When discussing the issue of electronic waste, it is vital to look at the country’s rules and regulations around recycling.  In this post, I will investigate Singapore’s regulations, while discussing policies that could be implemented to encourage e-waste recycling.

By 2021, Singapore is looking to adopt the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach.  This means that a product’s environmental impact is considered when setting the pricing of a product.  This means that companies are responsible for the costs associated the environmental impact at the end of their product’s lifespan.  According to this new regulation, manufacturers will have to work alongside the Producer Responsibility organisations (PROs) to ensure their products are collected and disposed of appropriately (Siau, 2018).  This also encourages producers to find ways to reduce the toxicity of their products, as this will make the products easier to treat.

To understand whether or not ERP will be effective, we must look at how the approach is carried out.  ERP can be divided into two different methods.  The first is Collective Producer Responsibility (CPR), which is used in some EU countries (Atasu & Subramanian, 2012).  In this method, the end-of-life materials are recycled by an external organisation, and each manufacturer receives a charge based on the average cost of recycling for all manufacturers.  This means that manufacturers are collectively responsible for their waste, but the amount they pay is not based on their individual use.  The second method is Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR).  In this method, each manufacturer is only responsible for their individual waste, and the costs of recycling reflect the amount of waste they produce.

Both methods of extended producer responsibility have different implications, from a practical and a psychological perspective.  Firstly, the CPR method may be more cost-efficient, as recycling can be taken care of by one external organisation.  PRO Europe is an example of a product stewardship organisation, which works on behalf of a number of companies to recycle waste efficiently.  This means that manufacturers do not have to deal with the practicalities of waste disposal, and the organisation can ensure that products are disposed of in the best way possible.

However, another factor to consider is the motivation for companies to reduce their waste.  Research by Atasu and Subramanian (2012) investigated the implications of CPR and IPR in the recycling of e-waste.  The study found that IPR was a better incentive for companies to ensure their products are easier to treat.  This meant that design changes were made to ensure materials were recoverable, helping to make products more sustainable or durable.  In contrast, it was suggested that CPR could encourage companies to free-ride: failing to make changes and relying on other companies to keep recycling costs low.

The positive impacts of individual responsibility are also supported by theories in social psychology.  Research indicates that feeling personally responsible in a situation makes people more likely to take action.  For example, Darley and Latané (1968) found that, in an emergency situation, larger group sizes made bystanders less likely to help.  From my perspective, our whole planet is in an emergency situation.  Therefore, ensuring that manufacturers work on an individual level rather than collectively may help companies to take personal responsibility over the damage they are causing.

So how will the new EPR regulations affect Singapore?  Firstly, it is likely that giving manufacturers some responsibility for waste disposal will have a positive impact – it will help companies to consider how much electronic waste they are producing and how changes can be made to help the environment.  However, I would suggest that Singapore would benefit from adopting an individual producer responsibility method, as this will ensure manufacturers work towards creating more sustainable products.