Extended producer responsibility for waste reduction
Theresa Mörsen, Sacha Mevel, Joan Marc Simon, February 2026
In Europe, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has long been designed to fund waste management (collection, sorting, recycling), but it is struggling to encourage waste reduction at source. However, faced with the explosion in waste volumes (packaging, electrical equipment, textiles), the European Union must rethink its approach.
This report by Zero Waste Europe sets out concrete ways to transform EPR into a tool for the circular economy, by separating the budgets dedicated to waste management from those allocated to waste reduction. This is a necessary shift to prioritise reuse, repair and prevention, rather than merely managing the consequences of a linear system.
To download : zwe-feb26-epr-for-waste-reduction-policy-brief.pdf (5.6 MiB)
Extended Producer Responsibility : a tool for reducing waste in Europe ?
A damning assessment : EPR, a system in need of reform
For decades, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in Europe has focused on funding waste management : collection, sorting and recycling. However, despite these efforts, waste volumes continue to rise faster than treatment capacities. The figures speak for themselves: between 2011 and 2023, the quantity of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) placed on the market has skyrocketed, whilst reuse and recycling rates have stagnated (see Figure 1 in the attached document, page 4). Worse still, reduction strategies (repair, reuse) remain underfunded, as EPR funds are allocated almost exclusively to downstream waste management.
The problem is structural: the current EPR system favours recycling (at the bottom of the waste hierarchy) rather than prevention, reuse or repair (at the top of the hierarchy, see Article 4.1 of the Waste Framework Directive). As a result, social enterprises and circular economy models (repair, reuse) are severely underfunded, even though they are essential for reducing waste at source.
Towards a two-tier EPR : separating budgets to improve action
To correct this imbalance, Zero Waste Europe is proposing an ambitious reform : to separate EPR funding into two distinct budgets :
-
A budget dedicated to waste management (collection, sorting, recycling), to meet legal processing obligations.
-
A budget dedicated to waste reduction (reuse, repair, prevention), to fund circular strategies (the intermediate-level ‘ R-strategies ’: reuse, repair, remanufacturing, etc.).
This separation would prevent funds from being diverted to traditional waste management streams (recycling, incineration) at the expense of upstream solutions. Pending the availability of precise data on the costs of waste reduction, Zero Waste Europe suggests the creation of a temporary ‘ transition to circularity ’ fund, financed by at least 10 per cent of the budget of eco-organisations (see Table 2 of the attached document, page 7).
This emergency measure would provide immediate support to those involved in reuse and repair, who are currently on the brink of collapse due to falling reuse values and unfair competition from disposable products.
Legislative proposals to embed the change
To ensure this reform becomes a reality, Zero Waste Europe proposes targeted amendments to the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). Key amendments include (see page 10 of the attached document) :
-
Introduce binding targets for waste reduction and reuse, in addition to existing recycling targets.
-
Make it compulsory for producers to join an eco-organisation (PRO), to prevent free-riders (companies that benefit from the system without contributing).
-
Enhance transparency : PROs1 will be required to publish detailed reports on the use of funds, subject to financial penalties.
-
Extend cost coverage: include fly-tipping and the treatment of residual waste within EPR obligations, to rebalance costs between waste management and waste reduction.
These changes follow a simple logic : if EPR is to finance the circular economy, it must also guarantee its results. Without legal obligations and monitoring mechanisms, funds will continue to be diverted towards end-of-pipe solutions, which are less effective at reducing waste in the long term.
Inspiring examples: Belgium and France lead the way
Some Member States have already trialled innovative mechanisms to steer EPR towards waste reduction:
-
In Belgium, the PRO Recupel pays compensation to second-hand shops and reuse centres for every electrical appliance resold. Result : an increase in the reuse of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)2, with funding based on weight (€60 per tonne until 2020, €120 per tonne since then). Furthermore, Fost Plus (the producer responsibility organisation for packaging) has a legal obligation to reduce single-use packaging by 5 per cent by 2028 and to increase the proportion of reusable packaging by 5 per cent (see page 17).
-
In France, the AGEC Act (2020) requires eco-organisations to allocate at least 5 per cent of their revenue to reuse and repair projects. A Repair Bonus has been introduced to encourage consumers to have their appliances repaired rather than throwing them away. Result : 40 per cent of repairers have seen their turnover increase, and more than 50 per cent of consumers say that this bonus influenced their decision to have their appliances repaired (see page 20 of the attached document).
However, these initiatives remain insufficient: in France, several reports (IGF, Senate, National Assembly) highlight that 5 per cent is too low a threshold to meet the objectives of the AGEC Act. A draft bill aims to raise this proportion to 10 per cent (see page 21 of the attached document).
A call to action: towards a more ambitious EPR
This report does not merely highlight the shortcomings: it proposes concrete solutions to make EPR a genuine driver of circularity. Among the key recommendations:
-
Increase funding for reuse: increase the proportion of the EPR budget allocated to reduction strategies from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, as already proposed by France.
-
Simplify and automate penalties for EPR organisations that fail to meet their targets, with penalties proportionate to the shortfalls identified.
-
Involve local authorities in regional planning, to tailor measures to local circumstances.
-
Entrust the management of funds to an independent public body, to avoid conflicts of interest with producers.
Conclusion : EPR, a tool to be reinvented for a zero-waste Europe
Extended Producer Responsibility has the potential to become a driving force for the circular economy, provided its operation is thoroughly reformed. At present, it mainly funds waste management, but does little to promote waste reduction. However, examples from Belgium and France show that progress is possible when funds are channelled towards reuse, repair and prevention.
For Zero Waste Europe, the urgency is clear : we must act now. By separating budgets, strengthening legal obligations and supporting actors in the circular economy, Europe can make EPR a tool for a genuine ecological transition . Without these changes, waste will continue to accumulate, and circularity targets will remain out of reach.
This report is a call to action for European and national decision-makers: EPR must evolve, or it will remain an obstacle to circularity.
1 PRO : Producer Responsibility Organisation (Extended Producer Responsibility Organisation). These organisations are set up by producers (companies) to collectively manage their legal obligations under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Their remit includes: the collection and treatment of waste (packaging, WEEE, textiles, etc.); the funding of recycling, reuse or repair schemes; and compliance with regulatory targets (recycling rates, reuse rates, etc.).
2 WEEE: ‘Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment’. This refers to all end-of-life electrical and electronic appliances, such as: large household appliances (fridges, washing machines); small household appliances (toasters, vacuum cleaners); IT equipment (computers, smartphones); screens (televisions, monitors); lamps (fluorescent tubes, LEDs); power tools (drills, saws). This waste is regulated in Europe by the WEEE Directive (2012/19/EU), which requires its separate collection, recycling and recovery to prevent pollution and recover the precious or hazardous metals it contains.
Sources
To go further
-
Europe’s Environment 2030 - Building a more climate resilient and circular Europe -Council conclusions 2025. Council of the European Union.