Comparative Analysis of Extended Producer Responsibility Policy in the United States and Canada

Abstract

Summary This article analyzes the policy choices and programmatic elements of extended producer responsibility (EPR) as implemented in the United States and Canada. The article traces the historical development of EPR in each country and defines common features of EPR in each nation. The U.S. states and the Canadian provinces have assumed the primary role, rather than the federal governments, for enacting producer responsibility requirements in their respective countries. However, the paths taken demonstrate several fundamental differences, including the prevalence of individual versus collective responsibility and the financing mechanisms implemented for EPR. Given the deepening experience with EPR and the breadth of its application to a widening array of products in the United States, the Canadian model for EPR is starting to receive more examination from policy makers in the United States, indicating that the policy and programmatic differences between the two nations may eventually be narrowing. The comparative policy analysis is illustrated through the lens of EPR regulatory efforts for waste electronics, with particular profiles of the programs in the State of Minnesota and Province of Ontario. Both approaches broadly reflect many of the policy considerations and governance and programmatic themes that dominate EPR programs in each country. Finally, the article offers recommendations for collaborative work between the United States and Canada to explore consistency between programs and other complementary strategies to support producer responsibility activities.

EMERGING DISCOURSE INCUBATOR: Cross‐Sector Relations in Global Supply Chains: A Social Capital Perspective

“…Third, a supply chain perspective helps us understand how an environmental NGO selects commercial organizations to be held accountable (e.g., extended producer responsibility; Hickle, ) for hotspots, or to collaborate with to drive change via market mechanisms (e.g., eco‐certifications). SCM scholars have begun to take account of the pressures exerted, or opportunities provided, by civil society stakeholders such as environmental NGOs on organizations to improve supply chain practices with respect to environmental impacts as well as a host of social impacts (Hyatt & Berente, ; Sarkis, Gonzalez‐Torre & Adenso‐Diaz, ; Wolf, ).…”

Charging up Battery Recycling Policies: Extended Producer Responsibility for Single‐Use Batteries in the European Union, Canada, and the United States

“…As a result, most Canadian EPR policies delegate category‐specific standards to product stewardship plans (PSPs) developed by provincial governments or stewardship organizations. This regulatory model promises more flexibility for producers (Hickle ). Provinces have taken different approaches with respect to the implementation of such PSPs, as is evident in British Columbia and Ontario.…”

“…Although scholars have undertaken comparative studies of EPR policies, examining differences such as individual versus collective responsibility, funding strategies, and issues of policy harmonization, few studies have focused specifically on how EPR policies are designed to address the environmental consequences of EOL management (Sachs ; McKerlie et al. ; Lepawsky ; Hickle ; Nash and Bosso ). Yet, how an EPR program is structured can determine whether the collection and recycling of discarded products yields a net environmental benefit or burden.…”

Recycling research on spent fluorescent lamps on the basis of extended producer responsibility in China

“…Many countries and regions have applied EPR theory in the field of SFL management on the basis of regional characteristics to realize take-back, processing, and recycling (Silveira et al, 2011;Hickle, 2013;Lifset et al, 2013).…”