NON PROFIT HINDERS CIRCULAR INNOVATION

The government overrides the professional agencies and chooses a model for producer responsibility that hinders innovation and development. This is the last thing we need now. It weakens the work of preserving secondary raw materials and valuable resources.

The producer responsibility scheme contributes to less waste, better resource use, and a circular economy. Producer responsibility companies translate regulations into practice through collection, treatment, and documentation, so that the business sector fulfils its responsibility effectively and environmentally friendly.

The Ministry of Climate and Environment establishes regulations for producer responsibility schemes, while the Norwegian Environment Agency ensures these are followed and advises the Ministry of Climate and Environment on further development of the scheme.

The professional agencies are clear

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY IN UPSIDE-DOWN LAND

OPINION: Stig Ervik at Norsirk believes the profitability ban hinders innovation and capital in producer responsibility, but in our view, turns the debate on its head.

The discussion about the organisation has revolved around whether producer responsibility companies should be 'non-profit enterprises'. The Norwegian Environment Agency believes such requirements limit the actors and proposes clear rules for financial strength and certifications that block short-term gains as better instruments.

The Competition Authority has also expressed that non-profit requirements can limit competition and hinder the development of the industry. It is precisely development and innovation that the industry needs.

KLD has chosen to ignore professional advice and requires that producer responsibility companies be organised as non-profit. This creates conflict between the ministry and the professional agencies about what best ensures the purpose and seriousness in the industry. Ignoring experts' recommendations and prohibiting dividends keeps investors away and hinders access to risk capital for green projects. The ban is also easy to circumvent, something KLD acknowledges through State Secretary Kristoffer Andra Hansen's participation at the opening of the commercial OMRÅ facility.

A meaningless ban

The Ministry of Climate and Environment has not opposed producer responsibility companies starting commercial downstream operators as limited companies with profit goals. Plastretur has established Områ AS together with TOMRA. Such facilities are important but should be kept outside the non-profit value chain; the current practice circumvents the ban.

Another example is the billion-dollar group Stena Recycling, which has established a non-profit producer responsibility company for electronic and electrical products. Proretur AS collects EE waste within the Stena group and reports this to the authorities. This means that other recycling companies, which have the obligations, must cover the costs, as long as Proretur AS does not have an obligation that is the same amount as Stena actually collects. The fully commercial Stena thus sends the bill to those whom KLD has imposed a ban on profit.

Is this how the government wants the producer responsibility to function in practice? And what does the department think about large amounts, paid in by member companies to Plastretur, being used to establish Områ AS, which is definitely to be run profitably? Is this how the government and the department's political leadership want us to develop this important scheme going forward? Non-profit for some, and full profit for others? Does the Ministry of Finance think this is good practice? In our opinion, this needs to be sorted out quickly.

The clear disagreement between the professional bodies and the department was also evident when the packaging regulation came with a very short deadline in June 2025. The Norwegian Environment Agency's recommendation in the consultation was set aside. The same happened when we recently received a producer responsibility scheme for fishing and aquaculture. The agency's recommendation of 5 December was overridden by the department's regulation of 7 January.

It is not too late to turn around

Traditional company models provide more effective, circular solutions when there is a willingness to invest. The sector needs innovation and profitable companies. Why resist what works?

It is directly astonishing that KLD/the government wants the energy and creativity in the circular industries to be used to create intricate company constructions, not to develop new systems and solutions for even better sorting and treatment of secondary raw materials and resources.

NHO's annual conference recently addressed the fact that Norway is far behind our neighbouring countries when it comes to innovation. Perhaps it's not so surprising. The Minister of Trade and Industry should invite the Minister of Climate and Environment for a coffee chat about what drives innovation and development in the business sector. It is definitely not government-imposed bans on profitability, contrary to the clear advice of the expert agencies.