Paying the Price: Eco-Fees vs. Cost-Internalization

PSI Webinar: Paying the Price: Eco-Fees vs. Cost-Internalization
Wed, Sept 11, 10:30am-12:00pm PDT
Register here

How should manufacturers fund activities to reduce their products’ upstream and downstream environmental impacts as part of an EPR program? A debate is brewing in the U.S. over which approach— eco-fees or cost internalization —is the best solution.  Eco-fees are legislatively required surcharges that cover the costs of product end-of-life management. Manufacturers are required to pay eco-fees into a dedicated product management fund — and they do this by passing the eco-fees onto retailers, which then pass them onto consumers at point-of-sale.

By contrast, cost internalization is when the manufacturer is legislatively required to pay for the management of a certain percentage of the products it puts on the market without being required to pass the costs on to retailers or consumers. Currently, both approaches are used in the U.S., with varying types of eco-fees for paint, carpet, and mattresses, and with cost internalization for products like electronics, batteries, thermostats, and pharmaceuticals. Join the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) for a web conference that will examine the pros and cons of each approach and explore whether there is a one-size-fits-all solution.