"The producers’ main argument against expanding EPR is that if all the collection costs are covered, municipalities will have no incentive to control their spending or increase their collection amount.” 

Meta-Actor: Scientific Community

Source Document: https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-050612-085500/unrestricted/RenoSam_Final_Report.pdf

Date: May 6, 2012

__________________

"An argument to restrict the costs allocated to producers is the distribution of control in the waste management chain. Producers are hesitant to compensate all costs made by municipalities because it would take away incentives for cost efficiency. Also, considering that enforcement is a public authority, producers feel powerless for such tasks. Conversely, an argument in favour of allocating full costs of waste management to producers relates to the aim of EPR to shift away waste management costs from the municipalities. In addition, considering that the magnitude of the PRO fee determines the incentives for DfE, full cost internalisation is key. From a DfE perspective, cost-sharing with municipalities and other policy levels should be avoided. 

Meta-Actor: QUANGO

Source Document: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/WPRPW(2014)6/FINAL&docLanguage=En

Date: October 8, 2015