The man, Ecoveritas credits as being “behind Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR), Thomas Lindhquist, has called for decisive action on introducing the policy.
In an interview with Ecoveritas, Swedish economist and engineer Thomas Lindhquist labelled the UK government’s intended approach to EPR “curious” and stressed the need for progress on the environmental policy.
Speaking to Ecoveritas, Lindhquist said: “There are undoubtedly elements of stalling to this, especially when you make things complicated and want to solve them in a strictly legislative or society-orientated approach.
“It raises the risk of taking a very long time, and there’s still no guarantee that it will work well.”
Lindhquist, an Associate Professor and Director of Research Programs at the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University in Sweden, wrote a report in 1990 suggesting that a producer’s responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products and packaging extended past the point of sale and consumption.
“The UK chose a different approach, and sometimes I was wondering why,” Lindhquist told Ecoveritas. “I mean strictly theoretically, it’s a kind of intriguing system with competition elements. The problem is, of course, to do it in practice, in a good way, is extremely difficult and may cost a lot of money.
There are undoubtedly elements of stalling to this, especially when you make things complicated.
“I have always imagined that some of that would be solved, that you automatise systems and you don’t have the same information barriers or access to information.
“I find it politically interesting that you create a law where in some sense, you can say you’ll have to collect waste and put it into recycling. But you wouldn’t collect from households because that’s more expensive.”
“The total requirements were not such that you needed much from households, and then the government goes out and says that municipalities must put it into recycling – that’s wonderful for companies and many other actors. I’m kind of curious about those things.”
Despite conceding some elements of EPR have evolved, even departed from the original concept, over time, Lindhquist said it continues to make a difference he would “like to come back and be part of rectifying” some parts of it in the future.
“We will still do a lot of silly things and pay too much attention to eco modulation and how it works in France and some other countries. But it would maybe open minds to more action and different types of action. Some of the mistakes can be useful.
“So, at a certain point, you need to do things instead of trying to reach full understanding and consensus.”
We must move beyond discussing its (EPR) merits and instead help businesses unpick the intricacies in already challenging times.
Adding to Lindhquist’s comments, Ecoveritas’ Chief Strategy Officer, Andrew McCaffery, said: “With required actions under EPR finally underway, outlining how the new regulation will work in practice for UK businesses that must comply with this new legal requirement must become our priority.
“We must move beyond discussing its merits and instead help businesses unpick the intricacies in already challenging times.
McCaffery said that EPR can and should be about creating a circular packaging economy that prioritises source reduction and reuse above recycling. He contended that well-designed EPR is a service charge for the collection, sorting and processing.
“When you look at other policy solutions, it has proven to be one of the most efficient and effective ways of tackling the problem. It provides the ongoing and sufficient funding scheme we need when designed correctly. It drives the proper environmental outcomes by putting money into the right places. Money that’s raised in the system stays in the system.”