Introduction

Integrated Product Policy (IPP) is a relatively new concept which is being examined by the European Commission as a possible vehicle to add to its environment policy.

Definitions of IPP are still vague. However, the basic approach is to focus on the life cycle of a product from its cradle to grave, including such stages as the extraction of raw material, manufacturing products, their distribution, use and treatment of waste. In this way, it is argued a global view is obtained and the environmental impact is not passed from one part of a product's life to another. This approach would mark a shift in focus from previous policies which tended to concentrate on the production and waste treatment parts of the process.

Various aspects of IPP have already found a place in EU policy making, such as the eco-label and moves made to widen the scope of environmental management. The European Commission has embarked on its own exploration of how IPP could be adopted as an across the board, rather than sporadic Community policy. They have promised a consultative (Green) paper on IPP by the end of 1999.

The role of authorities, the role of companies

The adoption of IPP as a guiding principle could take the European Commission down one of two avenues: a heavy-handed regulatory approach or a more co-operative policy-making approach placing greater importance on voluntary actions and market instruments with public authorities taking the role of facilitators rather than enforcers of rules.

The first approach would not be welcomed by Europe's food and drink industry and is unlikely to ensure sustainable production and consumption. Food and drink companies are already committed to raising their environmental performance through on-going improvements to their products and processes. Companies already meet existing environmental rules and often, voluntarily, opt to go further by setting environmental management schemes and international standards, such as ISO 14000.

Whilst, a life-cycle approach to a single product might be a useful tool in some cases, its positive application to the food and drink industry is less apparent. In some cases the approach could help phase out hazardous materials before they become waste. However, similar payoffs are difficult to see for foodstuffs: hazardous substances are not used; the end product is consumed; and packaging waste is already governed by tough and evolving EU rules which set demanding targets for the recovery of materials.

Shared responsibility

The second approach represents a step in the right direction by recognising that producers alone should not bear the sole responsibility for what happens to a product from cradle to grave and that other actors of the food chain also have a role to play. If IPP were to promote the concept of shared responsibility and spurred greater acceptance by authorities of voluntary actions, support for research and development and help in the advancement of life cycle analysis, then it could provide the basis for a new perspective on environment policy.