The debates of the latest weeks have been marked by strong lobbying work from fast-food industry companies on the one side, mostly defending single use over reuse for takeaway beverages and food, and environmental organizations on the other, urging European Parliament members to stick to the proposed amendments. The outcome of the vote has triggered strong reactions as it watered down several of its reuse and prevention targets. Rapporteur Frédérique Ries (Renew, Belgium) stresses the urgent need for action, as the vote “ignores the reality of the figures: a 30% increase by 2030 if we don't act now. Of the 3Rs, only recycling escaped unscathed.” she declared.
While for some, the clear distinction between reuse and recycling may call into question the very hierarchy of waste management, businesses should prioritize waste prevention. They should eco-design their packaging following the EU Waste Framework Directive, a ranking system for waste management options according to their environmental impact. This hierarchy sets prevention waste as the preferred option, followed by reuse, recycling and recovery. Sending waste to landfills should be the last resort and should be avoided if possible. EPR schemes have proven to set the right framework to support companies in preventing waste, improving collection and recycling rates, eco-designing, and testing new reuse systems.
What is EPR and how does it work?
The EPR enlarges companies’ scope of responsibility to bear the financial and/or organizational responsibility for their waste (collecting, sorting, recycling). By encouraging the eco-design of packaging, it has shown to be an effective model for closing the loop in the packaging value chain and creating a circular economy balance.
How can EPR concepts help companies to put ambition into action?
From its premises in the 1990s, EPR has been successful in managing the end-of-life stages of packaging (collecting, sorting, recycling). Today, this model must show the way to go further to achieve its waste reduction objectives and offer a more circular model of production, consumption, and distribution, for example allowing Producer Responsibility Organizations (PRO) to play a greater role in the upstream stages of the life cycle, such as preventing waste and designing packaging for reuse.
Some good practices and challenges of EPR schemes include:
- Going beyond waste management to waste prevention, thus following the waste hierarchy principles, such as bringing companies the technical expertise needed for reducing packaging to a minimum while preserving its key functionalities (protecting and transporting the product, communicating legal information to the consumer), implementing large-scale bulk sales and/or reuse systems, for example.
- Incentivizing eco-design, in other words, considering the end-of-life of the packaging in the design process: reducing unnecessary packaging, removing all elements incompatible with its recycling, incorporating recycled content, to name a few.
- Promoting eco-modulation in the EPR fee structure to encourage good practices (bonuses) and ensure they do not disadvantage companies, while increasing fees on non-compliant packaging (maluses).
- Effectively communicating with consumers by pedagogically explaining packaging removal and/or alterations and raising awareness about sorting gestures.