Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

The EPR is implemented through administrative, economics and informative instruments. The composition of these instruments determines the precise forms of the EPR (Lindhqvist, 2000). The OECD which has held several workshops on EPR strategies, defines EPR as an environmental policy approach in which a producer's responsibility for a product is extended to the post consumer stage of a product's life cycle (OECD, 2001). 

A producer is considered the actor that has the most influence on the life cycle processes of the product and can be held responsible for taking the initiative for change and has the knowledge and the opportunity to change both upstream as well as downstream processes. Thus an EPR policy is characterised by the shifting of responsibility of the product during its life cycle to the producers and away from the municipalities to include the costs of treatment and disposal into the price of the product, reflecting the environmental impacts of the product. 

Goals of EPR

The four principal goals of EPR, as stated by the OECD (2001) are: 

1. Source reduction (natural resource conservation/ materials conservation)
2. Waste prevention
3. Design of more environmentally compatible products
4. Closure of material loops to promote sustainable development

Trigger for voluntary EPR

The need for establishing a voluntary EPR system, in the absence of specific legislation, is a moot question. Prior to the setting up of the common SENS and SWICO systems, e-waste was handled individually, and arbitrarily. To dispose old appliances, consumers had to pay the retailer (in the case of individual users) or the recycler (in the case of large institutional users). In the absence of any organised system, the retailers and recyclers charged consumers arbitrarily, and each had a different estimation of the cost of recycling. There were cases of unscrupulous retailers and recyclers, who charged the consumer, but did not dispose the e-waste properly. Furthermore, fly tipping, or illegal dumping of discarded products, was also prevalent. Thus there was an underlying need for a comprehensive, transparent and convenient system.

However, the real trigger for the introduction of the SWICO Recycling Guarantee was the initiative of a few key players in the market, as a response to market realities. Large institutional customers of IT and office equipment, who often had multiple vendors for similar equipment, wanted the manufacturers/ importers to provide them with a comprehensive disposal solution for their discarded equipment instead of a brand specific solution.

The more strategic reason for manufacturers/importers to initiate a recycling system was to provide their customers a solution for their old products as an incentive to buy new ones. With the rapid technological advancement of the 90's, manufacturers were introducing newer products with increased functionality in shorter cycles. Thus a take-back solution was also conceptualised as a marketing strategy. Since there was an industry wide need for a take back and recycling solution, SWICO, as the association of the manufacturers/ importers, was approached, to develop a collective system on behalf of all the producers.  

Lastly, the producers preferred to pre-empt legislation. As mentioned before, voluntary systems are normally more flexible and cost lesser than government run systems. The Swiss Environmental Laws also give first preference to private initiatives over public systems; therefore, the voluntary system also had the support of the administration.