Extended Producer Responsibility in India

Corpseed an online platform for best in class affordable legal, Tech & Consulting services for entrepreneur’s, so to shape their ideas into reality.

In the field of waste management, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR India) is a strategy aimed at promoting the integration of environmental costs associated with goods throughout their life cycle into the market price of products. Extended producer responsibility legislation is a driving force behind the adoption of regeneration initiatives as it "focuses on the end-of-use treatment of consumer products and has the primary objective of increasing the quantity and degree of recovery of the product and for minimize the environmental impact of waste materials”

Definition

EPR uses financial incentives to encourage manufacturers to design environmentally friendly products by holding manufacturers responsible for the running costs of their end-of-life products. This political approach, which differs from product management , which shares responsibility throughout the chain of custody of a product, attempts to relieve local governments of the operating costs of some priority products requiring manufacturers to internalize the cost of recycling in the price of the product. EPR is based on the principle that since manufacturers (usually brand owners) have greater control over product design and marketing and these same companies have the greatest ability and responsibility to reduce toxicity and waste.

EPR can take the form of a reuse, repurchase, or recycling program. The manufacturer may also choose to delegate this responsibility to a third party, a so-called producer responsibility organization (PRO), which is paid by the manufacturer for the management of the product used. In this way, EPR shifts the responsibility of waste management by the government to the private industry, obliging producers, importers and / or sellers to internalize waste management costs in their product prices and ensure safe management of their products.

A good example for producer responsibility organizations is the member organizations of PRO Asia. The aim is to ensure the recovery and recycling of packaging waste in the most economically efficient and ecological way. In many countries, this is done through the green dot trademark of which PRO Asia the general license. The green dot has evolved into a concept proven in many countries such as implementing producer responsibility. In twenty-five countries companies are now using the green dot as a symbol of financing for the organization of recovery, selection and recycling of sales packaging.

Take-back

In response to all the growing problem of excessive waste, several countries have adopted waste management policies where producers are responsible for taking back their products from end users at the end of the useful life of the products, or in part the financing of a collection and recycling infrastructure. These policies were adopted because of the lack of collection infrastructure for some products that contain hazardous materials, or because of the high costs for local governments to provide such collection services. The main objectives of these recovery laws are therefore to collaborate with the private sector to ensure that all waste is managed in a way that protects public health and the environment. The objectives of the withdrawal laws are a

1. Encourage businesses to design products for reuse, recyclability, and reduction of materials;
2. Correcting market signals for the consumer by incorporating management costs into the product price;
3. Promoting innovation in recycling technology.

Resuming programs to help promote these goals by creating incentives for businesses to redesign their products to minimize waste management costs, from designing their products to contain safer materials (so they don't have to be managed separately) or designing products that are easier to recycle and reuse (so recycling becomes more profitable). The first withdrawal activity started in Europe, where government-sponsored withdrawal initiatives arose from concerns about scarce landfill space and potentially dangerous substances in the parts that make it up. The European Union has adopted a directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). The purpose of this directive is to prevent the production of electronic waste and also to encourage the reuse and recycling of such waste. The directive requires Member States to encourage design and production methods that take into account the future dismantling and recovery of their products.

Plastic bags

Recycling, which prohibits, and taxation fails to adequately reduce the pollution caused by plastic bags. An alternative to these policies would be to increase extended producer responsibility. In the United States, under the Clinton presidency, the Presidential Council for Sustainable Development has suggested EPR in order to target different participants in a product's life cycle. This can, however, make the product more expensive as the cost must be taken into consideration before being placed on the market, which is why it is not widely used in the United States at the moment. Instead, it bans us or taxes plastic bags, which puts responsibility on consumers. In the United States, EPR has not been successfully made mandatory, instead of being voluntary. What has been recommended is a comprehensive program that combines taxation, producer responsibility, and recycling to combat pollution.

Many governments and companies have adopted extended producer responsibility to help address the growing problem of electronic waste - used electronics contain materials that cannot be safely thrown away with regular household waste. In 2007, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, people threw away 2.5 million tons of cell phones, televisions, computers and printers. Many governments have collaborated with companies in creating the necessary collection and recycling of infrastructure. Some argue that the extended liability laws of the local manufacturer and supported manufacturer give manufacturers greater responsibility for the reuse, recycling and disposal of their products.

The types of chemicals found in e-wastes that are particularly dangerous to human health and the environment are lead, mercury, brominates flame retardants, and cadmium. Lead is found in telephone screens, televisions and computer monitors and can damage the kidneys, nerves, blood, bones, reproductive organs, and muscles. Mercury is found in flat panel bulbs, portable screens, and fluorescent lamps, and can cause kidney and nervous system damage. Brominates flame retardants available in cables and plastic cases can cause cancer, liver function disorders and nerve damage. Cadmium is present in rechargeable batteries and can cause kidney damage and cancer. Poorest countries dumped reasons for e-waste the United States as many governments accept money for disposing of this type of waste on their lands. This causes an increase in health risks for people in these countries, especially those who work or live near these landfills.

In the United States, 25 states have implemented laws requiring the recycling of electronic waste. Of these, 23 have incorporated some form of extended producer responsibility into their laws. According to the analysis made by the Product Stewardship Institute, some states have not enacted EPR laws due to the lack of recycling infrastructure and funds for the proper disposal of electronic waste. In contrast, according to a study of EPR legislation done by the Electronics Take Back Coalition, states that have seen success in their waste recycling programs have done so because they have developed an advantageous e-waste infrastructure or state governments have set targets for producers to meet. In essence,

Attorneys for EPR also claim that including "high performance expectations" in the laws, and ensuring that these are only the minimum requirements, help make the laws successful. In this way, producers can be incentivized to collect more and dispose of electronic waste more properly. Finally, the greater the scope of products that can be collected, the more e-waste will be disposed of properly.

Similar laws have been passed in other parts of the world as well. The Asian Union has taken steps to combat the problem of electronic waste management. They limited the use of harmful substances in the member countries and made it illegal to export waste.

Advantages

When manufacturers face a financial or physical difficulty in recycling their electronics after use, they can be incentivized to design more sustainable, less toxic electronics, and easily recyclable. Using fewer materials and design products to last longer can reduce costs directly from end-of-life manufacturers. Thus, extended producer responsibility is often cited as a way to combat planned obsolescence, because it financially encourages manufacturers to plan for recycling and make products last longer.

Disadvantages

Some people have concerns about the manufacturer's extended liability programs for complex electronics that can be difficult to safely recycle, such as lithium-ion polymer batteries. Others fear that such laws could increase the cost of electronics as manufacturers would add recycling costs to the initial price tag. When companies are required to transport their products to a recycling facility, it can be expensive if the product contains hazardous materials and does not have a waste value, such as with CRT televisions, which can contain up to five kilos of lead. . Organizations and researchers against EPR claim that the mandate would slow innovation and hamper technological progress.

Other critics are concerned that manufacturers may use withdrawal programs to take second-hand electronics from the reuse market, destroying rather than reusing or repairing goods that come in for recycling. Another argument against EPR is that EPR policies are not accelerating environmentally friendly designs, because "manufacturers are already starting to move towards reduced material to be used per unit of product, reducing energy consumption in the production and supply of each product, and improved environmental performance.”

The Reason Foundation claims that EPR is unclear in how fees are set for particular recycling processes. Royalties are set in place to help encourage recycling, but this may discourage the use of manufacturing with the best materials for different electronic products. There are no set charges for some materials, so confusion occurs when companies don't know what the design features to include in their devices.

Implementation

EPR has been implemented in many forms, which can be classified into three main approaches:

1. Obligatory
2. negotiated
3. volunteer

It is perhaps because of the trend of economic policy in market-oriented economies not to interfere with consumer preferences that producer-centric representation is the dominant form of seeing the environmental impact of industrial production: in energy statistics, the emissions, water, etc., impacts are almost always presented as attributes of industries ("on-site" or "direct" assignment) rather than attributes of product supply chains for consumers. On a smaller scale, most of the existing corporate sustainability systems reports include only impacts that result from operations controlled by the reporting company, and non-supply chain impacts According to this worldview, "upstream and downstream environmental impacts [] are ... assigned to their immediate producers. Institutional setting and spheres of influence of the various operators are not reflected ".

On the other hand, a number of studies have highlighted that final consumption and well-being, particularly in the industrialized world, are the main drivers for the level and growth of environmental pressure. Although these studies provide a clear incentive to integrate focused producer environmental policy with some consideration for consumer aspects, demand side measures for environmental problems are rarely exploited.

The link created by the different points of view on the impacts caused by industrial production is exemplified by numerous contributions to the discussion on producer or consumer responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions data are reported for the IPCC as contributions from manufacturing industries located in a particular country, rather than as incarnations in products consumed by a particular population, regardless of their production origin. However, especially for open economies, taking into account the greenhouse gases incorporated into international market goods can have a significant influence on national greenhouse gas balance sheets. By taking consumer responsibility, exports must be subtracted, and imports added to national greenhouse gas inventories. In Denmark, 2 developed from a 7 Mt deficit to a 7 Mt surplus, compared to the total emissions of about 60 Mt. In particular, the electricity exchanged between Norway, Sweden and Denmark is subject to strong annual fluctuations due to different precipitations in Norway and Sweden. In the humid years Denmark imports hydropower, while electricity from coal-fired power plants is exported in the drought years. The Danish official emissions inventory includes a correction for electricity trading and, therefore, the principle of consumer responsibility applies.