Broken Promises: Extended Producer Responsibility in the USA
Douglas Smith
Sony Electronics Inc
June 2011
The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as
though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the
things that seem than by those that are.
--Niccolo Machiavelli,
Italian philosopher, humanist and writer
Outline
Sony’s Road to Zero
– Life Cycle Approach
– Milestones and Measuring
– From End of Life through Supply Chain
US Extended Producer Responsibility
– Outsourced Public Services
– Diffused cost : concentrated benefit
– Industry incentive: Lower cost
Sustainability versus EPR
April 2010, Global Environmental Goals “Road to ZERO”
1. Zero environmental footprint by 2050
2. Mid-range environmental targets for 2015
Innovation for the next generation
Sony Global 2015 Goals
Dye-sensitised solar cell
Reduce mass of products: -10% (from 2008)
Reduce waste generation: -50% (from 2000)
Improve waste recycling rate world-wide: 99%
Reduce water consumption: -30% (from 2000)
Reduce energy consumption of products: -30% (from 2008)
Waste CDs
for new
electronics
Customer Service – Recovering Value
Sony Style Trade-in/Recycle Program
– Trade-in any brand of eligible products
– Receive an offer for the product’s trade-in value
– Get a Sony Style gift card for the value of the
trade in
– Free TV takeaway at time of delivery
Cameras MP3 Players Laptops Camcorders Game Systems Mobile Phones
1996 Sony Product Stewardship Policy
“Product Stewardship is the environmental responsibility
for the fate of a product through its life cycle from
manufacturing to end of life. Sony recognizes that as a
manufacturer of electronic products it shares with its
customers the product stewardship responsibility. It is
the policy of Sony to encourage and promote
environmentally sound recycling of all electronic waste.
Sony will seek to recycle all waste generated in the
manufacture of its electronic products. Sony will design,
manufacture, label and package products in a manner that
will facilitate the recycling of the products once their
useful life is over. For each of the products and
components manufactured by or sold by Sony under the Sony
brand, Sony will determine the most environmentally sound
end of life recycling method or, if applicable, the most
environmentally sound method of disposal. In support of
this policy, Sony will work with its customers to
encourage and facilitate the recycling of electronic
waste”
The False Promise
“Giving the manufacturers the financial
responsibility for managing their old
products gives them a strong incentive to
redesign their products to remove the
toxic materials that make recycling
challenging and expensive.”
(http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-
content/uploads/Ewaste-Briefing-Book.pdf.
The Realities
80% of Products Sold by 10% of Retailers
Collection by Manufacturer is nearly impossible
Collection and Transportation are unrelated to product
design yet exceeds 50% of EPR cost
Recycling other brands and extinct product types yields no
learning opportunity
Funding collection and recycling of TVs yields no learning
opportunity for IT company
Gov’t directs EPR cash flow from manufacturers but is not
called a tax
Consumers nationwide are paying higher price for products
WEEE Core Concepts Ignored in US
• Producers should finance collection from collection
facilities
• The responsibility for the financing of the management of
historical waste should be shared by all existing producers
in collective financing schemes to which all producers,
existing on the market when the costs occur, contribute
proportionately.
USA is only Country to ignore these basic concepts
EPR Cost Allocation
Market share works. CA, MN, WEEE, Canada, others
Return share – Only IPR works
Transportation and collection are fixed based only on weight
and exceed 50% of cost
Maine 2006 Sony report:
“Marketed to Retailers” 8,380 pounds of Monitors
Paid for recycling 34,147 pounds of Monitors Being billed to recycle 4 pounds for every pound sold
Minnesota:
Sony is paying recycle printers to reach quota, but never
made a printer
Hundreds of State Differences
Fees
Action dates: CY, FY, and PY
Allocation method – RS, MS, calculation, waste sort
– 80%, 60%, lb/capita, true-up between
plans
Covered Electronic Devices
(CED) – 4”, 7”, or 9” displays
– IT and/or TV
– MP3 and video game
– Free ride for non-CEDs
Covered Entities (CE) – Residents, business, schools, non-
profits
– Only CA controls fraud
CA: creates jobs, control fraud
ME: state runs program
– Selects recyclers, fixes price and
uses triple enforcement threat
WA: quasi gov’t runs program
WA, OR: Fanciful convenience
IN: small business is $10
million/yr
WA: small gov’t (<50) entitled
to free service
TX, HI, OK, VA, MO, WV: Mail-
back
Share1
Cost Disbursed to 100% of Population
Benefits Concentrated to 25% of population
RED: 25% population absorbing
75% of Expense •23 States and CA paying recycling
fees with no benefit
•Upper Midwest –good “freedom factor”
Blue states, limited scope EPR
Yellow: 2011 programs
Manufacturers prevented from Takeback in
ME, CT and WA
Environmental Departments run the programs. Recyclers are
selected authorized to bill manufacturers at state
approved price. The state Attorney General guarantees
payment from manufacturers.
“….Any nonpaying manufacturer is liable to the State for
costs incurred by the State in an amount up to 3 times the
amount incurred as a result of such failure to comply.
The Attorney General is authorized to commence a civil
action against any manufacturer to recover the costs
described in this subsection, which are in addition to any
fines and penalties established pursuant to section 349.”
(http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/38/title38
sec1610.html)
By the numbers: Washington State 38,548,674 = pounds collected in 2009. (19,274 US tons)
$9,944,425 = Internalized Fees collected from
manufacturers
At $0.245 per pound, collected $9,444,425 plus additional $500,000 from manufacturers.
$2,023,700 = Landfill diversion savings
Seattle landfill rate is $105 per ton. Applied to 19,274 tons
$944,720 = Sales Tax Revenue
Internalized fees are taxable. Sales tax in Seattle is 9.5%
2.17% = WA % of USA Population
$215,794 = WA customers paid this much of internalized fees
$ 9,728,631 = Subsidy from customers in other 49 states
$45.08 = Receives this much for every $1 spent by WA
consumers
WA income progressive index: $0.88 received for each $1Tax (wealthy state)
EPR – Extra Profit and Revenues Its only about the money
Annual Savings to County:
$380,000 vendor costs
$170,000 income to county
$550,000 TOTAL SAVINGS
Snohomish County Case Study: $550,000 Savings Per
Year
Its really just about the money
“In Maine, which has had an EPR law for electronic
waste since 2004, municipalities save $1.5m-3m
annually because manufacturers have picked up the
cost of collection, according to the Natural
Resources Council of Maine.”
(http://www.economist.com/node/15825706?story_id=158
25706)
Approved Prices for Connecticut DEP Approved Covered Electronic
Recyclers (CER)
The approved CERs are authorized to bill manufacturers at the rates indicated below. The recycling fee is
for eligible costs related to the transportation and recycling of covered electronic devices. The separation
fee is for devices set aside at the request of a manufacturer.
Recycler Approved Recycling Fee Approved Separation
Fee
Universal Recycling
Technologies LLC
23 cents 16 cents
WeRecycle 34 cents 27 cents
eco International 19 cents 13 cents
RMG Enterprise Inc. 30 cents 17.5 cents
Metech Recycling Inc. 25 cents 30 cents
Electronic Recyclers
International
38 cents 20 cents
EPR Tax: Consumer Pays for 46” TV
State run programs States allowing more freedom
Maine: $18.70 Minnesota: $7.61
Washington: $19.59 Illinois: $4.20
Connecticut: $23.75 Rhode Island : $9.40
New York: $20.17 New Jersey: $10.71
California: $10* (POS tax) Indiana: $7.99
Program Lbs Per
Capita 2010
LBs Per
Capita
2009
LBs Per
Capita
2008
LBs Per
Capita
2007
LBs Per
Capita
2006
California 4.9 5.0 5.9 5.0 3.5
Maine 3.9 6.0 4.0 3.5 3.0
Delaware (no regulation) 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.3
Hennepin County 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.8 4.0
Branford, CT (no
regulation until 2011)
6.1 4.8 5.0 4.4 4.8
Frederick County,
VA
3.4 4.0 3.6 3.8 3.5
Average 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.2 3.7
Does EPR Regulation Improve Collection and
Recycling?
NCER PCCI: http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/public/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=107
EPR Result in WA: No Design Influence
The Washington Materials Management Finance Authority, which runs the state plan in
Washington is required by statute to report on Design For Environment (DFE)
improvement opportunities.
•Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) glass recycling is an expensive obstacle. However, the thin
flat panel displays have already replaced CRTs as preferred design choice before the
law was passed.
•Elimination of difficult to separate laminates will lead to improved potential for
selling the recovered commodities.
•Elimination of leaded solder. This was phased out by most companies by 2003,
again, before passage of the Washington EPR law.
•Faster assembly techniques should result in faster disassembly techniques. This is
something design engineers have been working at for decades.
“These responses are not a new revelation exclusive only to processors in Washington
State. They are consistent with independent surveys conducted by non‐governmental agencies, manufacturers, and environmental research organizations within our
regional area and nationwide….”
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/eproductrecycle/docs/2009AnnualReportfromWMMFA.p
df .
What is best path Forward
“Based on my efforts to date I am of the opinion
that it would be more effective to attempt to
coordinate participation of Washington State
manufacturers and processors on a national level….”
John Friedrick, WMMFA Executive Director.
(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/eproductrecycle
/docs/2009AnnualReportfromWMMFA.pdf)
Sony Recommendations
Harmonized Regulations at Federal Level
OEMs take financial responsibility once collected
Product Design
– No hazardous materials
– High recycled content
Consumer involvement
– Active Participants
Collection
– Use existing infrastructure
Most efficient recycling
– efficiency of scale
“Sony” or “make.believe” is a registered trademark of Sony Corporation.
Names of Sony products and services are the registered trademarks and/or trademarks of Sony Corporation or its Group companies.
Other company names and product names are the registered trademarks and/or trademarks of the respective companies.