Australia has embraced product stewardship as a key tool in the push towards a circular economy, but the current system is falling short of its potential, according to Mike Ritchie, managing director of MRA Consulting Group. Speaking at Waste 2026 in Coffs Harbour, Ritchie argued that while Australia has made progress in resource recovery, the next phase of improvement will require governments to embrace mandatory product stewardship/EPR models, something that few of those managing such schemes have in place. He said most are voluntary, which needs to change.
The challenge is becoming increasingly urgent. Governments have set ambitious waste diversion targets, including a goal of achieving 80 per cent resource recovery by 2030. Ritchie said Australia has performed strongly to date, but reaching future targets will need faster action and better policy settings.
In his view, governments have only a limited number of tools available to divert material from landfill. Landfill levies play an important role by improving the economics of recycling, while mandates can help create markets and drive behaviour change. However, he believes extended producer responsibility remains one of the most underutilised mechanisms available.
“Under such schemes, manufacturers and importers contribute funds into a stewardship arrangement,” he said. “A product-responsible organisation then uses those funds to recover materials from the economy and return them to recycling systems. The government’s role should largely be to establish the framework, enforce compliance and set recovery targets, allowing industry to manage operations.”
Mandatory schemes delivering stronger outcomes
Australia currently has more than 100 product stewardship schemes operating across various sectors. However, Ritchie contends that only a small fraction of them are delivering meaningful outcomes.
“There are 106 of these schemes in the country, and 97 of them don’t work very well, and nine do, and the nine that do are all mandatory,” he said.
The nine mandatory schemes consist of the eight state-based container deposit schemes and the oil stewardship scheme. These programs are achieving diversion rates of between 60 and 80 per cent.
By contrast, voluntary schemes consistently struggle to deliver substantial recovery outcomes.
“The conclusion of my talk is the ones that work are mandatory, the ones that seem to work but don’t actually deliver very much reform are voluntary schemes,” he said. “I applaud the efforts of people working in voluntary stewardship arrangements but, they are battling economic forces that they cannot overcome. “
Drawing on analysis undertaken through a federal government review process, Ritchie noted that voluntary schemes collectively divert hundreds of thousands of tonnes of material. While he said this appears impressive, much of the recovery is associated with existing recycling systems rather than new stewardship initiatives.
“The more important measure is the percentage of material recovered compared with the total amount placed on the market,” he said. “Using this metric, most voluntary schemes achieve recovery rates of only one to 16 per cent.
“Your best effort is recovering 16 per cent and letting 84 per cent of these materials go to landfill.”
This raises questions about whether governments should continue relying on voluntary approaches or instead establish mandatory frameworks that allow stewardship organisations to recover materials at scale.
One of the keys to mandatory schemes is the ability to set meaningful levies that can fund collection, recovery and recycling activities. Container deposit schemes provide an example of how this works.
According to Ritchie, mandatory arrangements provide the financial certainty needed to fund both collection systems and consumer incentives. Without those mechanisms, recovery rates remain constrained.
Packaging and emerging stewardship priorities
Packaging remains one of the prominent product stewardship challenges in Australia. During his talk, Ritchie described the existing co-regulatory packaging scheme as a disappointment, noting that governments have repeatedly discussed making the system mandatory without taking decisive action.
“It’s been announced six times that we’re going to mandate it,” he said.
While he acknowledged recent efforts by government, he argued that progress has been slow and that the packaging sector increasingly recognises the need for stronger regulation.
A coalition involving the packaging industry, recycling sector and environmental groups has emerged in support of reform.
“Many businesses are frustrated by free riders who avoid stewardship obligations while competing against companies attempting to do the right thing,” said Ritchie.
“The objective should be to create a system in which all participants contribute and are held to the same standards. Such an approach would allow higher recovery targets to be established and properly funded.”
Plastic packaging remains the biggest challenge within the broader packaging stream. Ritchie said improving plastic recovery rates will require substantial investment and a strong regulatory framework.
Battery stewardship represents another area where governments are moving towards a mandatory approach. While the details are still being developed, Ritchie believes the future success of battery recycling will depend on establishing a clear and unified governance structure.
“I am very much in the camp of one operator, one product responsibility organisation,” he said.
He pointed to previous experiences with television and computer recycling schemes, where multiple stewardship organisations operated simultaneously. In his view, a single national organisation would deliver greater consistency and efficiency.
Ritchie also highlighted legislation developed in New South Wales that could be adopted by other jurisdictions to accelerate product stewardship reform. However, he questioned why a country with a relatively small population continues to rely on fragmented state-by-state arrangements.
Then there are solar panels, which present another emerging challenge. While governments have provided funding to establish collection networks and pilot programs, Ritchie argued that taxpayer-funded initiatives should not replace producer responsibility.
“We need to make industry designers, the people manufacturing this stuff, think about recycling at the end of life and take responsibility for it,” he said. “Product stewardship should encourage manufacturers to consider recyclability from the design stage through to end-of-life management.”
Soft plastics remain another area of concern following the collapse of previous collection arrangements. While there have been efforts by retailers to rebuild collection networks, the absence of a mandatory framework continues to limit progress.
“It’s always going to be marginal,” said Ritchie. “Without the ability to raise levies across the entire market, soft plastic recovery systems will struggle to provide the support needed by recyclers and reprocessors.”
The container deposit success story
While Ritchie was critical of many stewardship arrangements, he identified container deposit schemes as a clear success. These state-based systems are achieving recovery rates of between 60 and 80 per cent, with South Australia continuing to lead performance due to its long-established program.
“These are all mandatory and we know their metrics,” said Ritchie. “These schemes provide transparency, accountability and measurable outcomes. Governments know how much material enters the market, how much is recovered, and how recovery rates are changing over time.”
Despite their success, he believes there is considerable room for improvement.
One issue is the lack of national consistency. Different jurisdictions operate separate schemes with different administrators and network operators. While all are broadly successful, Ritchie argued that a national approach would generate efficiencies and reduce duplication. He also highlighted growing discussion around expanding eligible containers and increasing refund values.
Queensland and the Northern Territory have already added wine and spirits containers to their schemes, while New South Wales has committed to introducing similar changes in coming years.
More importantly, Ritchie believes the long-standing 10 cent refund should be increased.
“The value of the rebate, if it’s not escalated with inflation, decreases in its pulling power over time,” he said. “South Australia’s original five-cent refund introduced in 1977 would be worth substantially more in today’s dollars. As the real value of the refund declines, so too does its ability to motivate participation. If we have a weak rebate value, we’ll have weak recovery rates.”
He believes increasing refunds is one of the most straightforward ways to boost collection rates and further improve performance.
As Australia seeks to accelerate progress towards higher resource recovery targets, Ritchie believes the evidence is clear. Product stewardship remains a powerful policy tool, but only when backed by mandatory participation, effective regulation and adequate funding.
“EPR only, it’s a great mechanism. We need to make it work, but it has to be mandatory,” he said.
His conclusion was equally direct. Container deposit schemes and oil stewardship programs are delivering strong outcomes, while many voluntary arrangements continue to operate at the margins. Without stronger national leadership and a willingness to mandate stewardship obligations, Australia will struggle to achieve the recovery rates needed to meet future waste and recycling goals.