Frequently asked Questions on Individual Producer
Responsibility versus Collective Producer Responsibility
1. What is 'Individual Producer
Responsibility' (IPR) versus Collective Producer Responsibility
(CPR)?
Individual producer responsibility (IPR) requires that each
producer bears the recycling cost of its own products. This does
not require every producer to collect its own products. It does
require recycling systems that can differentiate the real costs of
recycling one producers' e-waste from the costs of another
producers e-waste, after the waste is collected.
In such a system every producer is paying the bill of the
collection and recycling of its own products. The producer can pass
these costs on to the consumer. But Individual Producer
Responsibility ensures that any recycling costs the producers pass
on through `recycling fees´ to consumers reflect, as closely as
possible, the real costs of recycling that product.
Collective producer responsibility (CPR) allows producers to
divide up and share in a more arbitrary way the costs of recycling
their products. All electronic waste from all producers is
collected and recycled and the producers receive one bill, of which
they all pay a part. The division of the costs is often done based
on the current market share of the producers, and not on the amount
of waste collected of each brand, or the recyclability of that
waste. When these costs are passed on to the consumer this does
not reflect the real costs of recycling the product the
consumer bought. The consumer thus pays a distorted cost.
2. Why is IPR better than CPR?
Two main reasons:
- When producers pay for the real costs of recycling their own
products (IPR) they have a financial incentive to stop using
toxic materials in the design of their products and make them
more durable and recyclable in order to lower the recycling
costs.
- The arbitrary approach to sharing the recycling costs of CPR
means that it is not necessary for the recycling system to
differentiate the real costs of recycling one producers e-waste
from other producers e-waste. Thus when a producer passes these
costs on to the final consumer by a 'recycling fee' these costs are
distorted. As a result of this when you buy a Samsung TV you may
pay for not only recycling your Samsung TV but also for recycling
part of a Philips one. IPR evolves the system to solve this problem
and ensures the costs consumers pay reflect as much as possible the
real costs and is thus fairer.
3. What do we mean by the recycling
fee (and the visible fee) in this context?
The term recycling fee, or visible fee, in this context refers
to the cost of the collection and recycling (or other treatment)
that the product will incur when it becomes waste at the end of its
useful life. This cost should be embedded as part of the price of
the product (as are all the other costs of manufacturing, transport
etc). In other words the costs should be 'internalised' into the
producers financial decision making process.
There has been a tendency in the past to declare the recycling
costs at the point of purchase ie making it a 'visible fee' that is
declared separately to the product price. Greenpeace prefers for
the fee or costs charged on new products to not be made visible to
avoid it becoming a fixed or `flat´(ie the same amount charged,
usually per product category, for every producers product). When a
visible fee is applied it is often fixed or 'flattened' to simplify
the communication with the retailers or simply to avoid competition
on the real recycling costs between producers. If consumers pay a
fixed fee for a TV or a computer, then there is no differentiation
of costs between products that contain more or less toxic or
unrecyclable materials, or between products with a different
lifespan. This way the consumer does not pay the real recycling
costs and the producer does not get an incentive to design more
environmental friendly products.
4. What is the difference between
collective recycling systems and collective producer (financial)
responsibility?
A collective recycling system is a system where several
producers - in order to get their products recycled - share the
same recycling infrastructure (eg collection points, transport and
dismantling and other pre-recycling treatment plants and
facilities). This is collective use of the same physical recycling
infrastructure.
Collective producer financial responsibility means that the
producers don't just share the same physical recycling
infrastructure but that they also pay for the waste in a collective
way. This means that the costs of recycling the e-waste of all
producers is often presented to the producers on one bill. The
producers then split the bill, often based on their current market
share, not based on the amounts of e-waste collected by brand or
based on the recyclability of their products.
5. Can you have individual financial
responsibility in a collective recycling system?
It is possible to have a collective recycling system, whereby
you share the same physical infrastructure and still pay for your
own e-waste's real costs. You do not - as some producers argue -
have to have your own (individual/own-brand) physical recycling
system to be able to pay for the real costs of recycling your own
products. You only need to differentiate between the products of
different producers after the e-waste is collected.
Some producers also want an individual collection system, by
collecting their own discarded products. They should be free to do
so long as their system respects high levels of environmental
protection, ensures transparency and shares fairly the
responsibility to achieve the objectives of high collection, reuse
and recycling.
6. What about the different roles of
consumers, retailers, governments and producers - isn't this shared
or collective responsibility?
Consumers, retailers, governments and producers all have
different roles to play in the take-back and recycling system. They
share the responsibility to achieve an objective eg the products
are recycled by undertaking certain actions (roles). But these
practical responsibilities or requirements are different from the
overall legal and financial responsibility laid on the shoulders of
the producers. It is the producer who has to pay for the overall
costs of take-back and recycling of the products.
Roles of the actors can be for example : consumers can be
required to separate the e-waste from other waste, retailers can be
obliged to take-back discarded products, local government can be
required to provide access to e-waste it has collected in its
municipal systems, the national government has to enforce the
producer responsibility law. and all recyclers should be obliged to
report the amount of waste they recycle, and what happens with the
recycled fractions.
These roles and responsibilities can also be defined by law, and
essentially shared, but they are not collective. In this whole
system of shared roles it is the final responsibility of the
producers however to pay for all the costs - either collectively or
individually as described above.