EPR shifts packaging waste costs towards producers

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is gaining momentum in the United States as policymakers look for ways to reduce packaging waste while shifting the financial responsibility for waste management from taxpayers to the companies that place packaging on the market.

The approach is based on the “polluter pays” principle. Under EPR systems, producers and brand owners contribute financially to the collection and processing of the packaging associated with their products. The intention is not only to fund recycling infrastructure, but also to encourage companies to reconsider how their packaging is designed.

Research from the University of Maine highlights the potential of EPR to influence packaging choices, while also pointing to a major challenge in the US: individual states are developing different rules and priorities. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Eco-modulation can reward better packaging design

Traditional EPR schemes primarily create a financial mechanism for managing packaging waste. However, newer approaches are attempting to make these systems more effective at influencing packaging design.

One example is eco-modulation, under which producer fees vary according to the environmental characteristics of packaging. Companies using recycled content or packaging that is easier to recycle could receive lower fees, while packaging incorporating difficult-to-remove labels or other features that complicate recycling could face higher charges.

This creates a direct financial incentive for companies to consider recyclability and material choices during the packaging design stage rather than only after the package becomes waste.

US packaging policy is becoming fragmented

Unlike Europe, where packaging policy is increasingly shaped by EU-wide legislation, EPR in the United States is being introduced primarily at the state level. Since 2021, seven states have passed packaging EPR laws, while more than a dozen additional states are considering similar measures. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

The result is an increasingly complex regulatory landscape for companies operating across multiple states. Different definitions, targets, fees and design incentives can make it difficult for manufacturers and brands to develop a single packaging strategy for the entire US market.

Different states can reward different packaging choices

The lack of consistent criteria is particularly problematic when regulations attempt to influence packaging design. A material or format considered environmentally preferable under one state's system could receive different treatment elsewhere.

For example, a company switching to compostable packaging could potentially receive an incentive in one jurisdiction while facing a less favourable treatment in another. Similar differences could emerge around reusable packaging, recycled content, recyclability and bio-based materials.

This makes long-term packaging decisions more difficult for companies, particularly when products are distributed nationally.

Recyclability alone does not guarantee sustainability

Another challenge is determining what should qualify as sustainable packaging. Policies may establish targets requiring packaging to be recyclable or compostable, but these characteristics do not necessarily guarantee lower overall environmental impacts.

The effectiveness of a packaging format depends on factors including collection systems, recycling infrastructure, actual recovery rates and the environmental impacts associated with producing and processing the material.

Experts surveyed by University of Maine researcher Erin Victor also differed on the priorities EPR should address. Some emphasised litter reduction, while others favoured reusable packaging, refill systems or bio-based and compostable materials. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

Alignment could strengthen producer incentives

The fragmented US regulatory landscape could ultimately weaken the ability of EPR to influence corporate behaviour. Large multinational companies may simply absorb different compliance fees as another cost of doing business instead of fundamentally changing their packaging strategies.

Greater consistency between states could provide a stronger incentive for companies to redesign packaging. Common objectives, definitions and fee structures would make it easier for businesses to understand which design choices are being encouraged across the market.

EPR could reshape packaging design

The expansion of EPR in the United States demonstrates that packaging policy is increasingly moving beyond simply financing waste collection. Properly designed systems can use economic incentives to influence decisions made much earlier in the packaging lifecycle.

For EPR to deliver that potential, however, policymakers need to establish clear and consistent environmental objectives. Aligning state-level requirements could give producers a stronger signal to invest in recyclable, reusable and resource-efficient packaging while avoiding a regulatory patchwork that makes meaningful redesign more difficult.