We envision an approach to recycling that will: * Advance energy independence * Help free us from oil addiction * Create jobs and profits * Grow domestic manufacturing * Fight climate change * Respond to the changing fiscal climate * Internalize environmental costs – * Privatize costs, not just subsidize them with public $

1. Extended
Producer
Responsibility
Dialogue
IV
Transi'oning
to
Ac'on
on
EPR
for
Packaging
The
City
Club
of
San
Francisco
San
Francisco,
CA
June
4-­‐5,
2012
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

2. The
Problem
A
range
of
stakeholders
believes
recovery
rates
in
the
US
are
too
low
and
sees
EPR
as
the
best
tool
to
improve
recycling.
Other
ideas
are
welcome.
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

3. The
Process
1.
AcHon
oriented:
puJng
soluHons
on
the
table
2.
Clear
goal:
model
state
legislaHon
3.
AdapHve:
beMer
ideas
always
welcome
4.
Transparent
and
open
to
all
producHve
stakeholders
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

4. The
Dialogue
Process:
Prepare
for
AcCon
Develop
the
PRINCIPLES

DraG
a
MODEL
POLICY

IdenCfy
the
OPTIMAL
STATES

Convene
the
STAKEHOLDERS

IdenCfy
and
ORGANIZE
Those
CommiOed
to
Advancing
Policy

COMMIT
and
Take
the
First
Steps
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

5. Group
Discussion
to
Date
Roundtable
MeeCngs
• EPR
Dialogue
I
–
New
York,
6/16/2011
• EPR
Dialogue
II
–
Atlanta,
8/24/2011
• EPR
Dialogue
III
–
DC,
12/1/2011
• EPR
Dialogue
IV
–
San
Francisco,
6/3-­‐6/4/2012
Conference
Calls
• EPR
Teleconference
-­‐3/23/2011
• Policy
Webinar
–
10/18/2011
• State
Webinar
–
10/20/2011
• DraZ
EPR
Policy
Rollout
–
2/21/2012
• Policy
Proposal:
Round
2
Discussion
–
4/13/2012
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

6. The
ObjecCve
“To
implement
a
strategy
to
develop
and
promote
model
mul4-­‐material
packaging
and
printed
paper
EPR
policy
in
non-­‐deposit
states
that
will
increase
the
volume
of
recyclables
collected
in
a
more
economically-­‐efficient
manner”
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

7. Core
Principles
To
be
economically,
poli4cally,
and
environmentally
viable,
EPR
policy
needs
to
reflect
three
shared
principles:
1. Internalize
Costs
—
When
polluHon
and
waste
costs
are
externalized,
polluHon
and
waste
increases.
However
when
the
costs
are
internalized,
businesses
and
consumers
implement
the
most
cost-­‐effecHve
means
of
achieving
the
desired
outcomes.
2. Brand
Owner
Financing
—
Because
brand
owners
make
front-­‐end
design
decisions,
they
are
best
posiHoned
to
pay
the
external
costs,
and
have
the
best
opportunity
and
incenHve
to
reduce
them.
3. Brand
Owner
Management
—
Government
may
set
the
performance
standards,
monitor
progress
and
create
a
level
playing
field
for
EPR,
but
brand
owners
are
best
posiHoned
to
design
and
manage
the
program
to
achieve
those
goals.
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

8. Goals
Based
on
group
discussion,
our
process
must
meet
the
following
minimum
benchmarks:
1. Policy
must
meet
the
three
core
principles:
cost
internalizaHon,
brand-­‐owner
financing,
and
brand-­‐owner
management.
2. Address
packaging
and
printed
paper.
Need
mechanisms
to
support
and
enhance
exisHng
markets
for
recyclables,
and
create
the
markets
for
materials
without
adequate
end
markets.
3. Achieve
high
rates
and
quality,
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
materials
sector:
aluminum,
steel,
glass,
plasHc,
and
paper.
4. Boost
domesCc
economy
–
keep
enough
volume
in
domesHc
market
to
serve
as
raw
materials
in
packaging
and
other
sectors,
and
help
drive
job
growth
in
the
US.
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

9. MeeCng
IV
Topics/Agenda
 Big
Picture
Issues
 Policy
Discussion
 PoliHcs
of
EPR
 Breakout
Discussions
– Policy
versus
plan
– Role
of
local
government
– Challenges
and
soluHons
 Preparing
for
AcHon
 Key
Takeaways
 Needs
and
Next
Steps
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

10. Big
Picture
Issues
NaConal
vs.
State-­‐specific
Strategy
– NaHonal
issue:
To
demonstrate
momentum,
consider
mulHple
states
simultaneously
(Federal
policy
a
non-­‐starter)
– Make
sure
stakeholders
are
aligned
before
we
proceed
in
states
– Make
final
invitaHon
to
stakeholders
to
provide
input
Framing
– Jobs,
climate,
waste
issue,
local
government
financial
situaHon
– BeMer
messaging
is
needed
to
communicate
– Clear
list
of
pros/cons
Problem
DefiniCon
/
Goal
– Stakeholders
have
different
perspecHves
and
prioriHes
that
need
to
be
aligned.
– Common
ground
exists;
we
just
have
to
dig
for
it.
Data
gaps
– Context
maMers.
We
need
domesHc
data,
not
just
EU/Canadian
evidence.
– Much
data
exists,
but
not
integrated
or
readily
accessible.
– Vital
to
quanHfy
the
business
case
–
what
is
the
cost
range
to
each
sector?
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

11. Policy
Discussion
(white
paper
and
presentaCon
available
upon
request)
Premise:
LegislaHon
needed
to
ensure
a
level
playing
field
and
support
effecHve
program
Outstanding
issues:
-­‐
Need
to
be
explicit:
which
(if
any)
away-­‐from-­‐home
spaces
are
covered.
-­‐
Ownership
of
material:
Brand-­‐owner
financed
and
managed,
but
no
flow
control.
-­‐
Focus
on
intent:
Final
language
of
policy
will
need
refinement
and
wordsmithing
-­‐
Retailers:
Need
beMer
understanding
of
their
role
in
EPR
system
-­‐
Fee
structures:
if
industry
sets
the
fees,
are
they
going
to
opHmize
over
mulHple
environmental
parameters?
Must
be
careful
not
to
undermine
exisHng
infrastructure.
Need
for
Life
Cycle
Assessments
(LCA)
As
to
make
sure
most
opHmal
outcome
(economically
and
socially)
is
incenHvized.
Approach
to
opHons
like
incineraHon
may
vary
by
state.
-­‐
Responsibility:
Producers
to
accept
responsibility
for
their
packaging
choices
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

12. Alternate
Proposals
 AMempt
to
broaden
the
conversaHon
– No
single
model
is
perfect.
Very
likely
that
opHmal
model
is
one
not
currently
on
the
table.
– Consider
a
suite
of
policies
(Pay
As
You
Throw
[PAYT],
mandatory
commercial
recycling,
carbon
tax
shiZ)
that
–
implemented
alongside
EPR
–
would
best
accomplish
our
goals.
 ComplicaHons
regarding
transiHon
to
new
system
– Voluntary
approaches
might
help
secure
wider
industry
support
 Shared
Responsibility
– Benefits
of
shared
responsibility
model:
-­‐ Incremental
approach
to
change
means
potenHal
for
less
industry
opposiHon
-­‐ Allocates
costs
more
evenly
among
affected
stakeholders
-­‐ Maintains
exisHng
relaHonships
in
solid
waste
disposal
and
recycling
– Concerns
w/
shared
responsibility:
- Layering
shared
responsibility
onto
heterogeneous
state
contexts
- Experience
(EU,
Maine)
shows
that
full
responsibility
from
the
outset
is
opHmal
- Full
responsibility
gives
greater
leverage
to
cut
costs
and
drive
improvements
 Smart
poliHcs
versus
opHmal
policy
– If
considering
shared
responsibility,
important
to
state
we
are
driving
towards
full
EPR
model
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

13. The
States
• Four
Top
Priority
States
• Two
Secondary
States
– Plan
for
legislaHon
in
2013
and
2014
– Upcoming
elecHons
will
help
determine
where
best
opportuniHes
are
– Criteria:
Ideal
mix
of
public
versus
private
assets,
experience
with
recycling
and
producer
responsibility,
non-­‐deposit
state
• Local
allies
would
lead
iniHaHves
in
target
states
State
CoaliHons
could
include:
– NaHonal
Strategists
– NaHonal
Supporters
– State
Lead
Supporters
(Lobbyists)
– NaHonal
and
state-­‐level
opinion
leaders
‒ Input
from
local
governments
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

14. The
New
Phase:
Take
AcCon
Unique
roles
for
each
stakeholder
based
on
interest
(par4al
list)
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

15. Key
Roles
to
Coordinate
The
Facilitators
and
Process
Drivers
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

16. Breakout
Sessions
• Policy
Versus
Plan
What
is
in
the
legislaHon
and
what
would
be
managed
by
the
Producer
Responsibility
OrganizaHon
(PRO)?
• Role
of
Local
Government
What
is
the
role
of
municipal
government
in
an
EPR
program?
• Challenges
and
SoluCons
What
challenges
need
to
be
addressed
to
aMract
a
broad
EPR
coaliHon
in
US?
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

17. Breakout
Session
1
Policy
Vs.
Plan
• Trade-­‐off
between
specificity
in
statute
(to
eliminate
free-­‐rider
problem)
and
program
flexibility
(to
keep
system
adapHve).
Right
balance
depends
on
state
context.
• Policy
can
include
guidance:
consider
X,
Y,
Z
criteria
when
seJng
fees.
• PenalHes
and
fines:
can
ensure
that
we
create
a
level
playing
field.
– PenalHes
for
not
parHcipaHng?
PenalHes
for
not
meeHng
goals?
– Issue
of
No-­‐Sale
provisions.
– State
goals
vis-­‐à-­‐vis
local
gov’ts.
Enforcement
acHon
is
last
resort.
Capacity
building
is
also
key
element.
• What
should
count
towards
recovery/recycling?
How
to
inventory
all
that?
• Quality:
We
should
look
carefully
at
this
as
we
create
the
plan.
How
do
incenHves
improve/reduce
quality
of
enHre
recycling
stream?
– Language
ensuring
quality
might
hinder
passage.
Need
to
find
middle
ground.
– Goal-­‐seJng
with
transparent
costs
would
ease
this.
• KEY
TAKEAWAY:
Group
input
will
make
its
way
into
a
revised
white
paper
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

18. Breakout
Session
2
Role
of
Local
Gov’t
• Local
gov’t
historic
role
and
investment
needs
to
be
recognized,
though
these
may
differ
from
business
objecHves.
• All
actors
need
to
let
go
of
legacies
and
move
forward
with
transiHon
• Key
issue
is
stranded
assets.
No
policy
recommendaHons
came
out
of
this
going
forward,
but
will
need
to
be
addressed.
• In
designing
a
system,
we
need
to
be
transparent
about
where
and
why
we
introduce
complexity,
which
can
be
inefficient,
prescripHve,
or
poliHcized.
• EducaHon
will
be
key
to
transiHon.
PRO
is
beMer
poised
to
do
broad
regional
or
state-­‐wide
educaHon.
Specific
issues
and
materials
can
be
addressed
efficiently,
using
brand’s
ability
to
market,
etc.
KEY
TAKEAWAY:
Modeling/mapping
of
exisHng
public
infrastructure
in
several
target
states.
What
is
degree
of
penetraHon
of
public
infrastructure,
etc.?
– Need
for
F500
or
some
other
subset
of
this
group
to
convene
a
meeHng
solely
on
this
issue
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

19. Breakout
Session
3
Challenges
and
SoluCons
Key
first-­‐order
issue:
What
are
our
goals?
Clarity
is
needed
to
move
forward
• Recycling
infrastructure
must
be
improved.
We
want
to
achieve
highest
rates
at
lowest
social
and
environmental
costs.
• Clarity
about
assigning
ownership
of
collected
packaging.
• But
do
we
also
want
to
minimize
social/enviro
cost
of
packaging?
Then
we
might
want
to
incenHvize
design
for
recyclability.
– EPR
as
a
tacHc
versus
EPR
as
the
goal.
• Do
we
want
to
collect
a
broad
swath
of
materials,
to
divert
them
from
landfills
and
create
markets?
Are
we
trying
to
increase
PET
recycling
(energy
issue)?
• Do
we
want
to
create
jobs
and
build
domesHc
markets?
• Ethical
consideraHons
–
relieve
local
gov’t
of
this
burden?
• Set
goal
of
specific
reducHon
to
landfills?
Next
step:
Develop
white
paper
on
group
goals,
and
implicaHons
of
each
goal.
– DelineaHng
goals
could
help
define
a
coaliHon
of
the
willing.
– Test
more
ideas.
We
can
get
more
people
in
the
room
by
showing
that
we
are
doing
the
data
collecHon
and
research.
Prove
that
EPR
is
the
way
forward.
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

20. Breakout
Session
3
Challenges
and
SoluCons
(Cont.)
• Data:
AYS
report
coming
out,
value
of
material
in
our
packaging
pegged
around
$11
billion.
Not
having
that
valuaHon
makes
it
harder
to
get
business
community
on
board.
Could
be
eye-­‐
opening
for
business.
– Need
for
more
collaboraHon
to
get
more
sophisHcated
results.
– However,
groups
need
more
material
now.
We
need
acHon
now
while
we
do
this
research.
• Split
between
collecHon
in
Industrial,
Commercial
and
InsHtuHonal
(ICI)
sector
and
household
waste.
Low-­‐hanging
fruit
in
household
sector
(25%
of
households
have
no
recycling
opHons).
• Paper
industry
bracing
for
drop
in
what’s
being
put
on
market,
less
newsprint,
less
collecHon.
But
lots
of
paper
is
not
being
collected
–
high-­‐quality
fiber
(coffee
cups,
etc.)
–
could
help
offset
some
losses.
ContaminaHon
issues
must
be
addressed
in
this
stream,
but
high-­‐quality.
• California
has
a
new
statewide
goal
that
75%
of
its
solid
waste
be
source
reduced,
recycled,
or
composted
by
2020.
CalRecycle
is
required
to
submit
a
report
to
the
Legislature
(by
Jan.
1,
2014)
that
provides
strategies
to
achieve
this
policy
goal.
As
part
of
this
process,
CalRecycle
released
an
iniHal
discussion
document:
California’s
New
Goal:
75
Percent
Recycling,
which
includes
an
item
on
EPR
for
packaging
(pg
36).
Workshops
are
underway
and
all
are
invited
to
parHcipate
(www.calrecycle.ca.gov/75Percent).
• Are
there
incremental
steps
we
can
take,
that
might
support
or
precede
EPR?
– PAYT,
Mandatory
Recycling,
landfill
bans,
state
goals
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

21. The
Gameplan:
Current
Needs
• Research
– EsHmate
internal/external
costs
of
current
packaging
end-­‐of-­‐life
system
– EsHmate
changes
in
cost
with
EPR,
using
various
assumpHons
– IdenHfy
approaches
that
help
reduce
total
costs
– EsHmate
cost
range
for
key
materials
and
sectors
– Much
data
exists,
but
an
excellent
research
team
is
needed
to
develop
credible
esHmates
and
provide
policy
and
poliHcal
guidance
• Messaging
– Why
care?
Make
a
clear
case
to
consumers,
media,
and
public
– Why
should
brands
be
responsible
for
their
packaging
choices?
• Outreach
– Secure
strategic
supporters
within
each
target
state:
brands,
gov’t,
NGO,
haulers,
retailers,
recyclers,
etc.
– Secure
genuine
input
from
current
opponents
in
CPG
sector
– Strengthen
support
from
the
not-­‐quite-­‐willing
industry
segments
– Develop
legislaHve
opHons
based
on
input
from
all
above
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

22. Engagement
Network
Leveraging
the
Assets
of
Our
Group
Future
500
will
use
this
informa4on
to
con4nue
engagement
as
we
take
ac4on
on
next
steps
outlined
on
slide
23
TOP
STAKEHOLDER
NEEDS:
KEY
STAKEHOLDER
ASSETS:
-­‐ More
learning
and
willingness
to
-­‐ Experience
and
experHse
across
have
open
conversaHons
relevant
industries
-­‐ Direct
input
from
municipaliHes
-­‐ Understanding
of
local/state
-­‐ Pressure
to
bring
criHcal
stakeholders
government
dynamics
and
extensive
to
acHon
network
-­‐ Data
on
business
case/costs
-­‐ CommunicaHons
plaxorm
-­‐ Modeling
transiHon
scenarios
-­‐ State
and/or
naHonal
lobbying
power
-­‐ RecogniHon
of
needs
of
different
-­‐ Experience
with
EPR
implementaHon
stakeholders
and
materials
-­‐ Willingness
and
need
to
take
acHon
-­‐ Concrete
plan
that
is
pracHcal
and
can
be
implemented
-­‐ Broader
agreement
and
buy-­‐in
on
problem
and
group’s
goals
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

23. Key
Takeaways
• EPR
issue
is
growing
in
influence
– There
is
growing
momentum.
Groups
inside
and
outside
the
target
states
are
now
reaching
out
to
engage
on
this
issue.
• CommuniHes
want
manufacturers
to
act
– EPR
is
on
the
radar,
but
no
single
model
has
widespread
support.
• Many
brands
will
stonewall
unHl
they
face
genuine
state
acHon
– They
hope
if
they
don’t
engage,
it
will
all
go
away
• Some
brands
may
commit
if
we
deliver
more
credible
data
– Cost
esHmates
are
now
too
vague
to
enable
a
raHonal
decision
• A
well-­‐designed
EPR
approach
based
on
solid
research
is
essenHal
to
build
a
broader
and
more
powerful
coaliHon
• Openness
and
adaptability
will
lead
to
success
– There
are
many
paths
to
victory,
if
we
adapt
with
skill
and
integrity
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

24. Needs/Next
Steps
• RESEARCH:
Clearly
specify
the
needs;
secure
and
fund
credible
researchers
– Next
Step:
Future
500
draZs
needs
for
team
review;
idenHfy
prospecHve
researchers
• MESSAGING:
Build
compelling
messages,
visuals,
flow
charts
– Next
Step:
Tunheim
and
Cone
creates;
media/poliHcal
consultants
review/refine
for
team
consideraHon
• STATE:
Build
network
of
key
in-­‐state
supporters
– Next
Step:
RR
inventories;
F500/AYS
and
dialogue
network
systemaHcally
reach
out
• NATIONAL:
Seed
the
naHonal
conversaHon
and
grow
organic
movement
– Next
Step:
F500
and
other
allies
work
to
engage
other
key
stakeholders
by
leveraging
tradiHonal
and
social
media,
NGOs,
SRIs
• CEO-­‐to-­‐CEO:
NWNA
CEO
reaches
out
to
C-­‐level
execuHves
for
support
– Next
Step:
NWNA
and
F500
list
the
most
strategic
execuHves
to
approach,
then
schedule
them
• LEGISLATION:
Develop
a
revised
model
to
draw
out
more
stakeholders
– Next
Step:
RR
is
preparing
next
model
• OPPOSITION:
Reach
CPGs
and
others
to
secure
feedback
in
order
to
producHvely
address
their
concerns
• ALTERNATIVES:
Reach
Alcoa,
glass,
NAPCOR
to
clearly
idenHfy
needs/opHons
– Next
Step:
F500
week
of
meeHngs
to
explore
opHons
in
depth
and
find
alliance
opportuniHes
• OPERATIONS:
Engage
operaHons
experts
on
pracHcal
EPR
implementaHon
• PACKET:
Draw
messaging,
research,
and
legislaHon
into
a
packet
– Next
Step:
RR
build
on
white
paper
to
make
a
clear
case
and
build
issue
literacy
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org

25. San
Francisco
–
Beijing
–
Tokyo
335
Powell
Street
www.future500.org
The Future 500 :: The Bridge between Corporations and NGOs :: www.future500.org