What we can learn from the Extended Producer Responsibility legislation implementation in Washington

What is it about?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation is a policy tool that transfers the burden of collecting, recycling, and disposing of products to the companies that produced them originally. The aim of EPR legislation is to reduce end-of-life environmental impacts by ensuring funding for the operation of a collection and recycling system, and to provide an incentive to design less toxic, easier to recycle products. Numerous states and municipalities have begun to implement their own EPR programs for a variety of products. Of these programs, initiatives to promote the collection and recycling of electronic waste (e-waste) are perhaps the most common – in the last ten years, 25 states have passed e-waste bills rooted in the EPR principle. To understand how EPR legislation has manifested at a state level, we conducted an in-depth case study of the EPR implementation for e-waste in Washington state, specifically examining execution at an operational level and the various stakeholder preferences that led to the existing system. The case study provides recommendations on how to efficiently and effectively implement EPR legislation. These recommendations include: improving the incentive framework and overall system to maximize the benefits realized through design improvements; incorporating reuse and refurbishment into the system to extract value from products with remaining life; implementing policies to eliminate undesirable export of partially processes materials; improving cost allocation methods to reflect manufacturers’ fair share; utilizing consumer education campaigns to drive awareness and participation; developing forecast mechanism to more accurately predict volumes; and evaluating the impact of long-term contracts with processors.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Legislation that promotes or requires recycling of various waste streams is lacking in many municipalities across the United States. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiatives establish a financial and legislative mechanism that encourages manufacturers to take responsibility for the disposal of their products upon the conclusion of the product lifespan. EPR legislation targeting various waste streams is gaining momentum in various municipalities throughout the United States, and of the various waste streams, e-waste distinguishes itself due to the volume, high cost of recycling, and toxicity of the material. Consumer electronics contain toxic materials that are harmful to the environment and human health if not disposed of properly – studies conducted by non-governmental organizations found that most of toxic heavy metals found in landfills come from e-waste. Furthermore, rapid obsolescence, high residual value, and wide product heterogeneity increases the complexity of efficiently managing the waste stream such that maximum value is extracted, and the impact on society and the environment is minimized. Effective EPR legislation, implemented alongside adequate environmental legislation, can reduce the short- and long-term impacts of e-waste on stakeholders by providing the financing required to operate robust and efficient recycling programs, and encourage design incentives that lead to easier to recycle, less toxic products. Examining the effectiveness of existing EPR legislation provides case studies from which potential improvements to the legislation can be identified.