Circular economy strategy draft: consultation analysis

Product Stewardship

Alongside the sectors above, the draft strategy sought to tackle specific products based on their environmental and economic impact. It highlighted the importance of working with the other nations in the UK to prioritise waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), batteries, end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) and end-of-life fishing gear. The strategy also sought to prioritise textiles (clothing), mattresses and at least one other product following further assessment. The products selected were chosen due to their high carbon impact, associated local authority management costs, and their potential social benefit if reused.

The draft strategy proposed using product stewardship to ensure that whoever designed, produced, sold or used a product took responsibility for minimising its environmental impact, based on the polluter pays principle. It suggested that product stewardship measures could be targeted across the whole supply chain, including producer responsibility, takeback schemes, product standards and recyclability requirements, or support for reusable or refillable products.

Q9. Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to product stewardship?

Most respondents who answered this question supported the principle of product stewardship. Some also explicitly supported the key products already being tackled and those identified for future inclusion. There was also explicit support for an evidence-led approach, as well as alignment across the UK, and with the EU where possible:

“I welcome the proposed approach to product stewardship and the emphasis on responsibility across the full lifecycle of products. From my experience, good product stewardship starts at the design stage. Thinking early about what a product is made from, how it is used, and what happens to it at end of life can avoid problems later and reduce the need for complex downstream solutions.” (Organisation: Private Sector - Food & Drink)

As with earlier questions however, there were several areas that respondents felt could be strengthened.

Need for Enforcement

Some respondents (both individuals and organisations) felt that product stewardship which relied on voluntary measures would not be strong enough to deliver change. Rather, they stressed the need for mandatory measures and enforcement. This view was provided across both campaign responses and those who provided unique feedback. It was felt that voluntary measures would not be adopted by businesses in any meaningful way, and were perceived to have failed to drive change in the past:

“The proposed approach to product stewardship is positive but could be strengthened by clearer, enforceable requirements. Mandatory standards for resource efficiency, durability, recyclability, and integration into circular systems are needed to ensure meaningful impact.” (Individual)

“Product stewardship through producer responsibility schemes and regulatory approaches are required for priority materials and products. Voluntary schemes do not provide systemic changes quickly.” (Organisation: Private Sector - Consultancy)

However, it was also noted by two local authorities that any regulations and enforcement would need to be consistent across the UK.

Holding Producers Accountable

While a few respondents felt that responsibility for environmental impacts should be shared across the supply chain, others suggested that the designers and producers of goods should be the ones held responsible for the full life cycle and the impacts of their products:

“The system to place the onus on producers of the product is very much welcomed as this will ensure that producers will have to consider the products that they are placing on the market, looking at how to reduce the impact by making their products more durable, repairable and recyclable.” (Organisation: Public Body - Local Authority)

Stronger Focus on Waste Prevention

Respondents stressed the need for product stewardship to be focused on more than end of life management, recycling and taxing waste. It was felt that much stronger emphasis needed to be placed on measures which would prevent waste in the first place. This should include placing emphasis on durability, as well as the creation of, and investment in, repair, repurpose, reuse and resale markets. It was suggested these elements should be core features of product stewardship:

“We support strong product stewardship and extended producer responsibility, with a clear priority given to reuse and repair over recycling. Product stewardship frameworks must be designed to prevent waste at source and to support local reuse and repair infrastructure as a core function, rather than as an afterthought.” (Organisation: Third Sector)

Product stewardship should enforce the circular hierarchy, it was felt, emphasising reusable and repairable products as the preferred solution.

Support for Specific Mechanisms

Some respondents expressed support for implementation of an ambitious, robust, effective and mandatory EPR programme. Several (both individuals and third sector organisations) also suggested this should be used instead of product stewardship:

“Most importantly, the focus should be on an ambitious Extended Producer Responsibility programme. EPR has proven to be the most effective tool for holding producers accountable, driving product redesign, reducing waste, and incentivising reuse and repair. While voluntary measures, takeback schemes, and recyclability requirements have a role, they are insufficient on their own to transform the system. Prioritising EPR would provide clear legal and economic incentives for producers to reduce the environmental footprint of their products, embed circular design principles, and shift the responsibility (both financial and environmental) back to the producers who create the products, rather than leaving the burden on communities and local authorities.” (Organisation: Third Sector)

However, several respondents highlighted issues with the current EPR system. A few individuals and one third sector organisation noted that this may have negative financial impacts for reuse charities which would need to be considered. Meanwhile, a few organisations highlighted the complexity and costs associated with compliance with the current EPR scheme. It was suggested that these issues should be resolved before further obligations were introduced.

There was also some support for deposit return schemes and takeback schemes. It was felt these helped ensure producers repurposed or recycled products and bore the cost of disposal:

“Take-back is one possibility for more heavily manufactured goods, that might encourage manufacturers to produce goods that are more recyclable, since otherwise they will bear the waste disposal cost.” (Individual)

Procurement and governance arrangements were other aspects which several respondents felt could be useful levers to support product stewardship. It was argued that these (and procurement in particular) needed to better align with product stewardship principles and prioritise circular practices. Currently this was considered to create barriers:

“…current stewardship schemes do not always align well with public sector procurement rules, budget structures or asset management systems, creating barriers to effective implementation.” (Organisation: Academic)

Respondents also stressed that innovative approaches, SMEs and social enterprises needed to be supported to participate in product stewardship schemes and to ensure they can benefit from circular business models. It was felt that care should be taken to ensure they are not penalised either by product stewardship frameworks or procurement requirements.

Other Products to Include

Respondents outlined a wide range of additional products which they wanted to see considered or included. Those mentioned by more than one respondent included:

• Plastics, including single use plastic, plastic bottles, and agricultural plastics;
• Lithium-ion batteries (frequently suggested by the waste sector);
• Materials containing Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs);
• Construction (again, frequently suggested by the waste sector);
• Tyres;
• White goods;
• Electricals;
• Furniture;
• Sanitary products and personal care items;
• Unused pharmaceuticals and medical equipment;
• Cosmetics; and
• Single use cups and food containers.

Textiles were also supported for inclusion, however, there was confusion and mixed views as to whether this product type was already included in the product stewardship proposals or not. Some indicated that they welcomed its inclusion, with respondents potentially conflating the anticipated inclusion of ‘clothing’ with a wider definition of textiles. Meanwhile, others suggested this category needed to be added.

Other Feedback

Several respondents felt that consumers needed to be considered within this section. This included consideration of responsibilities, awareness raising, behaviour change, supporting circular choices, embedding the right to repair principle, and support to develop an accessible sharing economy.

It was also suggested by several respondents that certified standards could be used, along with clear symbols/logos and information on products to assist consumers and downstream actors to make informed choices.

Several respondents also suggested that product stewardship and approaches to design in circularity needed to be linked to education and research. It was felt this would ensure understanding, behaviour change, and relevant skills development among the future workforce and consumers.

Other comments and feedback, mentioned by a few respondents each, included:

• Funding/investment, financial incentives, the use of fee modulation needed to be considered;
• Early engagement, clear guidance and sufficient lead-in times needed for businesses to understand and adapt;
• Implementation should be co-designed with the relevant industries;
• Greater infrastructure would be needed to support the circular economy;
• Data use was supported, but gaps need to be addressed;
• Need to consider large scale infrastructure, not just consumer goods, e.g. off-shore and renewable infrastructure;
• Need clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between producers and local authorities, along with funding and resources for local authorities if/ where they are required to take actions or provide services; and
• Product stewardship needed to be designed to reflect the realities of rural and island areas.

Challenges

In addition to the comments above, which were largely either supportive or sought to improve the product stewardship section, a few respondents provided additional comments which highlighted shortcomings, challenges or questions, as follows:

• The product stewardship plans lacked targets, timelines and implementation pathways;
• The product stewardship proposals lacked ambition and clarity, and focused on too few products over the time period. It did not reflect the urgency of the challenge and would not deliver the scale of change needed;
• Regulatory safety standards, both within Scotland and differing international standards that apply for imports/exports, could make the adoption of circular models challenging, with long lead-in times required for any material changes. This needed to be taken into account when considering product stewardship measures;
• How can foreign businesses be held accountable, including both for products sold in Scotland and litter that appears in Scottish waters/washes up on Scottish shores?; and
• What will happen if producer businesses no longer exist, who would take on the stewardship role?