PwC report for Stichting OPEN advocates monopoly within EPR, but ignores criticism

The story behind the results of Stichting OPEN

First, some background information about the results of Stichting OPEN. Since 2019, the European Union has required in Directive 2012/19 that 65% of the three-year average of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) put on the market be separately collected by producers, supplemented by minimum target figures per product category for preparation for reuse and recycling. Although producers are individually obliged by law to achieve these targets, this is often very difficult in practice. Therefore, producers and importers unite in so-called producer responsibility organisations (PROs) that collectively implement extended producer responsibility. At the start of this target, the collection rate of waste EEE in the Netherlands was 48% and the market consisted of multiple PROs, including Wecycle and WEEE Nederland. Wecycle believed that a monopoly position would lead to the targets being met more quickly. Therefore, they decided to apply for an All-Binding Declaration (AVV), with the promise to achieve the legal target of 65% within 2 years. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (I&W) subsequently approved the AVV, meaning that the producers, municipalities and retailers affiliated with WEEE Nederland found themselves obliged to join Wecycle, which from then on continued as Stichting OPEN. WEEE Nederland later became an executive organisation of Stichting OPEN.

However, the promise to achieve 65% within two years was not fulfilled and now, five years later, the target still remains out of reach: in 2024, only 32% was collected. Stichting OPEN, moreover, criticises the 65% target, which is understandable, given that this target focuses solely on recycling and therefore does not take reuse, repair or other circular strategies into account. The sharp increase in solar panels also distorts the picture, as they now account for a third of the total Put on Market volume but are hardly being discarded yet.

The new European target, in which 85% of actually discarded EEE must be collected in the same year, corrects these shortcomings. The State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management has also confirmed that from now on, the 85% target will be tested instead of the previous 65% standard. Yet the fact remains that Stichting OPEN, with 68% collection under this method, also falls far short of the target. The European Commission has therefore issued a formal notice to the Netherlands, and the ILT has placed Stichting OPEN under heightened supervision, instructing them to come up with an improvement plan that leads to a higher collection rate.

The PWC report

The PwC report commissioned by Stichting OPEN focuses primarily on the efficiency and benefits of a single-PRO model such as the case with Stichting OPEN, in other words a monopoly. According to PwC, such a model would be more effective in tackling 'free-riders' and would safeguard awareness and long-term investments. In addition, a shift to a multiple-PRO system would bring many problems, such as favouring large companies and competitive pressure on prices that does not stimulate better recycling and long-term goals. Interestingly, another study, commissioned by the European Recycling Platform, reaches the opposite conclusion: competition between PROs creates incentives for innovation and efficiency gains, as PROs have a strong incentive to improve the services they offer to their clients. Because the PwC study focuses exclusively on arguments in favour of a monopoly compared to multiple PROs, the question remains unanswered of how a PRO system can be designed to function effectively in practice.

Another important point concerns the lack of consultation with relevant stakeholders in the report, such as WEEE Nederland, which now collaborates with Stichting OPEN, and other stakeholders such as knowledge institutions, (municipal) waste collectors, recyclers and consumer organisations. Without their input, it is difficult to reach fully substantiated conclusions, especially when it comes to striving for circularity, transparency and participation in PROs.

A position paper by the Fair Resource Foundation highlights the risk that PROs could use their dominant position for lobbying purposes, while other actors have limited influence. A major reason behind the establishment of the EPR organisation Collectief Circulair Textiel was also to offer an alternative that places circularity and inclusivity at its core. A white paper on EPR from Utrecht University, on the other hand, emphasises the need for a different governance model for producer organisations, with a clear role for other stakeholders such as municipalities, waste companies and civil society organisations, in setting the PRO's strategy. The white paper therefore advocates for a 'circular value chain management organisation' with broad representation and not just producers. The key question is therefore not so much whether you can have one or more PROs, but what frameworks are provided to a PRO by the government. In this context, the EPR further development process that is currently underway is also very important.

In addition, the study raises further questions about the development and interpretation of the results, as the analysis is based on a comparison of the Dutch structure with that in five other European countries. The conclusion that a monopoly would be more effective and efficient is based on this limited comparison. However, the figures in the report do not convincingly show that countries with a single-PRO system perform better than countries with multiple PROs. That conclusion therefore seems premature. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis

also report that the question of under what circumstances monopolistic PROs are more efficient than competing PROs can hardly be answered empirically, due to excessively large differences between cost factors and waste streams across countries.

Striking similarities

The report shows striking similarities with the conclusions of PwC on Verpact, the only Dutch PRO for packaging, which had a virtually identical study carried out by the exact same consultancy firm earlier this year. The question and conclusions were the same: the current system, in which one party has a monopoly, works best. This is unlikely to be a coincidence, as both reports were published close to each other with a similar purpose.

All in all, Stichting OPEN will undoubtedly use the findings from the PwC report towards the ministry and other stakeholders, in support of their new AVV application, submitted on 1 April 2025. This new AVV is scheduled to come into effect on 1 January 2026. The timing of the publication is also strategic, given the general election on 29 October and the consultation on the European Circular Economy Act, which also focuses on EPR. In this way, the importance of the AVV is highlighted for decision-makers on this topic.

Whether that AVV is granted or not, it is important that we do not reduce the discussion on producer responsibility to a debate about whether or not to have a monopoly, but talk about what we expect from EPR. And that is: directing towards circularity instead of collection and recycling, more transparency, genuinely involving stakeholders in EPR and effective enforcement.