10
years of WEEE in the UK Shaping the future Exploring the future of EPR: in conversation with Kieren Mayers
Exploring the future of EPR in conversation with Kieren Mayers
The recycling and compliance industry will face a number of major themes and challenges in the years ahead. Chief among them is extended producer responsibility (EPR). Its prominence reflects an increasing desire for a standardised approach to managing the costs associated with products at end-of-life and to minimising their environmental impact. However, it’s not yet universal – a recent study by Zero Waste Europe states only 45% of the European Union’s (EU) product and packaging
2
ERP 10 Year Report
waste is covered by an EPR scheme. Many aspects of the role EPR will play in the future are unknown: how it can be leveraged to influence the circular economy, how it will impact producers and recyclers, and how it can be used most effectively to reduce recycling costs. To explore these questions, we reached out to Dr. Kieren Mayers, Director of Environment and Technical Compliance at Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe, and a member of the European Recycling Platform (ERP), Strategic Advisory Board. Kieren’s academic background greatly influenced (and continues to influence) extended producer responsibility (EPR), whereas his professional work was pivotal in the creation of ERP. As such, Kieren is well positioned to discuss the future of EPR, the circular economy, and other relevant issues facing the recycling and compliance industry.
EPR: a major vehicle for moving towards a more circular economy
1.
How do you allocate responsibilities between different producers?
Kieren contends that EPR’s contribution to the circular economy has not been examined enough in the past, with a macro approach being favoured over a supply chain approach in terms of how countries and industries manage flows of materials. Only now are we seeing examination on a wide scale of how EPR can help to better utilise waste and resources within the economy. Various stakeholders, including governments and the European Commission are taking this proposition much more seriously than before, and are now trying to work out EPR’s role in the circular economy. “This process will ultimately result in a regulation that will impact everyone,” says Kieren, “it will impact producers and it will impact recyclers, depending on what the EU decides to do with its Waste Framework Directive (WFD).”
2.
How do you report the waste?
3.
What recycling standards should be used and enforced?
Three key issues for the future Further discussing the idea of legislative changes over the next 5-10 years, Kieren points out that, first and foremost, there is a move among stakeholders to consolidate lessons learned as to how EPR systems should be managed and run. This is something ERP have been very actively promoting, encouraging knowledge sharing between stakeholders, in addition to campaigning for consistency and harmonisation between countries. Kieren identifies three critical questions that are most pressing for producers:
Cost-driven IPR Elaborating on the first of the questions above led to the topic of individual producer responsibility (IPR). While producers have invested significantly in EPR systems, the responsibilities which they are assigned within these systems are in no way related to what they are specifically producing. In this sense, it doesn’t matter if companies produce a product that is highly recyclable or largely free of hazardous substances – they remain obligated to pay the same price as a company that does not. Understandably, many producers consider this unjust and are therefore supporting better cost apportionment. “This scenario is not just unfair, but is unsustainable,” reasons Kieren, “because those that are effectively the polluters, who are most accountable for the waste problems we’re facing, should be the ones that pay.” This scenario goes against the original ‘polluter pays’ principle and the IPR principle that individual producers should be financially responsible for the costs of paying for their products at end-of-life and the cost of their treatment when they become waste. However, both presently and for the foreseeable future, it is near-impossible
to ensure producers retrieve their own products once they are discarded. Therefore, a collective solution is required, but the idea behind IPR has always been to figure out how producers can fairly account for the costs of their products within the waste stream in a way that’s logistically and practically feasible. Kieren notes that the reality of the need to account for costs is beginning to dawn on stakeholders and legislators alike, with a noticeable move towards adopting fee modulation approaches as happens in France. However, if rules like this are to be set, then it is critical that these rules are consistent across all countries within the EU, both in how they are written and how they are enforced. This is the only way to reduce complexity and incentivise producers to take measures to reduce the costs of treating and recycling their products. Kieren also emphasises that it’s crucial that these costs are related to genuine costs within the actual recycling system, not costs arbitrarily decided by a select committee. Waste reporting All waste must be reported, regardless of whether it is treated within or outside of the EPR system. “The important thing here is that all waste is recycled to the same standards,” Kieren explains, “whether it’s recycled independently outside of EPR systems or within EPR systems – it should all be reported as part of the EU’s waste. Of course, problems like illegal exports and sub-standard treatment still must continue to be addressed, and we need proper enforcement to do this.”
“
This is the first real evidence of a recycler influencing our policies on design... ERP came back with very clear answers which we embodied in our voluntary agreements, which we make to the EC. This is an important step towards improving product design and recyclability.” Dr Kieren Mayers Director of Environment and Technical Compliance at Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe
ERP 10 Year Report
3
Just like the car industry, we need to get to the point where all waste is valuable to ensure that it is recycled. “The car industry is a good example,” he elaborates, “because cars, at end-of-life, are so valuable that they never actually get into an EPR system, and all car recyclers must adhere to the same standards – there’s nothing wrong with that.” But, if this happens, then one might ask what exactly is the point of a producer responsibility organisation (PRO) or producer compliance scheme? What role does it serve? The answer is manifold. PROs still need to manage reporting, which becomes increasingly complex with the introduction of more and more regulations, and deal with a range of other producer issues. They must also provide the overall co-ordination work. “Many producers don’t recognise the value-added function provided by PROs,” Kieren suggests. “Best-in-class PROs can help producers to avoid getting hit by hidden costs or a regulatory change down the line, which ultimately affects the prices that they pay.” Value-added services from ERP Further discussing the role of PROs, Kieren offered examples of the ways in which ERP have added value for Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe, particularly in helping them to understand complex issues like how best to deal with some of the more complicated take-back regulations in countries such as France, for example. Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe have also engaged with ERP on the design of
4
ERP 10 Year Report
their recycling strategy. ERP advised on what product design changes would have the most significant benefit in the recycling process. “This is the first real evidence of a recycler influencing our policies on design,” explains Kieren. “ERP came back with very clear answers which we embodied in our voluntary agreements, which we make to the EC. This is an important step towards improving product design and recyclability.” The next steps: lowering recycling costs through improved recyclability Kieren was clear about the message we need to be able to communicate to recyclers: “Products are different and should be handled accordingly, and the improved costs should ultimately be passed onto producers in some way.” He cites the example of the transition of screens from cathode ray tube (CRT) to liquid crystal display (LCD) and organic lightemitting diode (OLED). Some screens contain mercury backlights whereas others don’t, but all producers are paying an equal share of the treatment costs even though there is an enormous disparity in the costs of recycling these vastly different technologies. “Why,” Kieren asked “should one company pay the very considerable costs of mercury clean-up and treatment when this technology is not used in their products?” Asked how we might improve recyclability to help improve recycling costs, Kieren suggested two approaches. Firstly, we could look to France. Kieren cites the French bonus/malus
system of financial rewards and penalties as a possible means of both improving recyclability of products while also lowering costs. However, it’s far from perfect. “This system is rather crude, as costs are ultimately judged and prescribed by a committee,” Kieren elaborates, suggesting that the arbitrary nature of such an arrangement could lead to increased price uncertainty. The second option focuses on the categorisation of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). “We should categorise waste according to the recycling treatment and opportunities,” suggests Kieren, “not the logistic activities of collection as it is categorised now.” His justification is that the former is much more sophisticated and accurate from a recycling perspective. By allocating costings to the various recycling processes, recyclers could then work out the cost and the cost drivers of each of these waste streams, and then link these cost drivers to the products being sold. “It is quite complicated,” Kieren conceded, “but it can be used to introduce a fairer system of charging producers for the products recycled on their behalf.“ One thing is clear: the next few years could bring significant changes in the way producers are charged for the products that they place on the market. Their contribution to the circular economy could also become much more firmly established, and changes to product design, reparability and recyclability could transform the products that they sell. It promises to be an interesting journey.
About Kieren Mayers Kieren is Director of Environment and Technical Compliance at Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe. He has over 20 years’ experience in environmental, waste, and sustainability management at IBM, Xyratex, HP, Geodis, and Sony. At the start of his career, Kieren graduated with an Engineering Doctorate in Environmental Technology from Brunel University, London, working with HP UK and focussed on the early stages of WEEE implementation in the UK in the late nineties. After moving to Sony, he became one of four original founder members of ERP’s first Steering Committee (2002-2003), and later, between 2007 and 2009, spent two years establishing UK and Ireland WEEE and battery recycling schemes working with ERP as a client. He also actively researches and publishes academic work in this field, as Research Affiliate at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Management in 2010, and an Executive in Residence at INSEAD Social Innovation Centre in Fontainebleau, France since 2011. Kieren is presently a Member of ERP’s Strategic Advisory Board. If you are interested in Dr Kieren Mayers’ work, his most recently published research includes “Practical Implications of ProductBased Environmental Legislation” (2016), which features in the book, Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, edited by Roland Clift and Angela Druckman. You can also keep an eye out for his upcoming research, co-authored with Nathan Kunz and Luk van Wassenhowe, “Stakeholder Views on Extended Producer Responsibility in the Advent of the Circular Economy” to be published in the journal, California Management Review.
ERP 10 Year Report
5
Get in touch – we’d love to hear from you! For general enquiries: For information on our WEEE, batteries and packaging compliance schemes: For information on our Data services:
ERP UK Limited is registered in England and Wales (05859725). Registered Office: ERP UK Ltd, Barley Mow Centre, 10 Barley Mow Passage, Chiswick, London, W4 4PH
Call: + 44 203 142 6452 Email: uk@erp-recycling.org Call: + 44 1455 205 369 Email: ukcompliance@erp-recycling.org Call: + 44 1455 205 370 Email: ukdataservices@erp-recycling.org