## 1 Introduction
This is even more evident in the textile industry where tags are used to identify clothing with anti-shoplifting functions and are commonly known as intelligent labels. They are also employed for identification in the secondhand clothing business, where utilized textiles are either endorsed to a separate gathering of used clothes or discarded [20]. These RFID textile tags are so well-integrated into clothes that consumers are often not even aware of their presence and, therefore, they are destinated to the general civil waste collector. To date, the problem of RFID as e-waste is not considered by the majority of the populations, since the tags are very small and the effect they may have on the environment is not perceived. Thus, they are not discarded following the correct electronic waste treatment channel and they are lost in the flow of generic wastes. For these reasons, data are not available specifically related to the production of RFID waste. However, it is possible to estimate the problem by analyzing the growth trend of generic e-waste globally produced in recent years, as reported by the United Nations University (UNU) [21] and depicted in Figure 2.  
Figure 1: The waste collection cycle carried out by Sistema Ambiente s.p.a. company in Lucca, Italy. Clearly, one of the causes related to this problem is bad education and sensibilization of citizens. On the other hand, electronic equipment producers are also responsible for e-waste environmental impact, in terms of inconspicuous design, usage of toxic material or difficulty to treat, and the recent trend to incentivize purchasing new products, rather than repairing for the reuse, as it is more profitable for the company from an economic point of view. To mitigate this problem, in the last years, the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has been introduced globally by national regulations. The Extended Producer Responsibility is the principle or policy tool that the producer of a given product cannot lose interest, but on the contrary, must take care, even of the end of life of a product. The EPR is considered one of the main policy instruments in waste management that supports the implementation of the European waste hierarchy: The EPR is defined as a principle of environmental policy in which the responsibility of the producer is extended to the post-consumption phase of product life-cycle, including the withdrawal, recycling, and final disposal [22]. In particular, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the \"Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach under which producers are given a significant responsibility--financial and/or physical--for the treatment or disposal of post-consumer products.\" In addition, \"Assigning such responsibility could in principle provide incentives to prevent wastes at the source, promote product design for the environment and support the achievement of public recycling and materials management goals\" [23]. The goal is to ensure that producers internalize the environmental costs generated at the end of their lives by their products (for collection, selection, landfill, waste-to-energy, or recycling), thus encouraging them to opt for more virtuous products that, at the end of their life, can generate lower costs as they can be re-used (in whole or in part) or recycled. The EPR, based on specific European and National Regulations such as the one on the Management of Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), is one of the market instruments used to protect the environment, precisely aiming to modify the operators' economic behavior upstream (and consumers). The EPR is intimately connected to the additional cardinal principle in environmental and waste matters, known as the Polluter Pays Principle, which sets up a form of objective liability for the polluter [24]. At the regulatory level and in terms of general discipline, the EPR is crystallized in European law and in art.