This website is under continuing development. We welcome your feedback.

EPR Reference Database

Publication type: Report

Extended producer responsibility: Re-examining its role in environmental progress

Abstract/summary

It is not clear that EPR programs accelerate or enhance this process for several reasons. First, the various goals of EPR programs are not necessarily compatible. For example, fees set to reflect recycling costs and thus encourage “design for recyclability” may discourage source reduction and use of lighter and more durable modern materials such as laminates, composites, and plastics. Second, there is no intrinsically right fee level for EPR programs. Packaging fees among European nations vary as much as 35-fold for identical products. Fee setting is generally a political, rather than a scientific or economic exercise. Resulting fees give manufacturers confusing and conflicting signals about which design goals to pursue. To date, EPR has been most frequently applied to packaging and electronics. There is no single model of EPR, so evaluating just a few experiences is at best only suggestive.

Read more
Author(s)
Dana Joel Gattuso
Joel Schwartz
Kenneth Green
Year
2002
Publisher
Reason Public Policy Institute
Authors’ organization
Reason Public Policy Institute
URL
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/513cbdab3d05aaa322c4fbfb3a0ee1c5.pdf
For explanation of this display of publication information (metadata), see here.

This website provides reference information on reports, articles, and other publications related to EPR. Where possible, links to the original source are provided. Copies of the actual publications are not maintained in the reference database because the publications may be copyrighted or otherwise protected by the publishing source or author. Follow the link to the original document and/or contact the publisher/author for more information.