Research article
Managing plastic packaging waste in emerging economies: The case of EPR in India

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112405Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Weak EPR policy and system leads to sub-optimal waste management outcomes.

  • Single universal EPR mechanism isn't feasible due to the inherent diversity of India.

  • Five key drivers and six constrainers explain likely effect of Indian EPR system.

  • Regulatory architecture is a key theme that affects implementation of EPR system.

  • Operational mechanism and eco-system catalysts are critical themes for an EPR system.

Abstract

India's large population, rapidly growing economy, and the consequent rising plastic waste, has necessitated the need for an efficient and effective plastic waste management (PWM) system for ensuring an environmentally cleaner and sustainable future. Consequently, PWM policy in India has recently undergone a substantial shift from being an informally organized, largely uncoordinated set of programs towards becoming a formal and integrated system based on the extended producer responsibility (EPR) approach. This paper explicates the evolution, development, implementation, and implications of the Indian EPR framework for PWM by developing an integrative mixed-method case study. Using a theory-based stakeholder evaluation model, the study critically analyzes the drivers and constraining factors from a multi-stakeholder perspective and provides prescriptive suggestions on EPR policy formulation and implementation. It highlights three themes i.e., (a) robust regulatory architecture; (b) operational mechanism; and (c) ecosystem catalysts, whose nature, dynamics, and practicality shall determine the future of the Indian EPR framework and those of comparable emerging economies.

Introduction

The rapid growth of the Indian economy in the last two decades has propelled millions of people out of poverty while also creating new environmental problems and associated policy challenges. One such major challenge for policy makers, industry, and environmentalists in India is the growing problem of plastic packaging waste (PPW). In 2019, India produced 17 million tonnes of plastic and plastic consumption has grown more than 20 times over the last 30 years (India Plastics, 2019). An unusually large proportion of this plastic constitutes packaging materials. In fact, in India, flexible and rigid packaging together constitute 59% of total plastic consumption,1 while packaging only constitutes 40% of the plastic consumption in Europe (India Plastics, 2019). On an overall basis, India generated 4.3 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of plastic municipal solid waste (MSW) in 2018 and this is expected to double over the next 20 years (Ryberg et al., 2018). Of this, about 94% is PPW which has grown in India at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17% (Bhattacharya et al., 2018). Given that about 90% of MSW is mismanaged and openly dumped in India (Kumar et al., 2009; Ryberg et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2020), environmentally proper management of PPW, therefore, remains a major concern for the industry, regulators, and the society at large.

Waste management policy in India has traditionally been focused on urban local bodies (ULBs) and consumers, albeit with limited success. However, with the advent of the new extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework, called Uniform Framework of EPR, in June 2020, plastic waste management (PWM) policy in India has recently substantially shifted towards a producer-focused approach (EPR-PWM, 2020).

In many developed economies, especially in western Europe, EPR is a well-established mechanism and has been included in the European Union's Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) for over 20 years now (Niza et al., 2014; Watkins et al., 2017). The EPR concept has its basis in the ‘management of the whole-life-cycle of products’ approach combined with circular economy framework and the polluter-pays-principle. It makes producers responsible for reduction of the environmental impact of their products. Thereby, EPR encourages producers to conserve raw materials, reconsider product design, technology, production processes, and be responsible for environmentally safe post-purchase consumption and disposal of their products (Fadeeva and Van Berkel, 2021; Milanez and Bührs, 2009; Richter and Koppejan, 2016). The EPR system imposes various physical, financial, liability and informative responsibilities on producers and other key stakeholders (Richter and Koppejan, 2016). A variety of policy instruments such as standards that govern energy efficiency, restrictions on disposal, taxes on virgin materials, labeling standards, minimum recycling content related standards, advance fees covering end of life disposal, and refundable deposits have been previously used for promoting or mandating EPR (Milanez and Bührs, 2009; Niza et al., 2014). In practice, many variants of the EPR framework exist internationally incorporating “administrative, economic and informative instruments” (Khetriwal et al., 2009, p. 155). For instance, in Norway, Belgium, Italy and France the industry creates a not-for-profit entity responsible for funding, coordination, and recycling. In contrast, in UK, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Sweden, retailers retain monetary deposits returnable to consumers upon recycling (Bassi et al., 2020; EPR-PWM, 2020; Watkins et al., 2017).

The recent Indian EPR framework was crafted by drawing upon successes and failure cases from other countries, past Indian waste management experience, and inputs from various stakeholders. Considering the vastness of the challenge, high socio-economic and cultural diversity, the demographic complexity, and the expected implementation challenges, the Indian EPR framework is substantially different in approach compared to EPR approaches of advanced economies. India being an emerging economy and a non-OECD country, its EPR framework has evolved not mainly from international commitment but from voluntary proactiveness of internal stakeholders. The Indian EPR approach is a departure from the traditional legislative approach of ‘command and control’ (Gupt and Sahay, 2015). It is significantly non-directive in nature and is inclusive towards multiple stakeholders from both the organized and the un-organized sectors. It allows for multiple models to simultaneously co-develop and coexist, and will significantly impact producers and manufactures across sectors and industries (EPR-PWM, 2020). Analyzing the development, implementation, and implications of this EPR approach, therefore, is of paramount interest to policy makers, environmentalists, industry stakeholders, and academia.

Previous research has assessed the EPR approach on industry specific waste categories such as waste electrical and electronic equipment (Atasu and Subramanian, 2012; Gollakota et al., 2020; Walther et al., 2010), tires (Milanez and Bührs, 2009; Park et al., 2018), electric lamps (Richter and Koppejan, 2016), end-of-live vehicles (Forslind, 2005; Tian and Chen, 2014; Wang and Chen, 2013), waste paper (Melanen et al., 2002), and aviation (de Brito et al., 2007) among others. However, very few studies have assessed the EPR policy approach of a country, especially a large, vastly diverse, highly populated, and fast-growing economy such as India. More so, past researchers have rarely analyzed the EPR approach and its implications with special focus on plastic packaging material, a product category which touches almost all other product categories and contributes significantly towards MSW generation. The lack of EPR studies providing integrative and evolutionary perspectives of regulative frameworks in large emerging economies; the dynamics, benefits, and constraints of implementation, and its impact on a major waste generator such as PPW is a major gap that needs addressing.

In this context, this paper studies the evolution, development, implementation, and implications of the Indian EPR framework for PWM in relation to India's environmental goals. It delineates the success-factors as well as the outstanding challenges and highlights three themes which are likely to determine the future of the EPR framework in India and other comparable emerging economies.

The paper contributes to environmental policy and EPR research by developing an integrative case study specifically focused on the importance and effect of contextual complexity in evolution, development, and implementation of the EPR framework. Therefore, we adopt a mixed method case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009) for context-specific analysis of the phenomenon, i.e. development, implementation, and impact of EPR on Indian PWM.

The paper is organized according to the logical chronology of building a contextual case, its analysis, and the implications. Section 2 explains the methodology adopted. Section 3 establishes the context, explaining the PPW scenario in India, the evolution of Indian PWM regulation, and ends with a critical analysis of the Indian EPR framework along with key findings. Section 4 highlights future challenges, learnings, and suggestions discussed under three broad themes, followed by conclusion.

Section snippets

Method

We adopted an embedded multiple cases approach with simultaneous focus on multi-level perspectives (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). This included (a) PPW as the focal product, (b) the Indian scenario as the context, and (c) the perspectives of various stakeholder groups in the Indian PWM economy. The choice of studying PPW in the Indian context was based on the scale and rapid growth rate of the problem, its scant examination by past researchers, as well as the recent regulatory policy changes

PPW in India

The usage of plastic in India has grown at a CAGR of over 10% from 8.33 MTPA in 2010 and is expected to reach 22 MTPA by 2020 (Bhattacharya et al., 2018). Once plastic is discarded or disposed of as it no longer has utility for the consumer, it is referred to as plastic waste (PWM, 2019). In 2019, polyethylene (33%), polypropylene (32%), the major materials in plastic packaging constituted 55% of the plastics demand in India (India Plastics, 2019).

While the average per capita consumption of

Discussion and conclusion

Given the scale and growth-rate of India's population and economy, the design and implementation of an efficient and effective PWM system is critical for balancing economic prosperity with an environmentally cleaner and sustainable future. In that context the unified EPR framework for PWM in India is a positive step, that was long overdue.

The traditional PWM perspective blamed the end users of plastic packaging for waste generation. As a result, the traditional measures focused on managing

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (44)

  • V. Srivastava et al.

    Analysis and advanced characterization of municipal solid waste vermicompost maturity for a green environment

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2020)
  • J. Tian et al.

    Sustainable design for automotive products: dismantling and recycling of end-of-life vehicles

    Waste Manag.

    (2014)
  • L. Wang et al.

    Policies and perspective on end-of-life vehicles in China

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2013)
  • Action Taken Report of MoEFCC Based on the Report of the Expert Committee on NGT Order in Him-Jagriti Case, 2019. ....
  • Annual Report PWM for the Year 2018-19 on Implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules (As Per Rule 17(4) of PWM...
  • A. Atasu et al.

    Extended producer responsibility for E-waste: individual or collective producer responsibility?

    Prod. Oper. Manag.

    (2012)
  • A. Banerjee

    India Plastic Ban: India is Generating much more Plastic Waste than it Reports. Here’s Why

    (2019)
  • S.A. Bassi et al.

    Extended producer responsibility: how to unlock the environmental and economic potential of plastic packaging waste?

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2020)
  • R.S. Bhattacharya et al.

    Challenges and Opportunities: Plastic Waste Management in India

    (2018)
  • K. Chandrasekhar et al.

    Fighting Plastics: Is Ban the Way Ahead?

    (2018)
  • M.P. de Brito et al.

    Extended Producer Responsibility in the Aviation Sector (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 985723)

    (2007)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt

    Building theories from case study research

    Acad. Manag. Rev.

    (1989)
  • Cited by (27)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text