本研究では，12 人の日本人ステークホルダーにインタビューを行い，各論者の拡大生産者責任 (EPR) 論の特徴を EPR の種類，目的，適用範囲，論拠，生産者の範囲に着目して整理を行なった。金銭的責任のみでなく物理的責任や情報的責任が重要，有能論を主，原因論を副とする論拠が EPR を正当化するなどの指摘がなされた。また，論者の最終的な到達点への野心度と政府の介入方法によって物理的責任重視アプローチやポリシーミックス・アプローチ等の異なる EPR の政策導入・展開が提起されることを考察した。さらに，生産者に課す責任の厳格さの違いに着目した考察では，レスポンシビリティとライアビリティを区別した 3 つの責任論のうち，強制的 EPR のレスポンシビリティ論と義務論としての生産者のライアビリティ論との間での混同が生じやすいことを説明した。イノベーションという観点での EPR 制度論の議論が日本で展開されていないという課題も指摘した。 [ This study conducted interviews with 12 Japanese stakeholders and organized the distinctive features of each participant’s argument on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) by focusing on the type, objectives, scope, rationale, and range of producers. The findings highlighted that, in addition to financial responsibility, physical and informational responsibilities are also crucial. The rationale for justifying EPR often emphasized the capability-based argument as primary and the causation-based argument as secondary. Furthermore, it was noted that depending on the level of ambition toward final policy goals and the form of government intervention, different approaches to EPR implementation and development could emerge, such as the physical responsibility–oriented approach and the policy mix approach. In examining the varying strictness of responsibilities imposed on producers, the study explained how confusion tends to arise between responsibility (responsibility without legal liability) and liability among the three theories of responsibility, particularly between the responsibility theory of mandatory EPR and the liability theory framing producers’ obligations. Lastly, the study pointed out the lack of discussion in Japan on EPR systems from the perspective of innovation, identifying it as a significant issue.]