Baking reuse into EPR & DRS policy
A recipe for successful & impactful packaging laws
Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, can be an effective policy tool for helping mitigate the environmental impacts of product packaging. In non-EPR systems, producers bear no responsibility for the waste created by the products they make and profit from. Their responsibility ends once the product enters the marketplace. EPR extends the producer’s responsibility for their product to the post-consumer management of that product and/or its packaging – often requiring producers to be responsible for waste recovery and recycling.
Well-crafted EPR policies also extend producers’ responsibility upstream — to ensure they design their products and packaging with the best environmental outcomes in mind. To date, EPR schemes around the world have not delivered the product and packaging design changes we'd like to see at scale, but there is increasing emphasis on waste prevention and sustainable design in new EPR policies.
In keeping with the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), we believe that EPR policies should prioritize Reduce and Reuse – also known as waste prevention or “source reduction.” Our goal is to change the focus of EPR packaging laws from waste management to waste prevention.
So, how do we get producers affected by EPR packaging laws to focus on reuse? By baking funding, requirements, and incentives for reuse directly into the law. Here’s how it’s done.
Funding reuse through EPR
It is more than appropriate for funding from obligated producers under packaging EPR schemes to be used in support of reuse. The fact is that well-designed reuse systems are much better for the environment than recycling: that's why reduction and reuse are at the top of the waste hierarchy.
If we were really going to align EPR funding with the priorities in the hierarchy, the majority of program funds would be directed toward source reduction and reuse, and the leftovers would go to recycling those packages that couldn't be source-reduced or reused. In reality, we are faced with a struggle to secure even a token amount of funding for reuse infrastructure and services in EPR policy discussions. That said, we are pleased to see this concept slowly making its way into US policy (so far codified in Oregon's new packaging EPR scheme, and under discussion in several states where legislation is pending or agencies are writing regulations).
The best way to spend EPR funds when it comes to reuse is first to build a shared reuse infrastructure across the entire affected state. Without an efficient, shared infrastructure (this means collection points, transportation mechanisms, sorting and processing facilities - including wash hubs), reuse will not scale. Taxpayers should not be on the hook to build this infrastructure, just as we should not be on the hook to fund recycling.
But producers lack incentives to share infrastructure with their competitors — which is why pooling funds under an EPR scheme makes sense. Oversight of these funds by a government body can also ensure there is still a social and community benefit to the reuse infrastructure that gets developed, even further optimizing efficiencies for true scaled reuse.
Once the infrastructure is built, it will need to be maintained, so there is a need for ongoing funds. Additional funds can be used for technical assistance to support producers in transitioning their packaging to reusable formats that take advantage of the shared infrastructure.
It’s important to note that Deposit Refund Systems (or DRS) can also fund national- or state-scale infrastructure for reuse, and these two policies (EPR & DRS) should be advanced together as they complement one another and will lead to a better overall outcome when combined.
Considerations for implementing reuse in DRS & EPR
These laws should not only fund shared, interoperable infrastructure for returnable packaging — with producer dollars — they should also require (and incentivize) producers to choose reusable, returnable packaging in the first place. Both together are critical because requirements without infrastructure and funding could have unintended consequences (like putting out more durable materials and not reusing them). At the same time, infrastructure and funding without requirements won't create a level playing field, and will likely fail to catalyze reuse at scale.
Another key point is definitions. It can't be said enough that good definitions are integral to good policy. In terms of reuse, it is crucial to differentiate between returnable packaging, which producers own and take back as part of a reuse system, and refillable packaging, which consumers own and must refill themselves (such as a BYO jar consumers fill in the bulk aisle, or a refillable cleaning spray bottle that consumers purchase and add concentrate plus water to refill at home). In terms of national policy, producers have more of an ongoing responsibility when it comes to returnable packaging, and any reuse targets and incentives should be set accordingly.
Finally, the right responsibilities must be assigned to the right parties in reuse policy. For instance, consider a national container deposit system with reuse targets. The responsibility to choose reusable packaging lies with brand-owners; but the responsibility to collect reusable containers, make sure they remain intact, and transport them back to brands to be reused often lies with beverage distributors, who—in the US—tend to operate the collection systems in a DRS. The same idea translates to an EPR system, where consumer brands (the obligated producers under the law) must be held accountable for choosing reusable packaging, but there may be others along the supply chain who need to be accountable for collecting and returning this packaging to the brands.
Enforcing EPR & DRS
EPR and DRS are enforced in the same way as other environmental policies that regulate the business community: there must be strong oversight from a government agency, and reporting and transparency should be baked into the law. For instance, we must ensure that producers report on the number or percentage of products they place into the market in returnable and refillable packaging each year; ideally this number should increase over time. They should also have to report on their average return rates for all returnable packaging.
In short, reuse policy should come with enforceable targets. If these targets are not met, penalties ensue just as they do in any other law.
Measuring Impact
Return rates are key to effective reuse systems. Producers must reach an average annual return rate of at least 90% for a reuse system to have real benefits. This requirement should be codified into law wherever feasible, with allowances made for producers to work up to this return rate as systems are established. Ideally 90% or higher return rate is reached within 3 years of starting a reuse system.
Beyond return rates, the best way to measure impact is to see a reduction in the use of virgin materials. The point of reuse is to reduce demand on the planet's resources, so that's where the impact needs to be: are we manufacturing less because we can reuse what we've already created? If yes, then we are succeeding.
Learn more about Upstream’s stance on EPR & DRS in our Policy Principles, and learn more about EPR in general on our resource page.
