programs that catalyze a reduction in waste generation while simultaneously increasing recycling rates: stewardship programs and packaging programs.
Stewardship programs require producers of certain environmentally harmful or otherwise
hazardous materials to create their own recollection systems to guarantee that their products
don’t end up in the waste stream. Currently, there are over 100 stewardship programs across 33 states (Product Stewardship Institute). Here in New England, there are over 30 stewardship programs, including mercury recollection in every state, “Bottle Bills” in every Connecticut River watershed state aside from New Hampshire, paint programs, mattress programs, electronics programs, and most recently, tire programs.
These programs are wildly successful. The Container Recycling Institute found that states with container deposit laws recycle at twice the rate of other states. The trend was constant across materials without outliers.
The other type of program is packaging EPR. Packaging EPR programs create regulations that determine what materials can be used in product packaging and in what quantity. Unlike stewardship programs, this type of EPR has only started gaining traction in the United States in the last four years, despite the existence of analogous programs elsewhere worldwide. This type of program requires producers to change what materials they use in their packaging to make it more recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable. In addition, it sets recycling and reduction goals with which producers must comply.
While the system structure varies among the four states with packaging EPR programs in the United States, they generally have a few common characteristics. The statewide environmental department conducts a needs assessment to determine which materials will be prohibited, the fee structure to charge producers for the use of discouraged materials, and the timeline for reduction and recycling goals. The department then hires a “Producer Responsibility Organization” which manages the funds collected through the taxation of certain materials and distributes them to the department for administration or municipalities for disposal infrastructure. The only packaging EPR program in New England was passed in Maine in 2023.
Because the four packaging EPR programs in the United States are in their implementation stages, there is no data demonstrating their success yet; however, The Recycling Partnership
conducted a study on the status of packaging recycling and reduction in a number of regions with packaging EPR programs and found major success, with the Netherlands increasing its recycling rate since the introduction of its EPR program in 2007 in every metric available and Quebec more than doubling its recycling rates of every packaging material after the introduction of its packaging EPR program in 2005.
Despite the success of EPR programs worldwide, opponents of EPR are concerned that
consumers pay for the cost placed on producers by taxation through increased product prices. However, environmental consulting firm Resource Recycling Systems conducted a study which indicated that this does not occur (Dimino). 76% of products studied did not increase in price after the introduction of EPR legislation, only 15% increased, and 9% decreased. Additionally, of the 15% of products that increased in price, the average increase in price was less than 1%. This means that a product which once cost $5 cost less than five cents more after introducing a relevant EPR program.
By forcing producers to pay for the waste that they generate that contributes to environmental damage, producers are incentivized to reduce the amount of waste they produce, use more recyclable materials, recover their waste, and reuse it instead of purchasing new raw materials. EPR guarantees that people don’t have to consume as high quantities of environmentally unsustainable materials while simultaneously making it easier for them to recycle. This reduces the waste in our landfills and takes steps towards the preservation of our natural environment.
Product Stewardship Institute. “EPR Laws in the United States.”
Gitlitz, Jenny. “Bottled Up. Beverage Container Recycling Stagnates (2000-2010).” Container
Recycling Institute, 2013,
Dimino, Resa. “Impact of EPR for Packaging on Consumer Prices.” Signalfire Group,
The Recycling Partnership. “Increasing Recycling Rates with EPR Policy.” 2023,
/source/0.
Comments