Extended producer responsibility schemes

How it works and current applications

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of that product’s lifecycle (OECD, 2001). EPR schemes seek to enshrine the polluter pays principle by placing the physical or financial responsibility for end-of-life treatment on producers. UK-wide producer responsibility schemes (listed here) are already in place for packaging waste, end-of-life vehicles, batteries and accumulators and electrical and electronic equipment (EEE):

  • The Packaging Directive [94/62/EC] and Producer Responsibility Obligations placed requirements on eligible businesses to recover a portion of the packaging they placed on the market. This was historically operationalised in the UK through a tradable note system - Packaging waste recovery note and packaging waste recovery export note system.
  • the End-of-Life-Vehicles Directive [2000/53/EC] which required producers to introduce take-back network for vehicles to incentivise improved product design and stimulate secondary markets, while meeting targets for reuse, recycling and recovery;
  • the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) [2002/96/EC] requiring producers of specific categories of electronics and electrical equipment (EEE) to register with an approved compliance scheme and pay for the costs associated with their end-of-life treatment;
  • The Batteries and Accumulators and Waste Batteries and Accumulators Directive [2006/66/EC] introduced similar material exclusion and producer responsibility requirements for batteries and accumulators while too banning residual treatment of untreated industrial components;

Reforms to these schemes are planned across the countries making up the UK to ensure producers bear the full net-cost of post-use treatment alongside the introduction of fee-modulation.

Performance

Environmental effectiveness

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes have demonstrated significant environmental effectiveness, particularly in relation to packaging waste management. In the European Union, EPR initiatives have contributed to a 50% reduction in packaging waste sent to landfills over the past two decades. Similarly, South Korea experienced a 70% increase in recycling rates for packaging materials between 2003 and 2017 due to EPR implementation. These schemes have also shown promise in addressing plastic pollution, with projections suggesting that EPR could help reduce ocean plastic waste by 80% by 2040. EPR programs have led to impressive recycling rates in specific countries, such as Sweden’s 84.8% recycling rate for PET bottles. By shifting the responsibility and costs of waste management to producers, EPR creates incentives for eco-friendly product design and improved recycling infrastructure, ultimately contributing to a more circular economy and reduced environmental impact.

Efficiency and financial cost to the public sector

By shifting financial responsibility from municipalities to producers, EPR reduces public expenditures on waste management, freeing funds for other social services. These schemes incentivize investment in recycling infrastructure, job creation, and innovation in packaging design, which enhances recyclability and reduces dependency on virgin materials. Despite concerns about cost impacts on consumers, studies indicate minimal price increases; for example, U.S. grocery bills might rise by only 0.69% under nationwide EPR adoption, a negligible effect compared to broader inflation trends. Additionally, EPR retains the economic value of recycled materials within the economy and aligns market mechanisms to balance supply and demand in the recycling sector. Overall, EPR supports sustainable economic growth while addressing waste challenges efficiently.

Long-run effects

EPR policies can incentivise companies to invest in eco-friendly product design and improved recycling infrastructure, fostering a more circular economy. In the EU, EPR is pushing companies to rethink their entire product lifecycle, from design to end-of-life management, with a target of 100% reuse or recycling of plastic packaging by 2040. This has spurred innovations in sustainable packaging materials and designs, as well as new product lifecycle approaches that consider end-of-life plans from the outset.

Distributional and equity effects

While EPR schemes generally shift waste management costs from local governments to producers, the impact on consumers varies. Studies suggest that the cost increase for consumers is minimal; for instance, U.S. estimates indicate grocery bills might rise by only 0.69% under nationwide EPR adoption. In Europe, EPR has led to improved recycling rates and waste management infrastructure, benefiting all citizens regardless of socioeconomic status.

Modelling assumptions

The UK Joint Policy Statement on EPR states the government anticipates the following effects from pEPR (2025):

  1. The use of environmentally sustainable packaging;

  2. The prevention of packaging becoming waste;

  3. An increase in the reuse of packaging, and in the quantity and quality of packaging materials recycled;

  4. A reduction in the packaging material placed on the market.

We list below the assumptions used in the policy scenario model used to proxy these effects. From the site frontend, the user can toggle on the year of introduction as well as the scope of the lever.

Back to top

Footnotes

  1. The polluter should bear the expense of carrying out pollution prevention and control measures to ensure that the environment is in an acceptable state. In other words, the costs of these measures should be reflected in the goods and services which cause pollution in production and/or consumption (OECD, 1974).↩︎

  2. Lindhqvist distinguishes between the following broad formats of producer responsibility schemes: 1) physical responsibility – where a producer is involved in physical end-of-life management via take-back schemes; and 2) economic responsibility – where a producer is made financially responsible for all or parts of the end-of-life management costs.↩︎

  3. The UK-wide Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations 2013 place the financial responsibility for end-of-life treatment of e-waste on producers, requiring a certain level of proven treatment in line with product-category-specific collection and recovery targets. Under the regulations, distributors are also required to provide take-back systems for households. While government plans to alter the WEEE Regulations through modulating fees according to criteria of good design could contribute to making the tool a more effective driver of eco-design, it is unclear at this point if the financial incentives this gives alone will be sufficient to drive the design changes needed for longer lifespans of new products (Milios, 2018; Kunz et al. 2014). These alterations likely need to be made alongside others such as increasing the weighting of e-waste sent for reuse in counting towards targets (Resource Futures, 2012; European Commission, 2015) and other tools.↩︎

  4. https://www.plasticsforchange.org/blog/from-pollution-to-solution-how-extended-producer-responsibility-is-reshaping-the-future-of-plastics↩︎

  5. https://www.plasticsforchange.org/blog/from-pollution-to-solution-how-extended-producer-responsibility-is-reshaping-the-future-of-plastics↩︎

  6. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/extended-producer-responsibility-and-economic-instruments.html↩︎

  7. https://www.unep.org/reducing-plastic-pollution-through-extended-producer-responsibility↩︎

  8. https://epackagingsw.com/blog/extended-producer-responsibility-in-packaging↩︎

  9. https://epackagingsw.com/blog/extended-producer-responsibility-in-packaging↩︎

  10. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/epr_fact_sheet.pdf↩︎

  11. https://epackagingsw.com/blog/extended-producer-responsibility-in-packaging↩︎

  12. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/epr_fact_sheet.pdf↩︎

  13. https://plasticbank.com/blog/how-epr-law-contributes-to-the-economy/↩︎

  14. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/n2af-vv87↩︎

  15. https://wastewiki.info.yorku.ca/study-examining-the-economic-impacts-of-epr-legislation-for-packaging-waste-in-new-york-state/↩︎

  16. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/epr_fact_sheet.pdf↩︎

  17. https://plasticbank.com/blog/how-epr-law-contributes-to-the-economy/↩︎

  18. https://www.ey.com/en_be/insights/sustainability/how-epr-can-tackle-the-upcoming-packaging-prevention-challenges↩︎

  19. https://www.resourcify.com/blog/epr-extended-producer-responsibility-impact↩︎

  20. https://www.universalcargo.com/how-are-epr-laws-impacting-the-international-supply-chain/↩︎

  21. https://www.resourcify.com/blog/epr-extended-producer-responsibility-impact↩︎

  22. https://www.europen-packaging.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/EUROPEN-factsheet-on-EPR-for-used-packaging.pdf↩︎