Interview: practitioners on extended producer responsibility (epr) (angle 6)

Extended Producer Responsibility legislation now covers 85% of the North American consumer packaged goods market by revenue, up from just 34% in 2020—a regulatory acceleration that procurement directors describe as "the single largest shift in buyer requirements since conflict minerals disclosure." In interviews with practitioners across manufacturing, retail, and packaging sectors, a consistent theme emerges: EPR is no longer a compliance checkbox but an emerging standard fundamentally reshaping how buyers evaluate suppliers, how products get designed, and how costs flow through supply chains. The myths surrounding EPR—that it's purely a European phenomenon, that it only affects packaging, that small suppliers can ignore it—are colliding with realities that demand immediate strategic responses.

Why It Matters

The North American EPR landscape transformed dramatically between 2023 and 2025. California's SB 54, requiring 65% source reduction of single-use plastic packaging by 2032, established the most aggressive EPR framework in U.S. history. Colorado, Maine, Oregon, and Minnesota enacted complementary packaging EPR laws, creating a patchwork that now affects any company selling into these combined markets. Canada's federal Plastics Registry, operational since January 2025, mandates reporting for producers placing >1,000 kg of plastic packaging annually, while provincial EPR programs in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec continue expanding scope to include printed paper, textiles, and electronics.

The financial stakes are substantial. Producer responsibility organization (PRO) fees in North America reached $4.2 billion in 2024, according to the Product Stewardship Institute—a 156% increase from 2021. For a mid-sized consumer goods company, EPR compliance costs now represent 2-4% of packaging spend, with fees structured to penalize hard-to-recycle materials. Companies using non-recyclable flexible films face fee modulations 3-5x higher than those using easily recycled materials like PET or HDPE.

More critically for procurement professionals, EPR compliance has become a buyer requirement that extends beyond legal obligation. Major retailers including Walmart, Target, and Costco now include EPR compliance verification in supplier scorecards. "We're seeing EPR status treated like food safety certification," explains one procurement director at a Fortune 500 retailer. "If you can't demonstrate compliance and provide the data we need for our own reporting, you're not getting on shelf." This shift represents the maturation of EPR from regulatory burden to market access criterion—the defining characteristic of an emerging standard shaping buyer requirements.

The recycling infrastructure challenge adds urgency. The U.S. recycling rate for plastic packaging remains stuck at approximately 6%, while paper and cardboard achieve 68% and aluminum reaches 50%. EPR programs explicitly aim to fund infrastructure improvements that close these gaps, with California's program alone projected to generate $500 million annually for recycling facility upgrades. Buyers increasingly demand suppliers contribute to this infrastructure through compliant EPR participation rather than free-riding on public waste management systems.

Key Concepts

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) refers to policy frameworks that shift end-of-life management responsibility and costs from municipalities to the companies that place products and packaging into commerce. Unlike traditional waste management funded through taxes, EPR creates financial incentives for producers to design more recyclable products, reduce material use, and fund collection and processing infrastructure. Modern EPR programs feature eco-modulated fees—charges that vary based on recyclability, recycled content, and environmental impact of materials used.

Digital Product Passport (DPP) describes standardized data sets that travel with products throughout their lifecycle, documenting material composition, recyclability, repair instructions, and end-of-life handling requirements. The European Union's DPP requirements, phasing in from 2027, directly influence North American EPR compliance because companies selling into both markets need unified data systems. Practitioners report that DPP-ready data infrastructure also satisfies most North American EPR reporting requirements, creating implementation synergies.

Recycling Rate and Recyclability represent distinct concepts frequently conflated in EPR discussions. Recyclability indicates whether a material can theoretically be recycled; recycling rate measures what percentage actually gets recycled in practice. EPR programs increasingly focus on "practical recyclability"—whether infrastructure exists to recycle a material at scale within the relevant jurisdiction—rather than theoretical recyclability claims. California's SB 54 requires materials to achieve 30% state-wide recycling rates to qualify as "recyclable," eliminating greenwashing around technically recyclable but practically unrecycled materials.

Carbon Intensity in Packaging measures greenhouse gas emissions per unit of packaging material, increasingly incorporated into EPR fee structures. Oregon's 2025 EPR regulations include carbon intensity modifiers that adjust fees based on lifecycle emissions, creating financial incentives beyond recyclability. Practitioners note this represents EPR's evolution from pure end-of-life focus toward comprehensive environmental impact assessment.

Water Intensity and Environmental Footprint expand EPR considerations beyond carbon and waste. California's program includes provisions for evaluating water consumption in packaging production, particularly relevant for paper and pulp-based materials. This holistic approach reflects practitioner insights that siloed environmental metrics—optimizing recycling while ignoring water or carbon—produces suboptimal outcomes.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Harmonized reporting platforms across jurisdictions: Companies operating in multiple North American EPR jurisdictions report significant efficiency gains from integrated compliance platforms. Circular Action's multi-province solution in Canada and Packaging Compliance Consulting's U.S. multi-state platform allow single-source data entry satisfying Colorado, California, Maine, and Oregon requirements simultaneously. One CPG compliance manager reports 60% reduction in reporting labor compared to jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approaches. The key success factor is platform providers that update automatically as regulations evolve rather than requiring manual reconfiguration.

Eco-modulated fee structures driving design changes: Practitioners confirm that fee differentials based on recyclability and recycled content genuinely influence packaging decisions. A snack food manufacturer switched from multi-layer flexible pouches ($0.08/unit EPR fee) to mono-material PE pouches ($0.02/unit fee), achieving 75% fee reduction that more than offset slightly higher material costs. The fee signal proved more effective than voluntary sustainability commitments because it directly affected product unit economics visible to operations and finance teams, not just sustainability departments.

PRO consolidation improving service quality: The North American producer responsibility organization landscape has matured from fragmented regional operators to consolidated entities offering comprehensive services. Circular Materials in Canada (formed from merger of Recycle BC, Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba, and others) and The Recycling Partnership's expanded producer services in the U.S. provide streamlined compliance with better data quality than earlier fragmented approaches. Companies report fewer reporting corrections, faster fee disputes resolution, and more reliable recycling performance data from consolidated PROs.

Retailer-supplier collaboration on compliance: Leading retailers have moved beyond requiring EPR compliance to actively supporting suppliers in achieving it. Target's packaging optimization program and Walmart's Project Gigaton packaging track include EPR compliance support resources for small and mid-sized suppliers. These programs recognize that retailer sustainability commitments depend on supply chain compliance they cannot mandate alone. Practitioners describe this as "the most productive development"—buyers treating EPR as shared challenge rather than pass-through requirement.

What Isn't Working

Inconsistent material definitions across jurisdictions: Despite harmonization efforts, significant definitional conflicts remain. A compostable package meeting ASTM D6400 standards qualifies as EPR-exempt in some jurisdictions but incurs standard fees in others. Flexible packaging categorization varies, with some programs treating stand-up pouches differently from flow wraps despite similar recyclability challenges. Companies report spending 15-25% of compliance effort on material classification reconciliation across jurisdictions—effort that produces no environmental benefit.

Data collection from complex supply chains: EPR reporting requires accurate packaging weight and material composition data—information many companies lack at the granularity regulations require. A consumer electronics company discovered their ERP system tracked "packaging cost" but not packaging weight, requiring six-month remediation project to establish compliant data collection. Multi-tier supply chains compound challenges: when components arrive pre-packaged from suppliers, brand owners must chase upstream partners for packaging specifications they never previously collected.

Small supplier capacity gaps: While large enterprises have dedicated compliance staff, small and mid-sized manufacturers often lack EPR expertise and resources. A specialty food producer selling into California faced EPR registration requirements with <$10,000 annual compliance cost—but first needed $25,000 in consulting support to understand obligations and establish reporting systems. This capacity gap creates market access barriers that may consolidate industries toward larger players with compliance infrastructure, potentially undermining competition goals.

Recycled content verification challenges: EPR programs increasingly require recycled content documentation, but verification remains problematic. Mass balance accounting (allowing mixed virgin/recycled streams to allocate recycled content claims to selected outputs) conflicts with physical tracing methods. Practitioners report spending significant effort navigating conflicting verification standards across jurisdictions and facing buyer skepticism about recycled content claims that cannot be physically verified. The International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) and similar third-party schemes help but add costs that disproportionately burden smaller producers.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Circular Materials operates as Canada's largest producer responsibility organization, managing packaging and paper product stewardship programs across British Columbia, Manitoba, and expanding provinces. Their unified platform processed EPR obligations for >2,400 producers in 2024.

The Recycling Partnership has evolved from recycling advocacy to active EPR implementation support, partnering with state programs and providing producer compliance services across U.S. jurisdictions. Their 2024 "Paying It Forward" initiative directly funds municipal recycling infrastructure improvements.

Ameripen (American Institute for Packaging and the Environment) serves as the primary packaging industry voice in North American EPR policy development, providing compliance guidance and advocating for harmonized approaches across jurisdictions.

CIRAIG (International Reference Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services) provides the scientific foundation for EPR fee modulation, with their lifecycle assessment methodologies adopted by multiple Canadian provincial programs.

SCS Global Services has emerged as a leading third-party verifier for EPR compliance, recycled content claims, and recyclability assessments, providing the independent verification that regulators and buyers increasingly require.

Emerging Startups

Circular Action offers SaaS-based EPR compliance management specifically designed for multi-jurisdictional North American requirements, processing >$200 million in producer fees through their platform in 2024.

Digimarc provides digital watermarking technology enabling material identification at recycling facilities—technology increasingly referenced in EPR programs as mechanism to improve sorting accuracy and recycling rates.

Greyparrot deploys AI-powered waste composition analysis at materials recovery facilities, generating the recycling performance data EPR programs require to assess actual (not theoretical) recyclability.

Sourcemap offers supply chain transparency solutions that trace materials from origin through end-of-life, addressing the documentation challenges that complicate EPR compliance for complex products.

Rheaply provides asset exchange platform enabling business-to-business reuse that qualifies for EPR credit under programs recognizing reuse as preferable to recycling.

Key Investors & Funders

Closed Loop Partners has deployed >$100 million specifically targeting circular economy infrastructure and technology, including multiple investments in EPR compliance and recycling technology companies.

Circulate Capital focuses on preventing ocean plastic pollution through investments in collection and recycling infrastructure, with North American operations expanding to support EPR-mandated infrastructure development.

The Walmart Foundation funds recycling infrastructure improvements aligned with retailer sustainability commitments and EPR program goals, distributing $15 million in 2024 grants for collection and processing upgrades.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers Solid Waste Management Grants supporting state EPR program development and recycling infrastructure, with $275 million allocated through 2025.

Natural Resources Canada funds extended producer responsibility program development through the Zero Plastic Waste Initiative, supporting provincial EPR harmonization and infrastructure investment.

Examples

Nestlé Waters North America's California Compliance Transformation: Facing California's SB 54 requirements, Nestlé Waters redesigned packaging across their North American portfolio between 2023-2025. They transitioned from mixed-material shrink wrap bundles to mono-material HDPE handles, reduced label sizes by 40%, and increased rPET content to 50% across all water bottles. EPR fee reductions totaled $3.2 million annually compared to pre-compliance baseline, while the sustainability improvements also reduced Scope 3 emissions by 18,000 metric tons CO2e. Critically, compliance required 18-month lead time for equipment modifications and supplier transitions—illustrating the operational complexity behind EPR adaptation.

Staples Canada's EPR Leadership in Office Products: Staples Canada implemented comprehensive EPR compliance across 12 product categories including electronics, batteries, lighting, and packaging. Their reverse logistics network, originally designed for ink cartridge returns, expanded to handle EPR-obligated take-back across 305 retail locations. In 2024, they processed 2.3 million kg of EPR-covered products, achieving 94% diversion from landfill. Supplier compliance verification became purchasing requirement: Staples now requires all private-label suppliers to demonstrate EPR registration in every province where products sell, with non-compliant suppliers losing shelf placement regardless of pricing.

L'Oréal North America's Packaging Data Infrastructure: L'Oréal invested $8 million in packaging data management systems enabling simultaneous compliance with California, Colorado, Maine, Oregon, and Canadian EPR programs. Their "Packaging Passport" internal system tracks 47 data points per SKU—exceeding any single jurisdiction's requirements but satisfying all collectively. The investment achieved 70% reduction in compliance labor compared to prior manual approaches while positioning the company for European Digital Product Passport requirements using the same data infrastructure. Their experience demonstrates that comprehensive data systems, while expensive, provide efficiency advantages over minimalist jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction compliance.

Action Checklist

• Conduct packaging audit identifying all materials, weights, and recycled content percentages at SKU level—data foundation for any EPR compliance program.

• Map current and anticipated EPR obligations across all states and provinces where products are sold, with timeline for each jurisdiction's implementation phases.

• Evaluate producer responsibility organization (PRO) options where choice exists, comparing fee structures, service quality, and multi-jurisdiction coordination capabilities.

• Establish supplier data collection protocols requiring packaging specifications for all inbound components, including primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging.

• Assess packaging redesign opportunities prioritizing eco-modulated fee reductions alongside sustainability improvements—financial incentives accelerate implementation.

• Implement compliance management software integrated with ERP systems to automate reporting rather than relying on manual data assembly each reporting period.

• Train cross-functional teams (procurement, packaging engineering, sustainability, finance) on EPR implications—siloed understanding produces suboptimal decisions.

• Establish buyer communication protocols for customers requiring EPR compliance verification, including certification documentation and data sharing capabilities.

• Build scenario models for likely EPR expansion, including textile, electronics, and battery programs announced but not yet implemented across North American jurisdictions.

• Engage with industry associations influencing EPR policy development to advocate for harmonized requirements that reduce compliance complexity without weakening environmental outcomes.

FAQ

Q: How do small businesses comply with EPR when they lack dedicated sustainability staff? A: Small producers have several pathways. First, many PROs offer simplified registration and flat-rate fees for producers below volume thresholds—California's program includes small producer accommodations for companies placing <1 ton annually. Second, industry associations like the Specialty Food Association and Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers provide group compliance resources sharing fixed costs across members. Third, compliance service providers offer turnkey solutions for <$5,000 annually for small producers, handling registration, reporting, and fee payment. The critical first step is determining actual obligations—many small producers assume they're covered when de minimis thresholds may exempt them, while others assume exemption when they actually have obligations. Verification before action prevents both non-compliance risk and unnecessary spending.

Q: What's the relationship between North American EPR and European Digital Product Passport requirements? A: Companies selling in both markets benefit from coordinating compliance approaches. European DPP requirements (phasing from 2027) demand granular material composition, recyclability, and lifecycle data that overlaps substantially with North American EPR reporting needs. Practitioners implementing DPP-ready data systems find they exceed most North American requirements automatically. The strategic approach is building unified data infrastructure satisfying the more stringent requirement (typically EU DPP) that automatically satisfies less demanding requirements elsewhere. However, differences remain: EU DPP emphasizes consumer-facing digital access while North American EPR focuses on regulatory reporting, so delivery mechanisms differ even when underlying data converges.

Q: How should companies approach EPR in states without current legislation? A: Voluntary preparation provides competitive advantage when legislation eventually arrives. Companies can implement packaging data collection, establish relationships with PROs operating in adjacent jurisdictions, and begin eco-modulated packaging redesign that will reduce future fees. Several retailers now require suppliers to demonstrate EPR-readiness even in non-regulated states, treating preparation as indicator of sustainability commitment and operational sophistication. The compliance lead time for companies entering regulated markets unprepared—typically 12-18 months—creates significant competitive disadvantage versus prepared competitors. Practitioners recommend treating EPR expansion as "when, not if" scenario for any state with active environmental legislation.

Q: Do EPR programs actually improve recycling rates, or just shift costs to producers? A: Evidence from mature European EPR programs (operating 20+ years) demonstrates genuine recycling rate improvements when programs include three elements: eco-modulated fees that incentivize design changes, mandated infrastructure investment requirements, and collection rate targets with enforcement mechanisms. Early North American programs are structured similarly—California's SB 54 requires demonstrated recycling rate improvement as compliance pathway, not merely fee payment. However, fee-only programs without infrastructure investment mandates risk becoming cost transfers without environmental improvement. Practitioners advise evaluating specific program designs rather than assuming all EPR equally effective. Programs allowing fee payment without accountability for recycling outcomes attract justified skepticism.

Q: How do EPR requirements interact with corporate sustainability commitments and ESG reporting? A: EPR compliance increasingly serves as proof point for broader sustainability claims. Companies reporting packaging sustainability progress to investors, rating agencies, or customers find EPR compliance documentation provides verified evidence supporting voluntary commitments. Conversely, ESG-focused companies sometimes discover their published commitments exceed EPR requirements, creating expectation management challenges when EPR "compliance" falls short of promised outcomes. Best practice integrates EPR compliance into existing sustainability governance rather than treating it as separate regulatory exercise. The data infrastructure serving EPR reporting often satisfies CDP, GRI, and SASB disclosure needs, creating efficiency through integration.

Sources

• Product Stewardship Institute, "North American EPR Programs Status Report," 2024
• California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), "SB 54 Implementation Guidelines," 2024
• Environment and Climate Change Canada, "Federal Plastics Registry: Producer Guide," 2025
• The Recycling Partnership, "State of Curbside Recycling Report," 2024
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation, "Extended Producer Responsibility: Common Position," 2024
• Resource Recycling Systems, "North American EPR Fee Analysis," 2024
• International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), "Recycled Content Verification Protocols," 2024
• Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, "U.S. State Extended Producer Responsibility Laws Database," 2025