Looking at Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems in Europe, one finds a colourful mix of different approaches – from monopoly through quasi-monopoly to competitive models. This raises the question: which approach works best? A recent study examines precisely this question. We have analysed the study and present the most important findings in a compact form.
Question and approach
The content of the study Efficiency and Effectiveness of Packaging EPR Systems in the EU is a comparative analysis of extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems for packaging in eight EU member states. The focus was on the question of which system design achieves a higher recycling rate while ensuring fair, sustainable costs.
To this end, the performance of EPR systems was examined based on four performance categories:
- Environmental performance
- Costs and economic efficiency
- System design and governance
- Innovation capacity
Authors and clients of the study
The study was conducted by Adelphi, which describes itself as Europe’s leading independent think-and-do tank for climate, environment, development, and strategic policy advice. The study was financially supported by the following system operators active in Germany: BellandVision GmbH, Duales System Deutschland GmbH, EKO-PUNKT GmbH & Co. KG, Interzero Recycling Alliance GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme, Noventiz Dual GmbH, PreZero Dual GmbH, Reclay Systems GmbH, Zentek GmbH & Co. KG.
Study results
Germany, Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands are among the best-performing countries—but for different reasons.
- Germany is the clear winner both overall and in the four individual categories examined. The country benefits from strong competition among producer responsibility organizations (PROs), strict regulation, and an extensive infrastructure.
- Belgium shows that a monopoly model can achieve excellent results when financing security, clear responsibilities, and operational control are in place.
- Italy impresses in the glass and paper sectors with a combination of central control and regional optimization structures.
Competition
Competition proves to be an advantage when producer responsibility organizations take on actual operational tasks and do not just distribute money. The example of Germany shows that competition leads to innovation, cost reduction, and better service quality – provided that regulation prevents market failure and ensures transparency. At the same time, France shows that competition without clear material responsibility can lead to inefficient results.
Cost internalization
The study emphasizes that full cost internalization is a crucial prerequisite for effective EPR systems. Systems in which municipalities make operational decisions and producer responsibility organizations only distribute funds perform less well in international comparisons. This is particularly true for plastics, where sorting and recycling quality are crucial.
Innovative capacity
In addition to environmental and cost efficiency, the study also analyzes innovation capacity. Here, it shows that competitive systems often experiment more, introduce new sorting technologies, and develop recycling markets for high-quality recyclates. Monopolistic systems, on the other hand, benefit from strategic coherence and planning security, which enables stable long-term development.
Conclusion
On the one hand, the results of the study provide a sound basis for politics and business to support the implementation of the new Packaging Ordinance (PPWR) in Europe. At the same time, it is clear that even countries with similar legal requirements achieve very different results.
The results suggest that structural policy battles (competition vs. monopoly) fall short. According to the authors, the decisive factors are rather
- level of governance,
- operational responsibility,
- data quality,
- cost transparency, and
- the ability to translate regulatory goals into marketable strategies.
