Product Lifecycle Management
Position
RILA believes that the responsibility for the proper disposal of environmentally sensitive products
naturally resides with the owner or manufacturer of the product. However, many RILA members
have voluntarily developed recycling programs for their customers. Such private sector initiatives
should not only be permitted, but also encouraged through public policy. Government policies
should not mandate that retailers collect and/or dispose of used products, nor should governments
force retailers to charge consumers additional fees to fund recycling programs. In cases where
product recycling mandates are imposed, the mandate should apply equally to online and
traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. Finally, a uniform national standard is strongly preferable to
a patchwork of conflicting laws in different jurisdictions.
Background
Some products have an environmental impact when disposed of improperly. In recent years,
legislation at the federal and state level has been introduced to require retailers to participate in
programs designed to collect and dispose of a variety of products, including electronics equipment
such as cathode ray tubes (CRTs), compact florescent lamps (CFLs), paint supplies, mercury
thermostats, cellular telephones and plastic bags. Other legislation contemplates charging
consumers what is known as an “advanced recovery fee” (ARF) – an additional fee paid at the
point of sale – to pay for the collection of these items.
Policy Rationale
•
The responsibility for the proper disposal of environmentally sensitive products naturally
resides with the owner or manufacturer of the product. The manufacturer or “producer
responsibility” system has proven to be the most efficient and effective method for instituting
successful collection programs.
•
Retailers are committed to working with all stakeholders involved in a product’s life cycle to
help determine the most appropriate roles for each in the proper disposal of various hazardous
products.
•
In response to customer interest, many retailers have already voluntarily adopted recycling
programs. Retailers have proven time and again that they will respond to customers’ demands.
The government should not mandate measures inconsistent with individual retail business
models.
•
Point of sale or ARFs raise consumer prices and hurt retail sales. ARF programs have also
exhibited various inefficiencies that cause the system to be too expensive and cumbersome to
administer, as exemplified in California.
•
Traditional retail employees are not trained to safely collect hazardous material. This skill set
requires specific training.
•
Retail stores are designed to make the shopping experience as enjoyable as possible for
consumers. They are not designed to serve as collection centers, nor do they have room to store
discarded products targeted for recycling.
•
A single national policy is preferable to a state-by-state approach.
Status
Product Stewardship Framework Legislation
Several states, including California, Washington and Oregon, are considering product stewardship
framework legislation that seeks to shift authority over product recycling programs from the
legislature to the relevant agency in each state. The legislation would set up a framework for how a
product stewardship organization would be funded and function and leave it up to the relevant
agency to decide which products would be included in such a program. This initiative is being
promoted by the Progressive Policy Institute and represents the granting of significant authority
over stewardship programs to state regulators. RILA is working with the relevant state retail
associations to develop a strategy to guarantee flexibility for retailers and manufacturers in
implementing these programs.
Electronics
In the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced to provide consumers with a one-time tax credit
for returning used electronic equipment (computers, televisions) to a qualified recycler. It also would
have provided manufacturers, retailers and qualified recyclers tax credits over a three-year period
for recycling a certain amount of e-waste each year. The bill also directed the Environmental
Protection Agency to develop options for a nationwide e-waste recycling program that would, if
approved by Congress, preempt state plans. Similar legislation has not yet been introduced in the
111th Congress.
In the states, a California law requires retailers to collect an ARF on the sale of all televisions sold
in that state. The fee ranges from $6 to $10 and goes towards a state-run recycling program. A
review of the California law by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the agency
that administers the law’s implementation, found that producer responsibility models are the
preferred option.
RILA is working closely with the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC) to develop
Page 2 of 4
strategies in states and localities that are expecting to see eWaste legislation in 2010.
Paint
For the past several years, a group of stakeholders, including state agencies, the National Paint &
Coatings Association (NPCA), the Product Stewardship Institute and RILA have been engaged in
detailed discussions surrounding the recycling of both oil-based and latex paint. Currently, several
states administer and publicly fund programs to collect leftover paint to varying degrees of success
and cost. States are pushing for an industry-funded nationwide program to ensure that all used
paints are disposed of responsibly. RILA supports a program that incorporates the cost of the
recycling into the cost of the product at the manufacturer level to ensure both a fair playing field
and the most efficient financing method possible. The NPCA is opposed to this method and prefers
that the cost be passed directly on to the consumer. Plans to move forward with a pilot project in
Minnesota were halted by Governor Pawlenty’s veto of the legislative framework necessary to
shield industry from Anti-Trust violations. Subsequently legislation has passed in the state of
Oregon and legislative activity is expected in Connecticut, Vermont, and Florida in 2010.
Plastic Bags
San Francisco enacted a local ordinance that bans the use of non-compostable plastic bags. Other
states and localities are investigating similar measures but recognize the predicament San
Francisco is now in due to the inadequate supply of non-compostable bags. As a result, these
jurisdictions are seeking slightly more flexible options, with the exception of San Jose, CA.
Recently the San Jose City Council passed a resolution directing staff to produce an ordinance that
would ban plastic bags and most paper bags as well. Many other municipalities are working to
establish bag recycling programs and mandate retail collection of used bags. Others are mandating
that retailers sell reusable bags or are considering legislation that would charge consumers extra
for using plastic bags. Washington DC recently enacted a $0.05 charge per plastic bag effective
January 1, 2010. RILA has partnered with the Progressive Bag Alliance and the American
Chemistry Council in an effort to educate lawmakers on the realities of plastic bag recycling to
ensure that forward-thinking legislation is considered.
Action Needed
As states continue to address their potentially devastating budget shortfalls and lack of adequate
reserves, they will inevitably search for programs to cut rather than taxes to increase. They may
look for new funding streams or avenues to either directly shift the cost of publicly financed
recycling programs for specific products, or to shift responsibility for managing such programs.
Mandatory product recycling programs or collection fees may join the other “low hanging fruit” as
states across the country continue their budget debates. Retailers must be prepared to participate
in these dialogues to avoid cumbersome and potentially unworkable mandated recycling
programs.
RILA supports environmentally friendly product stewardship policies and urges federal and state
policymakers to support approaches that provide incentives – not mandates – for retailers to
Page 3 of 4
develop product stewardship or recycling programs. We also support a national product
stewardship plan that would preempt conflicting and contradictory state laws. RILA opposes any
efforts to impose recycling fees at the point of sale, as well as proposals that would force retailers
to collect and/or dispose of used consumer products.
Contact RILA
For more information, please contact Joe Rinzel, vice president of state government affairs, at
joe.rinzel@rila.org.
Page 4 of 4