Interview: Practitioners on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is evolving from a policy buzzword into a practical tool for the circular economy.
By shifting the responsibility and cost of managing products at end‑of‑life onto producers, EPR creates powerful incentives to design for reuse and recyclability and to invest in recovery infrastructure.
In the Asia‑Pacific region, governments are mandating EPR schemes for packaging and electronics, and companies are scrambling to comply.
This interview‑style report gathers insights from practitioners across policy, industry and social enterprise to identify the metrics that matter, how to measure them and what lessons can be drawn from leading implementations.

Why It Matters

Growing consumption and inadequate waste management mean that packaging waste often overwhelms collection systems and leaks into the environment.
Plastic sachets are ubiquitous in the Philippines — an estimated 164 million sachets are used every day — and the country’s mismanaged plastic waste is projected to reach 0.75 million tonnes per year.
In response, lawmakers enacted the Republic Act 11898, which requires enterprises with over PHP 100 million in assets to recover 20 percent of their plastic packaging waste by the end of 2023, rising to 40 percent in 2024 and 80 percent by 2028.
Similar momentum is building across Asia: Korea’s EPR system covers twenty‑four product types and has achieved an 87 percent recycling rate, created about 22 000 jobs and avoided 11.19 million tonnes of CO2 emissions.
India’s Plastic Waste Management Rules introduce phased recycling targets starting at 50 percent for rigid plastic and 30 percent for flexible packaging in fiscal 2024‑25, increasing to 80 percent and 60 percent respectively by 2027‑28.
These policies matter because they create large, quantifiable obligations for brand owners, provide investment certainty for recycling infrastructure and, when measured correctly, can deliver economic and social benefits — Korea’s system saved roughly KRW 7.1 trillion in avoided landfill costs and generated thousands of jobs.

Metrics That Matter

Practitioners emphasise that EPR success depends on tracking a handful of clear indicators.
While each jurisdiction tailors its metrics to local context, the following core measures surfaced repeatedly in our conversations and in the literature.

Collection and recycling rates

Recycling or recovery rate — the percentage of material that is collected and recycled compared with the total amount placed on the market — is the headline figure for most EPR programmes.
Korea’s EPR scheme reports an 87 percent recycling rate across covered products.
India’s rules set stepwise recycling targets that increase annually to 80 percent for rigid and compostable plastics.
Philippine obliged enterprises must recover 80 percent of plastic packaging waste by 2028.
A high recycling rate signals that collection infrastructure and processing capacity are functioning, but it must be paired with quality control to avoid down‑cycling.

Producer registration and compliance

EPR only works when producers participate.
The Philippines requires enterprises to register a take‑back programme within six months of the law taking effect.
By August 2024, just under 44 percent of obliged enterprises (about 918 companies) had registered.
Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) in India had registered over 35 000 producers, importers and brand owners by mid‑2024.
Korea’s EPR coverage is near universal because registration is mandatory and non‑compliance is penalised..
Monitoring registration rates highlights gaps in enforcement and helps regulators identify sectors that need more outreach.

Jobs and social inclusion

EPR’s economic impact is often overlooked.
Korea’s scheme created about 22 000 jobs and Brazil’s reverse logistics system, while outside Asia, employs around 5 000 organised waste pickers.
Many Asia‑Pacific countries rely on informal waste collectors; measuring how EPR programmes integrate these workers and improve their livelihoods is crucial.
Philippine social enterprises like Plastic Bank track the number of collectors engaged and the income uplift from selling recovered material — their digital system has recorded 162 million kg of plastic collected globally, including more than 35 million kg in the Philippines, benefiting thousands of collectors.

Emissions and cost savings

Reducing greenhouse‑gas emissions and waste‑management costs can justify EPR investments.
Korea’s EPR scheme reduced 11.19 million tonnes of CO2 and saved about KRW 7.1 trillion in avoided landfill costs.
In the United States, Connecticut’s EPR programmes saved municipalities US$2.6 million annually and avoided 13 million kg of CO2e.
Measuring emissions reductions requires life‑cycle assessment to account for avoided virgin material production and energy use in recycling.
Cost savings can be estimated by comparing current waste‑management expenditures with producer fee revenues and the reduced volume sent to landfill.

Recycled content and design improvements

EPR can drive producers to design products for circularity.
India’s rules set mandatory recycled content: 30 percent for rigid plastics and 10 percent for flexible packaging, rising to 60 percent and 20 percent respectively by 2028‑29.
Nestlé Philippines has pledged to make 95 percent of its packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025 and to cut virgin plastic use by one‑third.
Tracking recycled content in products and design changes (such as eliminating multi‑layer sachets) shows whether EPR fees are stimulating innovation.

Practitioner Insights

To understand how these metrics are applied in practice, we spoke with experts from a regional Producer Responsibility Organisation, a social enterprise working with waste pickers and a sustainability officer at a multinational food company.
Three themes emerged.

Data transparency is the biggest hurdle.
All interviewees stressed that most producers do not have accurate data on the amount of packaging they place on the market.
Companies often rely on estimates or supplier invoices, making it difficult to calculate recovery obligations and report progress.
The sustainability officer noted that building an internal packaging database and standardising reporting across subsidiaries were prerequisites for compliance.
Digital platforms that track material flows, such as Plastic Bank’s blockchain‑based system, help to close data gaps.

Engagement of informal workers yields social dividends.
In many Asian cities, informal waste pickers are the backbone of recycling.
The PRO representative emphasised that integrating collectors into formal EPR schemes reduces leakage and improves collection rates.
Providing fair compensation, health insurance and training also builds goodwill and compliance.
The social enterprise leader highlighted that EPR fees can finance cooperatives and community collection points, but warned of power imbalances if large producers dominate decision‑making.

Clear and rising targets drive innovation.
Practitioners agreed that stepwise recovery and recycled‑content targets are essential.
The Indian rules’ annual increases give producers a clear runway to invest in design changes and new materials.
In the Philippines, the prospect of 80 percent recovery by 2028 has spurred companies like Nestlé to partner with waste‑management firms, launch deposit‑return trials and redesign packaging.
Without clear targets, producers tend to opt for the cheapest compliance route rather than systemic change.

Quick Framework for Measuring EPR Impact

While metrics vary, practitioners recommended a simple framework for founders setting up or evaluating EPR programmes:

1. Define the baseline.
   Quantify the volume and type of packaging your business places on the market.
   Use product weights and sales data rather than estimates, and include imported components.
2. Set clear targets.
   Align with regulatory requirements (e.g., 40 percent recovery by 2024 in the Philippines) and consider exceeding them to build resilience.
   Include recycled‑content and design targets.
3. Choose the right PRO or build one.
   Evaluate Producer Responsibility Organisations based on transparency, fee modulation (charging more for difficult‑to‑recycle materials), social‑inclusion policies and reporting.
   In jurisdictions without PROs, consider industry consortia or partnerships with social enterprises.
4. Invest in traceability.
   Adopt digital tracking platforms to record collection, recycling and payment data.
   Connect with informal sector collectors to capture real‑world recovery and avoid double counting.
5. Report and iterate.
   Publish annual reports detailing recovery rates, emissions reductions, jobs created and cost savings.
   Use the data to adjust fee structures and to advocate for policy improvements.
   Benchmarks such as Korea’s 87 percent recycling rate and India’s phased targets provide a yardstick.

Examples from Asia‑Pacific and Beyond

1. Philippines – early compliance and corporate participation.
   Republic Act 11898 mandates that large enterprises recover 80 percent of their plastic packaging by 2028, with interim targets of 20 percent in 2023 and 40 percent in 2024.
   By August 2024, roughly 44 percent of obliged enterprises had registered, and companies like Nestlé Philippines reported diverting more than 64.5 million kg of plastic waste by December 2022.
   Social enterprises have collected over 35 million kg of plastic through blockchain‑based systems, demonstrating the potential of technology to track compliance.

2. Republic of Korea – mature EPR system.
   Introduced in 2003, Korea’s EPR covers twenty‑four product types and achieves an 87 percent recycling rate.
   It has created approximately 22 000 jobs and reduced 11.19 million tonnes of CO2, while saving KRW 7.1 trillion in landfill costs.
   Mandatory producer registration and strict enforcement underpin its success.

3. India – phase‑in of recycling and recycled‑content targets.
   India’s Plastic Waste Management Rules require recycling rates starting at 50 percent for rigid plastics and 30 percent for flexible packaging in fiscal 2024‑25, increasing to 80 percent and 60 percent by 2027‑28.
   Recycled‑content mandates start at 30 percent for rigid packaging and 10 percent for flexible packaging, rising to 60 percent and 20 percent by 2028‑29.
   More than 35 000 producers were registered on the EPR portal by August 2024.

4. Thailand – pilot city approach.
   Thailand’s Action Plan on Plastic Waste Management Phase II designates Chonburi Province as an EPR pilot.
   Ten local administrative offices participate, testing fee structures and data systems ahead of national implementation by 2027.
   The pilot focuses on non‑recyclable plastics, aiming to collect data and build capacity before scaling.

5. United States – benchmark for cost savings and emissions reduction.
   Though outside Asia, U.S. programmes illustrate the tangible benefits of EPR.
   Connecticut’s EPR laws for paint, electronics, thermostats and mattresses diverted 26 million pounds of material, saved municipalities US$2.6 million annually and created over 100 jobs.
   Oregon’s packaging EPR plan registered nearly 2 000 producers and generated millions of dollars in fees within the first month.
   These examples highlight how clear rules and robust reporting can drive rapid compliance.

Case Study: Nestlé Philippines

Nestlé Philippines provides an instructive example of how a multinational company can align with EPR obligations while advancing its own circularity goals.
The company declared itself “plastic neutral” in August 2020 and has since collected and diverted more plastic than it uses.
By December 2022, it had recovered over 64.5 million kg of plastic waste through partnerships with recycling firms and community collection programmes.
Nestlé plans to design 95 percent of its packaging for reuse or recycling and to reduce virgin plastic use by one‑third by 2025.
To meet the Philippines’ EPR targets, Nestlé established a Producer Responsibility Organisation with fellow manufacturers to fund collection and recycling infrastructure.
The company also runs educational campaigns to encourage consumers to return sachets and bottles.
Key lessons from Nestlé’s experience include:

• Data integration. Building a central inventory of packaging types and volumes enabled accurate reporting and target setting.
• Partnerships across the value chain. Collaboration with recyclers, waste‑picker cooperatives and local governments ensures collection capacity and social inclusion.
• Innovation and design. Nestlé is experimenting with refill stations and alternative materials to reduce single‑use sachets, aligning with India’s recycled‑content mandates.
• Transparency. Publicly reporting recovery volumes and progress toward targets builds credibility and pressure for continuous improvement.

Next Steps Checklist

• Conduct a packaging inventory. Catalogue all packaging types, materials and weights to establish a baseline.
• Register with your local PRO. Ensure your company is officially enrolled and understands the fee structure and reporting requirements.
• Set internal targets ahead of regulations. Adopt ambitious recovery and recycled‑content goals to future‑proof the business and demonstrate leadership.
• Engage informal collectors. Partner with cooperatives or social enterprises to integrate waste pickers and track material flows.
• Invest in design innovation. Explore refillable packaging, mono‑material laminates and other design solutions to reduce complexity and improve recyclability.
• Monitor and report metrics. Track recovery rates, registered producers, jobs created, emissions avoided and cost savings.
  Regular reporting supports continuous improvement and provides data for policy advocacy.

FAQ

Q: How is Extended Producer Responsibility different from traditional recycling programmes?
A: Traditional recycling programmes are funded by taxpayers and often rely on voluntary participation, which limits scale and leaves municipalities to bear the cost.
EPR shifts responsibility and financing to producers, who pay fees based on the volume and recyclability of their products.
These fees fund collection, sorting and recycling, creating an incentive for producers to design products that are easier to recover and to reduce packaging.

Q: What happens if a producer fails to register or meet targets?
A: Penalties vary by jurisdiction.
In the Philippines, obliged enterprises must develop a recovery programme within six months and meet annual recovery targets; failure to comply can result in fines and the revocation of permits.
Korea’s strict enforcement regime includes mandatory registration and can levy significant fines for non‑compliance.
Public disclosure of non‑compliant companies also creates reputational risk.

Q: How can small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs) comply with EPR?
A: SMEs often lack resources to develop standalone recovery programmes.
Joining a PRO or an industry consortium spreads costs and provides access to infrastructure and expertise.
SMEs should focus on reducing unnecessary packaging, switching to recyclable materials and partnering with local recyclers or social enterprises for take‑back schemes.
Digital tools can help SMEs track packaging volumes and submit required reports.

Sources

• PwC Philippines. Republic Act 11898 summary and recovery schedule.
• Development Asia. The role of extended producer responsibility in advancing a circular future.
• Asian Development Bank. Turning Waste into Wealth: The Republic of Korea’s Experience.
• Center for Science and Environment. Unpacking EPR for plastic packaging in India.
• Evergreen Labs and WWF Philippines. One year into EPR implementation in the Philippines.
• Plastic Bank. How EPR law is shaping the economy and sustainability.
• Nestlé Philippines. EPR synthesis report.
• Product Stewardship Institute. Proven Progress: EPR success across the U.S..
• Thailand Institute of Packaging and Recycling Management for Sustainable Environment. EPR pilot in Chonburi Province.