In a world starting to focus on recycling and reuse, we often don’t think about what happens to our electronics after we’re done with them. In the article “Electronic Waste Management Approaches: An Overview” authors Kiddee, Naidu, and Wong present a global perspective of the growing e-waste crisis. They highlight the mix of toxic substances like lead, cadmium, and brominated flame retardants in our discarded electronics and the long-term risks they pose to human health and ecosystems. The paper outlines several waste management tools and policy strategies that countries have used, but the solution that stands out is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
Essentially, EPR shifts accountability. The authors write, “A national scheme such as EPR is a good policy in solving the growing e-waste problems,” emphasizing that while no single solution is sufficient, a layered approach with EPR at the core is essential for meaningful progress. Under this model, manufacturers instead of consumers or governments become responsible for the full lifecycle of their products, including take-back, recycling, and final disposal. It reframes the issue from “How do we get rid of this?” to “How should it have been made in the first place?” When companies are financially responsible for disposal, they are more likely to create products that are longer-lasting, less toxic, and easier to repair or recycle. Sustainability becomes a thought in mind during the design process instead of during an item’s disposal.
The article also points out that countries with established EPR systems—such as those in the European Union, Japan, and parts of Canada—have made significant progress in collecting and safely handling e-waste. However, it’s not only about infrastructure. EPR often goes hand in hand with public awareness campaigns, reinforcing the importance of proper disposal and helping reduce dependence on informal, unsafe recycling methods. As Kiddee explains, “The key to success in terms of e‑waste management is to develop eco‑design devices, properly collect e‑waste, [and] recover and recycle material by safe methods.”
This idea of designing with the end in mind is important. When producers are responsible for what happens after a product’s useful life, systems begin to think about how they can utilize and implement a circular economy. Products do not become disposable but can have alternate purposes after use—built with repair, reuse, and recycling in mind. This kind of shift lessens environmental harm and helps reshape the way we think during the production process.
Despite this, it can’t be ignored that EPR isn’t without its challenges. For businesses, especially small and medium-sized manufacturers, taking on the cost of product take-back, recycling programs, and redesign for sustainability can be financially demanding. Implementing EPR systems can require early on investment in infrastructure, compliance mechanisms, and changes to supply chains. While these costs can be significant, they reflect the true environmental impact of production; these costs are often externalized and absorbed by communities or ecosystems instead. EPR forces us to realize that environmental responsibility isn’t free, but is necessary. If reducing e-waste and its long-term harms is our goal, then shifting who takes the biggest hits is the first step.
EPR is not a complete solution. It requires strong enforcement, supportive regulation, and international cooperation. In a world full of ever-changing electronics, the shift from reactive cleanup to proactive responsibility is essential. If we want a future where our devices don’t leave behind toxic legacies, Extended Producer Responsibility is a good place to start.
Impact Blueprint 