Product responsibility
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 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. In short, clothing brands could ultimately be legally responsible for the impact of a product throughout its entire life-cycle – right through to disposal – if EPR legislation was passed.
By placing responsibility for a product’s end-of-life environmental impacts on producers, EPR policies are expected to push producers across a range of industries to redesign their products so they have less environmental impact. Such changes, while reducing waste management costs, should also reduce materials use and enhance product reusability and recyclability.
Hojsík agrees that he is hearing much more about EPR, “I see it [EPR] emerging more and more in the talks,” he confirmed, “The brands are realising that [they] are responsible for the product’s lifecycle. And it is not only extra work, but also an opportunity for their business … when brands start asking for safer alternatives, the chemicals industry will come up with them, as it is also business opportunity for them. We have seen this in the past with electronics industry. That makes EPR realistic to achieve.”
An OECD report, “EPR Policies and Product Design: Economic Theory and Selected Case Studies”, discusses the potential Design for Environment impacts of EPR policies and provides practical examples of the extent to which some EPR programmes are contributing to ‘Design for the Environment’.
A legislative model for rolling out EPR already exists. In 2009, the Canadian government approved a nation-wide Action Plan for EPR in terms of sustainable packaging. But there is still strong corporate resistance to the idea. Earlier this month, the food giant Kraft rejected calls for it to adopt an EPR policy for its packaging, which could result in millions of dollars worth of consumer waste to end up in landfills.
Let’s hope that the textile and clothing industry takes a more responsible approach to EPR than companies like Kraft as policy makers around to world eye new, mandatory legislation or negotiate EPR agreements between governments and industry.
The roadmap to zero hazardous discharge in the textile supply chain is a great first step forward in this direction, but before we urge more brands to get involved, more clarity about its progress would be welcomed.
Image: © Qiu Bo / Greenpeace
