Ekonomika rozšířené odpovědnosti výrobců (EPR) v regulaci plastových obalů: evidence z vybraných zemí EU (2010–2022)

This thesis examines the relationship between the strictness of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes and plastic packaging recycling rates in selected EU countries over the period 2010-2022. The analysis covers four core countries - Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden - and two contextual cases, the Czech Republic and Poland. EPR strictness is operationalised as a composite indicator across four dimensions: mandatory status, coverage rate, fee design, and enforcement stringency, drawing on the classification framework of Colelli et al. (2022) and OECD (2016). The theoretical framework combines market failure theory with a principal-agent analysis of EPR governance, showing how agency problems at multiple levels of the producer-PRO-regulator chain shape recycling outcomes. The empirical analysis uses Eurostat recycling rate data, bivariate correlation (Spearman and Pearson), and a pooled OLS regression with GDP per capita and environmental tax revenue as controls. Results provide partial support for the hypothesis that stricter EPR schemes are associated with higher recycling rates. The Netherlands, with the highest strictness score, records the strongest recycling performance among core countries, while Poland, with the lowest score, records the weakest. The relationship does not hold uniformly across the sample. France scores high on institutional design but records the lowest recycling rate in the core group, a finding the thesis attributes to insufficient collection infrastructure and the absence of a deposit-refund scheme for plastic bottles. The regression analysis shows that GDP per capita is a stronger predictor of cross-country recycling differences than EPR strictness, and near-perfect multicollinearity between the two variables (r = 0.917) prevents their effects from being separated in this sample. The thesis concludes that EPR strictness is one factor among several, and that deposit-refund coverage appears to carry more explanatory weight than the composite indicator suggests.