MEMBER ZONE
October 23, 2024

Extended Producer Responsibility Schemes

EPR schemes are increasing in relevance in waste policy and legislation. Most recently, the Council’s conclusions on the 8th Environmental Action Programme mid-term review invited the Commission and Member States to explore the possibilities to expand producer responsibility schemes towards more products.

Within this context, FEAD raises some essential elements to be taken into consideration, articulated around the following basic principles for our industry:

  • EPR schemes managed by PROs should only be considered where there is a market failure
  • Financial EPR schemes, and not operational ones, should be the norm
  • The EPR scheme/PRO must not determine the waste treatment
  • Ownership of the waste must remain within the waste management operators
  • EPR should serve to increase products’ recyclability through eco-design
  • The role and performance of EPR schemes should be supervised by an independent advisory and monitoring body in which waste management operators are represented

The importance of the polluter pays principle requires a case-by-case analysis of the best implementation tool

In line with the polluter pays principle, FEAD strongly supports that producer’s responsibility must extend to eco-design and end-of-life of products. This ensures human health and environmental protection, both through improved product design and though sustainable waste management. However, due to its relevance, FEAD stresses that a case-by-case analysis is needed to determine the best policy instrument to implement the polluter pays principle and the extended producer responsibility. For example, extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes with producer responsibility organisations (PROs) should only be considered where there is a market failure. This means, where open markets and waste contracts are not sufficient to develop an entire waste management chain, covering collection, treatment, recycling, recovery or final disposal, as necessary in each case. Where an EPR scheme is deemed necessary, the most appropriate form of EPR (financial EPR or organisational EPR) must be carefully decided, bearing in mind that operational EPR close the market to alternative operators. As a principle, financial EPR schemes should be the norm.

Clear role distributions are essential for the functioning of a free waste management market

It is crucial to ensure a clear role distribution of all actors involved when establishing an EPR scheme. This is essential to ensure competition in a free market and market access to all actors. The contrary can lead to situations, such as currently faced, for example, in Portugal. Here, the EPR scheme in charge of WEEE, batteries and packaging, started using its reserves to finance, buy and operate waste management services by themselves, closing the market to external operators. Therefore, FEAD highlights that where waste management operators are operating in the market, the role of the EPR scheme must be limited to the facilitation and financing of an efficient waste management treatment, ensuring a fair competition in the market, without operating in it and without retaining the ownership of the materials.


The implementation of EPR schemes must ensure that producers (e.g., via PROs) do not become prescribers of technologies and objectives (sometimes in a monopoly situation), imposing waste operators ‘low-cost environmental practices’ in order to minimise costs in detriment of an environmentally sound management of the waste. In addition, the EPR schemes must not jeopardise the functioning of free markets, for example by keeping the ownership of the waste in addition to prescribing a specific treatment. The functioning of free markets for waste and recyclates is key for a circular economy, as it ensures competition on a level playing field and allows for further investments and innovation both, in the production processes, and in the subsequent management of the waste.

Ecodesign and environmental performance of the products placed on the market must be a core responsibility of EPR schemes

Moving from a linear to a circular economy, the polluter pays principle and extended producer responsibility needs to go beyond ensuring safe management of end-of-life products placed on the market. In this new model, extended producer responsibility must also ensure that the end-of life of the products placed on the market aligns with the waste hierarchy and waste management options available. This means, that ecodesign and the environmental performance of the products placed on the market must be a core responsibility of EPR schemes, beyond product regulations (existing or to be developed).
A definition of recyclability based on collection, sorting, recycling and availability of a market for secondary raw materials could be developed with all stakeholders concerned. At the same time, there should always be incentives to improve product design through the eco-modulation of fees according to the environmental performance of the product. This can be done in the form of lower fees for less polluting materials (e.g., homogeneous and easily recyclable materials). This eco-modulation of fees needs to be accompanied by appropriate information for the consumer to identify the most sustainable choice.

EPR schemes should be supervised by an independent advisory and monitoring body in which waste management operators are represented

To ensure an adequate implementation of the polluter pays principle in EPR schemes, FEAD suggests that the role and performance of EPR schemes and the achievement of their objectives should be better framed, documented and controlled. This should be done through the establishment of an independent advisory and monitoring body involving waste management operators, which will ensure the necessary know how in terms of recyclability of products and their end-of-life treatment. The monitoring powers and advisory capacity of this body should be duly regulated. Its consultation must be mandatory and any report or recommendations it may issue under any of its competences must be legally binding for PROs.

The independent advisory and monitoring body should ensure that EPR schemes fulfil their purpose, not only in procuring waste management treatment, but to achieve the best environmental performance of the products placed on the market, considering both recyclability of the goods and recycling of the waste. As part of this, it must ensure that active PROs equally consider quality and circular economy principles, together with price parameters, in the waste management operations. At the same time, this independent body must act as a non-profit entity ensuring fair competition in EPR markets, conducting ex-ante competition control through an evaluation of the sectors’ economic balance, and be responsible for monitoring performance by assessing necessary data and assuring confidentiality on waste treatment prices. Sanctions must be enforced to tackle incompliances.


FEAD is the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste and resource management industry across Europe, including 19 national waste management federations and 3,000 waste management companies. Private waste management companies operate in 60% of municipal waste markets in Europe and in 75% of industrial and commercial waste. This means more than 320,000 local jobs, fueling €5 billion of investments into the economy every year.