Are you looking to implement a new or revise an existing EPR approach?
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) has the potential to be a key mechanism which supports you move towards a circular economy, but the devil is in the detail. It’s important to design an EPR approach – and supporting mechanisms – which create the right incentives for the relevant market participants.
A well-designed EPR system should – while shifting the end-of-life cost burden away from taxpayers towards producers – lead to an overall reduction in costs. It should also ensure a level playing field while spurring and rewarding continuous improvements through innovation.
Are you considering how you might design and implement a national EPR system? Are you concerned that the current approach isn’t fit for purpose, but you need evidence to support the argument for reform?
We have supported national governments and advocacy groups make the case for updating and improving existing EPR schemes, and introducing new EPR schemes covering specific items, along with supporting mechanisms such as taxes that together will:
- Ensure adequate cost-coverage;
- Incentivise high levels of recycling;
- Encourage the uptake of high levels of recycled content;
- Stimulate innovation, including a shift to a service model prioritising durability and reuse, rather than one based on selling products; and
- Make sure, as far as is practically possible, that costs are borne in a way that is equitable.
We have worked on EPR in numerous sectors including packaging, electronic and electrical items, batteries, end-of-life vehicles, carpets, and carried out ground-breaking research into the problems posed to EPR schemes through the growth in online sales, and the ways in which this issue can be addressed.
Contact one of our team if you would like to review and improve an existing EPR scheme, or explore the case for introducing EPR in a new area.
