Journal of Environmental Waste Management and Recycling

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +44 1518081136

Commentary - Journal of Environmental Waste Management and Recycling (2024) Volume 7, Issue 6

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): A Path to Sustainable Waste Management

Brindha Ramasubramanian*

Centre for Nanotechnology & Sustainability, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Singapore

*Corresponding Author:
Brindha Ramasubramanian
Centre for Nanotechnology & Sustainability
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Singapore
E-mail: brindha.rm@edu.rs

Received: 01-Nov-2024, Manuscript No. AAEWMR-24-155193; Editor assigned: 05-Nov-2024, Pre QC No. AAEWMR-24-155193 (PQ); Reviewed: 19-Nov-2024, QC No.AAEWMR-24-155193; Revised: 22-Nov-2024, Manuscript No. AAEWMR-24-155193 (R); Published: 29-Nov-2024, DOI: 10.35841/aaewmr-8.6.239

Citation: Ramasubramanian B. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): A Path to Sustainable Waste Management. 2024; 7(6):239

Introduction

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach that holds producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, including the disposal and recycling of those products after consumers are done using them. The goal of EPR is to encourage manufacturers to take responsibility for the waste their products generate, promoting sustainability by reducing waste, improving recycling rates, and fostering more eco-friendly product designs. As global waste management challenges grow, EPR is seen as a key solution for promoting a circular economy and reducing environmental impact [1-4].

Main Body

Under the EPR framework, producers are required to manage the post-consumer stage of their products, which includes collection, recycling, and safe disposal. Manufacturers set up systems to collect used products (e.g., electronics, packaging, or batteries) from consumers for recycling or disposal, either through designated drop-off points or curb side collection. Producers may pay fees into a fund that supports recycling infrastructure and waste management programs [5-7]. These fees are typically based on the volume or environmental impact of the product they produce. EPR encourages manufacturers to design products that are easier to recycle, use less harmful materials, and reduce waste generation. This leads to more sustainable product life cycles. EPR shifts the financial and physical responsibility for waste management from local governments and taxpayers to producers, incentivizing them to reduce packaging waste, increase product durability, and invest in recycling technologies. For example, in the case of electronics, manufacturers might be required to recycle old devices or offer a discount for consumers returning their old products [8, 9].

EPR programs have been successfully implemented in various countries for different waste streams, such as electronics (e-waste), plastics, and packaging. However, the effectiveness of EPR programs depends on clear regulations, strong enforcement, and collaboration between governments, industries, and consumers [10].

Conclusion

In conclusion, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a critical tool for addressing waste management and promoting sustainability. By making producers accountable for the end-of-life impact of their products, EPR encourages better design, recycling, and waste reduction. While there are challenges in implementation, EPR offers a promising pathway toward a circular economy, where products are reused, recycled, and have a minimal environmental footprint. As the world continues to face growing waste and pollution issues, EPR can play a pivotal role in creating a more sustainable future for all.

References

  1. Economos CD, Hyatt RR, Must A, et al. Shape Up Somerville two-year results: a community-based environmental change intervention sustains weight reduction in children. Prev Med. 2013;57(4):322-7.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Pearson, T.A, Bazzarre, T.L,et al. 2003. American Heart Association guide for improving cardiovascular health at the community level: a statement for public health practitioners, healthcare providers, and health policy makers from the American Heart Association Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science. Circulation, 107(4), pp.645-651.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Astrella JA. Return on investment: evaluating the evidence regarding financial outcomes of workplace wellness programs. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2017;47(7/8):379-83.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Batorsky B, Taylor E, Huang C,et al. Understanding the relationship between incentive design and participation in US workplace wellness programs. Am J Health Promot. 2016 ;30(3):198-203.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Beck AJ, Hirth RA, Jenkins KR, et al. Factors associated with participation in a university worksite wellness program. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(1):e1-1.

    6.  Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  6. Carter MR, Kelly RC, Alexander CK,  et al. A collaborative university model for employee wellness. J Am Coll Health. 2011;59 (8):761-3.

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Clave-Brule M, Mazloum A, Park RJ, et al. Managing anxiety in eating disorders with knitting. Eat Weight Disord. 2009;14:e1-5.

    8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  8. Geda YE, Topazian HM, Lewis RA, et al. Engaging in cognitive activities, aging, and mild cognitive impairment: a population-based study. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2011;23(2):149-54.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Kaspin LC, Gorman KM, Miller RM. Systematic review of employer-sponsored wellness strategies and their economic and health-related outcomes. Popul Health Manag. 2013;16(1):14-21.

    10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  10. Novembre G, Zanon M, Silani G. Empathy for social exclusion involves the sensory-discriminative component of pain: a within-subject fMRI study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015 ;10(2):153-64.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App