The rapid growth of battery Extended Producer Responsibility laws in the United States is offering a useful contrast with the more contested rollout of packaging EPR. While packaging regulation continues to face legal, operational and political challenges in several states, battery EPR has advanced with a more harmonised framework, clearer industry alignment and decades of collection experience behind it.

The difference matters for the packaging sector because EPR is becoming one of the most important policy tools for shifting waste management responsibility upstream. In packaging, these systems are still relatively new and affect many industries at once, from food and beverage to retail, healthcare, e-commerce and consumer goods. Battery EPR, by comparison, has developed around a more defined product category and a more established stewardship model.

According to The Battery Network, recent battery legislation has been driven largely by safety concerns. Lithium-ion batteries can create fire risks when they are improperly discarded in household waste, collection trucks or recycling facilities. This has pushed states to focus on access, education and safe downstream handling rather than only on diversion targets.

Battery EPR shows that producer responsibility works best when collection access, consumer education and downstream safety are designed together.

For packaging policy, the lesson is clear. Collection systems cannot be judged only by whether a material is theoretically recyclable. Policymakers and producers also need to understand what happens after collection: how materials are sorted, who processes them, what markets exist for recovered material and whether the system can operate safely and consistently.

One reason battery EPR has avoided some of the conflict seen in packaging is the use of a model framework developed by PRBA, the Rechargeable Battery Association. Several states have aligned closely with common definitions and programme structures, helping reduce confusion for producers and consumers. This level of harmonisation is harder in packaging because packaging covers thousands of materials, formats and product categories.

• Battery EPR benefits from a more defined product scope and long-running collection experience.
• Packaging EPR must coordinate many sectors, materials and recycling systems at once.
• Harmonised definitions can reduce compliance friction across states.
• Downstream oversight is essential for making EPR more than a collection target.

Vermont is presented as an example of a functioning battery EPR system. The state has operated a programme for more than a decade, with collection increasing year after year and most residents living within reasonable distance of a collection site. The model also works with rural solid waste drop-off points, making battery recycling part of existing community routines.

Packaging EPR faces a broader challenge. A household may encounter flexible films, cartons, glass, paperboard, rigid plastics, metal cans, multilayer pouches, foams and e-commerce packaging in the same week. Each material has different recycling economics, infrastructure needs and contamination risks. This makes the design of fees, definitions and performance standards far more complex.

The comparison also highlights the importance of legal certainty. Battery EPR has not seen the same level of litigation associated with some packaging EPR debates. One reason is maturity: battery stewardship has a longer operational history and a clearer industry structure. Packaging EPR, by contrast, is still defining how producers, brands, municipalities, recyclers and retailers should share responsibility and cost.

For packaging companies, the practical takeaway is to prepare for more detailed compliance expectations. Future systems are likely to require stronger data on packaging composition, recyclability, recycled content, weight, sales volumes and recovery outcomes. Companies that treat EPR only as a fee obligation may miss the larger signal: regulation is pushing packaging design toward measurable circular performance.

Battery EPR does not solve packaging’s problems, but it offers useful lessons. Harmonised definitions, clear collection access, regular consumer education and verified downstream management can all improve producer responsibility systems. If packaging EPR can apply these principles while accounting for its greater complexity, it may move from a contested policy experiment to a more stable circular economy tool.