With a Little Help from EPR?: Technological Change and Innovation in the Norwegian Plastic Packaging and Electronics Sectors

In this article we discuss the interplay between extended producer responsibility (EPR) and technological change and innovation (TCI) in Norway. We ask whether Norwegian EPR policy has an effect on TCI and, if so, whether it makes any difference how the EPR policies are designed. By carrying out a comparative study between the plastic packaging (PP) sector and electrical and electronic (EE) sector in Norway, we conclude that there is a correlation between Norwegian EPR policy and TCI, but the causality is rather weak. EPR has an effect on downstream activities through increased recycling and indirectly through institutional innovation and learning. It does not, however, make a significant difference how the policies are designed, because they are considered similar by a majority of actors contributing financially to the EPR schemes. As for technological change and innovation upstream, the role of Norwegian EPR policies in the observed trends is not significant. Other factors such as the EPR-based Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive promulgated by the European Union (EE sector) and the need for competitiveness (PP sector) seem far more important. In order to make collective EPR policies more powerful in inducing technological change and innovation, decision-makers should consider more specific measures that directly address the core businesses of the producers.

[1]  E. Voet,et al.  Dematerialization: Not Just a Matter of Weight , 2004 .

[2]  A. C. Christiansen,et al.  Climate Change Policies in Norway and the Netherlands: Different Instruments, Similar Outcome? , 2005 .

[3]  Merete Høgaas Eide,et al.  Life cycle assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production , 2002 .

[4]  John R. Ehrenfeld,et al.  Industrial Ecology , 2000 .

[5]  S. Erkman.  Industrial ecology: An historical view , 1997 .

[6]  Kjell J. Sunnevåg.  Voluntary Agreements and the Incentives for Innovation , 2000 .

[7]  Burt Perrin,et al.  How to — and How Not to — Evaluate Innovation , 2002 .

[8]  A. C. Christiansen.  Promoting Environmental Innovation in the Energy Sector: An Analytcial Framework for Dynamic Efficiency Assessments , 2002 .

[9]  Alfred Kleinknecht,et al.  The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators , 2002 .

[10]  Thomas Lindhqvist,et al.  Can We Take the Concept of Individual Producer Responsibility from Theory to Practice? , 2003 .

[11]  M. Flor,et al.  Identification of innovating firms through technological innovation indicators: an application to the Spanish ceramic tile industry , 2004 .

[12]  Oladele A. Ogunseitan,et al.  Adopting Lead‐Free Electronics: Policy Differences and Knowledge Gaps , 2004 .

[13]  Kjetil Røine,et al.  Industrial Implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility in an Industrial Ecology Perspective , 2005 .

[14]  S. Keith,et al.  Technological innovation indicators: experience and prospects , 1992 .

[15]  Thomas Lindhqvist,et al.  Getting the Goal Right: EPR and DfE , 1998 .

[16]  R. Clift,et al.  Extended Producer Responsibility Policy in the European Union: A Horse or a Camel? , 2004 .

[17]  Ole Jørgen Hanssen,et al.  National indicators for material efficiency and waste minimization for the Norwegian packaging sector 1995–2001 , 2003 .