Report on the Governance of Extended Producer Responsibility in the Transition to a Circular Economy

During their lifespan, products can cause severe environmental and social impacts in all stages of their lifecycle. The
circular economy with its focus on closing and slowing material and energy loops is a means to reduce these broad
impacts. Circular economy forms the basis of the EU’s ambitions to reconcile present economic activities within the
planetary boundaries while meeting its aim for climate neutrality by 2050.

Electronic and electronics equipment is a key product focus area for the European Commission, during the waste stage.
Similar to other EU Directives, current electronics waste legislation will be updated in the coming years. The transition
to a circular economy will require new and modified roles and responsibilities for actors, e.g. government, businesses
and citizens. This report provides a detailed exploration of the governance issues within the current electronics waste
policy, focusing on the instrument of extended producer responsibility. Through three detailed case studies of Italy,
France and the Netherlands, the key organisational and policy features are explained, and the strengths and
weaknesses are outlined.

Based on the analysis of the case studies, we argue the subsequent developments for extended producer responsibility
for waste electrical and electronic equipment to include the four followings aspects in its development:

1. Introducing the modulation of fees at the European level: the fee paid by producers for the collection and
recycling of their products should be modulated based on the circularity and sustainability of the product in
question. Fee modulation is allowed under the current EU WEEE law. However, it is not applied systematically. This
is already done in France for EEE based on the standardisation of components, weight and specific materials. Fee
modulation guidelines have been developed by the OECD. However, the key aspect to the ability of the fees to
affect product design is the size of the fee. Studies have illustrated that current fees are between 0.2 and 2% of
the product price. Higher levels of fees, e.g. more than the 2% product price, combined with a visible fee are
recommended to be implemented at the EU level;
2. Broadening the scope of which actors are included in national EPR systems while promoting high
R-strategies: the types of actors and responsibilities within the extended producer responsibility schemes need to
be broadened. This is possible under EU law and has partly been done in France, where civic actors are now
included in the functioning and directing of the schemes. However, the transition to a circular economy requires
the promotion of more than just recycling of EEE to the other R-strategies. This requires systematically integrating
the other economic actors in the design and functioning of the system, e.g. Repair, Remanufacturing etc.;
3. Measures to promote the highest value recycling of collected WEEE: products that reach their end-of-life they
need to be effectively collected and treated to the best standard. The current targets and quality measures
promote the collection and recycling of electronics based on mass, not on a specific material or quality criteria. A
standard for the treatment of WEEE EN 45558 is available, although it is not mandatory. We recommend this
standard be made mandatory across the EU. In addition, we call for a systematic pan-EU assessment of available
and future recycling technologies, possibilities for urban mining from WEEE, and funding options needed to direct
this, specifically in the area of critical raw materials recovery from electronics;
4. Expanding the scope of EPR beyond national borders: the scope of extended producer responsibility schemes
needs to be expanded to account for the multiple uses of the product and the responsibility when products move
internationally. While EPR has shown great ability to shift WEEE away from landfilling. The complexity of systems,
rules and their enforcement between member states and beyond has led to varying national rules and issues of transparency between jurisdictions. The quantity of producers, importers, distributors and second-hand sellers
makes the tracking and monitoring of WEEE within and between national jurisdictions challenging, especially for
the export of collected and secondary products. In particular, this relates to the need for a solid understanding of
the quantities of WEEE moving between jurisdictions and suitable mechanisms in place to finance the appropriate
disposal. The highly international nature of WEEE supply chains and global trade and flows of WEEE have led some
to call for a ‘global EPR’ or ‘ultimate producer responsibility’ system.