Abstract
In this study, we interviewed 12 Japanese stakeholders and summarized the characteristics of each of the advocator’s perceptions on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), focusing on the type, aim, application, rationale, and scope of “producers” of EPR. The stakeholders pointed out that not only is financial responsibility important but also physical and informational responsibilities. They also placed the rationale of capability as the main and causality as the sub to justify EPR. The authors then argued the different approaches for introducing and developing EPR policy, such as a physical responsibility-oriented approach and a policy-mix approach; noting that these depend on the ambition of advocator with regard to the ultimate goal and preferences for the different modes of government intervention. Furthermore, the authors explained, based on their discussion about differences in the stringency of responsibility/liability imposed on producers, how there is a tendency for confusion between the responsibility theory for mandatory EPR and the liability theory for producer obligations. Lastly, we also point out an issue that EPR theory, from the perspective of innovation, has not been developed in Japan.
