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.

Modern Society, Technology and Electronic Waste: Who Should Be Responsible?

Abstract: Electronic waste (e-waste) in modern society is a growing issue that creates risks by degrading natural resources, through the production of the electronic devices in question, but also at a later end-of-life stage when recycled irresponsibly; by harming individuals directly – those who partake in the recycling, but also indirectly when deadly toxins from recycling flow into water and soil sources. This thesis looks specifically at the recent progression into modern society and associated risks as can be linked to the environmental problem of e-waste in Ontario, Canada. It looks at individuals as consumers in society and examines their knowledge about the increasingly prevalent solution of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as it should perhaps be used as a solution in Ontario. Through the use of semi-structured interviews with consumers – and considering the objective variable of government structure in Canada and Ontario that affects consumer views about e-waste; this study aims to understand what individuals think would work best in Ontario, a state-led directive or an EPR-based solution.

The Implications of Recycling Technology Choice on Collective Recycling

Abstract: We study recycling technology choice, a critical factor that has received little attention in the context of extended producer responsibility, and its interaction with product design-for-recycling in driving the environmental benefits of recycling systems. Collective recycling systems have long been criticized for restricting the environmental benefits of extended producer responsibility because of free riding issues among producers, which can undermine incentives for product design-for-recycling. We revisit and refine this assertion by analyzing the interaction between recycling technology and product design-for-recycling choices. We develop game-theoretic models where producers and processors decide on product design-for-recycling and recycling technology choices, respectively. We then compare the equilibrium benefits of recycling in collective and individual systems. The key result in this paper is that when recycling technology choice is taken into account, collective recycling systems can lead to higher environmental and economic benefits than individual recycling systems. This is because collective recycling systems provide stronger incentives for recycling technology improvements. In turn, these improvements can help overcome the drawbacks associated with inferior product design-for-recycling outcomes caused by free riding concerns among producers in collective recycling systems. In light of these results, we posit that an exclusive focus on product design-for-recycling to assess the environmental benefits of extended producer responsibility-based recycling systems may need scrutiny. Producers and policy makers may need to evaluate recycling systems with respect to the incentives they provide for both product design-for-recycling and recycling technology improvements.

Do Eco-Fees Encourage Design for the Environment? The Relationship between Environmental Handling Fees and Recycling Rates for Printed Paper and Packaging

Abstract: This study undertook a critical examination of Ontario’s extended producer responsibility scheme for the residential “Blue Box” recycling program, specifically examining the relationship between packaging fee rates and material-specific recycling rates. Using data collected for each of the 23 materials found in the residential recycling program over the past decade, a regression model was developed to gauge what relationship (if any) packaging recycling rates have with fee rates, costs of material management and revenue from the sale of recyclable material. The modeling in this study indicates that packaging fee rates have no effect on packaging recycling rates. Recycling rates were positively correlated with material revenue and negatively correlated with material management costs. There is no evidence that suggests that Ontario’s fee model used to allocate environmental handling fees to individual materials encourages waste diversion or design for the environment. The disconnect in the results and the intended function of packaging fee rates calls into question the appropriateness of Ontario’s fee rate methodology.