Introduction
Today, sustainability is no longer just a trend—it’s a necessity. Among the tools promoting environmental responsibility, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) stands out, especially regarding plastic waste management.
However, as EPR gains traction in corporate sustainability reporting, concerns are emerging. Are these EPR credits truly driving environmental change, or are they merely helping brands greenwash their image?
In this blog, we dive deep into how EPR works, the rise of credit-based compliance, and why skepticism around plastic waste claims is growing.
What is EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility)?
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy that makes producers responsible for the post-consumer phase of their products. Specifically for plastics, it means producers, importers, and brand owners must manage the plastic waste generated by their goods.
The main objectives of EPR include:
- Shifting the waste management burden from governments to producers
- Promoting sustainable product design
- Advancing circular economy practices
Globally, and particularly in countries like India, strict EPR frameworks aim to curb plastic pollution.
EPR Credits: The Compliance Currency
To simplify EPR implementation, regulators introduced EPR credits. These credits allow companies to meet compliance obligations without directly handling waste.
Here’s how EPR Credits work:
- A recycling agency collects and processes plastic waste.
- It issues a certificate or credit based on the amount managed.
- Producers purchase these credits to offset their plastic footprint.
- Companies report the credits to regulatory bodies like the CPCB in India.
Initially, this system seems like a win-win: plastic waste gets recycled, and businesses stay compliant. However, deeper examination reveals serious issues.
The Dark Side: Are EPR Credits Being Misused?
While EPR credits appear efficient, their execution often falls short of genuine environmental impact.
1. Lack of Transparency
Most recycling processes remain hidden from public view. Consequently, agencies may overstate their recycling achievements, and producers rarely verify the true impact of their credits.
2. Double Counting
In several cases, multiple handlers report the same plastic waste, creating duplicate credits and artificially inflating recycling numbers.
3. Focus on Buying, Not Reducing
Rather than innovating to reduce plastic usage, many producers simply buy credits to meet their targets. Thus, EPR becomes about checking a box, not driving real change.
4. Geographic Displacement
Plastic collected in one region is sometimes credited to brands operating elsewhere. As a result, local environmental damage remains unaddressed.
5. Questionable Recycling Standards
Although companies claim to recycle, a significant portion of plastic is merely down cycled into low-grade products. Eventually, these products often end up in landfills again.
Greenwashing and the Illusion of Impact
Many brands use EPR credits to create an illusion of environmental responsibility. In reality, they continue harmful practices while advertising themselves as “plastic neutral” or “eco-friendly.”
In fact:
- Single-use plastics remain prevalent
- Sustainable packaging innovation is rare
- Global plastic pollution continues to rise
Thus, greenwashing misleads consumers into believing that companies have solved the plastic waste problem when they have not.
Case Study: India’s EPR Framework and Its Challenges
India’s Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, and subsequent amendments laid out detailed EPR guidelines. Nevertheless, significant challenges persist.
For instance:
- Many producers under-report or fail to comply with regulations.
- The informal recycling sector, which manages large volumes of waste, remains excluded from official credit systems.
- No standard method exists to calculate or validate credits.
Even the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has recognised the urgent need for tighter monitoring and real-time digital tracking.
A Way Forward: Making EPR Credible and Effective
For EPR to fulfil its promise, reforms are necessary.
1. Implement Digital Tracking Systems
Technologies like blockchain should be used to ensure that each credit reflects verified waste collection and recycling.
2. Strengthen Compliance and Auditing
Third-party audits must become mandatory. Moreover, false claims or double-counting should attract heavy penalties.
3. Prioritise Plastic Reduction
EPR systems must reward companies that reduce plastic production or switch to eco-friendly packaging, not just those that recycle.
4. Ensure Localised Waste Management
Brands must manage waste in the regions where they sell their products. Consequently, this would ensure real, community-level environmental improvements.
Consumer Awareness: The Missing Piece
Finally, consumer awareness is critical. By staying informed and demanding better, consumers can drive real change.
Consumers should:
- Demand transparency from brands
- Support companies that adopt sustainable packaging
- Question vague “green” claims
Thus, public pressure can push companies toward authentic, not cosmetic, environmental efforts.
Conclusion: From Gimmicks to Genuine Action
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) can be transformative. Nevertheless, without accountability, it risks becoming just another marketing tool.
EPR credits must not be a license to continue polluting under the guise of sustainability. Instead, they should serve as a genuine mechanism for environmental restoration.
It is time for businesses to shift from optics to real outcomes—from gimmicks to genuine, grounded sustainability.
