Wednesday, September 11, 1:30 p.m. eastern (90 min.)
Paying the Price: Eco-Fees vs. Cost-Internalization
How should manufacturers fund activities to reduce their products’ upstream and downstream environmental impacts as part of an EPR program? A debate is brewing in the U.S. over which approach—eco-fees or cost internalization—is the best solution. Eco-fees are legislatively required surcharges that cover the costs of product end-of-life management. Manufacturers are required to pay eco-fees into a dedicated product management fund—and they do this by passing the eco-fees onto retailers, which then pass them onto consumers at point-of-sale. By contrast, cost internalization is when the manufacturer is legislatively required to pay for the management of a certain percentage of the products it puts on the market without being required to pass the costs on to retailers or consumers. Currently, both approaches are used in the U.S., with varying types of eco-fees for paint, carpet, and mattresses, and with cost internalization for products like electronics, batteries, thermostats, and pharmaceuticals. This web conference will examine the pros and cons of each approach, explore whether there is a one-size-fits-all solution, and discuss whether a proposed shift in waste diversion policy in Ontario, Canada might change the product stewardship landscape in the U.S.
- Alison Keane, Vice President, American Coatings Association
- Chris Hudgins, Vice President of Government Relations, International Sleep Products Association
- Greg Sones, Director of Waste Policy, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (INVITED)