Most individuals see recycling as their own responsibility, either through voluntary action, or, in some jurisdictions, in accordance with the law. But in either case most recycling programs are geared toward the consumer handling their own waste.

And so it is for the producers. Manufacturers generally view safe environmental practices at their own production level - regulated plant emissions, disposal or storage of hazardous waste, anti-dumping laws, etc. But after the product leaves the plant, its post-production life is out of their hands. This is the norm in the U.S, even though other potentially impactful phases — packaging and labeling, transportation and shipping, and, of course, disposal — all pose their own unique environmental threats.

Thus, the final resting place of products will be determined by the end user, the consumer.

This current system, however, is not even close to fully addressing the problem in this age of “going green.”
According to the EPA, the U.S. generates some 251 millions tons of Municipal Waste and recycles only 82 millions tons of it, or 32.5%. About 530,000 tons of this is Household Hazardous Waste, which consists of many environmentally toxic chemicals. These, of course, include the obvious culprits — old solvents, paints, pesticides, fertilizers, poisons, etc. But household kitchen and bathroom cleaners comprise a significant portion of this waste. According to the Clean Water Fund, “the average American uses 40 pounds of toxic cleaning products, throwing away twelve percent of their leftovers and pouring an average of 32 million pounds down the drain”. This twelve percent referred to, outside of what goes down the drain, goes into landfills, where it becomes a ticking time bomb for environmental entry.

So if consumer responsibility for product recycling doesn’t work, is there a better way?

Although manufacturers cannot take responsibility for the actions of their customers, they can take stewardship of their products and minimize or eliminate their harmful environmental impacts, throughout a product’s life cycle, from manufacturing, right down to the post consumer phase. This method of foresight is known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

Globally speaking, EPR is not a new concept.

In 1975, the Swedish Government made a formal statement concerning EPR: “The responsibility, that the waste generated during the production processes could be taken care of in a proper way, from an environmental and resource-saving point of view, should primarily be of the manufacturer. Before the manufacturing of a product is commenced it should be known how the waste which is a result of the production process should be treated, as well as how the product should be taken care of when discarded.”

The actual term EPR was coined by Swedish professor of environmental economics, defining it quite simply as “the extension of the responsibility of producers for the environmental impacts of their products to the entire product life cycle, and especially for their take-back, recycling, and disposal.” In this scenario, the cost of recovery of a product is shifted to the private sector and away from government programs, so the producer’s role includes the costs of recovery, which forces industries to incorporate these costs into their overall implementation plan for their products.

This concept has swept all over Europe, with Germany taking the lead with its Packaging Ordinance of 1991, which requires producers to manage packaging waste and eliminates government money for this purpose. Over the next four years, use of packaging decreased by about 1 million tons, as producers minimized their packaging, its weight, and used more concentrates, saving tax payer money and reducing environmental impact.

Canada has taken great strides with EPR, with much government encouragement, support and incentives to various industries, with certain industries and manufacturers operating with such programs in place in all 10 of its provinces.

The U.S., however, has lagged far behind in promoting this concept. Although deposit return bottles have provided for the take back and reuse of glass containers for over a century, and some of the larger printer companies pay for courier pick-up and delivery back to factories of empty toner cartridges for reuse, In most areas government responsibility for waste is still the norm. Hawaii, Maine and California have taken great strides, however, in implementing legislation to enforce EPR principles, and indeed, in today’s ever growing environmentally conscious society, there may be much more activity on the horizon.