Hello there, Karin Brynell, CEO of the Swedish Food Retailers Federation!

Above all, the idea comes from the fact that we, as industry organisations, feel that there is a logical basis for the formation. We are facing a situation where the producers will have to shoulder a greater responsibility and bear all the costs of a new collection system. Therefore it is natural that we as industry organisations join together and form a producer responsibility organisation that can pursue a collective action for affiliated producers in the future and together have the power to influence. The alternative for our member companies would have been to join another producer responsibility organisation, without the same possibilities to influence.

The members of the Swedish Food Retailers Federation together with DLF Sweden are responsible for approximately 60 percent of the producer fees, and with Swedish Trade Federation the number is even higher, around 80 percent. The Swedish Brewers Association and the The Spirit and Wine Suppliers Association obviously also have a natural commitment to the new reality that producers are facing. Overall, it is about a strong and broad member base that we as owners represent.

What advantages are there for your members, who are producers, that you apply to form your own producer responsibility organisation?

As the industry associations’ own producer responsibility organisation, we see ourselves becoming an organisation that fully has the best interests of our affiliated producers in mind. Being a producer responsibility organisation and pursuing these issues is first and foremost about creating the best system possible, at the lowest possible cost for our affiliated producers. Our focus will be on creating a stable and safe system that works and fulfills its purpose.

We also see a great advantage in us coming together and becoming a strong, united voice in the issues we push towards ministries and authorities – together we are stronger than individually.

Are there challenges connected to the upcoming change?

Yes, it is almost self-evident that there will be both challenges and risks with a collection system that producers must fully pay for, but do not have complete control over, as it is operated by another party who also sends the invoice for their costs.

Such a system requires clarity about who does what and how costs arise, in order for the system to function as the regulation intends.
I also see that there are risks linked to the regulation itself, among other things because it is not clear on what is to be defined as approved material recycling. It is an issue that Näringslivets Producentansvar is actively pursuing with the department. We want to be clear to our producers with our image of material recycling and that it is important to do it right from the start.

Why should you as a producer be connected to Näringslivets Producentansvar – what is your elevator pitch?

If a producer were to ask today why they should join Näringslivets Producentansvar, I would just say: You do know that there is new legislation regarding producer responsibility that you must live up to? Näringslivets Producentansvar will ensure that you as a member take your responsibility fully and more.

By choosing Näringslivets Producentansvar as a producer responsibility organisation, you can be safe. As industry organisations behind the company, we want to be a warrantor of that.

How do you see the near future, what are your hopes and expectations?

I imagine that the transition between the companies will go smoothly for the producers. I assume that we will continue to have good communication with our member companies, and that the municipalities that take over communication with consumers will do so in a good and efficient way.

What issues are important to the members that the owners pursue going forward?

There are already a number of questions that we have raised with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, where we await answers. One of them concerns the need for clarification in the guidance, linked to who in the chain should pay the packaging fee. Our proposal is that we continue with the existing arrangement, but there is a risk here if it is not made clear that producer responsibility organisations handle this differently.
Another question concerns the definition between private and non-private use, here too we see that clarity is needed so that it is the same for everyone.

These are examples of clarifications that are absolutely the most important ones to solve during the year, in order to reduce room for interpretation and different handling between different producer responsibility organisations going forward.