Helen Millicer, Chief Executive Officer of One Planet Consulting, explains why we need to fix the extended producer responsibility system, not just the bins.
Australia’s approach to product management and stewardship schemes is overdue for an overhaul. For decades, funding has been poured into marginal improvements – such as measuring incremental changes within collection bins – while the foundational systems needed to drive a circular economy remain underfunded and underdeveloped, says Helen Millicer, Chief Executive Officer of One Planet Consulting.
“We all heard the recent Economic Roundtable lament the stagnation of Australia’s productivity. It is no accident that this coincides with our persistently unsustainable rates of new product consumption, reliance on virgin materials, and stagnant levels of product repair, collection, and recycling,” Helen says. “Thankfully, there are ready solutions.”
As a Churchill Trust Fellow and leading strategist on circularity, Helen identifies mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as the single most urgent reform. EPR requires producers to take responsibility for the collection and management of their products and packaging, enabling businesses to form collaborative entities that deliver efficient, effective services to the public and industry.
Countries such as France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, established packaging EPR schemes as far back as the 1990s, achieving collection rates of about 80 per cent and recycling rates above 50 per cent. Australia hass yet to introduce mandatory membership EPR for packaging.
But the issue extends far beyond packaging. Australia has several voluntary EPR schemes in waiting including renewable energy (solar panels), furniture, clothing and textiles, batteries, and electronic goods – all with backing from manufacturers, industry groups and retailers. However, without regulation, these remain underutilised. Helen warns that delays in making EPR mandatory will perpetuate high consumer costs and expensive stop-gap measures, such as extending container deposit schemes beyond their original purpose.
“Well-funded and well-governed EPR programs can contribute millions towards collection and processing costs, expand services into currently underserved regions, and amplify the investments already made by businesses, councils, and governments,” she says. “In Europe, EPR now funds product repair, incentivises recycled content, and improves both the cost of living and the productivity of resources already in circulation.”
Helen also calls for a unified, not-for-profit stewardship scheme for each product type, overseen by a national regulator to ensure producers are accountable to clear government targets.
Procurement reform is also critical.
“Without clear specifications for low-emission, repairable and recyclable products, governments and industry cannot easily leverage their immense purchasing power to stimulate demand for circular products and new sustainable markets,” Helen says.
Finally, she stresses that systemic industry strategies must prioritise supply chain collaboration and better landfill pricing equal to recycling infrastructure. She says that with stronger demand and viable business cases, private investment would rise without governments needing to selectively fund a handful of facilities.
Ultimately, she says, the challenge is about shifting mindsets.
“Without compulsory product stewardship, it will remain cheaper and easier to throw cardboard, bricks and batteries into one general waste bin. The result will be low productivity, rising landfill volumes, and higher costs of living. Smart EPR, procurement reform, and landfill pricing can turn this around.”
For more information, visit: oneplanet.consulting/
.png){kind=small}
