Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the October 2025 print edition of Recycling Today under the headline “EPR is frequently cited, often misunderstood.”
With the signing of packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation into law in the state of Washington, there now are seven states with programs in various stages of initial implementation. The Flexible Packaging Association (FPA), based in Annapolis, Maryland, has been actively engaged in every negotiation and has developed expertise in this new policy arena for the United States. As policymakers and their staff become more familiar with this policy, it is essential to clarify what we mean when referring to EPR.
What is extended producer responsibility?
Thomas Lindhquist, Ph.D., formally created the principle of EPR in the 1990s and provided us with a definition, saying, “Extended producer responsibility is an environmental protection strategy to reach an environmental objective of a decreased total environmental impact from a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life cycle of the product and especially for the take-back, recycling and final disposal of the product.”
At its core, EPR is an economic policy designed to shift the financial, and sometimes operational, responsibility of the end-of-life management of products from consumers and government to the manufacturer or producer of the product. Necessarily, EPR will facilitate the construction of additional infrastructure to mitigate that while also incentivizing product design for less impacts on the environment.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, drawing on Lindhquist’s body of work, further clarifies that EPR is not a tax. While EPR compliance schemes could trigger a fee for producers, the fee pays for a service and could cover the full net costs for the collection and recovery of covered products.
As a north star, FPA encourages all stakeholders to focus on the critical feedback loop necessary for market forces to address systemwide impacts correctly. A primary desired end state of EPR is that materials that are more challenging to recover or reuse will be disadvantaged economically compared with alternative materials that are widely recyclable or compostable.
To preserve that principle, material fees should be based on recyclability/recoverability and what funds are needed to pay for infrastructure costs associated with that material. These fees must be dynamic, increasing when materials are sent to landfills, but also be able to decrease as infrastructure advances to manage that material responsibly.
If this linkage is broken anywhere along design or implementation of the EPR program, the market forces that are the real enforcement mechanism of EPR will not work.
Gearing up for EPR
While FPA strongly supports EPR as a policy principle, it is perhaps unsurprising that the battleground of U.S. politics has yet to produce a “clean” EPR bill.
Other interest group priorities, such as material bans, labeling schemes and state-led toxics efforts, often are included in the political sausage-making process to the detriment of increasing funds for responsible product management.
FPA has only fully supported two of the seven EPR laws that have passed—Minnesota and Maryland—because they don’t have conflicting goals and objectives. In other words, they are the closest versions to the core concept of EPR we have worked on.
As we look to the future, states with “cleaner” EPR laws will have their programs come online more quickly and efficiently deliver more funds to build out recycling infrastructure. The feedback loop between industry and implementing agencies will be stronger, allowing for the required innovation that industry can bring to the recycling space. This innovation will enable the correct collection, sorting and recycling of newer formats and materials, including flexible packaging, into new products. We are confident we can look forward to these scenarios becoming reality in states like Maryland and Minnesota.
In states that combine EPR with other policy initiatives, programs risk becoming mired in overburdensome requirements and regulation, undermining the goal of building recycling infrastructure because the goals of those policy initiatives are at odds.
For example, states that combine EPR, which is intended to build out new recycling infrastructure for materials that are not being adequately addressed by the status quo, with a recyclability labeling framework that is based on a sampling of aging, traditional recycling infrastructure, will give regulators two interconnected programs with goals that run counter to each other and cause consumer confusion.
In the same vein, EPR legislation often gets counterintuitively lumped in with attempts to restrict certain recycling technologies.
At face value, material bans would seem to decrease the environmental impact of products. Setting aside the fact that it breaks the critical feedback loop that EPR is attempting to achieve, packaging formats have been competing on environmental metrics for decades. In fact, flexible packaging is a result of market pressure for improved product-to-packaging ratios, a smaller carbon footprint and a desire to source-reduce to become more efficient.
Once policymakers familiarize themselves with the historical context of the packaging industry, it becomes apparent that material bans can set industrial-driven environmental progress back decades if we ban innovative materials without having more environmentally friendly formats in place. We can see these conflicting goals play out in the reissuance of regulations and myriad cleanup bills and likely a mixed bag when it comes to actual improvements in recycling rates across the seven states.
When considering EPR legislation, we have to ensure we do not conflate the goals of designing for recycling and recycled content with designing for the environment.
In the case of flexibles, the same advancements that provide their environmentally superior profile are the same reasons they are challenged in the aging recycling stream, but investments through EPR could help us support those innovations and systems that effectively are recycling and reusing these materials, so we get a win-win on design for environment as well as recycling.
As legislators seek to implement lessons learned from other states and prevent program performance goal confusion, one tool they can turn to is the needs assessment. Needs assessments should predicate and inform the EPR program to keep the program data-driven and provide producers with a realistic dataset to make investments. These needs assessments should be material-neutral and include all unique recycling data for all covered materials.
There also should be enough time in statute for a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to form, consider data and develop strategies to increase collection rates for each covered material category before the program is implemented. Needs assessments also can provide data to inform performance metrics that policymakers want stakeholders to monitor as the program starts building out infrastructure.
FPA will continue to engage on all packaging-related EPR legislative and regulatory proposals as they move forward and remain a resource for policymakers and their staffs as they become familiar with EPR as a policy framework. While FPA long has been engaged in this area, we look forward to learning additional lessons on EPR as no U.S. program has been fully implemented yet. We fully expect additional opportunities for legislators to iterate the types of bills that reach the finish line and more fully deliver on the promise of a cleaner environment and innovative packaging that delivers on food shelf life, sterility and product protection across.
Explore the October 2025 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.