

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation is poised to transform the life cycle of packaging products in the United States. This July marks a significant milestone for EPR programs, as Oregon becomes the first state to begin the implementation phase of its EPR program, the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). Colorado and California both have established reporting deadlines later in 2025, with full program initiation over the next two years.
As these new regulations take effect, packaging companies must take a proactive approach to working with various supply chain partners to understand state requirements, gather relevant data, optimize packaging design and manage program fee responsibilities.
EPR programs have been active in the U.S. since the early 1990s for a variety of products and materials, including paint, electronics and batteries.
In 2021, Maine became the first state to pass EPR legislation specifically targeting packaging. Oregon, Colorado, California and Minnesota also have passed EPR laws, and Maryland and Washington recently joined this list. However, earlier this year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle, to restart the regulatory process for the state’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, or S.B. 54.
Meanwhile, several states have introduced EPR bills this year, including New York and Tennessee.
Each state’s approach to EPR varies, making compliance a significant challenge for producers. EPR programs use different management systems around the world, but in the U.S., the current laws employ a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to design program plans and charge fees to producers based on the types and amount of packaging materials they are responsible for.
Each state also has its own definition of who qualifies as a producer and the types of covered materials affected by the law. The programs specify different goals; some include postconsumer recycled (PCR) content mandates, while others have specific recycling rate targets.
The mechanisms used to measure progress also differ. In Oregon, life cycle assessments (LCAs) are incorporated into fee calculations, while Colorado’s proposed plan would measure greenhouse gas emissions reductions using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Waste Reduction Model, or WARM tool.
The consequences for noncompliance with EPR laws can be serious. In Oregon’s RMA, producers will be subject to audits. Producers that submit late or inaccurate information to the PRO will be required to retroactively pay all required fees and could face late charges and penalties.
To produce packaging that meets consumer needs, supports EPR program goals and minimizes fees, companies throughout the packaging industry must be well-informed about state requirements. Changing packaging designs can be beneficial, but it is essential producers have a comprehensive view of how different packaging materials and formats affect every stage of the package’s production, use and disposal.
Producers can take five actionable steps today to help navigate the evolving landscape of EPR legislation.
Understanding the producer’s role
The first step in understanding state EPR legislation is to learn how the law defines a producer of covered materials. For example, Oregon’s covered products include packaging, printing and writing paper and food serviceware. The legislation outlines who is classified as a producer for items sold in retail stores, items sold through e-commerce and materials used for shipping. This also applies to companies that distribute items in Oregon from international suppliers.
Producers need to clarify all shipping and supply relationships to ensure each company submits the proper data.
Although Oregon’s reporting deadline was in March, companies that missed the date but qualify as a producer still must register with the state’s PRO, Circular Action Alliance (CAA), and submit the required data. CAA also is the PRO for Colorado and California’s EPR programs and has developed educational materials to help producers register and submit data.
Gather data
While most EPR programs are in the early stages of implementation, data collection and reporting are paramount.
Oregon’s approved plan and Colorado’s proposed plan include provisions for producers to retain records and comply with requests for records regarding EPR compliance. Packaging companies should solidify recordkeeping processes, particularly involving data collection protocols from suppliers and retail locations as needed. This detailed information also can be used to identify opportunities to improve.
As more EPR programs are finalized and fee schedules are defined, producers will be able to identify the most effective paths for fee reduction, such as reducing a package’s weight or switching to a structure designed for recyclability.
Conduct life cycle assessments
LCAs will factor into ecomodulated fee incentives in the Oregon RMA program, providing an opportunity for producers to reduce their fee responsibilities.
Producers can receive bonuses simply for conducting and disclosing LCAs. They can add onto these bonuses by changing existing packaging or using different packaging, using LCAs to demonstrate the reductions in the environmental impact of their packaging.
Although not every state likely will rely on LCAs in the same manner, they are effective for benchmarking and tracking the impact of specific packaging changes.
Take a holistic approach to design
EPR programs require producers to examine every aspect of their packaging supply chains and the overall cost of a package, including potential EPR fees. Modifications to one component of a package can have cascading effects throughout the entire production process, and switching to alternative materials sometimes can require heavier packaging to achieve comparable performance, possibly negating EPR fee reductions.
Before making significant changes, it is crucial to assess the overall impact and value of any packaging changes.
Explore fee reductions
Producers should learn about the latest innovations in packaging materials.
While each state will adopt a different approach to fee structures, many EPR programs incorporate weight and material recyclability into fee structure calculations. Lightweighting and downgauging packages offer weight reduction and source reduction benefits. This is a key point to explore with packaging designers and material suppliers, as higher-performing versions of the current packaging material could enable lighter packaging and lower EPR fees with no need to change package formats or materials.
Designing for recyclability is another effective way to support EPR program goals. To advance principles of circularity, producers also can explore adding PCR content to their packaging to assist in the development of reliable demand for recycled materials.
Advancements in computer modeling and simulation, such as Nova Chemicals’ Bonfire tool, have made it more efficient and cost-effective to explore package alternatives. Online databases enable packaging designers to compare properties of various materials and easily quantify material reductions, predict raw material costs and reduce the number of physical trials needed for testing.
Taking an integrated approach
The expansion of packaging EPR legislation represents a pivotal change in how many materials will be managed. It is crucial for producers to fully understand their roles and responsibilities under these new laws. Compliance with state- specific requirements demands a strategic, integrated approach—one that involves packaging design, data management and proactive collaboration across the supply chain. Producers should work with suppliers and converters to leverage the latest breakthroughs in packaging materials to create solutions that meet performance requirements while supporting important waste reduction and recycling goals.
Beyond compliance with these laws, these efforts present an opportunity for companies to lead in packaging innovation, reinforcing brand value and consumer trust. However, meaningful change only will be achieved through a combination of smarter packaging design and strengthened recycling infrastructure.
As EPR programs evolve, industry stakeholders, including producers, resin suppliers, recyclers and policymakers, must work together to build effective systems that advance material collection opportunities and PCR material markets.
Get curated news on YOUR industry.
Enter your email to receive our newsletters.

Explore the June 2025 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
More from our latest newsletter
- Canada's vinyl and fenestration industry groups announce pilot to recycle vinyl windows
- NERC states preference for mechanical recycling
- Evertis selects Honeywell Aclar technology for pharmaceutical packaging
- Eastman loses $375M DOE grant for Texas plastics recycling facility
- Alpek to close PET facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina
- BIR World Recycling Convention 2025: A troubled global plastics treaty
- Hawaii to conduct packaging EPR study
- Aimplas leads the SafeReuse project
- The Washington Department of Ecology fines 23 plastic producers