Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) places the primary burden of product management on the producer or manufacturer. This would be the same as having one of the runners on a relay team bear the sole responsibility for winning or losing the race, without providing a system of checks and balances on the other team members. If this were the norm many runners would want to change sports.
It is true that producers play an important role in the system. Approximately 70% of the cost of a product's development, manufacture and use are determined in the initial design of the product. This makes design a crucial determinant in the product's competitiveness. It also demonstrates how important consideration of environmental aspects are in design.
Competitive pressures already exist to mitigate environmental aspects and the ensuing impacts in design. Customer expectations are increasing in this area and certified professional purchasers in Canada are starting to look at the environment as part of risk assessment. However, care must still be taken throughout the system to manage the environmental aspects of operations whether they are public or private sector. Attempts to transfer the cost back onto the producer/supplier do not remove accountability. It would perhaps remove options for the organization in question if someone else dictated which options were to be followed. Money never flows without strings attached. Even as a kid your allowance was invariably attached to environmental performance - if you did not clean up the mess in your room, you didn't get your allowance, remember?
The further away from the act the higher the cost tends to be. Witness the costs in many deposit/return systems on beverages. The deposit is on a select product area requiring yet a second or third system of recovery for non-deposit items. Duplication of activities is resource inefficient. Every additional vehicle on the road to return material to separate depots adds to greenhouse emissions, a factor that adds to Climate Change. This does not help to build a sustainable future for Canadians.
Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR) have compared the relative costs for recycling between Ontario and Germany. Ontario has a blend of programmes paid for through municipal taxes and some user pay programmes. Germany has a full EPR programme that pays to manage municipality's recyclables. Ontario's average costs are about $60US per tonne, Germany's averages $600US.
Canadians are not likely to want to pay for that kind of difference.
GM, Ford, Chrysler and the other auto manufacturers are not expected to pay for city streets, traffic lights or snow removal in the price of their vehicles. Nike, CCM et al are not asked to pay for recreation facilities in the price of their sports equipment. Prentice Hall, Penguin and other publishers are not asked to pay for libraries in the price of their books. Why then does EPR expect producers of food and consumer products to pay for the costs to manage the waste disposition decisions of their customers? Think about it. |
 |
Glass Works is a publication of Consumers Glass
Copyright © 1998 Glass Works