Extended producer responsibility

About: Extended producer responsibility is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1120 publications have been published within this topic receiving 26805 citations. The topic is also known as: EPR.

Recycling E-Waste: A Solution through Third Party Recycler

Abstract: With 50 million metric tons of e‐ waste disposed worldwide each year, e-waste recycling has become an increasingly important issue globally. The U.S. alone generated a total of 3.01 million tons of e-waste in 2007, of which only 13.6% was recycled. Improper disposal of e-waste poses an immediate and prominent threat to environmental and public health. Many electronic vendors have initiated either the Expended Producer Responsibility or the Producer Stewardship and launched manufacturer-sponsored recycling programs. Many of these programs, however, are in trouble because of the fee generated for recycling, thereby blocking the road for effective actions. In this paper, we propose a third party recycler model as an alternative solution to e-waste recycling. The third party recycler works as the intermediary between consumers (source of e-waste) and electronic vendors (recipient of recycled items) to recycle disposed electronics properly. The proposed information system is composed of five modules and supports the business operations and functionalities of the third party recycler. We hope the third party recycler structure will be adopted globally in the near future.

Extended Producer Responsibility for Pharmaceuticals

Abstract: We investigate the effectiveness of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)-based policies in addressing the pharmaceutical overage problem from an operational perspective. We posit that the consumable and perishable nature of pharmaceuticals allow for a narrow set of policy options. In particular, there are primarily two viable policies to operaxtionalize EPR for pharmaceuticals; (i) Source Reduction (SR), i.e., a form of fee imposed on producers for their sales to limit the amount of dispensed pharmaceuticals (as implemented in British Columbia and Portugal), or (ii) End-of-Pipe Control (EC) where producers establish and operate programs for collecting unused pharmaceuticals (as in Hungary and Belgium). We show that the pharmaceutical context may imply stronger preference for adopting the EC policy (over SR) when compared to other product categories for which EPR is prevalent. More specifically, we show EC works better for pharmaceuticals with (i) high social and environmental externalities; (ii) high collection costs (e.g. stringent collection requirements or standards); and (iii) moderate treatment impacts from usage. This suggests that the characteristics of specific to the pharmaceutical supply chain determine the effectiveness of EPR implementations for pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, we investigate the perspectives of pharmaceutical stakeholders on the policy choice to understand possible tensions and accordingly inform the policy-making. We find that aligning stakeholder preferences for effective EPR-based policy can be significantly harder in the pharmaceutical context when compared to other product categories. In sum, these results collectively suggest that the characteristics of the pharmaceutical supply chain and the associated dynamics within need to be carefully analyzed before undertaking any EPR-based policy decision.

Assuming Responsibility for Packaging and Packaging Waste

Abstract: In the last four decades, consumer convenience - emphasising throw-away packaging and disposable products - has become as much a tool of marketing as quality and price. The quantity of packaging in the waste stream, its visibility and the overall reduction in capacity to effectively manage such wastes has resulted in the development of policies for packaging stewardship or extended producer responsibility (EPR) in many countries. This paper reviews the set-up, operations and results of two early entrants on the stewardship scene: The Duales System Deutschland in Germany and the Manitoba Product Stewardship Program in Canada. The variable stewardship that has resulted, due to differing obligations on producers and consumers, is highlighted and policy direction suggested. INTRODUCTION A small child is given a tiny bag of potato chips, she grabs at the puffy little plastic foil bag, tussles with it and finally resorts to tearing it open with her teeth. Air escapes, the package flattens and she is left with 8 or ten chips and salty crumbs. Even such a small child quickly consumes the snack; she licks her fingers and wonders what to do with the package. Whose responsibility is the package? The little girl's? Her parents'? The municipality that operates the landfill where it will almost surely be taken? What about the company that designed the product and chose a package that maximised its marketing appeal and in turn its profitability? Should it not bear some responsibility for the cost of disposal? What about the company's choice to market such a small amount of food in what is probably more an advertising wrapper than a container? In the last four decades, consumer convenience - emphasising throw-away packaging and disposable products - has become as much a tool of marketing as quality and price (Fenton, 1993). The quantity of packaging in the waste stream, its visibility and the overall reduction in capacity to effectively manage such wastes has resulted in action directed at reducing the impact of packaging and packaging waste on resources and the environment. Over the past seven years such action has included the development of programs and policies for packaging stewardship, product stewardship or extended producer responsibility (EPR) in many countries. While there are a variety of definitions of packaging stewardship, product stewardship and EPR, all include the establishment of responsibility. As an element of the Canadian National Packaging Protocol, the National Task Force on Packaging (NTFP) indicates that packaging stewardship is the "principle by which industries assume responsibility for the environmental impacts caused by the packaging that they introduce to the marketplace..." (NTFP,1994). Ryan (1993) notes that the "manufacturer should be responsible... meaning that industries, not municipal governments, must be the ones to keep it [waste] out of dumps and incinerators". Under the Canadian Industries Packaging Stewardship Initiative proposed in Ontario, the draft regulations called for "all who are responsible for introducing packaging to the market place" to "take action to divert packaging from disposal through reuse and recycling" (Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1994). As Sinclair and Fenton (1997) indicate, packaging stewardship initiatives specifically permit industry to assume responsibility for ensuring: that the packaging they introduce to the market place has a minimal impact on the environment; that their packaging recognizes the hierarchy of source reduction, reuse and recycling, in support of general resource conservation; that their packaging recognizes and incorporates full-cost pricing. Full-cost pricing will internalise waste management costs and correctly signal consumers and producers of packaged goods on the position of a particular package in the waste management hierarchy and on the level of impact the package has on the environment. …

Solid waste management strategy in Botswana : the reduction of construction waste : technical note

Abstract: Various waste streams are growing in volume and complexity as the economies of developing countries expand. To this end, the control of the environmental impacts associated with construction waste is of increasing concern. While the implementation of environmental management has a direct contribution to environmental protection, it involves the allocation and investment of resources, thus presenting a profit-making challenge, particularly to contractors in the construction industry. This paper investigates construction waste in the Francistown area of Botswana as a case study. The study considers waste from typical construction sites in the Francistown area, which includes sand, cement, concrete stone, concrete, steel, timber and general debris. The data was gathered from a survey and interviews with project managers, contractors, site workers and waste management service providers. The survey shows that construction sites generate large amounts of materials waste. Poor waste management leads to direct financial losses, poses a danger to the environment, and hampers the national waste management efforts of Botswana. Opportunities are identified to reduce material waste in the developing country context through the adoption of effective materials control and waste management procedures on site.