Abstract
This study undertook a critical examination of Ontario’s extended producer responsibility scheme for the residential “Blue Box” recycling program, specifically examining the relationship between packaging fee rates and material-specific recycling rates. Using data collected for each of the 23 materials found in the residential recycling program over the past decade, a regression model was developed to gauge what relationship (if any) packaging recycling rates have with fee rates, costs of material management and revenue from the sale of recyclable material. The modeling in this study indicates that packaging fee rates have no effect on packaging recycling rates. Recycling rates were positively correlated with material revenue and negatively correlated with material management costs. There is no evidence that suggests that Ontario’s fee model used to allocate environmental handling fees to individual materials encourages waste diversion or design for the environment. The disconnect in the results and the intended function of packaging fee rates calls into question the appropriateness of Ontario’s fee rate methodology.
Highlights
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is becoming a favored public policy approach to manage post-consumption waste in most developed economies
EPR policy formulation and programs for used packaging have existed for the better part of three decades, EPR thinking is still in its infancy: The ever-widening range of government initiatives, program implementation models and new enterprises forming in response to these changes highlight the relative immaturity of the field [2]
Based on the intended function of Ontario’s fee setting methodology, it is expected that increases in recycling rates are positively correlated with packaging fees
Summary
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is becoming a favored public policy approach to manage post-consumption waste in most developed economies. EPR shifts the financial (and sometimes physical) responsibility for the end-of-life (EOL) management of used packaging from consumers to the producer of the original packaging [1]. EPR policy formulation and programs for used packaging have existed for the better part of three decades, EPR thinking is still in its infancy: The ever-widening range of government initiatives, program implementation models and new enterprises forming in response to these changes highlight the relative immaturity of the field [2]. The primary reason for adopting EPR policies, to date, has been the relatively narrow issue of post-consumer waste management. While grounded within the broader sustainability framework, most program initiatives have focused on the collection and diversion of designated wastes from disposal, with increasing attention being paid to waste reduction and product/packaging design [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
